SNP in secret attempt to challenge Supreme Court ruling on sex

[Igneococcus]

I couldn't despise those fecking weasels more if I tried:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/89b42f06-fc36-4f06-98b1-d7b93c175463?shareToken=e40f182647b48214917896a4ae34328b

Alex massie in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/a141e493-9d89-4acf-bd90-ffdde990cb4d?shareToken=5142e117d4dd6e87dfe94096e9d012d1

Polanski infected the LDs, strangely towards the end of the coalition. Why then, precisely? An unprincipled charlatan looking for an empty vessel?

You can't hang it all on Hypnotits,creep though he be. The LDs have a long history on this, Baroness Barker was all-in for the GRA, as was the late Lord Goodhart & some of the earliest adopters of genderwoo in Parliament were in the LDs. What changed was that the new membership skewed young & as the LDs have aye & ever been naive & shallow of thought, & were desperate for subs & door knockers, it never occured to the remnants of the PLDP to wonder (especially with Mark Pack weilding such power) if they had in fact espoused a progressive cause.

Post-Coalition could have been the ideal time for sober reflection on a lot of things but simply perpetuating the brand seems to have been the only priority.

I know someone who's worked in the Labour Party and especially the SNP, as well as in the print unions in the 80s.
He tells me the progressive left are a pure echo chamber. As the economic class war was neutered by the victory of globalism and neo liberalism, all that's left is IDentarianism. Which is why the likes of the SNP have gone to the cliff edge, and then over the side, re fighting for TIM rapists in women's jails.
And will fight all day long for this cause.

TBF the Chapels were never what you might call "at the forefront of women's rights", the old Left tended to see women's issues as very much secondary to the Revolution.

That's true, and it's why today women's rights are again secondary.
But the difference then and now is that it was the alpha men in charge who ran the class war, that generation ending with Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond and Bob Crowe.
Today we have the rise and rise of the betas, from Zack Polanski to Lloyd Moyle to Ross Greer.
Maybe even more toxic to women as they can't stop talking about misogyny and toxic masculinity while being purveyors themselves fighting for men in women's spaces.

He said: You’re inviting me to become involved in discussions of complex legal arguments which relate to convention rights.

what the fuck is wrong with male politicians? we have exactly the same response from Bundeskanzler Merz when asked about what Trump did in Venezuela "it is too complex"

if it is too complex for their tiny male brains, then politics is the wrong job for them, especially in leadership positions.

This is a good point. The old unions were terribly misogynistic in that women should stay at home and not take men’s jobs. Different form now, more sneakily misogynistic but still misogynistic. And you’re right that the worst of these beta males is in how they’re smug about how ‘feminist’ they are whilst happily throwing women to the bottom of the scrap heap of rights.

The 2026 classic being Polanski's announcement that any Green telling a woman they're wrong will be penalized for misogyny.
Can't wait for GC Green women to start conversations.
Pretty much everyone else around the table would be up for this charge.
How's that going to work in a party where GC members have been called bigots?

Article in Unherd by Joan Smith

https://archive.ph/hQ7BU

https://unherd.com/newsroom/snp-has-no-right-to-defy-supreme-court-gender-ruling/

Eta it's worth scrolling down to read Lang C's comment.

I predict responses along the lines of "oh we didn't mean THOSE womens should be protected - hateful bigots get no protections from misogyny, only the nice ladies"..

If the definition of women is, er, flexible enough for men to be women, then it's surely flexible enough for the Greens to be confident that any woman trying to assert her rights is actually - a man - and can be properly silenced without misogyny.

Problem solved. GC women are actually men.

Posted this on the other thread about this topic and thought it would be of interest here.

Information on TwiX from Trina Budge (of FWS):

https://x.com/hightreebud/status/2009397900036726834
"If you wonder why @scotgov was influenced by "Convention rights" argument and reverted back to claiming access by self-id, this could form part of the answer. Trans orgs have bi-monthly meetings with officials and regular roundtables with Ministers. No-one else gets this access."

"GC women are actually men."

