It was really stupid to post the video with this in the background. I don't for a second think the MPs and MSPs support it, but they put themselves in the position.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Printable View
It was really stupid to post the video with this in the background. I don't for a second think the MPs and MSPs support it, but they put themselves in the position.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The term itself goes back about 15 years. Its original meaning was to distinguish between those radical feminists who accept that trans women are women, and those who don't. Inclusive vs excluding.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Now, of course, it's a pejorative. A softer term would be "Gender-critical", which of course can include all genders.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...Qz12I8PzPRChpAQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Her original tweet has over 3.5M views.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...HGrsT2t0w&s=19
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...licting-rights
Good piece underlining the hypocrisy of the SG insisting the bill was a mere administrative tweak then going to court to argue it has a profound influence of people's legal rights.
It's an opinion piece that does nothing to explain why the UK Government used Section 35 instead of Section 33. Although, we all know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yes, I get that. But radical feminism ideology goes back much further, to a time when the radicalism was grounded, for the most part, in a very real (and ongoing) battle against women's oppression, not against those who wish to eradicate biological fact. That those women (and these days it includes any woman, not just those with strong feminist views) who make the undeniable point that a man cannot experience the lived reality of a woman are deemed the bad guys is just plain daft. If anyone merits a derogatory slur, it's the faction who choose to live in the world of make believe and insist that anyone who does not deserves scorn (or indeed 'decapitation').Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
One of Rowling's original tweets (in support of Maya Forstater) which has ever since seen her unjustly demonised, perfectly sums up the absurdity of where we're at:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...BtayNykIYmQQDQ
She explains why they were 'correct to trigger section 35'.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Trans rights was literally on 3 programmes in a row this morning, the presenter on Sunday Morning Live saying the topic has been the most commented on he has ever seen.
Yet some still say the general public don't care.
This is what she says: "The rights at stake – protections for women and girls that remain a Westminster matter – mean the government was correct to trigger section 35. It remains to be seen if the courts find it meets the legal test."Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Guess what? It doesn't. Because if it could meet the legal test, they would have triggered section 33 instead.
Second former Supreme Court judge explains why the veto is correct (from the Sunday Times):THE UK government’s veto of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill has provoked predictable outrage from Bute House. The first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has called it a “full frontal attack” on Scottish democracy. She threatens a challenge in the courts.
This is a fight with Westminster that Sturgeon won't win
by Jonathan Sumption
Three streets away in Edinburgh’s New Town, Lord Hope of Craighead, a distinguished Scottish lawyer and former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, is scathing. Her litigation, he says, will be a hopeless waste of public money. What is going on?
The Edinburgh parliament is a subordinate legislature. It owes its existence and powers entirely to the Scotland Act 1998, an act of the UK parliament. The scheme of the Scotland Act is perfectly rational. It devolves to Scotland everything of exclusive concern to Scotland, while reserving to Westminster a long list of “reserved matters” that concern the whole of the United Kingdom.
Section 35 of the act is part of this scheme. It empowers the UK government to stop a Scottish bill from becoming law, but only if the bill deals with matters reserved to Westminster in a way that adversely affects how the law works.One of these reserved matters is equal opportunities.
What mainly concerns the UK government is that the new bill will create a special regime for recognising gender reassignment in Scotland. Trans people will be able to self-identify without satisfying the clinical tests that apply in the rest of the UK and the minimum age will be reduced from 18 to 16. This is achieved by modifying the operation in Scotland of two Westminster statutes, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which apply throughout the UK.
The changes will not apply in the rest of the UK, but that is heart of the problem. If the bill becomes law, some UK citizens will have a different legal gender in different parts of the UK, depending on where they happen to be.
This poses serious legal and practical problems for employers and public authorities operating on a UK-wide basis. They will have to discriminate between trans people in Scotland and the rest of the UK on such matters as equal pay, gender discrimination, tax, benefits and pensions, all of which are subject to UK-wide statutory regimes.
These are powerful points. It is not clear what the Scottish ministers’ answer is. Unless they can think of one, their judicial review will fail. But all that we have heard from them so far is froth and rage.
The suggestion that the UK government’s veto is an attack on Scottish democracy is absurd. The matters reserved to Westminster by the Scotland Act concern the whole of the UK. Only Westminster can legitimately speak for the whole of the UK, and Scotland is fully represented there by 59 MPs. They don’t always get their way, but that is democracy for you.
The Scottish parliament represents less than a tenth of the people of the UK. It would be wholly undemocratic for the Scottish tail to be allowed to wag the UK dog on issues such as these.
