Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

This quote from me is about your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. It wasn't about Hampstead Ponds. I don't think I ever commented on the strength of the Sex Matters request for a judicial review on the ponds policy.

You have in fact repeatedly tried to sow confusion about the Supreme Court decision.

The Hampstead ponds thing is a completely different case. The suggestion was that the county court and an individual claimant was the appropriate avenue for such a case. If that cheers you up, well enjoy it while you can I suppose. It doesn't change the SC decision.

 

[monkers]

This quote from me is about your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. It wasn't about Hampstead Ponds.

View attachment 12882
You have in fact repeatedly tried to sow confusion about the Supreme Court decision.

The Hampstead ponds thing is a completely different case. The suggestion was that the county court and an individual claimant was the appropriate avenue for such a case. If that cheers you up, well enjoy it while you can I suppose. It doesn't change the SC decision.

Actually you didn't quote what you were replying to when you made the comment. I took it to be another scattergun shot at me, something you've done before.

That aside, you think that in quoting Lord Hodge's own words of caution, that I am sowing doubt?

You can't keep claiming that the 5 judges that heard the case in the SC are unassailable, and then take a position after the lead judge has made remarks about caution as if he is now somehow irrelevant.

The government do not agree seem to agree with you, neither does the new lead of the EHRC.

We'll have to wait for the GLP v EHRC ruling, and how the EHRC and government respond to that.

It is interesting that the government only now are saying that Falkner was somebody they had difficulty working with.

You could concede, my comment about the ponds was on point.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You could concede, my comment about the ponds was on point.

I made no comment about the legal merit of the Sex Matters Hampstead Ponds case so there's nothing to concede. You could concede you were entirely wrong about the Supreme Court decision and the more recent tribunals. You won't though because you need to continue to delude readers into thinking that men like you are still guaranteed access to women's single sex spaces and services.

You can spread your misinformation as much as you like, Monica. Women aren't giving up their rights and it's tiresome listening to the pretence.

 

[monkers]

I made no comment about the legal merit of the Sex Matters Hampstead Ponds case so there's nothing to concede. You could concede you were entirely wrong about the Supreme Court decision and the more recent tribunals. You won't though because you need to continue to delude readers into thinking that men like you are still guaranteed access to women's single sex spaces and services.

You can spread your misinformation as much as you like, Monica. Women aren't giving up their rights and it's tiresome listening to the pretence.

I have already conceded enough times that the SC's decision taken as a whole came as a surprise to me and many others.

However the point I am continuing to make, is that I can tell you with great confidence that the SC is not the final court at which a UK citizen can seek effective remedy. As you will already know, there is a case made out by an actual person with an actual grievance of detriment lodged at the ECtHR. The person lodging that complaint is exactly the right person to enjoy potential success. While the Council of Europe has made no comment on the specific application - its wider dissatisfaction with the UK (as a member state) in relation to the rights of members of, and entire minority groups is well known. Therefore, as I always tend to say, we will have to wait and see.

 

[AuroraSaab]

However the point I am continuing to make, is that I can tell you with great confidence that the SC is not the final court at which a UK citizen can seek effective remedy.

Correct; anybody can pursue anything through various courts if they have the cash and the inclination.

Therefore, as I always tend to say, we will have to wait and see.

You've spent years on here bombastically telling us what the law was. Now it's 'we'll have to wait and see' lol. Always worth edging your bets.

 

[CXRAndy]

When you hear it laid out, you just wonder at the hilarious position the legal profession has got themselves into


View: https://x.com/i/status/2019311723887685648

 

[CXRAndy]

The story has almost the all the same red flags, again and again
Broken family, abuse, some for of eating or social disorder


View: https://x.com/i/status/2019245963051962703

 

[monkers]

Correct; anybody can pursue anything through various courts if they have the cash and the inclination.



You've spent years on here bombastically telling us what the law was. Now it's 'we'll have to wait and see' lol. Always worth edging your bets.

There's a gulf between giving a valid opinion of law, and predicting what a Supreme Court might say. My points of law are not faulty, my prediction of the outcome on this occasion was. However the court decided to answer a broad question rather than the narrow one that they were asked and required to do. In this sense their approach was unorthodox or at least unexpected, much like their reliance alone on statutory interpretation while the will of parliament was available to them from public record.

