So The Judgment will obviously go to the ECHR ...

[GarlicSmile]

Can somebody please explain how that works? Who defends the UK Courts' decisions? And do we have to crowdfund them, or will it fall on the taxpayer?

Thanks. I like to get my worrying in early!

Why do you think it will go to the ECHR? I am no expert, at all, but if you read the SC judegment in full I fail to see how there is even a case. The ruling spells out quite clearly how:

a 'certificated sex' reading means some people (transmen and biolocial women) lose the rights the EA is intended to bestow, and

'a biological sex' reading provides transpeople with the full protections of the EA under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and biological sex

To my mind a legal brain reading the ruling (which I assume the ECHR have) would not entertain it. In the case there is viewed a lack of protections for transpeople then the logical legal arguments would be to enhance the protection under the approriate protected characteristis (gender reassignment) not to try to use the 'sex' characteristic. (the ruling clearly demonstrates how the latter approach breaks the whole act and is incompatible with previous exisiting legislation).

I don't know though, I am not an expert in equalities law.

My understanding is that it won't go to the ECHR because that would require the losing party to appeal the case, and the Scottish Government has said they accept the ruling. Another case could make its long and winding way to the ECHR, but that would take years; this case took 7 years to get to the UK Supreme Court, so it would be that and a bit more.

Why do you say that?

The claim that this sc judgement breaches Goodwin are nonsense.
Goodwin ordered the UK government to allow trans people to be recognised in law as the gender they want to be without the requirement of genital mutilating surgeries and to marry someone of the same sex but different gender.
All of those requirements have been met and could continue to be met by even if we did away with the grc by adding a gender marker alongside an accurate sex marker on all documents including birth, marriage and death certificates. We already have same sex marriage.
They're on a hiding to nothing with this one

Don't know where you got the idea the judgment will be appealed to the ECHR, bit it won't. Firstly because the Scottish government would be the party appealing and it has no standing to do so, and secondly the Scottish government has already said it accepts the judgment.

I suppose one or more transpeople could take a case to the ECHR to say the SC ruling is wrong and infringes their rights. Perhaps the fox basher will crowd fund to do exactly that on behalf of some misguided man.

I don't think the ECHR can rule on what the British government intended when they made the EA, which is what this case ruled on.

I have no idea whether TRAs may be able to make a case on some other grounds.

I know they're different institutions, but worth noting is the EU are having a consultation on their 'LGBTIQ equality strategy for 2026-2030'. I've not read them all, but from scanning the first few pages of comments, there's a lot of support for women: ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14551-EU-LGBTIQ-equality-strategy-for-2026-2030

As I understand, the Scottish government cannot make an application to the ECtHR specifically because they are a government.

Article 34 of the ECHR says who can bring claims:

"The Court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."

The "High Contracting Parties" are the governments that signed up to this.

So, the Scottish Ministers (who lost this case) could not pursue this.

To get to the ECtHR it would now be down to another person or group to go through the whole process right up to the Supreme Court before they could make an application to the ECtHR.

The usual suspects have been claiming they'll take it to the ECtHR.

I'm sure I've read a legal take-down of exactly why that won't be happening, or is vanishingly unlikely to happen, but I can't recall who wrote it. I re-checked the Akua Reindorf piece in The Times last week, and it wasn't there, so some other legal bod.

The article/post I read did, I think, say exactly what Raquelos says above: that ScotGov have accepted it and anyone else wanting to take a similar case out would have to start at square one and go through all the stages required to get to the ECtHR. A long and winding road indeed, with no certainty of winning at any stage.

People are spouting lots of nonsense right now. They just hate this hard line that's been drawn in the sand.

Despite Robin Moira White's nonsense, I don't believe the ECHR would even hear a case brought on a "I'm not getting my own way" basis.

Also the Scottish government is not a High Contracting Party - it is the Westminster govt which has that role.

JoMo's hostage video
It looks like the Good Law Project is recruiting specifically to take cases to the ECHR.
If you can bear his monotonous voice Maugham mentions this towards the end of this clip.

While I don’t doubt that various orgs are looking for cases to take to the ECtHR, I think the main driver behind suggesting that this will be taken further is to deter organisations from amending their policies based on the SC decision, and to sow doubt in the minds of people who would otherwise believe the EA to now be clear that woman = biological woman.

It’s the same reason TRAs lie that the SC never defined what they meant by ‘biological’ and pretend the law isn’t clear when the definition is crystal clear. To scare companies into inaction and undermine their confidence in the ruling.

The GLP is recruiting because they can't find anyone who wants to try and make it make sense. The trans ideology has never stood up to scrutiny.

I personally think everyone is heaving a sigh of relief at this judgement, even most of the silly pronoun-pronouncers are probably secretly glad that the grown ups have intervened. I doubt anyone, except the few batshit whackos still left clinging on to this nonsense, have the appetite for an appeal.

