mickle
Member
O'Flaherty, the very architect of the transgender movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
CXRAndy
Squire
How most of society see trans
Crazy perverted men
View: https://x.com/XxtraEstroGenny/status/1981234748635885849?t=I6dyeruz--ITbTGXLLC6CQ&s=19
Crazy perverted men
View: https://x.com/XxtraEstroGenny/status/1981234748635885849?t=I6dyeruz--ITbTGXLLC6CQ&s=19
monkers
Shaman
I didn't give you my opinion if you read it - quite deliberately so. I reported what others are saying including the eminent Michael O'Flaherty.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
And other eminent people say he's wrong. O'Flaherty has been a trans activist for years. He was an architect of the Yogyakarta Principles, which promoted gender identity to replace sex in law, and which has had a malignant influence on women's rights for years. He's not an independent figure. He's an activist with an gender.
The supreme court judges weren't activists. They assessed everything and made a decision that made sense.
The supreme court judges weren't activists. They assessed everything and made a decision that made sense.
CXRAndy
Squire
Tory shadow minister Claire Countinho branded Mr O'Flaherty's intervention as 'a ludicrous political stunt by an extreme activist masquerading as a neutral human rights expert'.
She added: 'This Commissioner has previously called for children to be allowed to change their gender, said gender has nothing to do with biology, and demanded all countries introduce self-ID.'
Sounds like a nutjob this O'flaherty.
Gender has nothing to do with biology
monkers
Shaman
In your opinion.
monkers
Shaman
That is not quite the case. There are parts of the Supreme Court judgment that don't quite hang together.
The law is whatever parliament intended. There are a range of tests of law which should be applied. There are a number of la)wyers, many eminent and above my pay grade who have set out those tests. In plain English, the UKSC are felt not to have adequately considered:
a) what parliament had intended to say in the legislation.
b) the rights for both sides to be heard
c) human rights considerations from the UK Human Rights Act
d) human rights considerations from prior ECtHR judgments and directives.
e) the lineage between precedent and subsequent act.
e) real world practicalities that result from their judgment.
Therefore the legal test that has prevailed then is instead a scholarly approach to good draftsmanship of the law. The legal argument then is to whether the EqA is subject to the same precedent as prior law. The criticism of the the judgment is that the aim of the EqA as set out could not be a comfortable fit with precedent since this was an act to harmonise a number of acts under a common umbrella, and that the dual discrimination article within that Bill under parliament advanced from a Bill to Act with Royal Assent.
Lawyers tend to be happy to approve the judgment of the UKSC but professional standards lead to being more tight lipped where they feel the justices may have erred - this being one such case.
The eminent human rights lawyers, Michael O'Flaherty has written to the relevant people in UK government with his concerns. The implicit message within is that the UKSC have in effect 'legislated from the bench'. In the meantime the report on the admissibility of the MCloud submission will send further rumblings through the system.
Part of the nervousness at present is due to the Labour Party deputy leadership election, since the winner will have influence on any approach to a resolution attempted by the government. The two contenders are known to have differing views.
It is right and proper for the Good Law Project to challenge the interim guidance in the meantime without any partisan accusations against either it or
monkers
Shaman
Tory shadow minister Claire Countinho branded Mr O'Flaherty's intervention as 'a ludicrous political stunt by an extreme activist masquerading as a neutral human rights expert'.
She added: 'This Commissioner has previously called for children to be allowed to change their gender, said gender has nothing to do with biology, and demanded all countries introduce self-ID.'
Sounds like a nutjob this O'flaherty.
Gender has nothing to do with biology
Your opinions fail to interest me. It's rather like trying to interpret the sound made at the rear end of a flatulent goat as being somehow meaningful.
icowden
Shaman
Not really no. He was merely the rapporteur who drafted the principles based on the output from the Yogyakarta meeting.
As a former Catholic Priest and someone highly eminent in the field of human rights, he might be considered a very balanced member of the meeting.
icowden
Shaman
Any evidence for this? All the evidence I can find is that he is a very highly respected expert in Human Rights Law and a former Catholic Priest. He spent an extensive amount of time documenting wartime human rights violations and has contributed much to define and protect gay rights.
Detail is important. The Yogyakarta Principles were created as part of human rights law to protect gay rights and to push for decriminalisation of homosexuality as well as to protect gay men and women.
There was a supplement in 2017 some 11 years after the original Principles were drafted to further define rights for transgender and intersex people.
icowden
Shaman
Both you and she should read this:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...sion-many-uk-public-spaces-rights-expert-says
Remember Andy - The Tories are now completely unhinged.
CXRAndy
Squire
Transgender people risk being excluded from many public spaces as a result of the recent UK supreme court judgment and must be protected from discrimination, a human rights expert has said.
That's not true - they can use the services aligned to their biological sex.
There is no discrimination.
Remember female is recognised by biology not feelings
I agree, all parties are unhinged
Similar threads
