Scottish Government win review for the right to place men in women's prisons

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-court-battle-to-allow-trans-women-in-female-prisons-rpn2dff79

https://archive.ph/Dw1Wl

'SNP ministers are to fight in court to defend the right of biologically male criminals who identify as women to serve sentences in female jails.
A KC representing the Scottish government told a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday that self-ID policies in jails will remain a “live issue” in a new legal case, suggesting ministers are determined to keep them in place'

'Gerry Moynihan KC, representing the Scottish government, confirmed that controversial schools guidance, which allowed trans girls into female facilities and for biological boys to compete in female sports, had been “withdrawn”.

However, he confirmed that the Scottish government did not plan to back down on its prisons policy, which was rewritten after <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Dw1Wl/www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/nicola-sturgeon-trans-women-isla-bryson-77g8zzbll" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the Isla Bryson scandal but still allows male-born criminals to serve sentences in women’s jails if they say they identify as female.'.

'For Women Scotland had wanted their bid to have the schools and prisons policies “reduced”, meaning quashed by the courts, to be conducted under an “ordinary” procedure, which it was hoped would be quicker, cheaper and more straightforward than a judicial review.
However, Moynihan successfully argued that the case should instead proceed under the more complex route, a move likely to lead to increased costs for taxpayers'
...
'A timetable will be set in the coming weeks with a substantive hearing to decide matters expected to last two days.'

To be strictly accurate, the government also has access to the pockets of thousands of ordinary women- and men- whether they are willing and can afford it or not!

I know it was designed that way.
I don't mind coalitions per se, I grew up in a country that pretty much always has coalition governments but they require politicians with talent and maturity and the desire to make them work and I can honestly not see any of those at Holyrood at the moment (there are a fewer and fewer of them in my home country too).

Forgive me if I am ignorant of the facts.

If the EA is breached is that a criminal or civil offence, or any offence for that matter? The reason I ask (and I don't know...) is that it appears to me that it is not a criminal offence to break the EA law, therefore each individual or class/group detrimentally affected must take a case either to Tribunal or civil court.

As I said, I haven't a clue, I'm just musing, since it appears to me that breaching the EA is very easy for the "breacher" but very difficult for the "breached" to get redress.

If that is the case, it is surely not right, as getting redress is dependent on a person/organisation's etc. means to take it to law. What about Human Rights here?

As far as I am aware the EHRC has enforcement powers but never seems to use them.

I think theyve used them in a handful of cases - sex harassment against McDonalds and anti gypsy/traveller discrimination at Butlins iirc, I'd need to check details

The EHRC can enforce (through the courts) but I don’t think they have much of a budget to do so anymore.

Breaching the EA is a civil offence. However there is a criminal offence within it - I think where someone knowingly makes false statements about the EA to encourage someone else to break it. Which would seem to me to be Stonewall and SNP ministers but I wasn’t very clear. Maybe someone else can clarify? I doubt the police would be interested as they would appear to have fallen foul of that too. So it would have to be a private prosecution but the CPS/PF can simply take over those and drop them.

https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/McDonalds+franchises+warned+by+equality+regulator+to+comply+with+legal+duties+or+risk+enforcement+action+14032025162000

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68304818.amp

Well on the plus side, if it turns out the EqA is wholly unenforced and unenforceable, and that law is just something you follow if you like and agree with it, and the EHRC might moan at you a bit but nothing worse, then we can be done with the whole gender reassignment accommodations, can't we?

They're optional, they're not compulsory, there's nothing behind them to enforce it, so whatever. If we can do this to women's rights and it's fine then this can be done to all rights. At will.

I don't get it. How can someone be given special dispensation to break the law?Is this a normal or usual thing? Why even would you want special dispensation in this case? How come you feel so strongly that men should be allowed in women's prison that you actually want to be allowed to break the law?

So many questions. I will never cease to be astounded at the idiocy of this ideology.

I have a feeling women are considered a special case, in that we are expected to uphold and abide by the law, but actions that disadvantage women are just to be borne uncomplainingly.

The fun part is proving the detriment in court.

When we talk about 'two tier' society, we should be looking at it through the lens of sex.

