Jake

@jake2500.com

35 Followers 17 Following

Screenshot of the south east coast ambulance service policy supporting trans employees. It says "Toilets and other facilities: The individual can use the facilities congruent to their gender identity. 3.15.22. Where required potential users of the facilities should have trans awareness training to help them to be properly prepared, to welcome any trans person who is starting to use the facilities. It is not appropriate to request that a trans person use accessible toilet facilities. If others do not wish to share facilities with a trans person, then they, rather than the trans person should be directed to accessible facilities."
Screenshot of paragraph 5.11 from the explanatory memorandum published alongside the draft code of practice. It says "5.11 If the new Code is approved, there will be a further two statutory instruments to complete the process: a revocation order made under section 15(3) of the 2006 Act (“the revocation order”): the 2011 Code must be revoked under section 15(3) by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument; and a commencement order made under section 14(8) (“the commencement order”): this statutory instrument commences the new Code. It doesn’t require parliamentary procedure and requires only to be signed by the Minister".
Screenshot from a report by the House of Lords secondary legislation committee. It says "The draft Code is subject to the negative procedure and can only be issued if neither House passes a resolution disapproving it within 40 days. This 40-day period will end on 9 July. To bring the draft Code into effect two further instruments are required: an order to commence the new Code (not subject to parliamentary procedure) and another to revoke the existing Code (subject to the negative procedure). In a scenario where neither House resolves that the Code be not made, we asked when the Government expects to lay the commencement and revocation orders. The OEO told us it intends to lay the revocation order “as soon as is practical” after 9 July, and that, once laid, there will be a 22-day period before the existing Code is revoked and the new Code is commenced."
(2) “Conversion practice” means (subject to subsection (3)) any conduct carried out by a person towards an individual with the intention of— (a) causing the individual— (i) to have or not to have, (ii) to believe that they have or do not have, a sexual orientation or a particular sexual orientation; or (b) causing the individual— (i) to have or not to have, (ii) to believe that they have or do not have, a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity.
A screenshot from the Labour 2024 manifesto. It says "So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity."
Screenshot from the draft conversion practices bill. it says "(3) Conduct which— (a) is carried out by a person towards an individual with such an intention, but (b) is carried out in the course of providing health care services to the individual concerned, is not a conversion practice unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position".
In answering "What steps she is taking to help tackle discrimination against trans people?" the government minister quickly answers "Trans people deserve to live with dignity, respect, and without shame".
Screenshot from a report by the House of Lords secondary legislation committee. It says "The draft Code is subject to the negative procedure and can only be issued if neither House passes a resolution disapproving it within 40 days. This 40-day period will end on 9 July. To bring the draft Code into effect two further instruments are required: an order to commence the new Code (not subject to parliamentary procedure) and another to revoke the existing Code (subject to the negative procedure). In a scenario where neither House resolves that the Code be not made, we asked when the Government expects to lay the commencement and revocation orders. The OEO told us it intends to lay the revocation order “as soon as is practical” after 9 July, and that, once laid, there will be a 22-day period before the existing Code is revoked and the new Code is commenced."
Headline from just 3 days ago. It says "Starmer says he will stand in any Labour leadership contest against Burnham. Prime minister suggests he will not ‘walk away’ despite Burnham’s comfortable victory in Makerfield byelection"
The house of lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It mentions a submission. It says "We received a submission from TransActual, which raises concerns about the draft Code. Some of the points raised are reflected in this report. The submission, and the Government’s response to the issues raised within it, can be found on our website."
An unknown news reader with a face that appears confused by the concept of breathing with a ticker underneath saying "CANCEL CULTURE: SNICKERS REMOVING BELOVED 'DICK VEIN'".