Scotland has a remarkably generous devolution settlement. Almost everything which really matters to Scots is devolved. This ought to mean that there are few occasions for conflict with Westminster.
But for some years Scottish ministers have been promoting bills in Edinburgh designed to throw grit into the working of the Union in the few areas where there is scope for disagreement. The strategy is to nibble away at the matters reserved to Westminster in order to provoke constitutional rows, which they hope will boost support for independence.
Hence the constant yelling about assaults on Scottish democracy whenever the Scottish parliament comes up against the limits of its powers and the legitimate interests of the UK as a whole.
On this occasion, however, Sturgeon’s famous political skills may have deserted her. The signs are that her Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is alienating some of her natural supporters north of the border. When opportunities to pick a quarrel with Westminster are so few, it is more important than ever to choose the right ones.
Lord Sumption is a former Justice of the Supreme Court
That's your opinion. There's a lot of legal opinion that says it meets both legal tests. I suspect there was a lot of discussion as to which section to trigger. My guess it was a mix of legal view and political opportunism. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, SG's judicial review will have to demonstrate that UKG acted unreasonably. I think that's a pretty high bar. It's a power play by both governments. What a shame it's come to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Problem is, if the court doesn't rule that the UK Government acted unreasonably, they can effectively use Section 35 to reverse any other devolved legislation in the future, claiming that it "impacts equality" in some way. Section 35 is purposefully vague, which can make it the ultimate power grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Why haven't they done that in the past then? I mean this clause has been there since the Scottish Parliament was created. Times used before? 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
When the Scotland Act was debated, the thinking was that there would be cooperative engagement to enhance legislation and ensure that all govermental interests were considered. Unfortunately that's not where we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Indeed. SG thinking seems to be that this legislated for safeguard should never actually be used, even when the case for it is strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
They haven't been this desperate to roll back devolution before.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
That doesn't really add up, the picture you paint is a desperate Tory government doing all they can to stop the SNP and put the Scots in their place. The reality is the for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament there is a valid concern that the legislation impacts UK law, and despite giving the Scottish Government plenty of warnings about this Bill they ignored it and now this is the consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
But aren't you against devolution? You want to abolish it?
If it impacted UK law, the UK Government would have used Section 33, that's what it's for. How many times does it need to be pointed out?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Section 35 allows the UK Government to interpret devolved legislation as they see fit, then block it on that basis. The Secretary of State only has to pretend to "believe" that it has an impact on reserved matters, to serve as justification for enacting the order.
This would have alarm bells ringing in any real democracy.
And you have ex Supreme Court judges saying you are wrong and a S35 was correct. Just repeating your own opinion doesn't make it fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
You had one ex-supreme court judge come out and say it was correct, without detailing why they thought it was correct. An ex-judge is under no obligation of impartiality.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Lord Sumption is the second ex-Supreme Court Judge to back the move in the last few days. Lord Hope being the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
They may no longer be bound by impartiality but I'd suggest they're well qualified to give an opinion.
They may be qualified to give an opinion, but they're always going to give the opinion that resonates with their own personal views, hence why it's called an "opinion" and not a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
How do you know they are always going to do this? And how can you claim to know what their personal views are?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Why wouldn't they, as exceptionally experienced members of the legal profession, not be giving a legal opinion?
You do wonder what it is that make Lords stick up for the establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
IIRC the Supreme Court twice ruled against the government in the not too distant past when it came to the triggering of Article 50 plus the proroguing of Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Hmm, Lord Sumption. That name rings a bell. Or is it an alarm?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sumption has been described as "conservative neo-liberal and libertarian."
On 17 January 2021, Sumption appeared on The Big Questions to discuss the question of whether the lockdown was "punishing too many for the greater good", and said (with reference to the medical concept of quality-adjusted life years) that "I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value. My children’s and my grandchildren’s life is worth much more than mine because they’ve got a lot more of it ahead". When a cancer patient taking part in the debate said that he was saying that her life was "not valuable", Sumption interrupted her, saying: "I didn’t say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable."
Just the sort of guy whose opinion I'd not value.
We'll all of this is just noise. You'll just have to wait until the JR.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
For me that just explains why England needs to follow Scotlands lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Like Johnson during COVID.
Also explains why Scotland NEEDS independence.
J
I saw Wings Over Scotland trending on Twitter and thought what's he done now. Yikes! No links as I know it upsets people but backs up the point a few have made that trans extremists have hijacked this and taken the Scottish Government with them.