You can’t clarify mud
Yet more news on Scotland’s war on women:
First Minister John Swinney has been asked for clarification amid reports his government is attempting to challenge the Supreme Court ruling on sex and gender.
At First Minister’s Questions, SNP MSP Michelle Thomson asked about a report in The Times that in November the Scottish Government wrote to the Advocate General for Scotland, Baroness Smith of Cluny KC, who advises the UK Government.
[For more see Unlawfully trample]
The government informed her that it would seek a legal ruling declaring that implementing the Supreme Court’s judgment would unlawfully infringe on the human rights of transgender criminals, if its other legal arguments against the Supreme Court‘s ruling fail.
This is despite Scottish ministers consistently affirming in public that they accept the ruling.
They are seeking a ruling that would demolish women’s rights, still, in the teeth of the existing ruling telling them to stop demolishing women’s rights.
This is despite Scottish ministers consistently affirming in public that they accept the ruling.
They accept it, it’s just that they want to overturn it or, failing that, ignore it. Seems fair.
If Scotland’s highest civil court were to grant the declaration, it would state that to remove a biological male prisoner who identifies as female would be an unlawful breach of their human rights.
While it would not be an unlawful breach of the human rights of female prisoners to force a man on them.
Why is that exactly? Why are the purported rights of one man who wants to intrude on and ogle and intimidate and assault women all-important while the rights of a whole lot of women? Why? Why is the male desire to intrude important while the female desire to be safe from intrusion is unimportant? How, exactly, do men like Swinney arrive at this conclusion? The insult and injustice seems so extremely blatant…
? “Why are the purported rights of one man who wants to intrude on and ogle and intimidate and assault women all-important while the rights of a whole lot of women?” Something missing here?
Human rights? Which one? The right to lie about your sex is not a “human right.” The right to be safe in prison? That cuts both ways. Women prisoners have a right to be safe from male prisoners every bit as much as male prisoners have a right to be safe from probable male violence. The only way the women’s right to safety can be protected is to remove the trans-identified men from the women’s prison. The trans-identifying-men’s right to safety can be addressed by providing them a separate unit in the men’s prison, or maybe dedicating one prison exclusively for trans-identified male prisoners. Voilá: the rights of both the women and the trans-identified men are satisfied.
Let’s see what the 2015 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners [The Nelson Mandala Rules] have to say about the conditions of female detention:
Rule 11
The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions, taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment; thus:
(a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women, the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate.
Note that this requires separation by sex, there is no mention of gender or gender identity. And since the UK Supreme Court ruled that transwomen are men, there should be no more talk of housing them with women. Their human rights can be safeguarded through protective custody measures in the men’s facilities.
I should note, however, that the Nelson Mandela Rules are not legally binding but have been adopted by the UN General Assembly and are supported by over 50 member states, including Canada and the USA. The UK has not yet signed on. The Rules nevertheless provide a comprehensive framework to guide national legislation, prison administration practices, and judicial decisions.