Screenshot from the Policy Exchange project 2029 website. It says "Human Rights Law, Judicial Review, and International Law. Equality law, European human rights law and international law now distort almost every aspect of public policy, limiting Parliament’s freedom to make law and Ministers’ power to act. How should the UK go about freeing itself from the European Convention on Human Rights? Should the Human Rights Act be replaced by a Bill of Rights or repealed without replacement? How should judicial review be reformed to enable effective government? When should Ministers be obliged to undertake consultations? Should the Equality Act be amended or repealed? Which treaties should the UK leave? Which should it reform? How can Ministers who prioritise the national interest engage effectively with international law?"
Screenshot from the EHRC code of practice consultation response. It says “There has been no legal determination of whether, or in what circumstances, misgendering still constitutes harassment following the ruling in the case of For Women Scotland. Case law is likely to develop on this point. Therefore, no change has been made to this example.”
Nadia Whittome MP asks the Leader of the House "the Government laid the EHRC’s draft code of practice before the House. Since then, trans-led organisations, human rights groups, charities and trade unions have come out in opposition, citing the harm it poses to trans people, the contradictions it contains and how unworkable it will be to implement. Last week I tabled EDM 240, which would disapprove the draft code of practice. This is the mechanism set out in the Equality Act 2010 for MPs to be able to prevent the code from coming into force. In less than two weeks, 128 MPs have signed making it the most-signed early-day motion since the last general election. It is supported by trans-led organisations, Amnesty International, Unison, the GMB and ASLEF. Would the Leader of the House not agree that this level of widespread, cross-party concern warrants the code being debated and voted on, and will the Government therefore allocate time to do so?" The answer is effectively "no".
Very dense screenshot from the Christine Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECtHR judgement. Due to the character limit, it cannot all be posted here in alt text. A short summary of it is that trans people have the right to autonomy and to establish their identity as human beings. They cannot be put into an intermediate zone. And this is not something subject to the passage of time. The court specifically says "Nonetheless, the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom" and "In the twenty first century the right of transsexuals to personal development and to physical and moral security in the full sense enjoyed by others in society cannot be regarded as a matter of controversy requiring the lapse of time to cast clearer light on the issues involved". The court also acknowledges that there may be practical difficulties poses by this judgement, but it rejects them as being an excuse for denying trans people their rights. The court specifically says "No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost".
A clip token from Women and Equalities Committee Oral Evidence with the EHRC. It cuts together two answers. The first says single sex spaces have worked fine for decades (with trans-inclusive rules). The second backtracks that and tries to say there actually are problems.
A screenshot of the signatures withdrawn from the early day motion asking that the EHRC code of practice be rejected. They are Tim Farron, Andrew George, and Monica Harding. All Lib Dems.
A screenshot of the withdrawn signatures from early day motion 240 to reject the draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations. It shows Tim Farron MP and Andrew George MP have withdrawn their signatures.
Screenshot of withdrawn signatures from early day motion 240 rejecting the draft code of practice on services, public functions and associations. It shows Tim Farron and Andrew George have withdrawn their signatures.
A screenshot of the guardian article where Wes Streeting claims “I was never a close friend of Peter Mandleson”. There is a picture of the liar in the bottom right corner.
An screenshot of the FA's 2015 policy for trans players. The text says "When considering a trans player’s application, The FA will make a presumption that an individual’s application will be approved if he or she is able to satisfy the hormone-based requirements and provide the evidence set out below. If these requirements are met, The FA will only refuse an application if The FA decides in its absolute discretion that it is necessary to refuse an application to ensure (1) the applicant’s and fellow players’ safety and/or (2) fair competition."
A screenshot of the EHRC website about what qualifies as a protected philosophical belief. Highlighted part says "The Equality Act also says that a belief must also be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people’s fundamental rights."
Screenshot of the government page showing the draft code of practice. It clearly says "draft".
