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

The standard of politicians has taken a big nose dive in the last couple of decades regardless of party.

The Scottish government has accepted the ruling, so no further legal action will be taken by them. Since the judge was not a party to this case, I'm not sure why he thinks he has standing to take it further, particularly since he doesn't even live in the UK.

I agree with absolutely all the objections people have, sorry for not replying individually. I just think that there will ultimately be some concession and that's where I stand on it. I agree though with how do you legislate for what is essentially "do they pass?" which is ofc very subjective, especially in a time where awareness of transgender as a thing is very high. I guess that's what they tried to do with the GRA (?) and that was ultimately a big fail.

He was spot on.

only non-governmental groups can apply to the ECHR (I assume because governments have the option to re-write the law) FWS could have applied if they had lost although it is important to note that applying doesn’t mean the court will agree to hear the case.

I’m somewhat concerned that a former judge seems to be misrepresenting the legal process.

In fact that must have been what the GRA was about if it was all about privacy of transgender status. As surely privacy of your status as a transgender person is only an issue if you pass.

That's a non-starter IMO. When the GRA was debated and passed over 20 years ago, it specifically ruled out requiring genital surgery as a prerequisite for a GRC and the vast majority of trans-identified men retain their male genitalia.

This is what led to the widespread compulsion to pretend, which is so offensive.

> Planning regulations? @Pinkrabbitt

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-building-requirements-for-separate-male-and-female-toilets

Basically the Tory govt threw this in to lure in more voters but it's basically that new business builds have to have single-sex toilets. But no 'third space' mandated - which is now what is realistically needed.

This is the crux of one part of the argument.

Just who sets the bar that becomes the standard of just when is long enough to convey the status of womanhood to male people? Making womanhood a reward.

If people genuinely think womanhood is a reward to be given to male people, what does length of time mean. Except that womanhood also becomes earnable too.

So being a woman is an earnable reward.

My limited understanding about taking a case to ECHR was that the aggrieved party would have to do it, since they had taken the case all the way to the SC and lost.

Seems to me that the judge will have to start the process again all the way to the SC and THEN take it to ECHR if he loses (he...).

Is there any other mechanism or challenge available outside this procedure I wonder? I don't think so, but I am open to correction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Baker

Kidnapper, torturer, attempted murderer, advocates punching terfs. And post op.

Welcome in women's loos? Prisons? Rape crisis centres?

the aggrieved party would have to do it, since they had taken the case all the way to the SC and lost.
Seems to me that the judge will have to start the process again all the way to the SC and THEN take it to ECHR if he loses

Correct.

Or very nearly. A non-UK resident has no standing to even start the process in the UK courts, never mind take it to Europe.

You're correct (although ScotGov can't appeal it).

The ECtHR is open to appeals from individuals, groups or NGOs. So, if FWS had lost then they could have gone to the ECtHR but ScotGov don't come under any of those headings so can't.

"Maybe the judge will have to start from scratch through the UK courts first, then get another Supreme Court ruling based on the issue. THEN take it to ECHR."

Yes and no. They will need to start from scratch but there does not need to be an actual SC judgment. It is enough that the case is appealed to the SC. The SC may choose not to hear it but appealing it to the SC is sufficient.

Although I do believe it is possible to appeal to the ECtHR without first appealing to the SC if it is on a point that the SC has already ruled on.

Why do we know who is trans?

We need to know who is entitled to women's spaces and protections due to being women.

And just like a man who looks a bit like a woman can be protected from misogyny if someone (like male, poor eyesight) discriminates against him for his perceived femaleness, no man who is trans needs procting by the PC of GR iof no-one realises he is trying to pretend, and a gender non-conforming man is protected if people mistakenly conflate his gender non-conformity as being trans.

Or is gender non-conformity now trans by stonewall law, even if the GNC person insists they are just a bloke in a dress? I forget. The rules change so often...

I don't know about the procedural aspect, but my reading is this is not primarily an attempt to prove the SC wrong. It's a challenge to the Act itself on the basis that now we know what it really means it is incompatible with human rights law.

Surely the right to privacy has it's limits? I have the right not to have Sainsburys post on twitter what was in my weekly shopping basket... but my right to privacy with regards what I was caught trying to steal is somewhat different.

Likewise I have a right to hide my sex as I walk down the street, but if I'm asked to prove it at a toilet entrance then surely there is no issue - either I'm the sex I claimed to be when I sought entrance to the space for my sex (so I gave away my sex by trying to enter, so it would then be silly to demand privacy) or I'm dishonestly claiming to be something I'm not, and I have no right to have my lying and boundary transgression kept private?

We need to know who is trans because that is also a protected characteristic.

The GRA happened after two judgements by the European Court of Human Rights which obliged the UK government to ensure legal recognition for trans people.

Basically, if you can't identify who is trans, how do you protect them under the equality act?

"has left me two sexes at once, which is a nonsense'...

McCloud claims it is the judgement that has left them with two sexes.. when in fact it is the GRA that has left them with the legal nonsense of having two sexes.

The ruling is based on biological facts, the GRA introduced the legal fiction which has resulted in this nonsense.

The GRA opened up the possibility for anyone to self declare their gender, even without the legal change, which in turn led to transphobia being labelled as a hate crime, a protection that does not exist for women, and women being compelled to lie about the sex of offenders, to share intimate spaces with men, to share competitions and awards with men, losing the definition of women / female and having the words removed from policies, legislation and public communication.

The nonsense is not in the Supreme Court Ruling.. it stems from the Gender Recognition Act and everything that followed.

Trying out Genmoji. I’m not sure it’s with the programme yet.

Ah well there's nothing like demonstrating your male entitlement like mansplaining the law and female toilets to women, over the sound of women's voices.

This should be fun

A TRA at the BBC pointed out it is harder to disown a trans'woman' convicted of rape if they are all referred to as "IS trans", whereas "say they are" means all convicted rapists can be disowned because they never said they were trans.

Protection is based on perception, not reality. If I don;t think someone is trans I cannot discriminate based on the PC of GR. If I think they are trans when they are I can discriminate based on the PC of GR.

I am an atheist who was brought up in a christian household. I have once been subject to anti-semitic abuse in the street. That was an anti-semitic hate crime because of how I was perceived, irrespective of the truth of my entire lack of jewsishness.

Can we use correct pronouns yet? These articles sound ludicrous these days.