Trample on women’s rights instead
Whatever it takes to punish women.
SNP ministers are seeking a legal ruling declaring that implementing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on sex would unlawfully trample on the human rights of transgender criminals.
Um, excuse me, what about the rights of women? There are a lot more women than there are transgender criminals. Maybe it’s worth paying attention to our rights too.
Despite repeatedly insisting in public that they accept the judgment of Britain’s top court in April, ministers have privately requested that Scotland’s top civil court issues a “declaration of incompatibility” which would severely undermine it, if its other legal arguments fail.
A declaration, if granted, would state that removing biologically male prisoners who say they identify as female from women’s jails would amount to an unlawful breach of their human rights and throw UK-wide equalities laws into chaos.
Jesus christ. What about the human rights of women in women’s jails? Why don’t they matter? Why are the fictional “rights” of men who claim to be trans worth so much more than the real and desperately needed rights of women?
Although the Scottish government has rewritten school guidelines around bathroom access and girls’ sports in an effort to comply with the judgment, it has refused to change its prison policy, which still allows trans women to serve sentences in the women’s estate.
Why??? Why so desperate to force women to have men in prison with them?
Trina Budge, an FWS director, said: “Male murderers are still being held in the female prison estate and we simply wouldn’t have to take the Scottish ministers back to court about this if they genuinely accepted the decision of the Supreme Court.”
But hatred of women conquers all, it seems.
OB: “Jesus christ. [sic] What about the human rights of women in women’s jails? Why don’t they matter? Why are the fictional ‘rights’ of men who claim to be trans worth so much more than the real and desperately needed rights of women?”
To which the appealed-to JC himself may well have responded: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”. (Matt 5:28, KJV)
Now either JC was speaking from his own experience there, in which case he was a sinner after all, and with everything implied with and consequential upon that, and which would bring Christianity and all its glorious cathedrals and works of art crashing down, OR he was speaking off the top of his head, of something he actually had no experience of and knew nothing practical about; in which case he was a damn fool. A bit like those potential rapists masquerading as transwhatevers, and who demand that everyone else endorse their wretched fantasies.