The whole ruling is fractally incoherent. It defines “biological” legally not biologically. It makes the legal definition self contradictory. It solves no problem and creates a gazillion new ones. It violates existing laws. It removes all meaning from the term biological.

Show Post

One legal fudge by the SC may be the Equality Act was newer law so under 'parliamentary sovereignty' etc the Equality Act overwrote the GRA etc. Yes, it's all bullshit and doesn't factor in Blair's malicious compliance and Harriet Harman's persistent sabotage etc and EHRC skullduggery.

Show Post

I try to work out the counter argument but it’s hard because it’s contradictory. GC types say it falls within the margin of appreciation so states are free to choose whether or not to do it. But UKSC then says one choice is incoherent and so can never be the one chosen … so where is the free choice?

Show Post

Yeah. It's so obvious that this is what ha happened that it is hard to formulate the legal argument with without just waving your hands and saying "LOOK!'.

Show Post

There seems to be a willful refusal to understand that the GRC was introduced to change the only remaining things you couldn't already change, not a few random things that the court decided were specifically important.

Show Post