This is really bugging me, I know it shouldn't but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
appose
/əˈpəʊz/
verbTECHNICAL
place (something) side by side with or close to something else.
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"
Printable View
This is really bugging me, I know it shouldn't but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
appose
/əˈpəʊz/
verbTECHNICAL
place (something) side by side with or close to something else.
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"
Shock, horror probe! A political party pursuing an electoral strategy. Whatever next?Quote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
You're right, the Haldane judgement was a game changer. I remain bewildered by it. A bill which makes it easier for a male to 'become a woman' already had clear implications for women's rights but the Haldane judgement, which means they don't only change their gender but their sex reduces the concept of womanhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity, something anyone can assume should they so wish. Madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
For a supposed feminist like Sturgeon to have so stubbornly insisted we enter this land of make believe, refusing to countenance even amendments like banning sex offenders from changng sex, is mind-boggling. The unhinged nonsense spouted by the likes of Maggie Chapman this week also underlines the perils of making the Scottish Greens your bedfellows. This is a mess of Sturgeon's making no matter how stridently she tries to blame Westminster.
How about running the country in a way that benefits most of its residents? Radical.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sarwar got the right tone tonight on Scotland Tonight. Admitted he doesn’t agree with Starmer. I suspect his backbenchers had words.
Needs to not go into hiding for 24 hours when things are happening though but better non the less.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree, but all parties do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
You realize the bill works both ways right? It also "reduces the concept" of manhood from a biological certainty to a mere identity (if that's your way of looking at it). As a man, I can't say I really care to be honest. If a biologically born female wishes to transition into a male due to the way they identify themselves, that's none of my business and certainly not my place to tell them that they can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
As for "stubborn Sturgeon", she (as pointed out multiple times already in this thread), put forward a bill that was backed by MSPs from every single party in Holyrood. SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour and tory MSPs.
The only "mess" here is the one being stirred up by the 2 main parties at Westminster, who are in a race to the bottom to appeal to as many Daily Express readers as possible. There's absolutely zero justification for the actions being taken here and the "reasons" given for it. Because if there was any justification, a Section 33 order would have been enacted, rather than the nuclear option of Section 35 which allows the UK Government to effectively block any bill put forward by a devolved parliament, covering devolved areas, bypassing the court in the process.
Did you see Scottish Labour's party political broadcast last night? Titled Scottish Labour but no Sarwar to be seen, only Starmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
12 of the 14 organisations funded by the Scottish Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://archive.ph/f0kR9
"Gender bill lobbyists get millions from SNP"
"Scottish charities and civic groups that criticised the Westminster government’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition laws receive millions in funding from the SNP-led administration"
I wonder if there is one single Scottish Government funded charity or civic group that is critical of the Bill? I haven't seen any.
Imagine if this was the Tory's funding these groups and they were coming out against the Bill supporting the UK Gov position, would the reaction really be nothing to see here, I am sure they are all impartial and don't let their funding situation influence their views? Either deliberately or via an unconscious bias. I would say that's highly unlikely, yet we seem to think it won't happen in Scotland but of course it would happen in England.
What do you think should happen to these Scottish Govt funded charities?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Do the SNP also fund Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Is there any part of civic Scotland that supports the use of a s35 order by the Tories?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they are being influenced in even the smallest way by their funding sources that should cease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Do the SNP fund Labour and Lib Dems, I hope not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I have personal experience of many of these groups speaking out and campaigning against the Government on 5 separate occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
They didn't lose their funding over those. And rightly so. They spoke their mind, based on their own experience, just as they are now.
Or Pan-sexuality? Or being non binary, or gender fluid?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Lots of grey.
J
I am sure for many things they do, but on this occasion and in the past something doesn't add up. The accusations of the committee stage being stacked in favour of pro GRA activists and those against it being ignored or not even being called to give evidence. The multiple warnings about how this would impact the Equality Legislation in the UK widely ignored as well and then a coordinated response from SG funded groups all supporting the SG. You add it all together and it doesn't sit well.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I accept I have zero proof so I can't say this for a fact but when you look at this and add in everything else about the GRA it doesn't sit well.
Again only an opinion but it feels like a group of extreme trans activists have hijacked the Bill, people like Maggie Chapman, and they have taken the Scottish Government with them on the ride as seemingly willing participants.
