Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

European Court of Human Rights

112 replies

HollieHock · 21/04/2025 09:27

Just head a TRA on LBC saying they are going to take the case there. Please tell me this is not going to start again.

OP posts:
ArchibaldBoyd · 21/04/2025 09:30

Will they though?
They don't have a coherent legal argument. They don't have a history of using competent lawyers, either.

NotBadConsidering · 21/04/2025 09:34

🤞😑🤞please let it be Jolyon,🤞😑 🤞please let it be Jolyon… 🤞😑🤞

Seriously though, they’re just spouting off out of desperation. The European Court can’t rule what British Parliament intended.

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:35

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 09:36

It’s Jolyon who is tantalisingly suggesting it’s an option. Grifters gonna grift.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 09:36

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:35

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

Edited

And that they will take us out of the ECHR.

AmateurNoun · 21/04/2025 09:37

I suppose the ECtHR could rule on whether it violates transwomens human rights (in particular the right to a private life under Article 8) to not be counted in the female quota on boards, but I don't personally think they would be that likely to win.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 09:38

I think this is more about keeping it going and not letting the angry people come to terms with it and move on.

popefully · 21/04/2025 09:38

Imagine if they had to actually provide the definition of "woman" that they wanted to use, and that was workable in law!

I really hope so, that would be the end of this all!

The SC judgement already alluded to the fact that any category must be clearly defined so as to know who it refers to.

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:39

I'm so bored of it now. Absolutely fed up to the back teeth of the 'tiny minority who just want to live their lives in quiet and peace.' I have so much better things to do with my life. Just fuck off.

Harassedevictee · 21/04/2025 09:42

RMW has also suggested this could go to ECHR.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 21/04/2025 09:42

Fine. More than happy for them to exhaust every legal option

MissElaineEous · 21/04/2025 09:43

Who keeps paying for the kimono’d one?

I mean after while, wouldn’t you cut your losses?

PronounssheRa · 21/04/2025 09:53

MissElaineEous · 21/04/2025 09:43

Who keeps paying for the kimono’d one?

I mean after while, wouldn’t you cut your losses?

Fools and their money, and all that.

I'm baffled at why people donate to GLP, must be purely ideological.

IANAL but for this particular case wouldn't it be the Scottish Government who lost the case who could take it to the ECHR?

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:54

It's a tithe to their church. Like the Guardian subscription and the DD to Amnesty. It guarantees their place in heaven.

PronounssheRa · 21/04/2025 10:07

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 09:36

And that they will take us out of the ECHR.

Its an absolute gift for Reform, i bet Farage is rubbing his hand at the prospect of getting all this publicity around the ECHR without having to spend a penny.

Jolyon is far too deep in gender ideology to think about the wider political consequences of his actions

fromorbit · 21/04/2025 10:14

Legally it is a nonsense. THe EHCR can't do anything.

Colin Wynter KC

Traumatised genderists are raising funds to go to the ECHR.
ECHR cannot dictate how our Supreme Court interprets UK legislation.
It can declare whether our legislation is outwith whichever article of the ECHR.
Would not change a thing absent "man really is woman" UK legislation.

Joylon also is busy diverting any TA legal funds to propping up his bank balance so even less reason to worry.

Harassedevictee · 21/04/2025 10:22

I do think we will see an increase in ETs and Civil Cases from both perspectives.

Women (and men) may take cases to ET etc. where employers/Public Sector/service suppliers are not being clear single sex means biological sex.

Trans, and possibly non-binary, people may take cases where they are now being excluded from spaces they previously used e.g. changing rooms, toilet’s etc.and harassment.

The benefit is both GI and NB maybe subject to the Granger test.

The Case Law over the next few years will help delineate where the line is between women’s rights and trans rights.

Imnobody4 · 21/04/2025 10:27

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

Pemba · 21/04/2025 10:29

What nonsense.

HollieHock · 21/04/2025 10:31

"Good Law Project". If ever there was a wrong name.

OP posts:
AmateurNoun · 21/04/2025 10:36

PronounssheRa · 21/04/2025 09:53

Fools and their money, and all that.

I'm baffled at why people donate to GLP, must be purely ideological.

IANAL but for this particular case wouldn't it be the Scottish Government who lost the case who could take it to the ECHR?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be the Scottish Government on my recollection. It's not a further appeal in the same way that one appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, and would need to be brought by a "victim" of the violation of the ECHR. There is a requirement that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and they could point to the FWS judgment

As Colin Wynter KC alludes to, even if the ECtHR rules that the legislation is unlawful, it cannot force the U.K. government to change it. We have continued to ignore the ECtHR's ruling on prisoner voting for many years.

Waitwhat23 · 21/04/2025 10:42

Harassedevictee · 21/04/2025 09:42

RMW has also suggested this could go to ECHR.

I wouldn't believe RMW to give me reliable information about what day the recycling boxes go out. His information about anything seems shaky, at best.

PencilsInSpace · 21/04/2025 10:46

I don't think a government can bring a human rights case, only defend one. I think it would need to be an individual who claimed their human rights had been violated.

Chersfrozenface · 21/04/2025 10:48

Waitwhat23 · 21/04/2025 10:42

I wouldn't believe RMW to give me reliable information about what day the recycling boxes go out. His information about anything seems shaky, at best.

LOL at the recycling boxes.

And stand by to have your post deleted, @Waitwhat23.

Waitwhat23 · 21/04/2025 10:53

I don't doubt it - he's like Beetlejuice - say his name enough times and he'll appear on the thread.

Or will harrangue women about bundles on a support thread.