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

Haven't RTFT, but you have to have the case accepted first.

Very well said.

Yes, ‘Sarah Jane’ Baker. Who was in prison after torturing and nearly killing a teenager , then cut off and ate his own testicles while in prison.

The bit that Kinsters may have missed is that we can’t pick and choose (although I no more want to share the ladies with McCloud then any other man) which man who identifies as a woman to let in.

I completely agree.

This is so evident from the way transactivists have shifted their focus from “we just want to be pee safely” once the EHRC confirmed that additional unisex toilets should be provided where possible, to “well...what about the butch lesbians and mannish women then?”.

It’s especially transparent given the number of comments transactivists have made in the past about Kathleen Stock and other women ‘just being jealous’ because they don’t look as ‘womanly’ and glamorous as the transwomen do with their heavy makeup and cartoonish breast implants.

It’s also evident from the way some transwomen have suddenly tried to weaponise transmen, both by characterising them as the boogeyman coming for women, and by trying to manipulate them into coming into women-only spaces to intimidate us to prove their point (which is misguided anyway, as the SC addressed this issue).

They’re running out of reasons to be in women’s spaces, and they know it.

So he's a trans judge? Not an actual judge, he just identifies as one 😂

given the number of comments transactivists have made in the past about Kathleen Stock and other women ‘just being jealous’ because they don’t look as ‘womanly’ and glamorous as the transwomen do with their heavy makeup and cartoonish breast implants.

😂😂 They’re so utterly deluded aren’t they. As if they’d ever be a woman nevermind anywhere near as glorious a woman as KS is. Silly sad desperate deluded repulsive aggressive men that they are.

I have a law degree but am not a lawyer

thing is mumsnet has given me the opportunity to revisit my academia and strengthen my analysis.

it concerns me that sisters here are still feeling anxious about the win

so I have thought about this all day on my canal boat

Foran has promised to respond re all the legal nonsense being soured

the SC merely stated what the EQA means

parliament are bound by that, but could respond by amending or changing the law

but no indication they will do that

nobody can appeal the SC decision because all they did was state the Law

the only option is now to challenge the law in the UK as it now stands as clarified by the SC

so anyone such as Humpty Dumpty who objects to the EQA as it is now understood

have to go to the court of first instance

ergo judicial review

the court may decline to hear the case not least for no standing or , no peimea fascia case

humpty and co would have to demonstrate that he was suffering some detrimental effect from the EQA

cannot imagine what that would be maybe not allowed in women's bogs or sports or lesbian groups that humpty previously enjoyed

so IMHO this ain’t going to nowhere

They also want, and I think this is important, to make sure that other men are kept out.

I don’t think we have anything to worry about.

if this goes to the ECHR, the UK government of the day will vigorously defend the current position.

So the UK government will be pointing out all the risks to women that amending our current laws will cause.

Sunlight.

Unless of course we elect the Greens.
Or possibly the LibDems.

Surely, as a former judge, HD cannot be so ignorant as to be under the misapprehension that he was on trial? Or indeed, the very nature of the Supreme Court action, in this case?

And much less - as covered so often in these very pages - that individuals are simply not allowed to make submissions? His employers may have made a mistake appointing him as head of strategy, as he appears to be using 19th Century Colonial tactics in a 21st Century war.

I see that I should have read to the end of the thread... everyone has made the same point!

I don't know why a judge would think the Supreme Court needs personal experience of anyone to make a judgement. The judgement was a matter of interpreting the law according to the statutes that law is based on. What someone thinks will happen to them because of such a decision is irrelevant. And I thought Amnesty put the trans viewpoint and so did the Scottish government.

This guy was on R4 at about 6ish today (Tue) trotting out the same tired, BS, arguments about how the ruling actually impacts lesbian women and transmen etc etc. Evan Davies (I think it was) offered some reasonable rebuttals, but they didn’t have anyone on to counter him.

One of his funnier offerings was that he is “anatomically female,” which almost had me snorting my tea with laughter. It’s as well he studied law at Uni, I guess, because medicine / anatomy clearly wasn’t going to be a winner for him.

If you look at the quality of MPs in 2004 compared with today, it's so incredibly depressing isn't it?

Anatomically female, what a very laugh

i do believe in legal terms the word was used about the scientific examination/dissection of a body human or otherwise

so he is as deluded as IW

just in a legalise way

i wonder if synthetic hormones might harm ones intellectual functioning

This is a man who is legally literate enough, due to his former career as a judge, to know he can't bring a case - because he lives outside the UK.

