According to the Haldane ruling it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Printable View
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.
I would bloody hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite a decent overview of the whole mess from Macwhirter:
Gender wars: the Union’s new battle line | The Spectator
Kemi Badenoch fails to respond to the request to attend the equalities committee at Holyrood.
That's subjective. It's your personal opinion that it's a bad law. It doesn't however change the fact that a devolved parliament consisting of MSPs put in place by the Scottish electorate gave this bill cross party support. A bill that falls within the powers of devolution. Because had it not fallen within the powers of devolution, the UK Government would have enacted section 33, not section 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
They've effectively halted a bill that they simply don't agree with. Not because of any constitutional implications. Of course, by using section 35, they've created a constitutional implication themselves.
I've not seen anyone make that point before, but that's not to say they haven't. It just seems the line of attack from supporters of the bill is that Westminster have got involved rather than acknowledge there are legitimate questions to be asked of its efficacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The most recent Holyrood legislation I can recall which caused similar levels of outcry was the named person scheme, which IIRC also ended up being ruled on outwith Scotland (by the Supreme Court) before ultimately being abandoned.
On the flipside, one piece of SG legislation which I fully supported (the offensive behaviour at football act) was overturned from within Holyrood. I still find that a baffling move when you see what continues to be glossed over in Scottish football.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/sta...LINp5giIw&s=19
An example of why I think extremists have hijacked the trans right movement. Not a great look for the SNP/Greens to be side by side with these people.
These people? It's a couple of people holding up signs they shouldn't be amongst a crowd of hundreds of people. Bit of a desperate stretch to say that the SNP and Greens are "side by side" with them. Not quite the same as the tories warming up to the Orange Order.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
These people? Yes, extremists holding up signs in a busy city centre saying they want to brutally murder women. That's not normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/st...OBthNdu5A&s=19
Joanna Cherry due in court soon to give evidence against someone who threatened to kill her.
Terf is such a daft, unpleasant term.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
What's 'radical' about not agreeing transwomen are women?
It's a gift to the Sunday papers' picture editorsQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Row erupts as SNP MPs appear near violent sign at Glasgow protest | The National
SNP politicians blasted after standing with group holding 'decapitate TERFS' sign at trans protest - Scottish Daily Express