Page 3 | European Court of Human Rights

HollieHock · 2025-04-21T08:27:31+00:00

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.

PruthePrune · 21/04/2025 13:00

Don't worry too much about this, the Kimono Kid is involved and has never won anything.

nutmeg7 · 21/04/2025 13:01

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.

Savage blow?

Why not leave the hyperbole behind and start trying to work out how to accommodate women’s needs AND trans people’s needs without forcing women to move their boundaries. You have to listen to ALL parties where needs/desired/rights come into conflict. You don’t get to shut women up and prevent them expressing their own needs. That was never a sustainable approach, to treat women with such disrespect.

Needspaceforlego · 21/04/2025 13:03

Motorina · 21/04/2025 11:10

They wouldn’t be able to appeal this judgement to the ECtHR as only the parties could do that.

However if a transwomen considers that their ECHR rights have been violated (for example by being turned away from a single sex space because they are not a biological woman) then they could bring that case. It would be a new case. It would start in the appropriate court for the type of claim and, once all domestic routes had been exhausted, go to Strasbourg.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I would pay good money to see Upton try and run a discrimination case using the “not a robot” argument through all the levels of the court system.

That's what I was thinking. Only the Scot Gov could make the appeal. Anyone else would need to start at the appropriate courts.

The thought of Mr Upton trying to appeal the ET findings when they are publish is like the gift that keeps giving.

Nebulous dogwhistle - is one of the funniest expressions ever

nutmeg7 · 21/04/2025 13:05

Notaflippinclue · 21/04/2025 12:16

I think I’ll become a plumber specialising in third spaces - make a fortune!

Brilliant idea!

AppleandRhubarbTart · 21/04/2025 13:07

Viviennemary · 21/04/2025 12:17

I thought we were out of that now.

ECHR? No. It's nothing to do with the EU and indeed predates it.

Motorina · 21/04/2025 13:08

Needspaceforlego · 21/04/2025 13:03

That's what I was thinking. Only the Scot Gov could make the appeal. Anyone else would need to start at the appropriate courts.

The thought of Mr Upton trying to appeal the ET findings when they are publish is like the gift that keeps giving.

Nebulous dogwhistle - is one of the funniest expressions ever

Show quote history

I have been corrected by @samarrange Not even the Scottish government can take this to the ECtHR.

Motorina · 21/04/2025 13:11

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 21/04/2025 12:59

The hypothetical transwoman. I know real life is more complex, but, if SC has said black is not white, how can they bring a case based on an assertion that it is?

Or is it that they have to prove that black not being white has adverse human rights consequences and therefore EA needs rewriting?

Show quote history

At least at the initial court level there is no filtering process. Anyone is entitled to bring a case on whatever damnfool grounds they like, and the court will hear it.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 13:14

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.

Seriously, where do you people get off thinking that the five most senior judges in the country are wrong about the law, but that you know better?

You're fighting against women having equal rights to trans people in law.

That's it.

Slow hand clap.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 13:20

Brainworm · 21/04/2025 10:56

I don’t have a good grasp of this, but have listened to some opinion stating that the ECHR requires a process for gender recognition. We have that via the GRA. RMW’s claim is that the process the ECHR requires needs to incorporate someone with a certificate being entitled to the same rights as the sex the certificate says they are. Other’s aren’t convinced this to be the case

The crazy thing is that this is already massively reading between the lines to interpret something into the treaty that simply isn't there, because the treaty came into force decades before anyone was pretending that humans can change sex.

Ruling that member countries should have a legal mechanism for allowing people to change their gender is already a massive overreach.

Ruling that this right takes priority over women sex based rights would be a bridge too far for most people.

I've always been very pro remaining in the ECHR but these international human rights bods need to understand where the limits of their authority actually are if they don't want the whole edifice to come crashing down.

Brainworm · 21/04/2025 13:27

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.

Promoting the view that the world is hostile to trans people, based on the world maintaining that there are 2 sexes and that each sex, in some circumstances, needs to be understood as a sex class, does not reflect hostility or ill will.

it is incredibly harmful to trans people to propagate this idea and it does nothing to support their successsful inclusion in society.

The sooner people understand that we should have single sex provision where needed, and trans inclusive provision to supplement this, where needed, the better.

Not many people will consider affirmation as being necessary to provide dignity preserving solutions. Trans people need to be supported to develop resilience in relation to people not viewing them in the way they want to be viewed, and to understand that doing so does not mean they wish them harm

aylis · 21/04/2025 13:28

PencilsInSpace · 21/04/2025 12:12

That's how we got the GRA though

Show quote history

The GRA itself didn't come from Europe, that was the UK's solution - it was entirely to avoid legislating for equal marriage.

Kinsters · 21/04/2025 13:34

@MissScarletInTheBallroom "these international human rights bods need to understand where the limits of their authority actually are if they don't want the whole edifice to come crashing down."

TRAs can provide an instructional lesson here..

lifeturnsonadime · 21/04/2025 13:34

Notaflippinclue · 21/04/2025 12:16

I think I’ll become a plumber specialising in third spaces - make a fortune!

Unlikely, for many it's about validation and has nothing to do with safety.

They don't want to be in a third space.

Annascaul · 21/04/2025 13:39

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.

For fuck’s sake 🙄. Wise up, mate.
It’s over.

