I don't normally comment before reading or watching but wanted to say something before I saw this. I read the judgement and it's very thorough. However, it is important to understand that it is really a clarification of the intent of existing legislation, and whilst that removes some of the absurdity it has not gone away. To preserve female rights it will be necessary to resist different legislation which I predict will be proposed to work around the judgement. I see many gaps but will set out my thoughts on that in a long post. I may revert with comments after viewing. I appreciate the work you do.
I am just going to follow up briefly but I am going to do more on this. First of all thank you for sharing the video of the parliamentary proceedings, that I would have almost certainly missed otherwise.
I note that in other places, many people are saying this interpretation is due to a political shift, but I rather think it is a correction for political skewing that led to misinterpretation of law in the first place. Those who stood up in parliament in a performance of deliberately missing the point could have done better for their constituents had they read and understood the judgement first.
Yes it is primarily about terminology which provides us with context. Yet a feature of common law systems is that we have certain rules of interpretation. Insofar as the people who talk about this or protest don't understand those rules rather makes their 'disagreement with the interpretation' moot.
Now we have a landmark interpretation which in part says that the Scottish Government were wrong to conflate trans women with women in the context of the legislation. It is not for an ex-civil servant (Melanie Field who was involved in drafting the Equality Act) to retroactively claim intention that was not made explicit in print. What was explicit was passed into law by parliament. To suggest that this meant something else in 2010 is absurd. Were we to credit it, this would be an admission of extreme incompetence, the likes of which doesn't commend her views. Should people with protected characteristics have rights relating to those characteristics? Certainly. But having 'protected characteristics' is not a VIP all access pass to the rights of others.
Will probably watch it after PMQT.But did see Philipson and she really made my blood pressure go up.She was practically spitting and snarling saying that she has alway supported women blah blah blah, looking daggers at the opposition. Hard faced,two faced, how can one claim to support women and believe at the same time TWAW. Would she have seen one of those TW go into a DVC that she so loves to say she supports.
Oh and did some of the Labour women get together to decide to wear pink that day !
They wouldn't listen to women for years when they had concerns. It took five supreme court judges and years of campaigning and court cases to clarify the law. Now they're begging for people whose rights have not been impacted even a little bit, to be heard. I have two words, they start with eff and end with off. Denied entitlement is what it is.
As somebody who grew up in Monmouthshire I believe this be to be BS. People there are lovely and ignore oddballs and just get on with life. As the father as a vulnerable child with complex needs I find the trans obsession with access to women’s safe spaces insidious. It opens the door for people who will attack women in spaces where they should be safe. Women will be intimidated. Stop this nonsense!
I don’t suppose anyone will care if there is a man dressed as a woman in the men’s WC or changing room.
However, if that same man shows his penis in the women’s, or shows predatory behaviour, then they haven’t a leg to stand on, and that is the difference.
Who really gives a shit about these people’s ideology, the politicians that support them, or those using them as a political football. This is a very clear sign of our society’s decay when such time and resources are allotted to such a non issue.
What makes no sense at all it’s the years of parliamentary energy devoted to the self inflicted destruction of the West by the mentally unstable people who are enabling and wanting this to be normal …
I don't normally comment before reading or watching but wanted to say something before I saw this. I read the judgement and it's very thorough. However, it is important to understand that it is really a clarification of the intent of existing legislation, and whilst that removes some of the absurdity it has not gone away. To preserve female rights it will be necessary to resist different legislation which I predict will be proposed to work around the judgement. I see many gaps but will set out my thoughts on that in a long post. I may revert with comments after viewing. I appreciate the work you do.
I am just going to follow up briefly but I am going to do more on this. First of all thank you for sharing the video of the parliamentary proceedings, that I would have almost certainly missed otherwise.
I note that in other places, many people are saying this interpretation is due to a political shift, but I rather think it is a correction for political skewing that led to misinterpretation of law in the first place. Those who stood up in parliament in a performance of deliberately missing the point could have done better for their constituents had they read and understood the judgement first.
Yes it is primarily about terminology which provides us with context. Yet a feature of common law systems is that we have certain rules of interpretation. Insofar as the people who talk about this or protest don't understand those rules rather makes their 'disagreement with the interpretation' moot.
Now we have a landmark interpretation which in part says that the Scottish Government were wrong to conflate trans women with women in the context of the legislation. It is not for an ex-civil servant (Melanie Field who was involved in drafting the Equality Act) to retroactively claim intention that was not made explicit in print. What was explicit was passed into law by parliament. To suggest that this meant something else in 2010 is absurd. Were we to credit it, this would be an admission of extreme incompetence, the likes of which doesn't commend her views. Should people with protected characteristics have rights relating to those characteristics? Certainly. But having 'protected characteristics' is not a VIP all access pass to the rights of others.
Will probably watch it after PMQT.But did see Philipson and she really made my blood pressure go up.She was practically spitting and snarling saying that she has alway supported women blah blah blah, looking daggers at the opposition. Hard faced,two faced, how can one claim to support women and believe at the same time TWAW. Would she have seen one of those TW go into a DVC that she so loves to say she supports.
Oh and did some of the Labour women get together to decide to wear pink that day !
To your last point... I noticed that too. There was a pair of identical pink jackets on the front bench. It did feel a little contrived.
For every good question there was five "what about the vulnerable trans" 😪
And I bet no one said,tell me how they are vulnerable.
You win!
Hi Barry
Firstly happy birthday!!
Will buy you a coffee 😁
Secondly have cross posted both your pieces and I think you’ll enjoy this
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/arise-go-forth-and-conquer-in-praise
Have a good break
Dusty
Onwards Dusty
They wouldn't listen to women for years when they had concerns. It took five supreme court judges and years of campaigning and court cases to clarify the law. Now they're begging for people whose rights have not been impacted even a little bit, to be heard. I have two words, they start with eff and end with off. Denied entitlement is what it is.
As somebody who grew up in Monmouthshire I believe this be to be BS. People there are lovely and ignore oddballs and just get on with life. As the father as a vulnerable child with complex needs I find the trans obsession with access to women’s safe spaces insidious. It opens the door for people who will attack women in spaces where they should be safe. Women will be intimidated. Stop this nonsense!
I don’t suppose anyone will care if there is a man dressed as a woman in the men’s WC or changing room.
However, if that same man shows his penis in the women’s, or shows predatory behaviour, then they haven’t a leg to stand on, and that is the difference.
Who really gives a shit about these people’s ideology, the politicians that support them, or those using them as a political football. This is a very clear sign of our society’s decay when such time and resources are allotted to such a non issue.
Clearly hasn't read the judgement and doesn't understand the law or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
Disgusting and evil
🤡
Butler is clearly a certified cretin
Huh?
Just use the family/unisex single space
What makes no sense at all it’s the years of parliamentary energy devoted to the self inflicted destruction of the West by the mentally unstable people who are enabling and wanting this to be normal …
Disabled people have radar key??? For the number of trans people are so low why not have this facility available?