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?

There's nothing illegal about firmly instructing a man to leave the woman's toilets.

That wasn’t his goal 😝
That was the goal of his paymasters and he was not the only asset they used to bring it about.

https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-brexiteers-brexit-referendum-why-a-sack-full-of-russian-cash-wont-change-uk-brexit-debate/

Quite, but the poster specifically said
“subject to verbal and physical abuse” - which is illegal and might get you a fine or arrested.

A “firm instruction” is not ”verbal and physical abuse” now is it?

Too, you have to be able to tell the person is not a biological woman.
We know that cannot be done with a high rate of accuracy.
So there will always be the wolf in sheep’s clothing that gets taken for a sheep…

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

I am vaguely reminded when the permadim Kate Hoey and her cronies got handed their arses on a plate when they tried to take the (then) Tory government to court over the Withdrawal Agreement, claiming it violated the 1801 Act of Union.

To their non-education (because people like that are incapable of learning) not only did a court agree with them that the withdrawal act did contravene the Act of Union, but pointed out that was fine since parliament is supreme and can do what if fucking well wants. And if it wants to pas a law that contravenes a previous law then that previous law is toast. Which any true Briton would know. So I do wonder where all these people ignorant of the UK constitution are coming from ?

I mean even if they redirect police officers from tackling crime to standing guard outside bathrooms to check no men go in, the police aren’t going to do anything more than challenge anyone that looks unfeminine.

The person can then say “yes I’m a woman”

”right in you go”

Unless we have to show our bits or share DNA or pass a facial recognition AI to get in- which likely would never stand as a law as that would be an invasion of personal privacy.

It’s a bit like when you check in at the air port and how the ban on checked luggage you didn’t pack yourself goes.

Did you pack your bag?
yes

No one is going to say no!

There will be. But if they are found out they risk being accused of various crimes.

If you want to isolate yourself and make your own life more difficult, then crack on. Criminal offences are very much included here.

Women will be very much more willing to challenge though or to report of they do know someone is behaving in a manner that raises concern.

Are you saying that the police shouldn't deal with harassment of women and vouyerism?

Interesting take.

True, which is why the government saying a ban was a good thing as it resets the social convention that only biological women should be using the ladies loos.

But people complying with it is another matter.

DNA testing before entering a toilet isn't necessary nor is genital inspection as social conventions are maintained by social pressures. It's not difficult. Everybody knows their biological sex even if some aspire to be the opposite sex. Decent people don't use the opposite sex toilet because they know that it will upset the majority of people & transgresses the social convention. It therefore follows that anyone using wrong sex toilets is not a decent person at which point other social pressures will come into play so verbal abuse & even physical removal are likely consequences.

No, I am not. Weird you’d get that from my post.

Thank you for the detailed description on how social pressure works in all human societies.

I was talking in the context of it being an enforceable law, which is different from a social convention.

LoremIpsumCici
Too, you have to be able to tell the person is not a biological woman.
We know that cannot be done with a high rate of accuracy.
So there will always be the wolf in sheep’s clothing that gets taken for a sheep

We can't correctly sex men with a high degree of accuracy? Excuse me if I say that is utter nonsense. Can you substantiate your claim?

Yes, still photos can deceive. Carefully curated videos, too. But in real life? No, we can tell.

That's an interesting point - do all laws have to be practicable?
Surely the finest criminal minds are working 24/7 to prove laws impracticable by breaking them and avoiding detection/conviction?

I don't understand your idea of strip searching in advance - people are breaking laws all the time, but that it discovered after the fact - people are not checked or screened in advance in case they might be intending to exceed the speed limit, or might be intending to shoplift.

If it is suspected that someone is breaking the law, that's when action is taken against them, not beforehand, and evidence will be sought to establish whether or not they were doing something wrong.

Take a man using the women's toilets, for instance: as there is no suggestion of policing the entrance to the toilet being either desirable, possible or, in an ideal world, necessary.
Action would only be taken against him for actually being in the women's toilet, just as a driver will only be pulled over when they have actually exceeded the speed limit.

I don't know enough about UK law to say what he could be charged with, but given that the women's toilet is designated for those belonging to the female biological sex, the presence of someone of the opposite sex is
'behaviour...likely to .. cause.. harassment, alarm or distress'
which I believe is an offence under the Public Order Act.

When you have people like AYoungTransWoman blatantly declaring that they are going to use women's single-sex facilities although they are aware that their pre-mediated, politically motivated actions are more than 'likely to .. cause harassment, alarm or distress', as well as being deliberately in defiance of the UKSC, surely they are offending under the Public Order Act?

