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

Is is possible that the present Government might introduce a ‘new’ act that gives the Trans lobbyists exactly what they want? Would or could such a new act, super cede the existing laws?

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.

this. It's really very simple.

It wouldn't even matter if transactivists had a point, you still can't do it.

Firstly you can't put conditions on who's allowed in. There's nothing about being a post op transsexual that puts you outside the 'predator class'. We've seen plenty of post op men who are misogynistic, dangerous or downright criminal.

Secondly, you can't police it, so it's one in, all in.

And thirdly, and I know this is really hard for TRAs, but women have rights too. And the right not to be discriminated against is upheld far more effectively in single sex places.

Not to mention all the other sex based rights that proliferate under the understanding of what sex is.

The reason the Supreme Court found that sex means biological sex, is because that's the only possible way the equality act can work. And even a replacement equality act would have homosexuality and sex in it.

It is quite interesting, though, seeing the way all these laws intersect, and that really, common sense isn't necessarily the first thing that's taken into account when writing them.

And however clever that McCloud judge might be, he is clearly, like all transactivists utterly blind to his own zealotry.

Fortunately

It’s not a concession if it means it completely excludes actual women from entering those spaces, whether that be for religious reasons, because of past physical or sexual abuse, or because they just want privacy from men.
What you’re asking for is preferential treatment.

But McCloud wasn't allowed to intervene for a perfectly valid reason? And HE isn't an ordinary woman. Argh. 😑

The only requirement for being a trans woman is that you are male. Therefore, a trans woman has only one sex - male. Victoria McCloud has no empathy for women, despite claiming to be one.

Presumably McCloud thinks the SC made a mistake because HE wasn't allowed to intervene and he's taken umbrage about that?

He he can't claim his right to a fair trail was infringed (article 6) because he wasn't on trial.

(Too late to edit, but in my last post the first 'he' should be an 'and'.)

That's what I don't understand! Why article 6? Does he think that because he's trans that he didn't get a fair trial in this case. Even though he wasn't involved in the case.

This seems rather important!

Seems relevant

A new Act can repeal and replace an older one.

But the government is unlikely to want that much sunlight on what they have up to now dismissed as culture wars.

And they certainly couldn't bring in a law giving trans lobbyists 'exactly what they want' because even they can't agree what that is (apart from 'whatever we want, whenever we want it, free and without consequence') and some of it is not even physically possible..

I hope you’re right, I just worry that they’ve got such loud and aggressive voices that the present government might introduce a new act of parliament that gives the trans lobbyists ‘additional rights’ to claim in law, that their self determined identity allows them to join whichever sex group they desire.

I know. I'm not a lawyer, I know nothing about this, but even I can read

Transactivists have done this by stealth, one tweak here, an extra concession there, none of it legal.

Can you imagine if the government of the day suddenly tore up the equality act, said sex doesn't exist, and homosexuality isn't real?

TRA's volume and aggression would be dwarfed by the country, if not the whole world, going ballistic.

What @Datun said.

@Datun

That settled my mind which has been over thinking things today.

I’d even thought of what word/phrase Women could adopt to separate us from the facsimile women.

I don't mean to sound terse but what you purpose will take us back to the start of the same loop we have just been round.

What you set out is precisely where we started.

I appreciate that it comes from a kind impulse but it is seriously misguided.

Humans cannot change sex. Their risk profile as members of their sex does not change when they attempt to conceal that sex or present as the other (except that certain data suggests it gets worse).

Honestly, I think that should be the end of it.

The only reason anyone is considering abandoning ordinary safeguarding principles is because they seem to be making some people sad or angry. Well safeguarding will always make some people sad or angry. Obviously it will upset the predators it seeks to thwart and it will upset the self-involved ego are determined to take personal offence to general rules.

The trouble is that there seems to be a real discomfort in the general population with the possibly of anyone, anywhere thinking of them as 'unkind' or the 'bad guy', even where that would serve to protect the vulnerable.

More backbone required, essentially!

It will be the second limb:

a public authority is making a decision that has an impact on your civil rights or obligations

Except he never had the right to be classed as a biological woman, for the (obvious) reasons set out in the SC judgment.

As we’ve all said for years - no-one is taking away a transwoman’s right to have surgeries and dress how they like, but they cannot possibly have a legal right to remove women’s protections simply because of the belief inside their own head.

