Mastodawn

The British "constitution" is like #HumptyDumpty. It seems to mean whatever those in power find it convenient to mean at any given time, even if all previous understandings are thereby completely set aside, or even trampled and mocked.

This is of course what happened In the #UKSC's judgment in #FWS. The judges refused to hear any opposing arguments, ignored all the evidence in parliamentary proceedings of the clearly stared intent of ministers. They then proceeded to not just gut the existing statutory framework and overturn it, but to do so on the basis of absurdist concepts such as "biological sex", which they didn't even attempt to define.

In both cases, sleight of hand is masquerading as law.

Each of those changes could have been made by a short and simple Act of Parliament. For Andrew, the Bill of Attainder process could have been revived after two centuries absence, and that would at least have been honest that it was punishment without trial.

Smilarly, the #UKSC's stripping of trans rights in #FWS could have been done in a very simple bill amending the Equality Act 2020. That would still have been a cruelly devastating breach of #ECHR rights, but at least it would have been procedurally honest.

#UKania does sometimes do procedural honesty. But it's optional.

END OF THREAD

@2legged Mind you, if parliament had an ounce of gumption, it could overrule the Supreme Court by passing a bill saying 'When we said in the Gender Recognition Act that 'Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender,' that is exactly what we meant, and the justices of the #UKSupremeCourt need a course in remedial English comprehension."

The law isn't in the least ambiguous here. The court was plainly wrong.

HighlandLawyer Nov 3

@simon_brooke @2legged
The Court of Session recognised that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was specifically passed in response to Goodwin v UK 2002, & therefore the Equality Act 2010 was written in full knowledge of "for all legal purposes" being in the 2004 Act and applying unless specifically excepted.

The Supreme Court went on the basis that the 2010 Act used similar language to the 1975 Act and therefore must mean the same as it would have in 1975 (prior to the 2002 case & 2004 Act)

@HighlandLawyer @2legged and they were plainly wrong because the 2004 act clearly says so. So the judgement was at best perverse.

@simon_brooke @HighlandLawyer Not quite so, Simon. #GRA2004 §9(1) provides recognition "for all purposes". So far so good.

But §9(3) allows other acts to create exceptions: "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation".

This was intended to allow for technicalities like inheritance of trusts.

But the #UKSC applied §9(3) to an act where no explicit provision had been made. Their claim of implicit provision is outrageous novelty.

@2legged @HighlandLawyer 'gender' and 'sex' are, for these purposes, synonyms, and it would be (has been) disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That one act uses one and another the other is, possibly, sloppy draughtsmanship, but the intent is perfectly clear.

If the #UKSupremeCourt wish to pretend there is some distinction in semantics, it behoves them to elucidate.

Indeed, Simon.

But the pretence by #TERFs & #gendercritters that there is any legal distinction for these #trans-related purposes is clearly refuted by #GRA2004 §9(1) . It's not just crystal clear; it spells out the issue in unusual detail, with deliberate verbose pedantry to close off any trace of wiggle room. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

But the GCs have never been averse to outright mendacity

@2legged @HighlandLawyer so, as I said when I cited a very similar passage, the justices of the #UKSupremeCourt are just plain wrong in law. In this case the text is clear and unambiguous, and uses both words interchangeably.

This ruling cannot stand.

Yes, but. ☹️

Unfortunately, it does stand. No domestic court in the UK can overule the #UKSC, despite its obvious dishonesty. A v short bill in Parliament could overturn the UKSC nonsense, restoring the #EA2010 intent, but #Starmer won't allow that.

So it will need a case at the #ECtHR in Strasbourg, which the #trans ppl will almost certainly win. But the trans victory will be pyrrhic, weaponised by the UK's right as the casus belli for leaving the #ECHR. ☹️

@2legged @HighlandLawyer ah, our first human rights lawyer Prime Minister. So clearly a man of principal.

Just as soon as McSweeney has told him what the principal for today may be.

It's a remarkable achievement by #TheMadCountry that for decades each successive #UKprimeMinister has claim to being worse than their predecessor.

At least Johnson's mendacity had some charm, Truss's devastating idiocy was high comedy (see Reggie's video), and Sunak's billionaire lack of self-awareness was cringetastic. But #Starmer's shameless mendacity and bombs-not-bairns callousness is offset by neither redeeming virtue nor comic distraction. #MultiTalentless

@2legged @HighlandLawyer for all #Starmer's faults — and I see little virtue in him — he is not quite such a dishonourable person as #Johnson, nor nearly so vain and stupid as #Truss.

Sorry, but i gotta disagree about that. Being trans, I rank Starmer lower than Truss or Johnson. His mendacity has undone my life's work in securing the GRA2004, and his govt is making my trans friends in the UK into untermensch. He is also persecuting opponents of genocide. These are classic fascist policies