So why is he threatening to bring a case?

The clue is in the word 'former'.

This man left his career because of his political activism being incompatible with his career.

So what is his career now? What is he seeking to achieve here.

This man is probably legally astute enough to know that a case on these grounds is likely to fail - because the case was about the Equality Act and the ruling is entirely consistent with it. It simply can not make sense if sex is not biological. There would be no need to mention single sex exemptions and homosexual rights would fall apart. Not to mention that in order to be trans you have to make reference to your own sex! The problem is with the GRA not the Equality Act. 'Legal fictions' just don't work because of reality and needing definable definitions.

So what's this guy up to?

Think about it and it's obvious. He's not interested in legal recourse. He's politically not legally motivated to a point that he was forced to leave his job. His activism is everything. He threw away his career due to activism

So what gets headlines and propaganda about 'victimhood' from the SC better than threats about the ECHR? Erm... Pretty much nothing really.

This man isn't interested in the law and legal merits (or otherwise) relating to the SC ruling.

This is a guy trying to establish a new career as an activist. He's effectively 'gone viral'.

And that's what this is about - making a name for himself as an activist and profiting in someway from the publicity and notoriety.

It is not about the law. This is a political move.

@RedToothBrush I think you are right

Totally agree. And I was just about to say a similar thing.

He's doing it for back pats and kudos within the community. Being elevated to, I don't know, leader or head TRA guru.

Between him, RMW and Joylon, I imagine there's going to be a fair bit of jostling going on.

Three lawyerly activists. They just need Hayden, and we'll have a full set

I should add that in terms of a political campaigning move, the fact he can't take it to caught is actually an advantage. He doesn't have to prove his case. If pushed he can claim how he is being persecuted because he's not allowed to bring a case. Even though legally he's out of jurisdiction.

It doesn't matter. He still can amplify himself further because of this technical point.

Remember victimhood = legitimacy in this twisted logic.

He's probably doing it for the creditability and gaining some sort of authority. As well as the likes...

*take to court not caught.

(Am literally dosing off as a type).

You're pretty sharp for someone half asleep!

"violated her human rights"

This argument always perplexes me. It seems to sway an awful lot of people to just claim "human rights". So many don't dare question that. But nowhere is there anything written that it is a human right to have biological reality replaces by feelings. Much less the other side of the coin, do other people not have the "human right" to categorize themselves with clear boundaries?

Surely the SC did consider the "2 sex" situation - they described a biological sex and a certified sex. The acknowledged that two might coexist and not interact well. Do I remember rightly that they then put this contradiction back towards parliament? So what would happen then? Is this where the GRC gets repealed? Because the original reason (same sex marriage) is no longer an issue?

Important Context

McCloud is working with Joylon's Good Law Project to attempt to take the case forward.

The GLP previously raised thirty grand to attempt to get Mcloud and Whittle on to the Supreme Court case. Obviously they had no standing as individuals so they were refused. As in many GLP cases money is raised for challenges which have no chance of even getting to court. However the key point is everyone GETS PAID.

I see a lot of people wondering why this case is even being discussed when it seems very unlikely to go forward as McLoud can't intervene in an existing case and seems to have dubious reasons to attempt anything while residing in Eire. Look at all the publicity the case has ha so far and it becomes clearer. This is about fundraising more than legal sucess.

The key element here is the latest GLP fundraiser started after the Supreme Court Ruling has now reached 262,000. This is why it doesn't matter to Joylon or McCloud whether anything actually happens legally. They get to morally grandstand get everyone talking about them while GETTING PAID.

Remember GLP's track record on the 8 trans cases it has pursued so far is a 0% success rate. It has now started another three crowdfunders for a staggering total of 850,000 fundraised from all 11 in total. With absolutely nothing achieved. Details here:;
https://labourpainsblog.com/2025/04/25/trans-rights-help-us-keep-the-good-law-project-going/

In fact because their cases keep failing they undermine the TA efforts. A classic instance is the pointless case against the NHS over puberty blockers which resulted in Streeting doubling down on the ban and cleared any doubts on their position.

From our perspective where gardening results in a string of legal victories the GLP method seems rather odd. However, the profit and publicity motive is key to the TA cause and that is one of its fatal flaws.

If HE were an excellent judge, he'd know that a non-UK resident (he lives in ROI) cannot challenge it. It sounds like he got his law degree from a cereal packet, when even non-lawyers understand this basic point.