Erm
You are the one telling people they are incorrect.
The most senior court in the land have issued a judgement on a leagal point and you are telling this forum they are wrong
Going round shouting everyone else is wrong/incorrect/ failing etc is not the most convincing argument.
You may not like the judgement of the court ( and there is no reason you shouldn't), but that alone does not make it wrong.
The court have issued a detailed and forensic analysis of the law in its 88 page judgement and I have seen nothing in your posts to challenge that legal analysis, merely cries that everyone who does not hold your view is wrong.
If you opened your mind, you would realise I have not commented on the merits of the case at all, merely commented on the validity of the Supreme Court & its vast legal experience
I haven't been going around shouting. On the internet, posting endless childish memes, placing everything in capital letters is shouting. You need to look at those shouting at me to see that.
When I ''dared'' to say to you that we disagree, you've gone over the top. I dare to disagree because I have an argument that shows from their own words of intent and outcome. You could have most reasonably asked me to justify my thoughts. Instead you are choosing to be argumentative - it's a trait I've noticed in you previously - you try to shout down anyone you disagree with. Accordingly it always proves a waste of time trying to hold a discussion with you, because you are in effect a bully.
If you'll just at least to wind your neck in a bit, apply some rational thinking, you'll understand a couple of things without us even exploring any legal interpretation of the judgement.
First of all I'll point out that the Goodwin case to which the Gender Recognition Act responds came out precisely because Christine Goodwin exhausted her efforts for effective remedy in the UK. The European Court of Human Rights, the last resort available court for UK citizens effectively overruled the UK on the basis of convention rights not having been sufficiently considered. This fact alone should give you pause for thought before continuing to attempt to shout me down.
And so it is in this case, insufficient weight has been given in the determination of what parliament intended, or the convention rights of people with a GRC, a point established in 2002/3 by the European Court. They have in effect attempted to reverse the judgement of the ECtHR. That can't end well. Already the case is underway to be sent back to the ECtHR with a former respected High Court judge acting (presumably for a hitherto unknown appellant but maybe herself).
If we were to turn the clock back a couple of years, and had it been the case that I had said that I disagree with Lady Haldaine in her judgement at the Inner Court of Sessions, or the preceding case at the outer court of sessions, you would likely have told me, ''who do you think you are saying disagreeing with these highly qualified and highly experiences judges''.
There is also the point that during this period, the Commission headed by Falkner was advising courts that the protected characteristic of sex did include trans people with a GRC, but not those without.
Already there are professional bodies who, one can only imagine have access to excellent legal advice are digging there heels in. The BMA, who had already sent letters to the government concerning the direction of travel, detailing how they will always support members of staff who happen to be trans, and patients who happen to be trans.
The nursing organisations are also saying 'NO'.
One of the points about the GRA was that as it came about as a response to the European Court ruling, it left the existing available discrimination laws lagging. A point noted by the government at the time who stated that they proposed to sort that problem with their forthcoming umbrella Equality Act.
Those people who did obtain a GRC and an amended birth certificate before the EqA 2010 were given accompanying guidance that the 1975 Act did not give them protections from discrimination, but that the 1999 Act gave them protection from discrimination while in the workplace or vocational training. Those who obtained their GRC were given the accompanying guidance (by the state) subsequent to 2010 were told that their acquired sex was now protected by the Equality Act. The 75 and 99 Acts were repealed on the introduction of the EqA meaning that all people with a GRC had their sex as a protected characteristic in the acquired sex.
Paragraph 2 of the SC's judgment notes how the GRA clearly states ''for all purposes'' and then goes on to look for a reasoning that disallows it. They found that in what they determined as legal precedent in how a law is best written. At the same time they chose to ignore the legal precedents that set the path from both earliest statutes and the common law, that a person is the sex stated on their birth certificate. The birth certificate became the essence of legal test in the absence of any other. That the birth certificate can no longer be accepted as proof of sex, the only available tests now are medical determination.
This leads to the prospect of Big Brother being allowed to march again.