Green men 😁

My understanding is that while a court can declare a law incompatible with the ECHR the law itself stands until it is changed. So even if the SNP get their declaration (which I thought was normally issued by the European Court of Human Rights) the Equalities Act 2010 as interpreted by the FWS case stands until (and unless) the Westminster Parliament changes it. If that's right, it's nonsense for John Swinney to state that the Scottish Government must comply with ECHR rights. No- the Scottish Government must comply with Scots law, as declared by the UK Supreme Court. Presumably Swinney's been advised on this. Ignoring the rule of law is no more legitimate for Swinney than it is for Donald Trump.

Could anyone who knows more comment on this?

I imagine it suits nationalists' purposes to claim they're the good guys being overruled by London institutions.

the law itself stands until it is changed

I think that's right. But if the court says the law is incompatible with human rights legislation then the Scottish Government will have a stronger argument to delay further changing its policy.

It would also force the UK government to either to defend the EA2010 and appeal such a declaration, or commit to changing it. Either piss, or get off the pot, so to speak.

If you think about it it's a great wrecking move by the Scottish government.

I do not agree with this at all. The defence that the Scot’s parliament are using is a nonsense. The lawyers would have to refer to ECHR case law on the incompatibility argument.

There is no case law, as set out by NC and Foran.

and no realistic prospect of the defence succeeding.

It's also very likely the case that the ECtHR would find that women's human rights are more breached by men in their spaces than men being refused access to non consenting women in a state of undress.

In which case I suspect the ECtHR would stop mattering in a heartbeat, much the way the Supreme Court has. It will only be respected or wanted while it might further a male supremacist agenda.

I agree - it looks like a completely political move to me. Swinney seems to be saying that a Scottish government can suspend the operation of a UK law on the say so of a Scottish court, and for the most moral reasons.

But assuming my previous post is right I can't see what lawful basis there would be to delay any policy change unless there was a prospect of the UK Parliament at Westminster amending the Equalities Act 2010 and there seems absolutely no prospect of that happening.

Some of the reactions to the FWS judgment have been really strange. There was Victoria McCloud who was going to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and said that as a trans person McCloud should have had rights of audience. But McCloud would have known - as a former Judge - that appeal courts deciding points of law simply don't work that way for any appeal and never have. Then there was the senior civil servant Melanie Field who said that the Equalities Act 2010 was designed to protect anyone with a GRC. But as a senior civil servant she ought to know that the Courts don't interpret Parliamentary intention on the basis of what some civil servants say. She's just admitted that she didn't do her job properly. And the UK government's current dithering. They do need to puss or get off the pot.

Well, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I, too, doubt the court will grant such a declaration; and to some extent I think it's just lawyers doing what lawyers do, which is throwing every bit of mud at the wall in case something sticks, however unlikely.

Equality Act (2010)

I wonder if the D-list intellects of the SNP are being bamboozled at their bi-weekly meetings with trans activists that Michael "Yogyakarta Principles" O'Flaherty's automatic right of intervention at the ECtHR will win the day for them?
I do worry that the Court's judges can be rather naive, given that there's no requirement to have held a judicial post, far less to have any familiarity with RASSO. Then there's the fact that though the UK has of late been going backwards in viewing women as fully human, it at least began further forward than some of the countries that supply judges to the Court, say Poland, Spain or Germany.

For my own amusement, I have written to my SNP MSP, Rona Mackay, asking about the declaration of incompatibility. It's my first contact with her so I have no idea if I will get any response or not.

@HildegardP mr O’faherty has no rights of intervention it was just his personal comments of twaddle which has no legal weight or authority anywhere, so no it will not win the day.

as for judges at the level of judicial review, they are senior and experienced and have to demonstrate significant experience as barristers.

RASSO is processes belonging to the criminal justice system, not judging a case before the court.

The application by FWS has nothing to do with RASSo

I meant the ECtHR, hence my mention of judges without judicial experience & from non-UK backgrounds. Whittle, Maugham, McCloud & co keep wishcasting about the ECtHR, & it's bloody obvious that the SNP leadership don't understand it or how one arrives there so I wondered if that Court was a tool of bamboozlement.