For Women Scotland heading for Supreme Court

[Imnobody4]

You can read the reasons etc in For Women Scotlands crowdfunder. They are launching this review
UK Supreme Court: The Definition of Sex in the Equality Act

The Inner House of the Court of Session Judgment

We believe the Equality Act was drafted on the basis of the ordinary, common law understanding of the biological differences between the two sexes. The protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act is defined as a reference to a man or a woman, where man means “a male of any age” and woman means “a female of any age”. We think it is quite clear that these are distinct and separate groups and that “woman” is not a mixed-sex category.

However, in our recent judicial review, For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37, the Inner House took the opposite view and decided there is a relationship between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and Equality Act 2010 and held that the meaning of sex in the Equality Act incorporated the GRA framework.

The court decision stated that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in their acquired gender has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Separately, they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC and have a presumptive right to access the single-sex services of their acquired gender.

The Supreme Court will consider a request brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) who argue there are “strong grounds” for its challenge, which will almost certainly overturn contentious Scottish government legislation if successful.Campaigners for women’s “sex-based” rights reacted with delight to the news, including Magi Gibson, the poet, who posted on X/Twitter, that it was “game on” on in the “fight for the protection of women’s rights within the UK legal system”.Dennis Noel Kavanagh, a lawyer and the director of Gay Men’s Network, said: “Getting permission to go to the Supreme Court is really hard and very rare but FWS have it. The question ‘what is a woman’ in law will now be heard by our highest court. Massive news.”

www.thetimes.com/article/088ae0ce-fba9-4b97-8331-01a32195bef5?shareToken=3ada340957f5d2af2e20b01a7c15da3b

I've pointed out over on Craicnet that one of the stated roles of the Law Reform Commission in Ireland is to simplify the law, including simplifying the language used, bringing it closer to everyday language, using the meaning of words as they are commonly understood. cf Report on Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law.

So it seems to me that it is going against the grain of law reform to deliberately introduce confusion into the law by changing the meanings of clear, unequivocal terms like 'man' 'woman' 'male' 'female'.

The Irish legislature didn't pay the slightest bit of attention to me, and I have a sinking feeling that the UK Supreme Court may also not follow my eminently sensible advice either

Marie you never know. I think you should pop in and have a word 😀

It is a tenet of statutory interpretation in England and Wales and I assume Scotland that words should have their normal meaning. I think the Supreme Court could well be quite matter of fact about this.

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will give a clear statement on the law as it stands. As a PP said, even if it highlights problems / a legislative mess at least we know where we are. If the SC says the interaction between the GRA and the EA is a muddle then nobody can claim it works seamlessly or is obvious. The era of the law is what a lobby group says it is needs to end.

It’s like the Cass review, even the people who hate it with every fibre of their being, can’t carry on claiming everything is working perfectly and calling anyone who objects a bigot. If the SC finds problems, then there are problems.

I believe Ben Cooper is representing Sex Matters plus David Welsh. A quick Google of David suggests his strength is constitutional law (assuming he’s the person I found).

This was quoted by FWS's KC at the earlier hearing re the ordinary meaning of "woman" in the Equality Act:

As Lord Hope observed in Imperial Tobacco v. Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 61, 2013 SC (UKSC) 153 at para 14:
“The best way of ensuring that a coherent, stable and workable outcome is achieved is to adopt an approach to the meaning of a statute that is constant and predictable. This will be achieved if the legislation is construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used.”

Lord Hope is a retired Scottish judge and was first Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2009 until his retirement in 2013. Fingers crossed his words stick this time!

I believe Ben Cooper is representing Sex Matters plus David Welsh. A quick Google of David suggests his strength is constitutional law (assuming he’s the person I found).

Oooh, Ben Cooper in action!

ChazsBrilliantAttitude Marie you never know. I think you should pop in and have a word 😀
Thank you for the vote of confidence. If only they all listened to me, everything in the world would be grand!
Seriously, though - why make the law more complicated for everyone, just to convenience such a tiny percentage of the population?

BetsyM00
As Lord Hope observed in Imperial Tobacco v. Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 61, 2013 SC (UKSC) 153 at para 14:
“The best way of ensuring that a coherent, stable and workable outcome is achieved is to adopt an approach to the meaning of a statute that is constant and predictable. This will be achieved if the legislation is construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used.”
Yesss! Common sense! Let's hope it prevails.

https://knowingius.substack.com/p/for-women-scotland-and-lesbian-associations

This is Michael Foran’s article on how the judgement could affect lesbian associations and women’s support networks. I hope the significance of this issue is brought up in the appeal. Michael is going to be discussing various aspects of the case over the next few weeks. I think he explains things really well.

