"Coercive" - is this just being a mum? E.g. "Be back by 9 or else!" Plus worse - "no way are you having those shoes". She'd have been in massive trouble with the gender nutters
Thanks, Dennis, this is very, very helpful and the 'worked example' really helps to explain it all and how to approach it.
Do you think that another possible way forward, if this is brought into force, might be to seek a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act on the basis that the legislation itself is incompatible with the HRA ( on the basis of the arguments you raise in defence)?
I take it you can respond to the consultation even if you don't live in Scotland?
What an appalling and totalitarian piece of law this is!
I find this plan to put gender ideology into law by the back door an insidious attempt to render the UK government useless regarding section 35. This is a petty and nasty law Scottish greens and their tail wagging dogs, the snp, are using to usurp the will of the Scottish people and the UK Parliament. The actual harm this could do to parents, teachers, doctors, lawyers and society as a whole is malevolent in the extreme. This is an exercise in how to overthrow the democratic will of the people. Is it possible to take the greens to court along with their dogs for insinuating into law a quasi religion to the detriment of scottish society and causing psychological and physical harm to children...I wish it was.
Coupled with the new prison regulations that have hardened into practice the use of women as toys for gender addled males and those who are fox in the henhouse types it seems to me that Scotland is so far up the hole of gender crap that they don't even realise or care about the harm they are doing.
This has to be stopped legally and both poisonous parties removed by election to those who deal in reality
Thanks Dennis your legal arguments provide much needed clarity 👍 😀
Fantastic work Dennis. I intend using some of your legal points to fill out the Consultation.
This Bill is insidious in the extreme. It is more than obvious (as usual) its all about the T-trans.
Emma Roddick has admitted there are no figures for Gay conversion in Scotland. These days, remembering we have the so called 'Gayest Parliament in the world', its just not an issue, or one requiring specific legislation.
In fact in one interview Roddick admitted this legislation is about providing a consolation prize (my term) to the trans community in Scotland with the GRRB having failed.
This is why this legislation is twice as contemptible, it's undisguised assault on vulnerable children.
Could an objection also be made on the basis it creates mutually contradicting laws?
In particular, would the proposed "conversion practices" legislation create an irreconcilable conflict with existing child protection legislation, putting parents in a position where they have no way to act lawfully in response to their child wanting to wear a binder?
I ask this because the CPS has issued clear guidance (as of 2019) that cases of breast ironing or flattening should be prosecuted as a form of child abuse, regardless of whether the perpetrator had the child's consent. I know Scotland has a different legal system, but surely their laws protecting children from parents who cause them, or allow them to suffer, physical harm, must be taken into account as a relevant factor here?
That is, in essence the key tension, once one analyses gender medicine as quintessentially harmful, that is irreconcilable with the language of supressing "gender identity"
There's also a massive article 8 point on this (private and family life), I'm reading into that at the moment might devote a future piece to it once I get my head round the case law
This is a clear and logical description of the contradictions, pitfalls and abuses which would stem from this nasty law being perpetrated. Thank you for your clear example. It entirely removes parental authority and gives children the power to do anything they wish, harmful or not. Why not underage tattoos as gender expressions? Why not kids drinking alcohol and driving cars as gender expressions? This proposed law is really insane pandering to the gender lobby, and constitutes an abridgement on religious freedom to boot..
That worked example is excellent and should be sent to every MSP. I would encourage everyone to complete the consultation - there is plenty of space to put your comments. It doesn't ask where you live so is open to anyone. Make sure you have three Weetabix before you do it though - I did it last night and it took me ages. Mind you, I did write rather a lot...