Take these two cases:

'...11 women tried to report Harkins to Police Scotland as far back as 2012.
Despite allegations of physical attacks, frauds, threats and abuse, Harkins was not investigated by police until late 2019.'
...
'Nadia reported the threats and abuse to Police Scotland. She also played a recording of a phone call from Harkins.
In it, he can be heard saying he would go to her dad's house, drag him out and give him a kicking.
"I was told nothing could be done for me," Nadia said.
"They said there was no direct threat - if and when he did something to call them straight back.
"Nobody took a statement. They did not want to help me'."'

Contrast with:

'Police Scotland's Chief Constable has defended her force's probe into 'Brollygate' calling it an 'alleged crime'.
Chief Constable Jo Farrell was unable to say yesterday when the saga, which has provoked a public outcry, would end despite a possible charge hanging over respected feminist campaigner Susan Smith.
... Ms Farrell who had appeared in front of Holyrood's criminal justice committee, told the Mail that a review into the incident was ongoing.
She said: 'We’ll work through the issues that have been brought to our attention, including that issue in relation to the damage to the brolly and we'll come up with our conclusion and our findings.’
Asked if the case was a proportionate use of police time and resources, she said: ‘We're here to support and allow people to exercise their rights around free speech in a democracy.''

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5435062-susan-smith-facing-charges-for-trans-brolly-spat

Women, don't dare touch the umbrella of a man who is harassing and abusing you. You shouldn't be out protesting and making a fuss just because your rights are being stripped away. Or because you are bleating on about the law again.

Men, you can threaten women as much as you like, just be careful she doesn't go to the media cause that'll cause us grief.

Women complaining about their rights: 'probably racist'.

Men complaining about women: 'give him a grant and a personal police bodyguard'.

Yes. I wouldn't trust the Scottish govt not to try to claim that prisons aren't actually really single-sex, because of the transgender case panel system, and try to throw the doors open to explicitly mixed-sex prisons. The alternative is Personperson and her ilk having to admit that they are wrong, and they would sooner see men raping women in prison than admit to being wrong.

In fact, you could take "in prison" out of my last sentence and it would still be correct.

Fun? To show that mixed sex prisons are dangerous for women? Are you suggesting there is any doubt?

Are you familiar with the use of "fun" to mean "difficult"?

We've not put men en masse into the same prisons as women for 200 years, so there's no statistical direct evidence that we can cite concerning detriment. We have to extrapolate from how men behave everywhere else, and that's classed as weaker evidence.

It's obvious to you and me that putting men in women's prisons is a stupid idea. The challenge is proving it in the face of a hostile barrister who is instructed to pull out all the stops by a govt fighting tooth-and-nail to defend the indefensible with effectively unlimited funds to throw at doing so.

You are suggesting it will be hard to ask women if they would feel intimidated if locked up with violent male offenders? Or that they would find such an environment hostile? And there is plenty of evidence of rape when women have been locked up with male offenders around the globe.

Remember you are arguing for fully mixed sex, not single sex with a few men - that is not an option. So if they cannot justify single sex prisons then the current arrangements would be unlawful.

The SNP focusing on the really important stuff again as health, education, social care and early years burns to the fucking ground.

The people they are seeking to appeal to are Green and Lib Dem MSPs who could be potential coalition partners.

But why are Green and Lib Dem MSPs willing to die on this hill?

Why are the rights of rapists so important to them? And women's rights so unimportant?

At this point is anyone actually left in the Greens who isn't a raving, frothing TRA?

I'm sure I remember the article about the 'plan' for a sex offender in a prison, which was to stick him in amongst some women and see how many he broke, and see whether or not he was cured yet.

You're right. It's pointless trying to explain or have any reasonable kind of conversation with people who have bought into this mania, particularly politicians. They are absolutely fucking batshit. They couldn't at this point touch bottom with a long pole.

After today, I'm waiting for some deluded muppet to announce there's no empirical evidence that murder victims minded being murdered (and whether it really matters if they did) when considering whether it's ethical to lock up a serial killer. Said muppet will probably be running the home office, or the bank of England or something.

Yup, and I wouldn't put it past the Scots Govt to try to argue for fully mixed-sex prisons, using "we have no figures from the UK to prove that women are actually at risk, as opposed to feeling at risk" as reasoning. They are determined to die on the TWAW hill and, if the SC ruling says they can't put TW in women's jails, they will try to abolish single-sex jails.