Rightsraptor · 21/04/2025 13:42

The Genie is finding it very painful to squeeze back into the lamp.

We knew it would be so.

EasternStandard · 21/04/2025 13:47

samarrange · 21/04/2025 12:45

That isn't how the ECtHR works. Cases are brought by individuals, or very occasionally by other states, against states, on the basis that X events happened, Y legal process took place, and Z verdict which the appellant doesn't like was returned from the top level of the process. Check out Article 35 of the convention here. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-european-convention-on-human-rights-and-its-protocols

So what would have to happen would be that a trans person would have to want to do something (e.g., use a changing room reserved for the opposite sex), and then they would be turned down (or arrested for going in anyway), and then they would sue the leisure centre (or be taken to court and charged with whatever the actual legal offence is), and it would then go through the UK courts, and end up at the Supreme Court which would say "the leisure centre was within its rights to not allow access to the women's changing rooms to someone who is not a biological woman, per our April 2025 judgment", and then the trans person would submit their case to Strasbourg.

The case last week on which the Supreme Court ruled can't go on to the ECtHR because it was a win for a group of citizens (For Women Scotland) and a loss for the NHS board (although the actual respondents were the Scottish government ministers). A government organisation can't appeal to the ECtHR more or less by definition, because nobody in the management of the East Fife Health Board or the Scottish government has had their human rights reduced by this decision. Jolyon Maugham can announce that he's going it for the shiggles, but it won't get anywhere.

(In fact, had the SC verdict gone the other way it probably wouldn't have been appealable to the ECtHR either, because FWS brought the case in the civil courts against the ministers. Sandy Peggie, the person whose rights were directly affected, wasn't on the docket as far as I know. However, I think I'm right in saying that her employment tribunal case is still going. In the event that she were now to lose that, she could then go through the rest of the legal process and ultimately it might end up at the ECtHR. But in view of the SC ruling this seems vanishingly unlikely, and I assume the health board/Scottish NHS/government will now fold.)

It may also be worth remembering that the SC decision is strictly only about people with a Gender Recognition Certificate. Even if the decision had been appealable to Strasbourg, any verdict in favour of the trans side could only have been valid for people with a GRC, which the majority of trans-activist people don't have because TRAs are all about self-id.

Show quote history

Thanks for this. Makes sense.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 21/04/2025 14:00

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.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Bring it

needmoresheep · 21/04/2025 14:05

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:35

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

Edited

and that could be a possibility.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 14:09

PronounssheRa · 21/04/2025 10:07

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

Show quote history

He’s also far too self interested.

Datun · 21/04/2025 14:10

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.

This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive.

Oh Jolyon, you'd create fire with all that hand rubbing 😆

Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project.

Course - school fees don't pay themselves.

PencilsInSpace · 21/04/2025 14:23

aylis · 21/04/2025 13:28

The GRA itself didn't come from Europe, that was the UK's solution - it was entirely to avoid legislating for equal marriage.

Show quote history

Partly - there was also stuff about pensions and privacy rights. But it was in response to the Goodwin case in ECtHR.

Tomatotater · 21/04/2025 14:55

lifeturnsonadime · 21/04/2025 13:34

Unlikely, for many it's about validation and has nothing to do with safety.

They don't want to be in a third space.

Show quote history

Agreed. Institutions will have to provide a unisex facility, and as a result, I can almost guarantee that the volume of transwomen will go back down to the previously calculated vanishingly few 1 in 100,000. Because the vast majority of the apparently now 1 in 100 men who want access to womens toilets want it not to pee, but to show they have dominion and power over women. If it was just about using toilets and changing rooms they would have no problem respecting women's boundaries and just peeing and getting changed in a unisex cubicle. Especially if they ' feel like women' they would be able to ' feel' what it's like to be in danger from men.

Talkinpeace · 21/04/2025 15:14

Just for reference, the FWS case has nothing to do with Peggie / Upton.

It goes back many many years before that.

samarrange · 21/04/2025 15:19

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 21/04/2025 12:59

The hypothetical transwoman. I know real life is more complex, but, if SC has said black is not white, how can they bring a case based on an assertion that it is?

Or is it that they have to prove that black not being white has adverse human rights consequences and therefore EA needs rewriting?

Show quote history

Anyone can bring a case. But yes, if a man says "I am a woman and I demand that XYZ leisure centre allows me to use their women's changing room", the lawyer for the leisure centre will definitely be wheeling out this decision in their arguments at the very first hearing.

But again, we should note that all the SC has said is "If you decide to provide a separate space for women, you are entitled to interpret 'women' as 'biological females'". It doesn't say that you have to interpret 'women' that way. So leisure centres could, if they wanted, continue to allow biological males into the women's changing rooms. It's just that, if they choose not to, they can't be condemned in court for that decision. (I suspect a lot of them will choose to interpret this decision in that way — that is, as if it did in fact read "spaces advertised as being for women must be for biological women only" — in the hope that the trans people will shut up and go away, but I think that would be a bit naive on their part.)

There is also the GRC angle. The SC decision also applies to people with a GRC, some of whom have also undergone surgery. So I don't think we've heard the last of all the possible permutations on this.

Flopsythebunny · 21/04/2025 15:30

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.

You mean you are committed to stomping on the rights of women