I do wonder if there had been a free vote would we have seen more SNP and Labour MSPs vote against it. I saw one SNP MSPs basically say he had to vote for it as it was a whipped vote.
Agreed.:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
It all about opinions isn't it. Most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Other parties, other Tory governments, have never done it to this extent. To the extent it benefits only the party, and they are damaging the state as a result.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
*Meant to reply to the other poster 😉
What a parochial little vendetta you wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The truth can be boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I have zero evidence but because I stand alone with the Conservative Party something must be wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well come back at me with how I am wrong and some opinions of your own on the topic the thread is about. Can't be that hard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The first poll on this will be interesting, I suspect you will be in the minority yet again. Most people are against this Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’ve been caught-out going on one of my obsessive non-substantiated rants yet again, but on this occasion I’m still right.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Have you? What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeRussell
My opinion is that you don't give a monkeys about trans rights or the women who might be affected by the law. Its all about your parochial vendetta against the SNP and "wee nicky".Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The country as whole is in the **** but oh look, a wedge issue!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
No, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s all about protecting women. That’s why they are all over the other thread about protecting women on the board. It’s a real passion. They are so passionate about it they are now attacking women’s charities and wanting them defunded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See that wasn't that hard was it. My opinion is you are wrong, I disagree with allowing 16 year old children to self ID as a female or male at such a young age and I disagree with the fact convicted sex offenders can also self ID and potentially use it for committing yet further crimes. I also disagree with the path it's taking and the Greens talking about 8 year old children being able to self ID and be given puberty blockers. But if you support that kind of thing that's your right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Maybe you just support it because like others you support everything the SNP do? Works both ways you know.
Do you support 16 year olds self IDing? If you do why? I have given my reasons why I don't.
I don't have any strong views on culture war issues and think a lot of equalities/rights legislation is flawed. I doubt you've noticed but I'm not the strongest supporter of the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I'm also reluctant to argue each and every issue with someone who's views are always going to be transparently biased, every day, in every post, on every issue.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I support the SNP in their aim to make the lives of trans people easier, I just don't support some aspects of the Bill that I mentioned above like allowing 16 year olds to self ID and convicted sex offenders to do the same. I think you will find my views on these issues will actually be the majority position and I am not out of line with the majority of the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Yeah, yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yeah yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Yeah, yeah as in being sarcastic.
As in - I don't believe you are posting on certain issues in good faith and that the only reason for your participation on most threads is because you hate the SNP.
I might be wrong of course and if I am, ah well its only a forum.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
As I said I think my position on allowing 16 year old and convicted sex offenders to self ID is probably the majority position with the public. I have big concerns around what is next, when people like Maggie Chapman have such influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The police are to be informed if a convicted sex offender applies for a GRC, no? That was one of the later amendments IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
And what can the police do? How do they prove the person applying is doing so under false pretences?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e_iOSApp_Other
Guardian editorial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What other rights do you want to take away from people convicted of offences? The right to get a job? The right to access public housing? Bus passes? The right to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Slippery slope is it not?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's their job:)Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
In this case I don't think it is, it is referred to a Sheriff to review it and make a judgment, again though how on earth do you judge if someone is making a false or true application when you can self ID yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No, just the right to self ID after 3 months, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Flipping it round why do you support a convicted child molester or rapist being allowed to declare themselves the opposite sex after 3 months and self IDing this change themselves?
Hold on a minute. Society takes lots of rights away from people who commit offences. In some western societies the state is enabled to kill people. Fortunately we don't do that here, but the idea that restrictions on rights of offenders is somehow odd is just bizarre. Indeed we restrict the rights of people who haven't been convicted. Have you heard of remand? So the level and nature of restrictions on offenders is up for debate. Personally I think it is legitimate to restrict access to the process when a person is accused or convicted of sex crimesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So how does it work? I'm not clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
It doesn’t matter so long as he can keep saying sex offenders and trans in the same sentence so that people begin to associate them together. That’s all that matters here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is from a blog which is run by people concerned with the legislation, but it does walk through the issues and process (so far as it is understood) https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org...tin-amendment/Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just like the 'rape clause'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You are the one who keeps bringing up trans people and sex offenders and linking them. I am not concerned at all about trans people, I am concerned about sex offenders though. Shouldn't we all be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I am intrigued as to why you support this part of the Bill though?
The registered sex offender has to notify the police themselves they are applying for a GRC. Now call me naive but why would a registered sex offender notify the police if they are planning to obtain a GRC if they have bad intentions. Another example of poor legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't see why a safeguarding amendment to stop convicted sex offenders applying was voted down, or at the very least some stronger safeguarding was not put in place.
And no I never mentioned trans people once, it's not trans people that are the problem here, it's sex offenders. (For Oz)
You're correct to point out that we restrict the rights of offenders. Such as what jobs they can apply for and the public spaces they can legally access.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
This would of course continue to be the case, even if they have a GRC. So what's the issue?
Ta :)Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
MBM have a history of being against the bill, so I'm trying to put that to one side. :greengrin
It does, though, give a reasonable view of how things might work in practice. On the face of it, it seems sensible enough, although my non-lawyer brain has a bit of fog around some of it.
Like all new legislation, until we have some experience of how things work in practice, we can't know of any unintended consequences. That's what the review period is for. That said, if some of the more extreme predictions come to pass, I'd hope they'd be brought back to Parliament PDQ.
The reply was in response to Ozyhibby who appeared (although I can't really believe this) to be concerned that sex offenders and those accused of sex offences would have their right to apply for a GRC constrained. This amendment to the Bill was voted down and instead an amendment was passed which introduced the notification and risk assessment requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Some (rather polemical) lived experience https://4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/
I know you are joking, but I find it really instructive to read stuff by people I don't agree with supporting issues i don't agree with. It helps hone the arguments (and sometimes changes my mind). I'm less certain that there would be a quick referral to the Parliament if there were emerging issues. That's partly because of practical issues with legislation and also because this has become such an article of faith that I think it would be difficult to acknowledge flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
People were against repealing Section 28 and gay rights in the 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Looking back it’s ludicrous.
Not talking about being gay in schools, because we’ll “turn” the kids gay.
J
And if they do, so what? A rapist can rape with or without the GRB.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Also, why not 16 year olds self IDing. They are legal adults in Scotland. Stands to reason.
J
I don't see the connection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
This is about allowing or not allowing convicted sex offenders applying for a GRC?
Snap. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
But even if they have a GRC, they are still a convicted sex offender and the same laws and restrictions will still apply to them. There seems to be people who think that a GRC will allow offenders to circumvent restrictions that are placed on them following their convictions. This simply isn't the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I wonder if that's what is driving FM now, given the SNP's opposition to elements of the repeal of section 28? Maybe some remorse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
But this is a new law, so the same laws don't apply as this law doesn't exist today. I am sure if someone convicted of a crime that very likely involved lying and manipulation sees even the smallest advantage to be gained they will take it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for greater safeguarding to be in place. I guess we will just need to agree to disagree on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Why would the SNP of today have remorse over opposition to elements of a bill by members of the SNP in the 90s?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
This may be a new law, but it has zero effect over already existing laws pertaining to the restrictions that are already placed on convicted sex offenders. There has been over 5 years of parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that this is the case, which is why the bill received cross party support right across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The 39 MSPs who opposed the bill are not interested in reforming the bill further, they just wanted to delay the bill indefinitely.
That's a telling phrase. The reason women's rights groups expressed such furious opposition to this bill is because making it easier for males to 'become women' poses a far more significant threat to women's rights than a female 'becoming a man' does to men's rights (such as they are). The UK government is correct to have taken the action they have to defend women's hard-won freedom of association from those who deemed this peculiar, unpopular bill a good idea. To erase the very idea of womanhood is to erase women's liberties. Just because a man says he is a woman doesn't make him one, no matter how loudly those who seek to dismiss biological reality claim it does. To denounce those who stand up for that biological truth and women's rights as somehow transphobic is desperate stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
As for the supposedly harmonious cross-party backing for the bill, I think I'm right in saying the Tories were the only party to allow a free vote. It would have been interesting to see whether it would have enjoyed such backing if the whip had been withdrawn, with the unprecedented SNP rebellion hinting at a deeper concern over a bill which IMHO transcends political allegiance.
Well not just elements of the SNP. The amendments in the Parliament to reflect the special status of marriage were led by now FM. It's interesting to look back on section 28. There was a very widespread keep the clause campaign. The main SNP funder led a campaign to oppose the bill, including a privately funded referendum. There was chatter at the time that the SNP used the Catholic church's opposition to the bill to drive a wedge into Labour voting heartlands. Arguably this was a smart long term strategy from Salmond. I think it's too strong to say this was a turning point, but I do think it was significant on the growth of the SNP. It might have been cynical, but it was effective in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Souter is a complete ****bagQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
The UK government took the cowardly action of blocking a devolved bill from reaching royal assent without legal scrutiny, as they were afraid that they were going to lose in a court of law. Hence the use of Section 35 rather than Section 33.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
In doing so, they've effectively opened Pandora's box. What's to prevent them from enacting section 35 whenever a devolved government implements something into law that they simply don't like the look of, even if it has no effect on England?
There's your "union of equals" right there.
What's that got to do with what I posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Re your own point, the more obvious conclusion to be drawn from the first deployment of a section 35 in the history of the Scottish Parliament is that this is a uniquely ill-advised piece of Holyrood legislation.
Within 5 years all parts of the UK will have followed Scotland’s example on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd say, and a lot of others have too, is the more obvious conclusion to be drawn is the Tories were looking to pick a fight for political/electoral reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I don't think their recent legislative history in general supports an argument they were opposed to it because it's 'ill-advised'.
Maybe, if the bill is properly amended so that it doesn't erase the idea of 'woman'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
For someone who consistently claimed nobody cared about this legislation you've become one of the most prolific posters on the subject.
Does the bill erase the idea of women?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So that would effectively roll back the 2004 legislation as well then?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
As I've said before, a big part of the opposition to this bill comes from those who just don't recognise transitioning at all.
If it was "ill-advised", why not use section 33 as i'm sure the court would have concluded this. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Lord falconer and Dominic Grieves debate on drive time on radio Scotland.
Seems clear that there is no change to whether those people who run refuges can prevent people accessing such places.
Yes, because it no longer limits human sex to biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No, because that legislation does not indulge the pretence that it's possible to change your biological sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Standing up for women's rights is not transphobic and does not mean opponents of the bill don't recognise tranisitioning.
Nor does the Gender Recognition Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Totally. If you were looking to see which party was using this as a culture war battle (ie a distraction) you only have to look at their track records. Which politicians are more prone toQuote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
"Anti-Woke" bogeyman stuff? (..and bogeywoman stuff, just to stay on point...)
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
According to the Haldane ruling it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
"Gender Recognition"Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
"Biological Sex"
None of this about changing a person's biological sex. It's how you're choosing to interpret it.
Lady Haldane’s ruling says that a GRC obtained under the existing rules, ie. absolutely nothing to do with the new law which is blocked anyway, changes a person’s legal sex. So what you’re scared of is already the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I disagree with some of what this lady says, but equating her (who started an organisation against section 28) or Joanna Cherry of being like on the wrong side of section 28 is daft
https://mobile.twitter.com/joannacch...41573284036623
Joanna Cherry KC
@joannaccherry
My constituent Sally has written a very personal piece explaining why many #lesbians fear self ID & worry that gender identity theory forces lesbians back into the closet & enables #lesbophobia. I applaud her courage & eloquence
But only established by the court just before stage 3 of the Bill. I think a pause would have been helpful to consider the implications of that as it wasn't clear before.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
IIRC the Haldane ruling centred on a more recent piece of legislation regarding gender balance on public boards. For Women believed that this conflated with the Equality Act (which includes separate protections on the basis of gender reassignment and sex). They won their initial court challenge but believed (rightly IMHO) that the SG's commitment to reword the guidance notes failed to remedy the anomaly. Last December's ruling was, as far as I am aware, the first time it has been spelled out what a GRC does - a crucial development ahead of the GRA vote. Invevitably, those backing the bill claimed that we'd all known for years what it does but that simply wasn't the case. I cannot imagine the earlier legislation would have passed muster had it been made clear that a GRC results in a change of sex. That's why Haldane's ruling was so controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
As Susan Smith of For Women pointed out after the ruling: "We asked the Scottish government if they could give us their interpretation of what it meant for someone to have a GRC, and they said it was a simple administrative change and made no difference. And then they went to court and argued the opposite."
