Discussion

@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk · 5 months ago

> The UK’s first transgender judge has launched a case against the UK in the European court of human rights challenging the process that led to the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.

> The retired judge Victoria McCloud ... is seeking a rehearing of the case, arguing that the supreme court undermined her article 6 rights to a fair trial when it refused to hear representation from her and did not hear evidence from any other trans individuals or groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/aug/18/transgender-judge-supreme-court-case-biological-sex

Robee? Na! 🌈

@RobeeShepherd@mastodon.art replied · 5 months ago

@neil Do you know if this this the same judge that was part of the McCloud pensions case?

millennial fulcrum

@falcennial@mastodon.social replied · 5 months ago

@neil go get em. the system's ONE JOB is TO DO JUSTICE, so it needs to be fuckin served here.

Josh

@krnlg@mastodon.social replied · 5 months ago

@neil It's incredible to me that the supreme court can wilfully and obviously misrepresent the original act, reversing its effect entirely when it comes to a protected minority and yet we're all supposed to pretend that it isn't nakedly political.

I hope the challenge gets somewhere, it's very obvious due process wasn't followed.

Federation Bot

@Federation_Bot replied · 5 months ago

@ Neil Brown
Another manifestation of patriarchy at work; facts are unpalatable, so shall be ignored. Colonialism lives on

HighlandLawyer

@HighlandLawyer@mastodon.social replied · 5 months ago

@neil
Technically an application to Strasbourg is not an appeal, and one can lodge an application in circumstances where ones Human Rights have been breached but there is no domestic remedy available (which itself may be an Article 13 breach). I'm assuming that's the route being taken here.

chrisgerhard

@chrisgerhard@mastodon.green replied · 5 months ago

@neil as a non lawer, I would hope a judge will be sufficiently on top of the law to be in with a chance.

Jón Frímann

@jonfr600@mastodon.social replied · 5 months ago

@neil Their website doesn't have the case up or any rejection of it. She does not have to be a party to the original case for this.

https://www.echr.coe.int/

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/questions_answers_eng

zip

@zip@wandering.shop replied · 5 months ago

@neil I'm surprised there's no angle that the judgment flies in the face of Goodwin v UK (2002), the ruling that required the government to pass the GRA2004 in the first place

chrisgerhard

@chrisgerhard@mastodon.green replied · 5 months ago

@neil nice catch 22 they have there. They refused to hear her submissions, so now she is not party to the case. Or have I misunderstood?

Russell Phillips

@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org replied · 5 months ago

@neil I'm not a lawyer, so less expert than you or her. But I hope you're wrong about the appeal.

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.2-alpha.5 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled