For Women Scotland written submission (UK Supreme Court)

[Justme56]

https://forwomen.scot/22/10/2024/uk-supreme-court/

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FWS-Supreme-Court-Briefing.pdf

These have made this available ahead of the court case in November.

Thank you for posting this. I am reading it and it is making me emotional. Such important work which goes completely under the radar for most people but so significant for 51% of the population. Go FWS!

Thank you.

'The question which arises in the present appeal is a related, yet formally a previously undetermined, issue of statutory construction, namely: whether or not when an individual obtains a GRC this means that, for the purposes of the EA 2010, their “sex” also changes? If their GRC “acquired gender” is the “female gender”, does that person's protected characteristic of “sex” under the EA 2010 becomes that of a “woman”? Conversely, if their GRC “acquired gender” is the “male gender”, does that person’s protected characteristic of “sex” under the EA 2010 becomes that of a “man”?'

It’s a tour de force! (And it’s liberally sprinkled with some fascinating historical case law 😊)

I hope that the interventions will also be published.

Wow have just finished reading submission's.

Aidan O’Neill KC has left no stone un turned.

I think fellow women that we are in with a good chance of the ordinary meaning of sex prevailing.

surprised from what I could ascertain that, the ECHC appear to be arguing against the appeal.

KC for FWS refers to their letter to Badenoch, which i am reading is contrary to the EHRC submissions.

off to see if I can find other submissions

This will be D day.

.

They still need carrots, should anyone have a trowel handy

I had been feeling quite worried about this appeal before, but then I read this splendid document. Now I'm much more confident.

Who is the (female) Lord Ordinary they refer to? I'm thinking it must be Lady Haldane but does anyone know?

Lord Ordinary is a great name.

Great name owned by a twit.

Their crowd funder still needs a lot of gardening!

Para 45 says it all...

"It is worth underlining, too, that the consequence of reading and applying Section 9(1) GRA 2004 as if it embodied a free-standing and overriding principle to which the provisions of the EA 2010 was subject across the board is that women’s rights (whether to pregnancy/maternity protections, of access to women’s only services and accommodation, to positions where being a women is a genuine occupational requirement - for example being a counsellor in, or chief executive of, a rape crisis centre 46 - to positive action measures in favour of women (including women only short-lists in the selection by registered political parties of candidates for election, to the freedom of association to same-sex attracted women, to women’s fair competition within sports) are eroded and compromised whereas men’s rights are enhanced. This is the very definition of patriarchy. It is, to say the least, ironic that the EHRC in particular should seek to argue that s.9(1) GRA 2004 has to be interpreted and applied as the means whereby women’s EA 2010 rights are eroded, and the patriarchy revived and strengthened."

The Lord Ordinary is the name for any judge (male or female) sitting in the Outer House, which is the Court of Session. So they hear the case at First Instance, on their own (not in a panel of 3, 5 or 7 like in an appeal court which is the inner house).

You may have been joking with the Lord Ordinary comment 😁 but just in case it didn't land with everyone!

It's a compelling argument and surprisingly easy to read for a non lawyer.

@Signalbox Aidan is a fucking man and he just socked it to em, the EHRC. Bunch of knobs.

There is so much more to his arguments, that made me feel well erm in legal love.

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/aidan-oneill/

I googled the KC and looking at the comments he seems well qualified to take this case on.

@Justme56 Don't forget barristers with silks, (KC) who get Supreme Court briefs are on route to be judges, hope presides.

A technical question I think the Supreme Court is the highest appeal level in the UK.

Is there a higher authority or is this the final authority? I’m thinking ECHR or HoL.

That FWS submission was fascinating to read - it was logical and consistent in its argument.

As a student of law as opposed to a lawyer i would say no.

This application is about domestic constitutional law.

And not an application that brings in to play Human rights international law, by virtue of all the treaties that we as the UK have as duties.

It asks of domestic law what the Equalities Act means by the word sex.

It is the roll of a dice

If as we hope, the Supreme Court rules that sex means biological sex.

That is the end of it, full stop finito.

If we lose then the FWS will have to start again and make an application under relevant treaties about women’s protections at the first court in Scotland, and follow it back through to the ECHR.

That would as a matter of law affect all of Europe which probably Needs to happen.

If they win and the definition of sex in the Equalities Act is confirmed as biological sex then we can have a fucking legal field day.

Have a wee reminder stuck on my calendar now - ta Beetle

@Bannedontherun thank you.

Thanks! I had no idea. I've just developed an interest since my own recent acquisition of a title.

A very fine title it is too!

If they win and the definition of sex in the Equalities Act is confirmed as biological sex then we can have a fucking legal field day.

They’ve specifically argued against the use of the term biological sex though. Instead they’re just arguing that sex should have its ordinary and stated meaning “male / female any age”. I think this is good because it avoids allowing “legal sex” a foothold in law.

Which is fine and dandy as long as the definitions for male/female aren't too elastic.....