This page from May 2022 is consistent with Lady Haldane’s judgment from December. I haven’t read the equality act but from the 2 things, it seems to refer only to sex and that sex is determined by birth but can be legally altered by a GRC.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...sex-and-gender
I see Alistair Jack is refusing to appear before the Holyrood equalities committee. Apparently it’s not his job. So much for working together for a solution.[emoji849]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Says it's nothing to do with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The constitutional committee have sent an invite now.
Badenoch has been invited to the equalities committee.
Personally I think UK Ministers should take up the Committee invitation. I also think Scottish Ministers should reciprocate when invited to Westminster. That is the grown up approach. I do wonder, however, whether there is a nervousness about this with the upcoming judicial review. If you were a lawyer what advice would you be giving Mnisters about making statements that could be used in the JR? I genuinely don't know the answer to this.
Of course they're nervous. If they were confident, they would have used Section 33.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Cherry makes a good point here:
https://www.thenational.scot/politic...nge-post-indy/
Can't access the article. What does she say?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
So you keep claiming. I'm not going to pretend I know that that is, although it rings a bell with regard to a grim stand-off with the landlord of a flat I was renting many years ago. I guess there must be innumerable section 33s though.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
I didn't know what an s35 was either until a few weeks ago, but whichever 'section' most effectively puts a hold on bad law makes sense to me.
Joanna Cherry: Gender bill might well have faced legal challenge in an indy ScotlandQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
EVERYONE knows I am opposed to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. However, I believe the problems it creates should be addressed in Scotland if not by our Parliament, then by our courts.
That said, to describe the use of the Section 35 power to block the bill as an attack on devolution doesn’t really make sense. It is of the essence of devolution that the devolved Parliament is subservient to the UK Parliament that’s why we as nationalists want independence.
In an independent Scotland the passing of the bill by a parliamentary majority would not necessarily have guaranteed that it would have become law without further challenge.
If we were an independent country with a written constitution, I predict this bill would be facing a legal challenge based on the concerns about its impact on equality law and human rights.
If you cast your mind back to the summer of 2014, you will recall that the transitional constitution (published in a white paper with a foreword by Nicola Sturgeon) enshrined the protected characteristics of the Equality Act and the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Scotland’s new constitution.
Those protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in a hierarchy but all deserving of equal treatment.
So, let’s have a little bit less hysteria and more cool heads. The women, the old ladies, people with disabilities and those who are same-sex attracted who have valid concerns about the impacts of this bill are as deserving of having their voices heard as the trans people whom it may benefit. They don’t deserve to have their voices drowned out by this issue being turned into a constitutional foootball.
I am not opposed to simplification of the process of gender recognition for trans people, as was promised in the SNP manifesto, but simplification should not mean eliminating safeguards. The First Minister has said repeatedly the bill gives no new rights to trans people. That is correct. You will search in vain for the word “trans’ in the bill. It’s not there.
Instead, the bill creates a new right for anyone to self-identify as the opposite sex with next to no meaningful safeguards. It’s pretty obvious that giving any man the right to be able to self-identify as a woman will impact on the rights of women to safety, dignity and privacy. And, for lesbians, the fact that any man can say he is a woman poses a threat to our right to be same-sex attracted.
Let’s just remind ourselves of the sort of safeguards to the bill that were voted down in the Scottish Parliament. An amendment to prevent known sex offenders from obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC); an amendment to prevent those awaiting trial on sex offences from applying for a GRC (which would have protected rape victims from the humiliation of having to use female pronouns to refer to their attacker in court); amendments to protect vulnerable women in prison; amendments to ensure those receiving intimate care could elect to receive it only from members of their same sex; amendments to allow the continuation of single-sex wards in health care settings.
Are we really saying this is acceptable and justifiable?
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Just a regurgitation of old arguments then.
Thought there might be something new in it.
I thought the observation that the bad law was likely to be challenged irrespective of the challenger was quite astute.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Aren’t we at the point when it’s almost all regurgitation of old arguments from both sides and even those in the middle?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
And I’m still confused.:greengrin
She argues her case well as always and given that she does have a legal background her words carry some weight. Up there with some of the best stuff from people with opposing views. Strip out the needless party political point scoring and there has been some really good debate around this.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
She makes the point that if we were an independent country it would still have been challenged. I don't think anyone has argued that wouldn't be the case tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
You only need to look at the laws challenged in the last 10 years to see that.
We'll still be able to challenge laws made in an independent Scotland.