Just a comment, and perhaps an over-pessimistic one and not very constructive, I'm afraid. The defence case here seems to rest on human rights legislation that the courts in Scotland have already over-ridden. I'm thinking specifically of the case of Mark Meechan in the 'Nazi pug' joke case. I was shocked that Mark's human rights, especially iro article 10 were breached. I haven't read into the case - I'm not a lawyer - but what commentary on it I've seen sounds Kafkaesque. If Scottish judges can be so bloody-minded as to obviously and grievously ride rough-shod over human rights in a free speech case such as this, I wonder if the articles the Defence seeks to rely upon as laid out here are worth very much? Mark's defence counsel may have simply been rubbish, but even then it does suggest that the Court was only too ready to support the prosecution case, 'to make an example'. Chilling effect.
Regarding the impact on clinicians, suppose we rejig your scenario such that Fiona has bought into the gender ideology and thus supports Sarah's desire to transition and they go to see a doctor at a gender clinic to request that Sarah be put on puberty blockers.
The doctor, being aware of literature on gender dysphoria, aware of the risks and experimental nature of puberty blockers and believing in 'watchful waiting', refuses and advises waiting until Sarah has gone through puberty in case her dysphoria goes away.
Sarah is distressed at this prospect as she doesn't want to go through what she sees as the 'wrong' puberty.
Would refusing to prescribe puberty blockers in this context be considered to be the 'suppression' of Sarah's gender identity? Would the doctor be able to argue that the advice and decision provided to Fiona & Sarah is not intended to direct Sarah towards any particular gender identity but rather to protect her long term interests as a developing child?
lm sorry to say that Scotlands government is off the rails and is in my opinion a risk to human decency and common sense. The influence of the former First Minister is still very prevalent. Sadly l feel l can no longer live here.
First class article showing with chilling realism how the law can imprison innocent carers by the cold inoxerable logic (although flawed) of the legislation.
"Coercive" - is this just being a mum? E.g. "Be back by 9 or else!" Plus worse - "no way are you having those shoes". She'd have been in massive trouble with the gender nutters
Thank you so much,, this is so clear and helpful. It is indeed a civic religion and a very dangerous one.
Thanks, Dennis, this is very, very helpful and the 'worked example' really helps to explain it all and how to approach it.
Do you think that another possible way forward, if this is brought into force, might be to seek a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act on the basis that the legislation itself is incompatible with the HRA ( on the basis of the arguments you raise in defence)?
I take it you can respond to the consultation even if you don't live in Scotland?
What an appalling and totalitarian piece of law this is!
Dusty
I think a declaration of incomparability is absolutely correct here.
Thanks, Dennis, that's great 😊
Dusty
I find this plan to put gender ideology into law by the back door an insidious attempt to render the UK government useless regarding section 35. This is a petty and nasty law Scottish greens and their tail wagging dogs, the snp, are using to usurp the will of the Scottish people and the UK Parliament. The actual harm this could do to parents, teachers, doctors, lawyers and society as a whole is malevolent in the extreme. This is an exercise in how to overthrow the democratic will of the people. Is it possible to take the greens to court along with their dogs for insinuating into law a quasi religion to the detriment of scottish society and causing psychological and physical harm to children...I wish it was.
Coupled with the new prison regulations that have hardened into practice the use of women as toys for gender addled males and those who are fox in the henhouse types it seems to me that Scotland is so far up the hole of gender crap that they don't even realise or care about the harm they are doing.
This has to be stopped legally and both poisonous parties removed by election to those who deal in reality
Thanks Dennis your legal arguments provide much needed clarity 👍 😀
Fantastic work Dennis. I intend using some of your legal points to fill out the Consultation.
This Bill is insidious in the extreme. It is more than obvious (as usual) its all about the T-trans.
Emma Roddick has admitted there are no figures for Gay conversion in Scotland. These days, remembering we have the so called 'Gayest Parliament in the world', its just not an issue, or one requiring specific legislation.
In fact in one interview Roddick admitted this legislation is about providing a consolation prize (my term) to the trans community in Scotland with the GRRB having failed.
This is why this legislation is twice as contemptible, it's undisguised assault on vulnerable children.
