Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News1 min ago
Finally Some Sense From The Judiciary..........
70 Answers
https:/
Bullied by the TROB hordes, of course but 100% correct from the start. It seems though that these days that's not enough.
Bullied by the TROB hordes, of course but 100% correct from the start. It seems though that these days that's not enough.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ah. It isn't the "approved view" ttt. The "right" one now, is that sex and gender should be the same thing. All women must follow feminine stereotypes and all men must follow masculine ones.
While we have spent centuries trying to move forward from this, we now want to return. Or at least, a few men do.
While we have spent centuries trying to move forward from this, we now want to return. Or at least, a few men do.
// Bullied by the TROB hordes, of course but 100% correct from the start. //
oh buloo just buloo
I hate it when TTT alleges " the judges here are fing dong dang....n...."
and 500 other suspects echo " yeah TTT ding dong dang they are"
1762 R v Wilkes
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". Its most celebrated use was by Lord Mansfield in his judgment reversing the sentence of outlawry passed upon John Wilkes for the publication of The North Briton. Lord Mansfield said[1]:
"Unless we have been able to find an error which will bear us out, to reverse the outlawry; it must be affirmed. The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say 'fiat justitia, ruat caelum'."
that is long for : Ld Mansfield for it is he is insiting the judges are independent
I hate it when TTT alleges " the judges here are fing dong dang....n...."
and 500 other suspects echo " yeah TTT ding dong dang they are!"
often adding 'foo!' as some kind of finisher
oh buloo just buloo
I hate it when TTT alleges " the judges here are fing dong dang....n...."
and 500 other suspects echo " yeah TTT ding dong dang they are"
1762 R v Wilkes
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". Its most celebrated use was by Lord Mansfield in his judgment reversing the sentence of outlawry passed upon John Wilkes for the publication of The North Briton. Lord Mansfield said[1]:
"Unless we have been able to find an error which will bear us out, to reverse the outlawry; it must be affirmed. The constitution does not allow reasons of State to influence our judgments: God forbid it should! We must not regard political consequences; how formidable soever they might be: if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say 'fiat justitia, ruat caelum'."
that is long for : Ld Mansfield for it is he is insiting the judges are independent
I hate it when TTT alleges " the judges here are fing dong dang....n...."
and 500 other suspects echo " yeah TTT ding dong dang they are!"
often adding 'foo!' as some kind of finisher
It has nothing to do with the approved view at the moment. It was her view. the twomare entirely seperate. That's the point I'm making.
The only real 'sense' here is that someone has been told they weren't wrong to hold a belief about something. There is no wider implication relating to steps to stop people believing they are anything other than men and women (as much as you'd like it to be).
The only real 'sense' here is that someone has been told they weren't wrong to hold a belief about something. There is no wider implication relating to steps to stop people believing they are anything other than men and women (as much as you'd like it to be).
I think the point ZM is making is that the judgement is not about whether or not Forstater's statement was factual. Instead it is confined to a narrow question: whether or not her beliefs were "not worthy of respect in a democratic society." The original judgement said that they were not; that judgement has now been overturned: but, as the judgement makes clear, that is very much more to do with the fact that "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" is the sort of label that should be confined to fascist views, or pro-slavery stuff, or advocating genocide, rather than debating the topic of gender in the abstract.
The judgement very explicitly distances itself from expressing any views on the substance of the "gender-critical [its term] beliefs"; very explicitly reaffirms that "misgendering" (if repeated and deliberate) is "subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment" that exist in law e.g the Equality Act; and also reaffirms that, as a matter of law, the Gender Recognition Act still applies, so that in legal situations anybody refusing to acknowledge a person's gender as recorded on their birth certificate, before or after obtaining a change via a Gender Recognition Certificate, would be in breach of the law.
See below, in particular, from para. 4:
"[Our decision] does not mean, however, that those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could, depending on the circumstances, amount to harassment of, or discrimination against, a trans person." (emphasis added).
https:/
The judgement very explicitly distances itself from expressing any views on the substance of the "gender-critical [its term] beliefs"; very explicitly reaffirms that "misgendering" (if repeated and deliberate) is "subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment" that exist in law e.g the Equality Act; and also reaffirms that, as a matter of law, the Gender Recognition Act still applies, so that in legal situations anybody refusing to acknowledge a person's gender as recorded on their birth certificate, before or after obtaining a change via a Gender Recognition Certificate, would be in breach of the law.
See below, in particular, from para. 4:
"[Our decision] does not mean, however, that those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could, depending on the circumstances, amount to harassment of, or discrimination against, a trans person." (emphasis added).
https:/
Latest Posts
Home & Garden1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
What Do These Opening Lyrics From...
Music7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.