Trans former judge to take government to ECHR

[CervixSampler]

Trans former judge is taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights over SC ruling

This Victor chap certainly sounds like a big hairy bigot here, trying to gate keep womanhood exclusively for blokes with a certificate, thereby cruelly excluding all the poor chaps who don’t have one. Acceptance without exception wears off pretty fast when these chaps get that F on their birth certificate, doesn’t it? He can F off.

Well for starters he has no standing as he is not a UK resident

there is no possibility of an ECHR hearing as trans rights are protected

Because anyone born female cannot inherit their fathers title (Earl etc) and there fore trans women can inherit their fathers title where trans men cannot. I’m certain that judge knows that.

I always thought that this showed they knew they weren't female and wanted to have their cake and eat it. But now the Supreme Court has made this particular ruling coherent - you were and are male. So you can't be bumped from your title by an older transman sister and if you decide you are female you can't be bumped by a distant relative who claims that he is the nearest male and should have the title.

McCloud is excellent as a judge and I think if anyone can challenge this, she will.

I think this IS still a mess and needs unpicking. McCloud is right that there is now a tension between the previous government's planning regulations, this judgement, and also the GRA.

Also the government SURELY needs a process to decide WHO is trans and who isn't: that was the legal challenge that forced Harriet Harman to bring in the Gender Recognition Act, wasn't it? But if that no longer holds, then what is the UK's process?

The fact is that a lot of ducks needed to be lined up, and at the moment, they are not.

So it's unsafe for a trans identifying man to use a loo with men but not unsafe for women to use the loo with a trans identifying man. Right you are then. If he lives in RoI it's all irrelevant to him anyway so what grounds does he have to go to the ECHR?

Any man that wants to force his way into women's private spaces is a pervert, dress or not.

McCloud now lives in Ireland.

McCloud and Whittle both worked in law in different ways for years: why did neither seem to be aware they would be seemed to have no standing?

It would be helpful to have an SC statement about their rationale for this decision.

I've never heard of a reason to acknowledge anyone's trans status in law other than trans people want it to be. Why does it need recording legally at all?

Edit for typo

They'll all be moving to Ireland where nothing has changed for them. No visa required and can stay for more than 90 days too. Woo hoo.

I’m looking forward to reading the submission to see specifically which article of the human rights act has been violated.

I would be amazed if the court actually considered it admissible as the claimant needs to demonstrate that their specific right(s) have been violated AND they have exhausted all the legal remedies in their domestic country. The former judge was not a party to the FWS vs Scottish government case so can’t claim to have exhausted all the legal remedies.

Theoretically if Dr Upton loses the current court case then Upton could then appeal through the courts system all the way up to the Supreme Court and then go to ECHR in appeal.

Oh no.
Guess where I live??😕

He's not very bright is he.

If an experienced judge thinks this case will be admissible then maybe it is - and the ECHR might be keen to take it if at all feasible.

It would certainly save a lot of fannying about with test cases, High Court declaratory actions, and trying to get the Act rewritten or sneakily reinterpreted on the fly.

We don't necessarily lose because the government doesn't have to follow ECHR rulings (prisoner's voting rights, anyone?), and this could be a chance to cripple the ideology throughout Europe. What heroes we would be!

You just can't have sex-based rights if people are allowed to pick a sex, or to conceal their true sex: time to face it.

McCloud is excellent as a judge and I think if anyone can challenge this, she will.

How excellent is a judge who can't understand that:

Not party to original case + Not resident in the country concerned = no standing to bring the case

?

Taking this to the ECHR might end up expanding the ruling to other countries who are signed up to it. He hasn't thought this through.

Unbelievably Norman Tebbit predicted this in 2004

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/jan/29/gender-recognition-bill-hl

The Government seem to think that all transsexuals are delightful, kind and tolerant. Most people are delightful, kind and tolerant, but we cannot accept that transsexuals are different from any other sector of the population and that there are not some who are nasty, unkind and intolerant. The Bill potentially hands the more aggressive transsexuals a legal stick with which to beat those who disagree with them. We must do more to limit the scope for vexatious litigation. We must do more to prevent the courts running amok with the legislation, forcing it to new extremes of which, no doubt, the Minister would disapprove.

‘Publicly say they are transgender’ is interesting. 2 years ago the Beeb would’ve stated ‘IS transgender’…

"The answer [in my view] is that a woman in law is someone with the letter F on her birth certificate."

And the answer, in my view, is that we need to stop letting people change the sex marker on their birth certificate.

That there should be a ‘legal’ lie about this is completely outrageous. So much for ‘The truth and nothing but the truth’ and swearing on The Bible.

I like the bit where the Judge says that the answer to the question ‘what is biological sex?’ is what is says on your amended by the GRC birth certificate.

With quality arguments like that, how can they lose!

All this Judge, and all TRAs, are saying is that the concerns of males should come before women, in law and in society.

have I misunderstood this- the ECHR has nothing to do with labour? Or do you mean they’d ignore any ruling the ECHR made?

I was wondering how long it would be before McCloud got involved in this. Much cleverer than RMW or JM so one to watch..

McCloud is excellent as a judge and I think if anyone can challenge this, she will.
I admit that I had never heard of the transformer before this morning and wondered how you end up being a 'former judge' at the age of only 55, so I googled. Maya has an article.

Whatever happens from now on, the huge change is that trans rights lobbyists are no longer operating solely behind closed doors, capitalising on old school boys club style networking. So many more people are now aware of what was happening and any court cases just bring more exposure.

Someone made a parallel with leaving an abusive relationship and how that is the time the abuser becomes most dangerous. We get a bit of that attitude on this board at the moment. Males coming to tell us they heard our "no" but they are going to do it anyway. Don't they realise that many women are horribly familiar with male entitlement and horribly aware of how often it can lead to violence?

These aggressive and entitled males continue to do a disservice to those who could probably do with our support for getting 3rd spaces. They make an absolute mockery of the phrase "I identify as".

Art 3 - cruel and unusual treatment (🙄)
Art 8 - privacy
Art 12 - marriage (sorted)
Art 14 - discrimination (sorted)

Art 8 is the sticky one... its been assumed that concealing one's sex was harmless because people doing it would be rare, passing, and surgically altered (Croft v Royal Mail, Hayley from Corrie). I think it's possible the Act was truly based on this assumption (otherwise the statutory guidance on SSSs made no sense) and the SC was forced to reinterpret it because subsequent social developments have brought into focus that its sex equality/sex-based rights objectives are logically incompatible with allowing people to choose their sex or conceal their true sex.