European Convention on Human Rights

[JellySaurus]

ARTICLE 8 the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 12 the right to marry, are used as to justify the requirement for the UK government to legally recognise people as the opposite sex. (Redundant, now that same-sex marriage is legal.)

8.1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

But why is 8.2, which is not mentioned in Article 12 but appears in similar form in many other Articles, not used as an argument for removing the GRA from our law?

8.2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Enabling men to access female single-sex spaces has resulted in crimes: women and girls being assaulted and raped. Medical transition causes long-term ill-health. Telling children that they may not be the sex they are, or that they have to pretend that somebody is not the sex they are, is immoral as it subverts safeguarding. Multiple court cases have demonstrated that transgenderism illegally restricts the rights and freedoms of others.

Isn’t it time to recognise this?

Hi OP,

Im not sure I understand the question/issue. Not being difficult- genuinely don’t.

By way of background I worked in immigration law for 12 years and both articles 8 and 12 were cited continuously in claims or appeals that the government (the State) should not be interfering in a person’s (the client) right to family and/or private life by service of removal directions (ie intending to remove their client from the UK). I was fully aware of case law and so on so I understand the convention and the UK’s human rights act well.

Do you mean why is the interference permitted to family life or to private life by the State for the reasons given in 8:2 (8:2 is the permitted reasons for interfering in private or family life) not also permitted with respect to the right to marry?

And if that’s the question, what has that got to do with issues you then raise..?

I don’t know if I’m getting your point right because marriage or more specifically the right to marry is unrelated to any of the points you make about transgender people or educators, sex hormones bring damaging or safeguarding.

Do you mean that State interference should be permitted for reasons akin or identical to those outlined in Article 8.2 in relation to desired transgender specific rights? The State cannot interfere in proposed rights or argument or opinion…The State can interfere, either lawfully, or unlawfully (when it gets it wrong), in established rights and only for the reasons given.

Perhaps you mean that when, let’s say educators wish to educate on transgender issues the State can lawfully interfere (but currently it does not) because other people’s rights are being wrongfully violated, denied or ignored and that it could because of specific parts of the Convention permit lawful interference to the right to education (just like in Article 8)? In that case the Convention right is the right to education not specific educational content …

Or is there something about Article 12 that you think actually enables the issues you raise at the end of your post?

Are you saying that the State should be able to intervene in a person’s right to marry? What does that have to do with transgender people/issues/events?

I’m guessing transgender rights proponents cite Article 8 because they contend that the Convention right is being denied to them, by the State, because they allege that State is violating their private life in failing to provide a legal recognition of “self ID”. I have no idea what Article 12 has to do with that..unless it’s then argued that lack of self-ID lawfully would make it impossible to marry..
Those claims have a sound basis.. (I don’t agree with the actual argument) but it’s saying the State is interfering in an existing right or rights.

But what doesn’t follow from the Convention is that when an individual or a group do things to damage other people that the State can intervene on the basis of the Convention. State interference with a Convention right has to be an interference to that right - not to behaviour/opinions espoused by a lot of people/a few people. The Convention doesn’t turn the State into Big Brother- it’s supposed to do exactly the opposite - to defend and protect personal freedoms. It isn’t intended to enable the State to mediate in opinion.

You could argue that.. this is an example.. that the police failed to act lawfully in accordance with Article 8 in arresting someone for having a private diary in which they expressed views about transgender people but not that it was unlawful for the State not to intervene just because someone wrote something in their diary that was offensive or shocking.

There are no duties for tbe State to intervene in Convention rights. I’m wondering if you are reading 8.2 as a positive duty to intervene in 8.1 rights when the situations in 8.2 occur but that is wrong. No such State intervention is demanded. It merely says IF a convention right (8.1) is to be interfered with it can only be for 8.2 reasons.

We do recognise it here. We have talked about it a lot. We understand that privacy is not a divine right but one which much balance various concerns and risk assessment to limit harms based on their seriousness and the numbers of people they affect.

It's why we are confident that attempts to take matters to court over sex v gender and single sex provision are likely to die on their arse.

The question you actually need to ask is who is choosing to actively ignore 8.2. It's instructive.

Exactly!

Medical transition causes long-term ill-health.

All medical treatment has side-effects and risk profiles. You are presenting known medication and surgical side effects - which are also experienced by cis people who sometimes need these treatments - as an argument that medical transition is dangerous and has no benefit.

