One thing that beats me about the Supreme Court's shenanigans is this. The Equality Act is just fifteen years old. I still have my copy of the massive 'Discrimination Law Review' report that constitutes the policy starting point for every aspect of it. The people who drafted it are still alive. Many of those who voted for it are still in Parliament. The extensive debates and committee meetings are all in Hansard. The Bill Managers can be interviewed. So why did the SC resort to 'guessing'..
reshared this
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •reshared this
A Part of Bee, Charlie Stross and Lazarou Monkey Terror πππ reshared this.
Lily
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Normally such a thing is not possible, but I see no reason why it could not be arranged where possible, that the bill's drafters could be suitably cross-examined.
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to Lily • • •Angua
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Back to the Strasbourg court then.*
If only for a workable definition of biological sex.
Short term, there will need to be seperate facilities AND staff for purposes of respecting privacy & dignity.
Let's see: F / A / M presenting.
Subdivided into Cis, Trans, Inter (several variations).
Surely the practical solution to avoid sexual assault is which, if any gender, the person to be searched will permit.
Also to have at least two independent witnesses present as I don't think the law allows filming of these acts of violation.
@Liaely@tech.lgbt
*Fediversians are too intelligient not to know the difference but for non Europeans, the Strasbourg Court / ECtHR - European Court of Human Rights is the court of the Council of Europe, but nothing to do with the EU.
Although membership of the council is pretty much a requirement of EU membership.
Unlike most courts and I suppose due to the International Jurat, the ECtHR tends to make fair and occasionally just decisions on the European Convention, ECHR.
Unlike the utterly corrupt UK Judiciary.
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to Angua • • •Nicovel0 π
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •reshared this
Lazarou Monkey Terror πππ and Coffee (Team CW) reshared this.
zl2tod
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Is anyone contemplating applying for a recall of the Court's judgment on the basis of a huge pile of "new" evidence?
@Liaely
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to zl2tod • • •Nick
in reply to Lily • • •Sue Briccay
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •They didn't do it because it was a rigged, stage-managed charade of an 'appeal hearing' to give the government the excuse it needed to go mask-off TERF.
Starmer (or more likely, his handlers) are in cahoots with Trump.
Ghost of Hope π³οΈββ§οΈ
in reply to Sue Briccay • • •There's no doubt I my mind that it was rigged. Who rigged it, that's another question. But they didn't even bother to try for the appearance of impartiality.
WellsiteGeo
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •IIUC (and this is not defending the WESTMINSTER "Supreme" Court, or the judgement), the court deals with the law AS WRITTEN, not the Hansard palaver around it. THAT is for Parliament to consider if amending the law.
Which is the next step, after this "final" decision.
No, I did not specify "which" Parliament. That remains an open question.
Alexandra Lanes
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • •BashStKid
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Leigh Silvester
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •As a biologist who has researched and published in reproductive physiology I am constantly flipping between amused and ranting at the radio every time there is a report and the phrase 'biological woman' is used. Everybody seems to think that it is some kind of solution.
Neither in the Equity Act 2010 nor the recent judgement is 'biological woman' defined. There is a good reason for that. #Biologists know that biology is complicated.
The 1966 ladies downhill skiing champion was born a woman and is now known as Erik and is a fully functional man capable of fathering children.
Possibly this is not your main issue, but if they can't acknowledge and get right the basic facts of biology in law then there is no hope of getting anything else right.
This article has a nice overview of biology and sex and why XX chromosomes doesn't necessarily mean an individual is a woman.
daily-twerk.com/science/uk-supβ¦
UK Supreme Court judgement sex farce β The Daily Twerk
daily-twerk.comChristine Burns MBE π³οΈβ§οΈπβ§ reshared this.
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to Leigh Silvester • • •Leigh Silvester
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •From the same article, this more recent woman also demonstrates how biology confounds the unwary.
Sarah Gronert β German tennis player. She was born as intersex with both male and female genitalia.
Strange how some women attract online vitriol, whereas others don't get the same attention.
Professor_Stevens
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Only Ohm
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •I *think* it's because, with very limited exceptions, doing that would constitute "impeaching or questioning proceedings in Parliament", which the courts are forbidden to do by article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending last week's ruling, which I think is both morally and technically wrong.)
Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§
in reply to Only Ohm • • •Only Ohm
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •HighlandLawyer
in reply to Only Ohm • • •The use of "biological sex" in the pleadings was an extremely clever but deceptive piece of spin. If you read the actual judgement the term has nothing to do with actual biology, but means neither more nor less than what sex is written on ones birth certificate.
Of course the appellants knew that's not what would be reported in the media.
Ben Hutchings
in reply to HighlandLawyer • • •I think they mean the gender recorded on the person's original birth certificate, but that doesn't seem to be a workable definition for the same reason
HighlandLawyer
in reply to Ben Hutchings • • •To quote para 7 of the judgement
"7. We also use the expression βbiological sexβ which is used widely, including in the judgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth, and we use the expression βcertificated sexβ to describe the sex attained by the acquisition of a GRC."
So, sex assigned at birth and entered on (original) birth certificate. Which is administrative rather than actually biological.
HighlandLawyer
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •Which is not to say that there are not other flaws in the judgement. But as the rules stand judges can't go and do their own investigation, they rely on what is put before them and the legal materials deemed within judicial knowledge (which they can therefore look up).
Alan π΄σ §σ ’σ ³σ £σ ΄σ ΏπͺπΊπ³οΈβπ
in reply to Christine Burns MBE π³οΈββ§οΈπβ§ • • •leading English case on statutory interpretation
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)