Melanie Field, an independent advisor on equality and human rights who has worked in both the EHRC and the civil service, has written a detailed article on the practical implications of the For Women Scotland ruling.
From what I can see, Melanie Field was in a pretty responsible role at EHRC, certainly when she left in Oct ‘23 she was responsible for Strategy and Policy. I find myself wondering just how much she was involved in writing the Guidances of 2011 (was she already at the EHRC then?) and 2022, whose rationale she is so vigorously defending.
I recall her saying quite vehemently in a meeting before she left the EHRC that "trans people exist" as if we didn't know these people existed. But I felt the context was more about her making a statement of her true beliefs, defending them against the topic in hand which was women's legal rights to single sex spaces.
Dr Foran: the Scottish government's leave to continue to place 'transwomen' in the female prison estate would seem to be itself open to challenge. The SG cannot be challenging the UKSC ruling on the EQA 2010 because the ruling specifically clarifies that sex means biological sex and that it always meant biological sex. So, what is the locus of their claim to carry on placing men in the female prison estate?
Why was the SG given leave to challenge the biological sex basis when prisons must be one of the most obvious examples where any man should be excluded, being a place where biological women are incarcerated and cannot move away or change their location in any way to avoid the male gaze. Former Deputy Governor, Rhona Hotchkiss, has stated that the 'transwomen' in there share recreation time and space, and the showers, with biological women who are intimidated by their presence. Are we not straying into the realms of cruel and unusual punishment for the women?
My query is: if the law is now clear (and, indeed, always was) why should any institution be allowed to continue to flout the law and waste public monies on unwinnable court cases? Why are these potential cases not simply struck down before ever coming to court, as being vexatious? If the SG's case is that these biological men should be allowed into the female prison estate based solely on their 'gender reassignment'/GRC, which most do not have - because it cannot be based on their biological sex - and biological sex is the only qualification, apart from having committed a crime - for being housed there, then the case is lost before it begins, surely? Or is the SG claiming that it is both proportionate and a legitimate aim to house men in the female prison estate?
Another point: if government lawyers, and other public body lawyers are issuing false guidance and false advice, then they are not achieving the professional standards necessary for the positions they hold. To be on top of the law in their area must require a certain standard of knowledge and understanding of said law? Or is it the case that the SG MSPs are not listening to proper and legally sound advice? They cannot be if sound legal advice has been offered and, yet, they persist in pressing ahead with time and money wasting challenges to settled law - which, in turn, can mean only that they are determined to undermine and challenge the existing law as a legitimate governing body subject to the law of the land. Surely, this is malfeasance in public office?
A straightforward and clear analysis Michael, thank you
When read alongside Melanie Field’s analysis the intention to mislead is clear. It is so important to keep pushing back on these blatant attempts to obfuscate - thank you for continuing to do so.
Also interested in your response to Lorna’s question
From what I can see, Melanie Field was in a pretty responsible role at EHRC, certainly when she left in Oct ‘23 she was responsible for Strategy and Policy. I find myself wondering just how much she was involved in writing the Guidances of 2011 (was she already at the EHRC then?) and 2022, whose rationale she is so vigorously defending.
I recall her saying quite vehemently in a meeting before she left the EHRC that "trans people exist" as if we didn't know these people existed. But I felt the context was more about her making a statement of her true beliefs, defending them against the topic in hand which was women's legal rights to single sex spaces.
Thank you, as always.
Dr Foran: the Scottish government's leave to continue to place 'transwomen' in the female prison estate would seem to be itself open to challenge. The SG cannot be challenging the UKSC ruling on the EQA 2010 because the ruling specifically clarifies that sex means biological sex and that it always meant biological sex. So, what is the locus of their claim to carry on placing men in the female prison estate?
Why was the SG given leave to challenge the biological sex basis when prisons must be one of the most obvious examples where any man should be excluded, being a place where biological women are incarcerated and cannot move away or change their location in any way to avoid the male gaze. Former Deputy Governor, Rhona Hotchkiss, has stated that the 'transwomen' in there share recreation time and space, and the showers, with biological women who are intimidated by their presence. Are we not straying into the realms of cruel and unusual punishment for the women?
My query is: if the law is now clear (and, indeed, always was) why should any institution be allowed to continue to flout the law and waste public monies on unwinnable court cases? Why are these potential cases not simply struck down before ever coming to court, as being vexatious? If the SG's case is that these biological men should be allowed into the female prison estate based solely on their 'gender reassignment'/GRC, which most do not have - because it cannot be based on their biological sex - and biological sex is the only qualification, apart from having committed a crime - for being housed there, then the case is lost before it begins, surely? Or is the SG claiming that it is both proportionate and a legitimate aim to house men in the female prison estate?
Another point: if government lawyers, and other public body lawyers are issuing false guidance and false advice, then they are not achieving the professional standards necessary for the positions they hold. To be on top of the law in their area must require a certain standard of knowledge and understanding of said law? Or is it the case that the SG MSPs are not listening to proper and legally sound advice? They cannot be if sound legal advice has been offered and, yet, they persist in pressing ahead with time and money wasting challenges to settled law - which, in turn, can mean only that they are determined to undermine and challenge the existing law as a legitimate governing body subject to the law of the land. Surely, this is malfeasance in public office?
A straightforward and clear analysis Michael, thank you
When read alongside Melanie Field’s analysis the intention to mislead is clear. It is so important to keep pushing back on these blatant attempts to obfuscate - thank you for continuing to do so.
Also interested in your response to Lorna’s question
Very clear and easily understood (as always).
Thank you.
Seconded.
Remind me never to get into an argument with you! Fantastic rebuttal.