It demonstrably does.

Holistic patient-centred cost-benefit analysis of gender affirming care overwhelmingly comes out in favour of medical transition.

Psychoanalytic quackery causes enormous harm and serves no actual purpose. There is no evidence for its efficacy. It is and has always been pseudoscience pushed by individuals with clear conflicts of interest. It is not evidence-based care.

Telling children that they may not be the sex they are, or that they have to pretend that somebody is not the sex they are, is immoral as it subverts safeguarding.

Begging The Question (assumes a reductive definition of sex to erase the practical reality of medical transition, assumes social transition of gender incongruent people is a safeguarding risk using prior assumption) + Motte And Bailey (argument is describing the safeguarding risks presented by cis male non-transitioners, but is used here against all people who have transitioned).

You are using an extremely narrow 'dictionary' definition of sex (either chromosomes or gametes) to make what is actually an argument about complex social behaviours in individuals who are, in this context, defined largely by how they do not conform to sex-influenced gendered behaviour.

First assertion presupposes that the debunked ROGD pseudoscience paper which continues to be promoted by SEGM/Genspect - groups which were founded, as has been proven by leaked emails, with the express purpose of manufacturing a narrative to support bans on gender affirming care - is serious, evidenced and accepted science. It is not.

Gender incongruence has been demonstrated to be much more robust than the early 80% desistence study which sampled across a very wide range of gender nonconforming children, not just those reporting a cross sex identity. That this paper is routinely the only one quoted by conflict of interest holders in favour of a wide range of subsequent, far more accurate studies which did not have this finding, is telling.

Children are not 'told they may not be the sex they are' by clinicians or carers. This is 'gender critical' mythology.

Part of growing up to be a compassionate, socially responsible person who can negotiate daily life without coming into constant conflict and causing offence regularly, is learning socially acceptable modes of communication. There are social rules around how we describe and interact with minority groups to avoid causing harm. Do you tell your child not to stare at or discriminate against people in wheelchairs? If so, you are already doing this. Special pleading to excuse trans-hostile behaviours just because of your metaphysical views is no more acceptable than special pleading to excuse racist slurs against people from Pakistan.

Multiple court cases have demonstrated that transgenderism illegally restricts the rights and freedoms of others.

Not one court case has demonstrated this to be true - 'transgenderism' does not illegally restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

The marriage thing is a red herring as IIRC the Goodwin ECtHR judgment was based on Goodwin's personal paperwork, not right to marriage in his/her acquired gender.

But I think you're saying that the UK should be able to cite 8.2 as justification for repealing the GRA because it is reasonable to prevent anyone from legally changing gender given the various justifications in 8.2, yes?

However, I'm not sure the consequences of transgenderism you describe necessarily flow from the GRA - especially following the Supreme Court judgment. In particular, the GRA has never mandated surgical or hormonal treatment for people wanting to change legal gender.

But it would be really interesting to see someone work up the whole argument in detail, take it to Strasbourg and see what the court ruled.

I think Arts 3, 12 and 14 are done and dusted (no sterilisation requirement, same-sex marriage available, anti-trans discrimination law enacted), leaving Art 8.1, which I read as being about the right to conceal one's biological sex (Goodwin complained that keeping the same NI number outed him to employers).

I don't think we need to point to specific harms to argue from first principles that the objectives of 8.2 are impossible to achieve if anyone is allowed to conceal their sex. A knowledge of sex is needed for research data integrity, safeguarding, medical safety, and policing sex-specific laws, including those that confer sex-based rights. This might be easier to argue now we are allowed to distinguish biological sex from certificated sex or acquired gender.

It doesn't mean repealing the GRA, just amending it to be an act for recognising acquired gender without changing biological sex.

PS 8.2 is permissive only. How will we force our legislature to ban sex-concealment, when the harms are so various in nature?

@ButterflyHatched

Are you sure that you posted in the right thread?

Anyone fancy having a go at Article 9?

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Forstater tells us that GC beliefs are protected by 9.1, as well as being a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. But TRAs say that 9.2 prohibits any manifestations of GC belief that breach laws intended to protect trans rights, and they interpret this as widely as possible (eg misgendering is harassment: debate is victimisation: the creation of a single-sex space (even where parallel trans-inclusive spaces also exist)is discrimination).