It weird - I can understand advertising for claimants for a class action case where someone has been wronged and it’s likely others have too, but to advertise to find people to fight a law you don’t like is strange.

Usually, discrimination cases come about because an actual person has been affected (nurses in changing rooms, people fired for saying they believe in biology, etc), so it seems really backward to construct a discrimination case and then audition for the person to play the claimant afterwards.

Thank you all very much! I'm relieved.
It makes sense that this is being threatened in order to maintain confusion (hope that won't last long) and, of course, to support Foxy Maugham's image.

Glad it's not going to happen. In seven years, this weird episode should have disappeared into collective amnesia, all being well. (Apart from those still suffering the effects of their 'treatments', but how many people now think about lobotomy or thalidomide victims?)

"...but how many people now think about ... thalidomide victims?"

Sorry that this is rather off-topic. My parents married in 1961, the same year that thalidomide was banned in the UK.

If my mum had got pregnant even a year or two earlier then she may well have been prescribed thalidomide. I could have had an elder sibling who was a thalidomide victim.

Growing up as a child, a shortened version of that word was often used as a term of abuse (much in the same way that the old word for a person with cerebral palsy was used as a term of abuse).

Back then I really didn't understand what it meant other than that it was a term of abuse. It was only many years later that I understood the full horror.

If anyone is unaware of what thalidomide does to unborn children, please - do not search online, the images you see cannot be unseen.

Although, I do remember about twenty years ago being in hospital with my daughter when she was young (I was well into my 30s when I gave birth). I remember chatting with one of the doctors and they mentioned prescribing thalidomide for something.

I remember that I exploded. "What the f**k do you think you're doing giving thalidomide to a woman?". They explained why it was given and that there are now very tight controls to ensure it is not given to a woman who might possibly be pregnant.

But, to answer your question:

"...but how many people now think about ... thalidomide victims?"

Some of us older people certainly do.

I am profoundly relieved by the SC ruling.

However, the fox killer has been complaining that the SC decided without hearing from any trans people or organisations.

As far as I know, none applied to intervene. Not Stonewall or any of the others. Why?

GLP applied to intervene, putting forward Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud but was refused. Why?

Could GLP apply to ECtHR on the procedural grounds that its request to intervene was improperly refused?

waterthyme you might find this interesting:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/unhinged-malady/

That Wings article is on fire! Thank you, that explains it well.

i usually keep up with Wings but that one had passed me by.

I read some of the comments.

I think my personal favourite is "The file has a feeling of being an inhabitant of the classick family of the musculoskeletal, green and detachment."

To be fair, there was a disclaimer about possible inaccurate translation.

Thank you for that.
It included the gem of referring to Robin Barry White 😂

I read something about it too but there's been such a snowstorm of articles I don't remember. Michael Foran possibly?

I seem to remember the comments were that the ECHR might say the judgment doesn't fit with some article or other, but there's other articles the UK govt is in breach of and hasn't responded to (I think it was prisoner voting?) it doesn't have power to bind. Tbf the women's rights aspects may well have been found in breach of articles before this judgment, it's never been tested because it is a choice of half the population who are women having equality, or a small group of men having legal supremacy to use them against their will. The human rights act would have been problematic.

And unfortunately perceived reality and actual reality don't tend to jive in this movement which never goes well in court. The whole 'trans voices were not consulted in the judgment' has been explained patiently and repeatedly without managing to get through to lala land. If that's a pillar of the case that'll take about ten minutes to clear up.

The SC "argument" was did the Power that had a duty to make the law say (or mean) X or Y when they passed the law.

Its different from saying can there be law A or was law B broken.

Power is

community has no laws > election process
> small group given the Power > votes cast
>> law made
> new election process
> community dont like law > votes cast
> new small group > votes cast
>> new law made
> new election process
> community dont like law > votes cast
> new small group......

This SC process is allowed by anybody to ask for a ruling on the meaning of the law

Thats because the individual is bound by the law and so too is the Government of the Day (which changes). This is a check or control to stop the GOtD from making random stuff up and not voting (Eg no more elections or 30 year terms )

The GOtD are "the power with the duty to make law".

So division of Powers say if the GOtD are told the law is X but not Y they have 2 options
• accept the ruling or
• make new law

Or for Scotland opt 3 become a new independent State and make new law as a "different" community.

And all of that was based i think on the State having no reason to know the sex /age /hair colour /favorite sex act

But as a legal principle the State do need to have rules about how they break down the community into sub-classes when making law
And also have the ability to break down the community into sub-classes.

If not the State could not say it is unlawful for a person of X age to have sex with a person of Y age. Or that its unlawful to do that favorite sex act in public.

If a person fits into the sub-class the State can decide what happens next.

And the SC said for the EA
woman =
sub-class female
not sub-class female and male
not sub-class male