Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

[fromorbit]

After raising over 418K it turns out the GLP's amazing legal case is all about toilets. Details:

https://archive.is/TWRTl

No doubt it will fail like most of their previous legal cases.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5336208-good-law-project-suing-the-ehrc-and-bridget-phillipson-letter-before-action?page=1

Cos every court day is a pay day for a barrister.

You assume they are there for moral reasons rather than because it pays the bills.

Tribunal Tweets published their reporting last night as some of you are aware.

Here is the direct link to the morning session.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tiez0X8g3QHyWm6N83TGkMb0PLHEcr2b/view

All documents available on their substack here:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Here is the direct link to the afternoon session.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x0Aq_P-8koYT-5Cvrp4ltcm3tLo3rvJW/view

All documents available on their substack here:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Reading the GLP barrister’s arguments took me back to the first time I saw a scolder take over a thread here. I was really interested to see the other side’s arguments as I was concerned my personal circumstances (parent of trans identifying teen) may be blinding me to other perspectives. I was flabbergasted to find that they had NOTHING. In fact I was doing a better job in balancing views in my head with residual “be kind”

My jaw was on the table last night when reading the TT notes- the sheer incoherence and desperation of the arguments - and my expectations by now were already through the floor.

Much like the arguments a small child might make when trying to avoid sharing a treat with a sibling

Those claiming to be the opposite sex would have a better argument if they said using disabled facilities was discrimination against the disabled. As they never consider anyone's rights but their own it wont have occurred to them.

May be that is why they struggle with the concept of SS spaces to protect women’s dignity (as well as safety and privacy)?

they’re not doing the cosplay though, which invalidates their girly feels

There's plenty of barristers who don't care where money comes from. Women's dignity really won't be a top concern for many.

They're trying to do two things.

Force an interpretation of the SC ruling that forces a corresponding change in the guidance.

Get a declaration that the Equality Act, as now interpreted by the SC, is incompatible with the HRA.

A declaration of incompatibility doesn't force HMG to do anything, but it's a signal they could get an adverse ECtHR decision later on (which also has no enforcement mechanism - see prisoner voting rights).

So Goodwin is still relevant and I can see why Croft could be too. Disapplying the GRA to the EA has taken away a lot of what was supposed to be a solution to the problems of those cases.

As can be seen by the thousands upon thousands of girls raped by grooming gangs - and yet not enough to stop the feeling of those men being considered more important.

Fremdschämen v schadenfreude!

The rapes and assaults continue, it’s not a historical event.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709ypzr8xlo

It is not where the money comes from that is my point though. I totally agree barristers must represent the most appalling people and do the job of defending them to the best of their ability. It is the only way we can have justice. I mean the arguments they use - arguments that even a first year law student would know are false. That they must know the judge can only dismiss out of hand with incredulity that they even raised them. That they may not recognise the idea of women’s dignity needing protection because they do not understand the concept of dignity.

Indeed. And still they try to sweep the inquiry, that they never wanted, under the rug.

And the cleaner of the opposite sex argument actually works against the GLP, as they always put a sign up to warn users that there’s someone of the opposite sex in there, so they can make the choice whether they want to use the facilities in the presence of the opposite sex. It actually underlines that everyone knows that some people do not want to, and possibly even cannot, share facilities with the opposite sex.

I agree with what they are trying to do but I disagree that Goodwin and Croft are relevant.

The Supreme Court states that Goodwin was satisfied by the GRA and is therefore dead. And the Judge in this case has already said that Crift is dead as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

100%

RIP Goodwin
RIP Croft

Literal violence.

They want to take a trans case to the ECtHR. I don’t know if that’s possible with this one but that is their ultimate goal I think.

A TIM ex-judge, Victoria McCloud who now lives in Ireland, is bringing a case to the ECtHR. I can't remember what his spurious grounds are. But it will take more than half a decade to grind through, even if he is given permission for it to proceed. I think that happens next year some time. (You can look it up, I'm a bit hazy.)

GLP haven't found a grift to go up to the ECHR yet, AFAIK. They need a person to bring a case. And AFAIR, that case needs to go all the way up the British system before they can go whining to the ECtHR. And then, as a PP noted, there is no legal obligation on the UK to follow the judgement.

From TT

We are back at the Royal Courts of Justice today for day 2 of GLP judicial review of EHRC interim guidance issued following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court decision.

Our coverage from yesterday here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Edited because I posted yesterday's first post by mistake.

I thought they’d been refused permission to live tweet?

Apologies that was yesterday's first post. I made a mistake. I have edited to post today's first post.