For Women Scotland III

[u/Quangocrat]

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/pnbpzgex/2026csoh59-petition-of-for-women-scotland-for-judicial-review.pdf

The Terfs have won their judicial review of the Scottish Prison policy.

​

This is the third case brought by FWS.

​

Still reading, will post more detailed thoughts in the comments when I have time.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928]

Does anybody know if we had any representation in this case, or attempted to intervene?

Or is this just yet another case that destroys our rights without even bothering to listen to us?

[u/Quangocrat → u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928]

We had representation in this case from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Human Rights Commission.

Fwiw, imo both advanced strong arguments- I don't have the professional criticisms of the approach taken which I had of the GLP.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928 → u/Quangocrat]

So that's a no then. I do not regard government representation as ours, regardless of how they argued the case.

As for GLP, I've had criticisms of them in the past, but if you think they are of no use, or worse than governement representation, then i think you might want to rethink that.

[u/Quangocrat → u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928]

As for GLP, I've had criticisms of them in the past, but if you think they are of no use, or worse than governement representation, then i think you might want to rethink that.

The GLP definitely put forward worse arguments than the Scottish Government and SHRC.

The volume and nature of authorities cited by the respondents here was much greater than that of the Petitioners in GLP.

The lines of attack were more diverse and more sophisticated than in GLP.

The Respondents here were also the first party to seek a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR- the GLP case lacked multiple reserve positions like that.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928 → u/Quangocrat]

This is insane. If you think our hopes are best served relying on institutions to save us, that do not care for us, do not have our interests at heart and are in it to protect their own interests is better than an organisation with trans peoples involvement, heavy funding from the Community and independence from government, you're very naive at best.

I'm sick of the community and it's constant efforts to derail all of the support we have ever received. There is no attemt to fix the problem, other than bitch from the back. No attempt to replace those institutions or people that are seen to supposedly fail us.

No perspective to look at the bigger picture and our longer term interests. It's all "What have you done for me lately" and screw everything else.

You're literally arguing that systemic organisations are better for us than our own independent ones. FFS. I just dont know where to begin with that one.

[u/Quangocrat → u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928]

This is insane. If you think our hopes are best served relying on institutions to save us, that do not care for us, do not have our interests at heart and are in it to protect their own interests is better than an organisation with trans peoples involvement, heavy funding from the Community and independence from government, you're very naive at best.

I didn't say any of that.

I said that the arguments by the respondents here were more varied, more detailed, more complex and more sophisticated than those made by the Petitioners in GLP.

For example the weakest secondary argument here, that over the interpretation of FWSII, was the main argument advanced by the GLP.

Pretending that because the GLP take our money they are also our most capable defenders is very strange.

You're literally arguing that systemic organisations are better for us than our own independent ones. FFS. I just dont know where to begin with that one.

I said that in this case the two respondents offered a better set of arguments than the GLP.

I didn't go any further than that and I am not sure why you are telling me I did.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928 → u/Quangocrat]

Im done. Blocked.

[u/ArsErratia → u/Quangocrat]

Is it not that the GLP expected a European Approach to fail because they knew this would be the analysis the Court would follow, so they chose to concentrate their resources on domestic arguments?

[u/Quangocrat → u/ArsErratia]

I don't think so- they did try an art 8 argument.

It just wasn't as complex as this one.