New petition wanting to remove protected beliefs

[ThisHangrySheep]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/712741

They’d like Parliament to override the judgement from Maya’s case 🙄.

(Unsurprising that most signatories are in Brighton).

Wonderful! Reveals the paranoia, illiberalism and solipsism of this weird, weird movement.

This is logically true, which they probably wouldn't understand.

I too am very tempted to sign it. The thought of this being discussed in Parliament is so delicious.

I mean that part of it, is VERY VERY tempting!

I've been literally sitting on my hands to stop myself! 😁

Remind me - how many signatures for it to be debated in Parliament? Is it 100,000? I'm not sure there are 100,000 Righteous folx in the UK, so perhaps we disobedient women can #BeKind and start a movement to lend them a hand?

Full 100,000 to be considered to be debated

Bugger, you'll have to click on the image!

The trouble is then these MPs would think 100000 people were that deluded.

Hopefully it will at least get enough for an official government response.

God they’re power hungry nuts

Please don't. That's how the Labour Party got Jeremy Corbyn. They put him on the ballot as the pity candidate and he won (also with conservatives signing up and voting him in for a lark).

Stonewall used to campaign to end the same sex exemptions in the Equality Act and even they gave that up several years ago, when everyone was supporting everything they said.

Anyway, don't trans activists think that rights aren't like pie, and that women's and trans' rights aren't in conflict?

So, rather than getting on with the business of establishing third, gender neutral spaces to meet everyone's needs, they are still trying to take rights from women?

SMH

I don’t suppose they’re allowed to say ‘grow the fuck up’.

I’m not an expert, but asking a government to overrule the decision of a court is surely anti democratic?

ECtHR is the court. Note the "t".(as realistically the NHS is not sustainable unless you invade another country with oil fields),

ECHR is the convention that we signed up to.

But other than that conflation of the two, you are on the right track. IANAL but I cannot see how repealing the "religion and belief" part of the Equality Act could be compatible with ECHR articles 9, 10, 13, and 14. The Govt would have to leave the ECHR and then Parliament would have to vote to repeal the Human Rights Act before they could legislate away the Forstater ruling, because Forstater was about Maya's article 9 and 10 human rights as much as it was about the EA. Leaving ECHR would stop the TRAs from appealing the FWS ruling to the ECtHR. Leaving ECHR would also allow this or any future Parliament to repeal the GRA, the gender reassignment protections of the EA, and anything else that's only on our statute books because of Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002).

TRAs should consider carefully the consequences of what they are asking for. But we already know that they don't do that.

It's almost like they either:

• don't know what human rights are, or
• think that women who disagree with them aren't human.

Hint: it's the latter.

The ECHR also underpins the Good Friday Agreement.

Forget "culture war", you'd be looking at civil war restarting.

Don't be ridiculous. It's Red! 😅

The first e-petition I ever signed was the post Brexit referendum one (the one that got 4 million signatures). After I signed I spent a wonderful afternoon looking through the other petitions available. Some were superb. One wanted to (IIRC) populate the south coast of, I think, Wales with wallabies. Another wanted to make it illegal for traffic to turn right. This is of the same order. The only way that they could do it would be to rule that the belief that men are male and women female is unworthy of respect in a democratic society. Then watch the uni biology departments close. Then the biotech companies. Then the hospitals. Then farms. Also, watch for a growth in companies producing storks (not breeding them, obviously, but in some nondescript way just "producing"). I mean, we have to get the babies from somewhere.

Income stream??

Righty-ho. And what are they proposing to do about the Grainger criteria?

Scrap it wholesale or disapply it just for this specific group of uppity women (and maybe male supporters?) daring to observe reality and give it voice?

If the former, what are they proposing to replace it with? If the latter, are they prepared to make that extremely fascistic, indirectly sex-discriminatory argument in parliament? Do they think it would survive judicial review?

I'm with Kathleen Stock. Most of these people couldn't think their way out of a gossamer bag.

In theory, there could have been important scientific developments since Forstater (hint: no, there haven't) which have rendered her views non-WORIADS. So this law change would recognise that. But why am I working hard to think of a way their crazy scheme could work, when they never, ever bother?

ObvIously I won’t be signing but I do want it to reach 10k just to see the response! A bit like ‘here for the deletion message’ in MN days of yore….

I stand corrected, but I did know that they all go hand in hand...