NHS Scotland defied Supreme Court ruling to uphold trans policies

[Igneococcus]

Do they really consider themselves to be above the LAW?
https://www.thetimes.com/article/5a56d5bc-506f-4019-96bb-1638808cecee?shareToken=88794f16caad00af87e94df2ed987241&ver=article

A banana court ruling that goes against the ECHR (UK is signatories of) should be challenged. It wasn’t based on science or real world evidence and should be taken to the ECHR to ensure trans people’s rights are affirmed in law. (Something in which the captured transphobe) legal system isn’t doing.

Good on them and hope there is further objection.

🤣🤣🤣

Banana court!

Is that one held in a kangaroo republic?

You wouldn't recognize proper science if it bit you on your bahookie.

What's that Skippy? Transwomen are Men? Too right mate!😂

The ECHR cannot and will not override the ruling of a SC in a sovereign nation, which we are by the way. If GLP try to tap you up for a donation in order to take a case to them, don't fall for it.
NHS Scotland can and will be taken to court over their decision because they also cannot override the ruling of the SC.

Oh bless you 😂

Masha is here to talk scribble again
Silly sausage

Yes apparently so. They think they can get away with this on the quiet, like SPS thought they could ignore the law and keep putting men in women's prisons. It's so depressing.

I'm so grateful, again, to FWS for fighting this.

One wonders what sort of “reputational damage” they were concerned about, given that NHS Scotland has had its name dragged through the mire on so many occasions recently.

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, if the ECHR rules that a UK law or Supreme Court decision violates human rights, the UK is bound by international treaty to address it. They can issue a "declaration of incompatibility," which generally pressures Parliament to change the law.

Love it.

They won't do it, and no lawyer would dare risk the humiliation of attempting it. But why don't you set up a crowd funder with your little friends and have a go yourself.
We'll be here for you when you lose.

should be taken to the ECHR to ensure trans people’s rights are affirmed in law

Hey, Mash, good to see you!

Two things, if you don't mind answering:
a. What rights do you believe that "trans people" should have that they don't already have?

b. You do understand, don't you, that despite whatever pressure outside forces might bring to bear on the UK Government, it's actually Parliament as a whole which would need to amend the EA 2010 in order to make any changes to the status quo? You know this, right? That no one but Parliament can decide the laws of this county?

Thanks.

The ECHR will not rule that because the SC's decision did not violate the HR's act.
Did you know that most of the Human Rights legislation was developed by lawyers from the UK?

MashaPav's s post is profoundly ill-informed. The definition of sex in English law, with specific consideration of trans people, was settled in 2003, Bellinger vs. Bellinger. Substantial medical evidence was considered. The issue here was whether people with a GRC were their biological sex as far as the Equality Act 2010 was concerned.

If the ECHR overturn the supreme court ruling then the next government will take us out of the ECHR quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.

MashaPav's s post is profoundly ill-informed

TBF I have never seen anything from this poster that was not ill-informed or just plain nonsense.

You have equal rights.

You just don't have the rights of women, because you aren't one.

I'm sorry if that offends you but it offends me even more that people like you want to see women battered by men in Olympic boxing rings and don't give a shit about the extreme activities of the "late developer" and cissy porn fan end of your community who want to be in my changing room.

Please don't let just one post derail the thread. It makes loads of diverse threads all turn into one thing, a centering of one person. This is ironically similar to what happens in so many women's groups: their actual function (knitting, reading, whatever) is displaced by the project of trans inclusion. Just because, in this case, it is a critical centering, that doesn't mean that the dynamic of the group is any less skewed.

That article seems to show that NHS Scotland seemed to lived in terror of reactions from their trans staff and patients. It must have come as a huge surprise that they picked the wrong side to fear legal action from.

Good grief

Masha is still here?!?!

😃

Still here but not all there

confirmed that men who identify as women were not allowed to access single-sex spaces, including lavatories and women-only hospital wards

wasn’t it more that a space that includes men and women is mixed sex? This has implications for building design and may discriminate against women who require single sex provision.

“staff should treat trans people according to the gender role they present”.

Generally employers should not be treating anyone ‘as a gender role’as this implies unlawful sex discrimination. However, I would love to hear an explanation of how they intend to tell an employee that they can’t use a particular (now mixed sex) service because they aren’t presenting properly. Sounds much more of a HR minefield than just providing unisex or single sex services.

“staff should treat trans people according to the gender role they present”.

Perhaps they mean that nurses should all be treated as girls, and doctors as men (especially if they are surgeons).

Yes, I suspect it's a push from the Unions. The private sector has mostly moved away from this ideology due to the legal liabilities and reputational damage but the public sector has no fear of legal challenges because WE pay for it.

There must be accountability for the money especially if they had legal advice they were likely to lose.