The Trans Rights Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I don’t think it’s legality has been challenged?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Semantics. Whether it impacts on non devolved laws, but you know that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.

---

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Agree with regards to the unions. In regards to this legislation will you retract that opinion if the court proves its not legal

---

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:

Quote:

---

If a Bill contains provisions—

(a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or

(b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters

---

Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:



Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

---

Semantics again. If they lose the court case will you say fair enough it wasn't competent.

Starmer is correct in waiting for the courts to decide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

That’s what it will look like in front of the 5 women on the committee.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Well if he frames his comments and answers carefully it could be quite effective. Tories on the Committee will feed him softballs and if he wants to go for the jugular he would keep bringing up Maggie Chapman's comments to get them on the official record. Sadly the point of the meeting will be all concered trying to get their soundbites on the news. He's got plenty to work with. Whether he would be any good at it I simply don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

And yet because of how this has been approached they have been given the space to do this. Incide, do you know what the 'rape clause' is?

---

I found this site to be very informative on the rape clause.

https://www.womensaidni.org/everythi...w-rape-clause/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

Firstly, it's legality is not in dispute and Holyrood's competence to legislate on it is not in dispute either. If it were the UK gov would be using section 33 of the Scotland act. Section 35 gives them a veto:



Clearly (b) is in play but it's a practical implementation based judgment, not a letter of the law one.

Secondly, Starmer should be standing behind his Scot Lab colleagues who notwithstanding some dissenters voted as a party for this legislation, whatever his personal feelings on the issue.

---

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I suspect the poster was anticipating 'democratic outrage' argument if the SoS didn't attend. FWIW I would attend if I was him. It would give him a platform as a defender of womens rights in the face of attacks from Committee members. Whether that is justified isn't the point. SG actions allow him to frame it that way.

---

Sounds like he's made his mind up then. :greengrin

FWIW I'd like the SOS to attend, as I'm sure the women will eat him alive. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

I found this site to be very informative on the rape clause.

https://www.womensaidni.org/everythi...w-rape-clause/

---

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Maggie Chapman is one on the committee and she's the current laughing stock of the press and social media just now. A free ride for a politician right now opposing that fruitcake

---

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

---

Yes, I agree and I think you've got it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I suspect Jack knows what sex he is, which gives him a head start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think the reasonable grounds issue is quite a low bar. If the UKG law officers give the SoS advice to that effect then does that provide reasonable grounds? I don't know. But as I understand it, SG has sought a judicial review of the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that a judicial review would test if UKG a) had the power to act (they clearly do) and b) whether it was reasonable. Have I got this right?

---

Predicting legal cases like this is a mugs game. There is so much open to interpretation.
I looked at Jack’s document yesterday and thought there appears to be nothing in it but the law might just interpret that there doesn’t need to be and what the SoS says goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Semantics again. If they lose the court case will you say fair enough it wasn't competent.

Starmer is correct in waiting for the courts to decide

---

It really isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I give you that as a score draw v Alistair Jack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Different sport they are playing. Jack is mentally competent but an evil money grabbing spiv. Chapman is just not in the real world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

---

Carefully made, due to the callous Tories taking away benefits from families who need it.

There are many other issues on the removal of the child benefit for families who have more than two children. Some women don't use contraception due to their religious beliefs, but this bit in the link covers it well enough.

"Any other issues?
Well, yes. The policy may discriminate against people who don’t use contraception or disagree with abortion on religious grounds. Families from Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish faiths tend to have bigger families for these reasons. There are also strong human rights and equality arguments, as the cap will disproportionately affect women, children, and fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."

Sometimes those making laws just have to accept the flack coming their way, and I for one won't hesitate to link the Tories with the rape clause. It was of their making.

There's probably not much to debate until after the probably drawn out court case. Hopefully the loser has the good grace to say they were wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Predicting legal cases like this is a mugs game. There is so much open to interpretation.
I looked at Jack’s document yesterday and thought there appears to be nothing in it but the law might just interpret that there doesn’t need to be and what the SoS says goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I think the point of the judicial review is whether UKG acted reasonably, rather than if they are 'right' if you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It really isn't.

---

Indeed. Can the courts really be trusted to apply the actual law rather than being swayed by political influence these days? I personally don't think that they can. The tories have made huge strides over the past 12 years to butcher the judiciary system for their own end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Carefully made, due to the callous Tories taking away benefits from families who need it.

There are many other issues on the removal of the child benefit for families who have more than two children. Some women don't use contraception due to their religious beliefs, but this bit in the link covers it well enough.

"Any other issues?
Well, yes. The policy may discriminate against people who don’t use contraception or disagree with abortion on religious grounds. Families from Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or Jewish faiths tend to have bigger families for these reasons. There are also strong human rights and equality arguments, as the cap will disproportionately affect women, children, and fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women."

Sometimes those making laws just have to accept the flack coming their way, and I for one won't hesitate to link the Tories with the rape clause. It was of their making.

---

Yes, but that's for effect. The issue is surely the two children cap. But that doesn't have the same impact. And the use of language has been effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

There's probably not much to debate until after the probably drawn out court case. Hopefully the loser has the good grace to say they were wrong

---

The only people losing are trans people. The rest of us will be just fine.
Whichever way it goes I’ll see as the Scottish Parliament being weakened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Yes, but that's for effect. The issue is surely the two children cap. But that doesn't have the same impact. And the use of language has been effective.

---

When women's aid groups are using it, who am I to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

I think the 'rape clause' is a fantastic weaponisation of language. The clause actually proves additional funding for women who have a child through rape. The rationale is, presumably, that it was unfair to apply the two child benefit cap where a women had been raped. In the miserable legislation it is part of it was a little chink of compassion. Paradoxically, scrapping the provision would worsen the position of people affected.But it was irresistible for politicos not to link Tories and rape in the same sentence. Cynical, but effective.

---

I sort of agree but the whole idea of punishing children because their parents have more than 2 is so awful that any weaponisation is more than warranted imo. Plus the actual rape clause only grants an exemption if rape is proved. *******s.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ab1067cfbf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I hope he does, and doesn't refuse to attend like Nicola Sturgeon did when invited to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. She was "busy".

Mark Drakeford has been at Westminster a few times at the Welsh Committee.

---

Immediately after accusing Oz of always bringing this back to Nicola Sturgeon. Brilliant 😂

This whole parody thing of pretending you’re for real posting like this every single day for so long is an incredible effort. I would have put money on you coming out with a ‘gotcha’ style reveal long before now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ab1067cfbf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It’s wrong but we won’t come out and say it’s wrong. How very Scottish labour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

Immediately after accusing Oz of always bringing this back to Nicola Sturgeon. Brilliant 😂

This whole parody thing of pretending you’re for real posting like this every single day for so long is an incredible effort. I would have put money on you coming out with a ‘gotcha’ style reveal long before now.

---

One of the funniest things I've ever read on here. Been chuckling to myself all morning. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

One of the funniest things I've ever read on here. Been chuckling to myself all morning. :greengrin

---

Small things amuse small.....you know the rest. I will be chuckling to myself for a while about that as looks like we are both easily amused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

It’s wrong but we won’t come out and say it’s wrong. How very Scottish labour.

---

Ian Murray must have a whole lot of blisters on his backside from all the fence sitting he did yesterday while he desperately tries to calculate what side of the fence is in the interests of his own personal career.