A screenshot from the relevant part of the explanatory memorandum issued with the draft code of practice. It says "5.8 Under section 14(7) and (8), if the Code is approved by the Secretary of State, she is responsible for laying it before Parliament. Whilst not a statutory instrument in itself, the new draft follows a similar procedure to a draft negative statutory instrument. The Code will be laid as an Act paper. 5.9 The Secretary of State approved the draft Code on 5 May and it was laid before Parliament on 21 May. Following the laying, there is a 40-day period that allows for Parliamentary scrutiny of the new draft Code. 5.10 If there is no resolution within 40 days by either House moving a fatal prayer motion against the draft Code, the EHRC may “issue” the Code under section 14(8). However, the new Code will not be in force until it is commenced by order. "
Screenshot of the conclusion of the equality impact assessment of the draft code of practice. The highlighted text says "However, the exception to this would be the gender reassignment protected characteristic, where we do think there are negative impacts. We assess that updates following the FWS ruling may also negatively impact other characteristics, including disability and sex."
A table of labour and conservative policies in their last election manifestos. It shows that Labour have actually completed, and in some cases exceeded the Conservative Party policies.
Screenshot of the conclusion of the impact assessment of the draft code of practice. The last paragraph says "Generally, we have assessed that changes which apply across all protected characteristics contribute to the pursuit of the 3 aims in the PSED, and have a positive impact overall. However, the exception to this would be the gender reassignment protected characteristic, where we do think there are negative impacts. We assess that updates following the FWS ruling may also negatively impact other characteristics, including disability and sex."
A quote from the draft code of practice It says "13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it."
Screenshot of text from the draft code of practice. It says "13.168 Where, regardless of such communications, there is clear evidence of an issue with members of the opposite sex accessing or seeking to access the single or separate-sex service or association in question, it may be legitimate to ask individuals to provide confirmation that they are of the eligible sex by proportionate means. Evidence of such concern might include the individual’s physique or physical appearance, behaviour or concerns raised by other service users. However, service providers, those performing public functions and associations must keep in mind that it is not always possible to be sure of a person’s sex from their appearance. Whether it is legitimate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex will be a sensitive question that will depend on all the circumstances. "
Screenshot of the draft code It is "2.51 This Code only relates to the application of the Equality Act 2010. It does not deal with the implications of the For Women Scotland judgment for the application of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to any other legislation."
Screenshot of a paragraph of The Times article. It says “They’re concerned their rights are being taken away. Their anger should be directed at those snake-oil salesmen who sold them the fiction they had rights that have been taken away, and not ever explained that rights are balanced. And that in some areas, such as discrimination law, the rights of biological people hold.” In the imagine “biological people” is highlighted.
A screenshot from the https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-fWW9p7Tv9RFJamYVB93ItDN_jtG8Nq/view the EHRC's argument in the GLP case. It says: " In considering whether the EqA made "provisions" under section 9(3), the Supreme Court thus considered whether a "certificated sex meaning" would produce incoherent or unworkable results. In that respect it pointed out that the fact a person has a GRC may not be know: section 22 of the GRA (referred to at FWS2 [78]) preserves its confidentiality: [173]. It also pointed out that a person with a GRC may or may not "pass" as trans: it is not necessary to obtain a GRC that one has physically transitioned to any extent: [26]. "
Screen shot of the top-left corner of an internet archive page. The "captures" button is underlined.
A screenshot from the website linked above. One of the speaker’s bios says “She is a Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She speaks in a personal capacity.”
Classic Principle Skinner meme where he considers whether he is out of touch, but concludes that it is the children that are wrong. The caption has been changed to refer to the Labour party instead. It says sarcastically "Is the labour party out of touch? No, it's the constituents who are wrong!"
Screenshot of The Equality Act 2006 section 14 (7-8). It says: Before issuing a code under this section the Commission shall submit a draft to the Secretary of State, who shall— (a)if he approves the draft— (i)notify the Commission, and (ii)lay a copy before Parliament, or (b)otherwise, give the Commission written reasons why he does not approve the draft. (8)Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (7)(a)(ii), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days— (a)the Commission may issue the code in the form of the draft, and (b)it shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.
Screenshot from the article which says “Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK's immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years.”
Screenshot from the article which says “Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK's immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years.”