I'm not hedging my bets. In this case, Strasbourg looks likely to have the final say. As it stands, there is legal opinion that says that the SC judgment has a chilling effect on the requirement on government from the directive that followed Goodwin.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It seems unlikely that having spent months taking into account all legalities and all the historic case law, including Goodwin, that the expert judges of the Supreme Court remain entirely wrong on the points of law and that conversely, funnily enough, you are correct.

 

[monkers]

It seems unlikely that having spent months taking into account all legalities and all the historic case law, including Goodwin, that the expert judges of the Supreme Court remain entirely wrong on the points of law and that conversely, funnily enough, you are correct.

I'm sometimes accused, probably with justification, that I am too wordy. So for the benefit of all readers, I'm going to attempt to be as concise and precise as our friend @Bromptonaut in my first paragraph at least.

There are many laws that require a deeming provision. This is an establishment in law of the legal status of the person, that is the status from which their treatment must flow. The SC, if read in the spirit of adjudication permitting exclusion as the treatment, it risks setting that all deeming provisions within the scope of UK statute are therefore invalid, and may be interpreted as such.

To use a different example to the GRA, The Immigration Act 1971 ...''Crew members and transit passengers may be deemed not to have entered the UK.'' This sets out the legal status of the person and the legal basis of their treatment. When a foreign crew member steps onto British land, his treatment is to align with that status. They can not be treated as an asylum seeker, a migrant person, or an invader. The deeming provision 'puts beyond doubt' the treatment of that person.

Here's a second example, Sexual Offences Act 2003 ... 'A child under 13 is deemed incapable of consenting, full stop.'

Likewise the Gender Recognition Act 2004 ... from memory ... 'Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender.' Therefore the GRA lays the ground of the required treatment in that status.

This is established legal principle and exactly the reason that lawyers were taken by surprise, because the EHRC and other groups leapt on this to mean that the SC at first seemed to be disapplying the deeming provision of another act made in parliament. Under this framing, the SC are said to be ''legislating from the bench''.

So while you may not care about the rights of trans people and their treatment, or even the rights of marine crew members and their treatment, you will surely care at least as much as I do about the legal status of girls and boys from the deeming provision under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It follows then, that on that basis that if the SC are free to disapply the deeming provision of the GRA, it remains at their will to disapply the deeming provision of the SOA. By legal argument around legal precedence, you might reason that the SC may have done just that.

While you take the position to believe that my only instinct is to care only about my own rights as a trans woman with a GRC, and therefore makes any other view of mine shaky, it is a contemptible belief, and one entirely without evidence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nope. Still not convinced you know better than the judges of the Supreme Court.

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court decision - which was about the Equality Act - now means the legal principle that children under 13 cannot consent to sex has been abolished.

I would imagine the judges took such considerations into account but you obviously know better.

 

[mickle]

Has Monkers still got his meat and two veg, anybody know?

 

[monkers]

Nope. Still not convinced you know better than the judges of the Supreme Court.

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court decision - which was about the Equality Act - now means the legal principle that children under 13 cannot consent to sex has been abolished.

I would imagine the judges took such considerations into account but you obviously know better.

I don't happen to think that any person here would expect you to agree.

Deeming provisions are parliament's bright lines. They set out parliament position, that is absolute, beyond doubt, and beyond argument save for any specific permitted exceptions, and subsequent statute. The courts can of course disapply them, but this is in relation to examination of whether an actual individual complainant with a grievance of detriment has the status that the deeming provision intends.

However in this case, the SC have decided that the deeming provision does not protect the entire class of people engaged (those with a GRC} as being covered in an hypothetical complaint. They also permitted evidence from campaign groups to challenge the actual status of the people engaged rather than just the treatment intended in the EqA - ie claiming that the law says that trans women remain as men, and trans men are still women both in status and treatment. No wonder campaigners were as stunned as any others.

It can not follow in any reasoning that parliament legislated to protect any class of people with a deeming provision with the intent that they must be treated as other than that. It just defies logic and legal precedence.