Doesn't surprise me in the least Rhona, great to hear you're responding, as many of us as possible need to get responses in on this.
Thank you for your analysis on this, Dennis.
Could an objection also be made on the basis it creates mutually contradicting laws?
In particular, would the proposed "conversion practices" legislation create an irreconcilable conflict with existing child protection legislation, putting parents in a position where they have no way to act lawfully in response to their child wanting to wear a binder?
I ask this because the CPS has issued clear guidance (as of 2019) that cases of breast ironing or flattening should be prosecuted as a form of child abuse, regardless of whether the perpetrator had the child's consent. I know Scotland has a different legal system, but surely their laws protecting children from parents who cause them, or allow them to suffer, physical harm, must be taken into account as a relevant factor here?
That is, in essence the key tension, once one analyses gender medicine as quintessentially harmful, that is irreconcilable with the language of supressing "gender identity"
Right, I'll put that in my response then. Thanks, Dennis.
There's also a massive article 8 point on this (private and family life), I'm reading into that at the moment might devote a future piece to it once I get my head round the case law
Speaking as a layperson, any additional guidance would be very welcome on this
Basically, this law would criminalize parenting.
Yup
This is a clear and logical description of the contradictions, pitfalls and abuses which would stem from this nasty law being perpetrated. Thank you for your clear example. It entirely removes parental authority and gives children the power to do anything they wish, harmful or not. Why not underage tattoos as gender expressions? Why not kids drinking alcohol and driving cars as gender expressions? This proposed law is really insane pandering to the gender lobby, and constitutes an abridgement on religious freedom to boot..
That worked example is excellent and should be sent to every MSP. I would encourage everyone to complete the consultation - there is plenty of space to put your comments. It doesn't ask where you live so is open to anyone. Make sure you have three Weetabix before you do it though - I did it last night and it took me ages. Mind you, I did write rather a lot...
Just a comment, and perhaps an over-pessimistic one and not very constructive, I'm afraid. The defence case here seems to rest on human rights legislation that the courts in Scotland have already over-ridden. I'm thinking specifically of the case of Mark Meechan in the 'Nazi pug' joke case. I was shocked that Mark's human rights, especially iro article 10 were breached. I haven't read into the case - I'm not a lawyer - but what commentary on it I've seen sounds Kafkaesque. If Scottish judges can be so bloody-minded as to obviously and grievously ride rough-shod over human rights in a free speech case such as this, I wonder if the articles the Defence seeks to rely upon as laid out here are worth very much? Mark's defence counsel may have simply been rubbish, but even then it does suggest that the Court was only too ready to support the prosecution case, 'to make an example'. Chilling effect.
Regarding the impact on clinicians, suppose we rejig your scenario such that Fiona has bought into the gender ideology and thus supports Sarah's desire to transition and they go to see a doctor at a gender clinic to request that Sarah be put on puberty blockers.
The doctor, being aware of literature on gender dysphoria, aware of the risks and experimental nature of puberty blockers and believing in 'watchful waiting', refuses and advises waiting until Sarah has gone through puberty in case her dysphoria goes away.
Sarah is distressed at this prospect as she doesn't want to go through what she sees as the 'wrong' puberty.
Would refusing to prescribe puberty blockers in this context be considered to be the 'suppression' of Sarah's gender identity? Would the doctor be able to argue that the advice and decision provided to Fiona & Sarah is not intended to direct Sarah towards any particular gender identity but rather to protect her long term interests as a developing child?
I believe this would be suppression under the definition provided, yes
Horrible legislation !
lm sorry to say that Scotlands government is off the rails and is in my opinion a risk to human decency and common sense. The influence of the former First Minister is still very prevalent. Sadly l feel l can no longer live here.
First class article showing with chilling realism how the law can imprison innocent carers by the cold inoxerable logic (although flawed) of the legislation.
This is sickening. The school going against her is disgusting.