Janice Turner in the Times today:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/51cab6e0-cb54-449c-889c-1fba34c2adf5?shareToken=1ed06cfdff0a5361e0600c8e6661336a

Was just coming to post this. Janice is right as usual.So what will the new Labour government do? This could be the first test of Sir Keir Starmer’s election promises, extracted from him like hind teeth, to uphold sex-based rights. Kemi Badenoch, the last equalities minister, made clarifying the law a Tory pledge, which prompts the question of why, in office, she didn’t do it herself.Labour has said the Equality Act is fine, that sex means biology and any ambiguities could be resolved with guidance (which it has not yet issued). But if Reed upholds Haldane and says a man with a certificate magically, and for almost all purposes, is female, this position is hard to hold.

I think pessimism over this case and worrying about the outcome pre hearing is self protection from a potential, terrible disappointing blow to our cause. Understandable, but it is essential that this issue is adjudicated.

i feel hopeful because there is a judicial doctrine for interpreting the words of an Act as it’s “ordinary meaning” , and in addition the judges can look behind the reasons for an Act.

In my humble opinion, the reason for protecting the characteristic of sex was imported from the Sex discrimination Act.

The protected characteristic of gender, as in changing sex markers, and the GRA offer a clear, distinct and separate protection for this group of people.

So it should follow that the intention of the Act in protecting sex as a characteristic, means biological sex.

Barack room lawyer, that I am.

Fuck sake, a GRC is cheaper than a fish supper.
Badenock was Equality Minister when the charge was lowered to £5 . Say one thing and exact opposite

The GRC recognition fee was reduced to £5 in 2021. Kemi Badenoch became the Minister for Women and Equalities in 2022. Not on her watch.

She was minister for equalities in September 2020 and she has been involved ever since. Read her Wikipedia

check your facts beforehand

There is another thread on this case based around a previous Times article. Link in case of interest.

Lord Reed: How we will decide what constitutes a woman www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5180156-lord-reed-how-we-will-decide-what-constitutes-a-woman

I stand partially corrected. Kemi Badenoch was a Minister of State for Equalities under Liz Truss who was the Minister for Women and Equalities. Was the £5 GRC her baby, Mike Freer's (the other Minister of State for Equalities) baby or was it Liz Truss's baby?

What about Penny Mordaunt? When did they decide on it?

We can say for certain that it was the Tories that brought in to being. The Conservatives are not women friendly

Looks like it was Liz Truss…

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gender-recognition-certificate-fee-reduced#:~:text=The%20government%20has%20reduced%20the%20Gender%20Recognition%20Certificate%20fee%20to%20£5.&text=The%20government%20has%20today%20(Tuesday,Gender%20Recognition%20Certificate%20(GRC).

'... Wikipedia... facts...'

What a beautiful non sequitur. Top marks! 🏆

So a GRC apears to be the only thing that became cheaper under the economic lunacy of Liz Truss? Blimey.
If only someone had told me. I'd have bought a shed load of paper certificates in to help keep the heating going this winter.

And Caroline Nokes? She was very TWAW.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee

On 29 January 2020, Nokes was elected to the position of chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, succeeding Maria Miller. ( Wikipedia)

I remember her shown arguing with Badenoch regarding the issue of teenage trans ‘girls’ being allowed in girls’ dorms during overnight children’s’ trips. She was sneering at Badenoch for not agreeing it should be allowed.

This committee was in 2021
fairplayforwomen.com/women-and-equalities-select-committee-report-on-gender-recognition-reform/

Sorry, I have just seen it was Liz Truss who reduced the price of a GRC to about the price of a GRC.

Discussion of the upcoming case by Blackbelt Barrister:

It is insane. Everyone knows what sex is and which sex people are. The law has allowed itself to become debased. It is embarrassing, or it would be if it wasn’t fucking terrifying. What if FWS lose?

@UtopiaPlanitia That was a good video off to look him up, felt like i was back in law school.

I think the point is that The GRA should have been repealed and incorporated into the Equality Act.

But the problem with that is that the GRA was tagged into treaties, via the Good Friday Agreement.

So he i think is saying that the Supreme Court has to avoid creating a legal absurdity, and slightly amend the meaning of the GRA wording to fit what i said up thread.

That the separate protections should not be conflated.

It also made me realise why the NHS has such a bat shit approach as seemingly their legal advice was that they had to wend the existing absurdity and stop using sex based language in female services.

So it is a very very important case, lets hope.