So no civil right that he ever actually had has been impacted - only the imaginary rights Stonewall tried to blag for him.

It might not be the case that a new case has to be heard by the SC before it can go to the ECtHR (though I think there would need to be a new case): if the SC refused to hear the appeal from a new case, domestic appeals would have been exhausted, so I think it could then go to the ECtHR - if they wanted to hear it.
However, I'm not sure if it has been pointed out that in order to bring a case before ECtHR, you have to persuade the court that you are either a direct or indirect victim, i.e. in the case of a direct victim, your rights have been meaningfully infringed, you have been personally impacted (not just theoretical), or in the case of an indirect victim, you are very closely connected to a direct victim (e.g. you're their parent or spouse, particularly in cases where the direct victim isn't able to bring their own case, either due to age, incapacity or having died).
NoBinturongsHereMate correctly pointed out, though, that the Court cannot directly overrule domestic courts. Rather what it does is rule that the state is in breach of its obligations. It would then be up to Westminster to pass a new law to address the Court's concerns - this is what it did (in gold-plated fashion) with the 2004 GRA. But in the case of prisoner voting rights, the UK dragged its feet for many years (under both Labour and Tory governments) before eventually making some minor adjustments in 2018 which persuaded the Council of Europe that the issue had been dealt with. (The Court itself didn't have a role in that and could still rule otherwise if the issue comes back to it someday.)

Reported in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b2f16b9a-3dc4-4379-a0f4-1df51927c2bb?shareToken=623a43b016dda180494a83c42d75133f

Not many comments yet but I like this one:
"V McCloud says that it isn’t safe for women to use men’s toilets. It follows then that it isn’t safe for men to be in women’s toilets."

I'm at this point sufficiently blown away by how very misogynistic the UK establishment and government is that nothing much would surprise me, but if this happened it would have to involve a full, voted decision that openly set out to remove women's sex based protections in law - because it's been proven they exist, and the problem is that they inconvenience some men who find those protections limit their freedoms to use those women that make the spaces the goal. It would also have to openly intend to remove homosexual people's protections in law and remove protections from trans identified women in law (its only the men who benefit) -

it would be as a PP says, a re writing of or overturning of law not to provide equality but to provide flat out supremacy of trans identified men over women of all identities, and over homosexual people. To provide the right in law of access to a non consenting woman or girl in a state of undress. And this would be a right only granted to someone male, over someone female, because however much everyone pretended that male was female the right and the impact would be sex based. The right of physical access to women and girls' bodies in strip searches, rape kits etc and other acts. The right to enforce a male hcp on a woman who is required to pretend a belief he is a woman. The right to have identity and belief outweigh every other person's beliefs, perceptions, sexualities and rights under law.

The thing about saying this access to women is a 'human right' is that even the most rampant misogynist court would have to consider women's human rights and homosexual rights too.

We have always said here the only thing needed to stop all this was sunlight. We're still fighting for that sunlight, if women had even half the airtime and drama and emoting all over the press and media that the GI lobby has it would make it a whole lot harder to push. People are busy going awwww poor man, how can you be so mean, and not looking at the woman being forced to take her clothes off for the male police officer who is going to demand his entitlement to handle her with no care for her feelings or response, or the women who stay in life threatening relationships because the refuge's most important centred women are the male ones, or the women with nowhere to swim because men have to have all three pools all the time or else.

If this does end up in the ECHR then a lot of sunlight is going to have to happen. Things like biological sex and if it's binary would have to be pinned down. Whether a man does ever have 'female biology' would have to be pinned down and decided on. And if the GRA is concluded to be wholly incompatible with other people's rights - including those of half the population? It could be the GRA that has to go. I'm for it, I think these things now have to be pushed to the end point.

Another problem with a "post op" requirement is - exactly which op? Is someone with a surgically provided "neovagina" who has retained his penis "post op"? Is a woman who has had her breasts removed but has not had a phalloplasty "post op"? Is a man with breast implants "post op"? Is a man with facial feminisation surgery (FFS) "post op"?

It's all cosmetic, and none of it changes the person's sex.

And who is going to check? How?

A man who has had his penis removed still retains male weight, male strength, male entitlements and attitudes, male muscles and hands large enough to strangle. What's that stat again about even small, weak men can strangle a woman while its rare for even strong women to be able to do so?

And how would this affect for example legally a man who has lost his penis in an accident?