But the court only has jurisdiction as pertains to human rights. If there is no human right violation,the court does not have any jurisdiction. Si you and the PP are both technically right.

The 2005 ECtHR case was brought by three convicted prisoners & the court ruling was that prisoners should be allowed to vote but the UK government has never accepted this ruling & this refusal has been accepted by the Council of Europe. So my statement is true that no convicted prisoners have been permitted to vote despite the 2005 ECtHR ruling whatever you may have found by Googling.
Your understanding of UK legislation is poor so no wonder that I assumed you were outwith the UK. The government's response to the ECtHR ruling was to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 so that only prisoners who had been convicted of an offence are prevented from voting. Prisoners on remand awaiting trial or imprisoned for civil reasons like non-payment of fines are permitted to vote.

No they are not technically right because they didn’t state for legal matters outside the jurisdiction of ECHR. They have said unequivocally the he ECtHR as no authority over the UK and the UK can ignore all rulings on human rights/the ECHR and one pp even said they have no authority because we aren’t in the EU. All wrong.

we can ignore them because it's unenforceable - isn't that how this works? TW (men) say they're allowed to invade women's spaces because stopping them is unenforceable so by the same token we can ignore rulings from ECHR because they're also unenforceable

or is it only ok to ignore things when it suits the purpose of allowing men to do whatever they feel like?

I am trans because the primary sex characteristics I was born with, and the secondary sex characteristics I developed before I stopped my puberty make me uncomfortable, and feel like they do not belong attached to me.

Supports my point that transgenderism is harmful and immoral. It is completely normal to feel uncomfortable with your own body at some point in your life. It is harmful and immoral to suggest that this makes the person's body wrong. If a person's belief that their body is the wrong body for them is so steering that they cannot learn to live in peace with it, how is their condition any different to that of an anorexic or a person who believes that they are Napoleon? In which case it is harmful and immoral to validate and reinforce their mindset.

Uh ok. My understanding is poor…but you think amending one or more laws in order to comply with an ECtHR ruling is a “refusal of a ruling”?! Sorry but that isn’t showing a good understanding of law on your part.

As a reminder, the ECtHR ruled that a “blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting” is a violation of HR. A blanket ban means zero convicted prisoners could vote. This ruling isn’t saying that all convicted prisoners must be allowed to vote. This ruling is saying a blanket ban where none of them can vote is a violation.

In response to the ruling, the UK changed its laws- overturning the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting to allow some convicted prisoners to vote.

ECtHR says thanks, we accept that you no longer have a blanket ban like we told you.

Again amending laws to meet the requirement of a ruling is not a refusal of a ruling and the court accepting the corrective action as meeting the requirement of their ruling is not an acceptance of a refusal.

(In addition, prisoners eligible to vote CAN register to vote. Your vintage 1983 law and your comment about it saying prisoners are not allowed to register to vote was superseded ages ago. I posted the link to the Prison Reform Trust which is accurate and up to date. It lists not only which prisoners are eligible to vote some are convicted prisoners. It also tells prisoners how they can register to vote.)

I mean this in the nicest way, but you really are not coming across as knowledgable and the little digs implying I’m not British are tiresome and xenophobic. You can be British and not be an expert on everything to do with Britain. Most of us are not experts on everything, you included.

That's an interesting point - do all laws have to be practicable?

What would Cnut say ?

No, I’m not saying we ignore. I’m saying that this ban can’t realistically be enforced as a criminal matter because enforcement cannot be put into place as a practical matter without violating other HR and laws.

Compliance with the ban is only possible through social convention that in the real world some antisocial sorts will ignore and go into whatever bathroom they want to.

On a side note, rulings from the ECtHR bind nation states not individuals. It’s not criminal law but a matter of international diplomacy and treaties. There is no “by the same token”

For a law to be a good law it must be practicable and enforceable.
Otherwise they are not worth the paper they are printed on.
In other words, the ban while good is only winning a battle, not the war.

The men are still very cross about it I see.

So do you feel this way about all cosmetic surgery?

No nose jobs because it is immoral and wrong to want a different nose?
No tummy tucks because it is immoral and wrong to not like what pregnancy or a period of obesity did to your stomach?
No breast reductions if you don’t feel comfortable having large breasts?
No Botox or facelifts because you have to love aging and your wrinkles or you’re not a decent person?

There is body positivity and then there is you are immoral if you don’t love everything about your body extremism like yours that I think can border on the toxic.