We could carry out a similar exercise for the complement of GC belief (let's call it transgenderism for the moment). Manifestations of transgenderism have surely breached some laws, such as those around sexual offences, drug safety, and sex-based rights.

But this approach seems intrinsically weak, when the real problem is that the government has passed a law which enforces observance of the belief system 'transgenderism' and punishes non-observance. This is a breach of 9.1.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

The European Court of Human Rights has found that a person cannot be forced to demonstrate views or behaviour associated with a particular religion. This means, for example, that public authorities should take care when using procedures that involve the swearing of oaths.

The application of the above principle to, at the very least, pronoun usage is obvious.

The GRA could be replaced with a clause in the EA stating that transgenderism is a protected characteristic (to replace gender reassignment and extend the protection to fellow-travellers).

What, though is the belief system I've called 'transgenderism'? And what additional practical concessions would you give them?

You are so full of crap. And considering your views, and how you use hate words like “cis”, says everything about you. I won’t even bother countering you because you have fallen so far down that rabbit hole and it would be pointless since you are clearly a TRA.

I mean it's not really a matter of if, but when, the ECHR strikes down the UKs bathroom ban. It's an unworkable policy that interferes with trans people's right to privacy.

And women's privacy?

Unaffected by trans rights.

The UK is under no obligation to do anything other than say “noted, thanks for your input”. The ECHR doesn’t have any power to “strike down” a Supreme Court ruling.

As noted elsewhere, prisoners still don't have a vote.

Did that go to the ECHR? Sorry I’m not familiar with the case.

You seem to be missing the issue here.

Males using single sex facilities and everyone else having to pretend they something they can see with own eyes is a lie does not have enough popular support to me maintainable.

Especially not in the context of cases like the Peggy Sandie one.

This means that even if it goes to the ECHR and succeeds there will be an enormous backlash.

MPs will still have to change the law in the UK and good luck getting legislation through parliament saying males are females at this point.

If they do manage it, then the payback will be at the ballot box.

And it's highly likely that one of the things put forward will be leaving the ECHR.

So be careful of what you wish for and do keep up with reality. You can't escape it.

The direction of travel is firmly set and each new scandal that arises only serves to aid that.

Some of the attempts to protest so far have done more harm than good too, and I don't expect it to get any better given who seems to have taken the lead on it. It will not gain public support.

Of course they are.

Trans identifying male people demand access to places that are intended for biological women. They haven’t a clue what it means to be female, they think they do but they’ve only experienced a males existence. If they don’t feel comfortable living as a man, they can opt out of their male life but they can’t opt into being a woman as they’ve no understanding of what being a woman means.

One or other has to concede defeat and I can assure you that I won’t be giving up my rights to any men.

It wouldn't strike down the supreme court, it would state that the UK is incompatibile with human rights law. The currently government is bad, but not bad enough where they would refuse to follow the law

Lucky for you trans women aren't men then.

Trans women are women, and we will win in the long run. It's the same as the homophobia of the 80s, I mean you've even got your own new section 28 to pair with it. The similarities are fairly striking tbh

We don't live in your fantasy world and we don't have to believe this.

Sorry.

You can't change sex. No matter how much you want to. Transwomen are males and it is offensive to suggest differently.

Transwomen are men.

Can’t be bothered to expand on this argument because Transwomen can’t be reasoned with.

And no it's nothing like being gay.

This is coercive force teaming and it's a myth.

It's also homophobic to suggest this.

These arguments were being made 5/6 years ago and have been proven incorrect time and time again in law and in practice.

The practical and kind thing to do now would be to accept reality and advocate for spaces for trans identifying men and women as needed but separate from single sex spaces if you don’t want to us the correct services.

You mean the racist woman who wanted to put bacon through Muslims letterboxes?

We are experiencing a roll back very similar to what Thatcher did. We've experienced reactionary politics before and we got through it then. It turns out relentless biased hostile media does change people opinions.

The thing you forget is that young people are overwhelmingly more pro trans as young people have grown up with trans people and know that all the lies that anti-trans people believe aren't true. It's just a matter of time tbh

Lucky for you trans women aren't men then.

Trans women are women...

No, transwomen are male. It's the only way to be a transwoman. They are male at conception, throughout gestation, at birth, life long, at death

Human sex is binary and immutable.

And the word for an adult human male is 'man'.