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?

It cannot be enforced by the state and vigilante citizens attempting to enforce it are illegal.

Yes I agree with you completely that many people have irrational hatreds, but I'm not one of them.

I have based all my comments on reason and fact - show me where you think I expressed hatred.

The only emotional element in my comments has been regret that young people are being misled into believing - as you apparently still do - that they can change sex, and using surgery and hormones in a fruitless attempt to do the impossible.
You're just going to end up a different kind of man, a transgender man, a transsexual man, but a man, not a woman.

It's very revealing that you haven't even attempted to respond to any of the facts I put forward, falling back instead of the Old Reliable 'irrational hatred' line.

Scientific facts are a bit of a problem for you, apparently, so your only solution is to ignore them.

Men, whatever their self-declared identity, should use facilities for men, or facilities provided for anyone to use. If they use facilities supplied for women, they are at best disrespectful to women. We do not only have laws that are universally enforced.

Yes it has.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/hungary

As with any country, they have the opportunity to make a case they are not violating any human rights charters or treaties to the ECtHR. It is a judicial process. Formal rulings have to date, been accepted and implemented by Hungary.

Yes they should, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it is a ban that cannot be enforced. It is a bad law because it is impracticable. There is no way to check or screen people to see if they are obeying it or not without violating privacy (strip searches).

YOU are ignorant of UK law. The UK is under NO obligation to follow ECTHR. It can consider what the ECTHR says but it is under NO obligation to follow it. The UK is its own country with its own laws. It is not part of the EU. Stop spreading misinformation. You are just another TRA grasping at straws but too bad, you are on the losing end. Deal with it.

So what human right article states men must be allowed into female spaces if they claim to be women? I must have missed that bit?

I don’t know. I have asked the same question as you earlier on the thread,
I asked on what basis? To the poster that claimed it was only a matter of time before they struck down the ban.

Other posters replied by saying the court has no authority over the UK - which is incorrect misinformation and what I was clarifying.

I don't recall there being much of a problem with men going into women's spaces before the Equality Act 2010. Why should we expect there to be a problem now? Is it that respect for the law has dwindled? Or perhaps that in some circles respect for women has all but disappeared?

Why should there be a need to check or screen people? We have had public toilets for over 100 years & there has never been any need to police who uses which facility. It's entirely a social convention that no males are permitted in the Ladies & no females in the Gents. Everybody knows this & all decent people respect the social convention.

The EU has nothing to do with the ECtHR or the ECHR and I am not a “TRA” for correcting misinformation on legal obligations.

I have posted the UK Government webpage stating that the UK, as signatory to the European Charter on Human Rights (ECHR) [not to be confused with the UK’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission] is obligated to implement any ruling by the ECtHR. Here is is again.

The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

In 2005 the ECtHR ruled that the UK was in breach for not allowing prisoners to vote. Do you know how many convicted prisoners have been able to vote in the last twenty years?

Well exactly, the ban is merely a public statement that we should all follow social convention.

We know for a fact there has never been any checks on the rate of compliance with social conventions and that no one has ever been prosecuted for using the wrong bathroom.

It can’t be enforced, so it’s never going to be criminalised.

It's easy to mix up
the ECHR = European Convention on Human Rights which is not 'The EU' or 'Europe', it predates the EU and was founded by the UK amongst others;

the EC[t]HR = European Court of Human Rights which enforces the ECHR; and

the EHRC = the UK's national Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I don’t know how many, but in response to the 2005 ruling that the UK’s blanket ban stopping all convicted prisoners from voting the UK changed the law to allow the following prisoners to vote:

• Unconvicted (also called ‘on remand’).
• Convicted but not yet sentenced.
• A civil prisoner.
• Serving a default term for non-payment of a fine.
• Committed to prison for contempt of court.
• In the community on home detention curfew (HDC) or released on temporary licence (ROTL).

The ECtHR has yet to rule on whether this overturning of the blanket ban to restricted voting was insufficient. Given it has been 20yrs, I would presume they were happy with the changes the UK implemented in response to the ruling which ended the blanket ban on convicted prisoners not being able to vote.

The hinge word there is "convicted".

Previously "people in prison" weren't always prisoners. They could be on remand (for example) and therefore their inability to vote was indeed taken as an infringement of their rights as interpreted by the court.

So with a little administrative flourishes, a law was passed that allowed "people in prison" who were not prisoners (i.e not under sentence of law) to vote.

It wasn't the principle that was objected to. It was the fact that the right to vote should only be removed by (or as) the verdict of a court. And this because all rights are qualified.

I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding.

As an aside, the UK has myriads of international treaties it has signed over the years. And (just ask the Chagos islanders) it hasn't always abided by them either.

Or leave it.

Which is much easier if you aren't in the EU.

Those transgressing are likely be subject to verbal & physical abuse & if significant numbers of men dressed as women refuse to follow the social convention established for over 100 years then use of wrong-sex facilities will be criminalised.

Yes the government could withdraw from the ECHR, but that would likely take an act of Parliament with no challenge from the UK Supreme Court…

As it hasn’t happened yet, the UK is currently still under obligation to abide by the ECHR and to implement any rulings by the ECtHR.

It can’t be criminalised because it can’t be enforced.
Unless we become a complete police state and you have to share your DNA just to enter a public toilet?

Also, verbal and physical abuse by vigilante citizens is illegal and can be enforced - as it already is under public order offences.

A change of government to Reform would make that more possible.

This is the gamble.

Oh good. I see Google works in your country too. Unfortunately the answer you got is inaccurate.
The answer to the question of how many convicted prisoners have been able to vote in the last twenty years is ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. The UK government has refused on principle to allow convicted prisoners to vote despite the ECtHR ruling

Section 3 of the amended Representation of the People Act 1983 prevents convicted individuals detained in prison and mental health hospitals from registering to vote in UK Parliament and English, Welsh and Northern Irish local elections.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/3

But unlikely even if Reform did win. Farage has not once delivered on any promises he has made his entire career. His party are a pretty motley crew of agitators and provocateurs they aren’t going to have the faintest idea how to implement anything they have promised. The fact the Reform manifesto was entirely an unfunded impossible dream sheet was clear evidence they’d be yet another complete disaster.

Sorry you are wrong and quoting a 1983 law concerning registering to vote is ridiculous.

I am in the UK btw and my info is from the UK Prison Reform Trust, not google.

Google is probably how you found your 1983 law which predates the 2005 ruling and the 2017 changes the UK made…which closed the case with the EctHR in 2018
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/adviceguide/voting-whilst-in-prison/
and see this for a full history lesson that should bring you to the current millenium
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/CBP-7461/
“Following further calls from the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to resolve the impasse, the then Secretary of State for Justice, David Lidington, published proposals in November 2017. These proposals were more limited in scope than those included in previous proposals. The main change proposed was to make administrative changes which allowed prisoners released on temporary licence to vote. In December 2017 the Council of Europe welcomed the proposals, agreeing to them as an acceptable compromise that would address the issues raised by Hirst (No 2).
The Government intended to implement the proposed changes by the end of 2018. It agreed to report back to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers by September 2018. The Council of Europe confirmed that the case was closed at its meeting of September 2018.”

Don't underestimate him either though.

He DID achieve his goal of leaving the EU.

Ultimately Farages new key goal involves leaving....