Britain’s first transgender judge takes UK to European court over Supreme Court ruling on biological sex

The first transsexual judge of the UK started the process of taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights, according to the Supreme Court’s biological sex decision.

The decision of the Supreme Court, which ruled that trans women are not legally women in accordance with the Law of Equality, led to the warnings that they will exclude wholesale people wholesale sales of England society ”. However, gender critical campaignists greeted the decision as a victory for women.

The lawyers who moved on behalf of Dr Victoria McCloud, 55 -year -old standing last year, defended the violation of their rights in the ECHR, the European Convention on Human Rights – a fair and neutral hearing by an independent court.

The judge claims that the Supreme Court rejects the permission of the problems to intervene how problems will affect him and other trans people.

The first non-bilateral lawyer of the UK, representing it, and Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, the founder and general manager of the trans legal clinic and the first black trans lawyer in the UK. This is the first situation in history to be introduced by a Leaded Legislative Legal Team.

“He embodies a simple truth for the trans community: without us, there should be no more talk about us,” the trans legal clinic spokesman said.

“In the heart, the principle in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the right to a fair and impartial hearing of an independent court. This fundamental stone of democratic societies is available to ensure that the rights of the affected may take part in the proceedings that determine the future.”

“Trans Legal Clinic, www.translegalclinic.com/mcCloud addressed a community mass funding campaign To help meet the costs of the case. The initiative aims to ensure that the members of the people directly contribute to the proceedings and lead to transactions reflecting the participation in these issues ”.

However, Sex Matters CEO, Maya Forstater, described the case as “incomprehensible ve and seems to be a deceptive and expensive PR campaign than a serious legal strategy”.

“The European Court of Human Rights only hears lawsuits consuming all local legal solutions, and McCloud is not a party for women of Scotland in the high court,” he said.

“It is a fantasy that someone can go directly to Strasbourg to complain that the Supreme Court in their own countries is not listening to them.

“Probably McCloud’s team may be planning to go to the Supreme Court of England to look for a declaration of incompatibility with internal human rights law, with the expectation that it will provide a way to Strasbourg.

Dr McCloud appeared as a transgender in his twenties and is one of the approximately 8,000 people who legally changed the gender in birth documents.

He tried to provide evidence of the Supreme Court about how the result of the decision would affect him and other trans people, and he has accused of refusing to hear evidence since then.

While talking Independent In June, Dr McCloud told England that the bomb decision of April was “not much better than the countries blaming people, and argues that their rights were violated in accordance with the sixth article of the Universal Human Rights Declaration.

“He changed my legal gender for discrimination for a night,” he said.

Stating that he had not heard in the case of the Supreme Court, Dr. McCloud added: “I think the people who are most affected in human rights terms actually do not have any sound at any stage.”

The Supreme Court heard interventions from a number of gender in terms of sex issues, LGB alliance and lesbian project.

Dr McCloud’s case comes to women in which Scotland is acting on policies that Scotland is “inconsistent” with power.

The group said that there is now a “very few options, but that more legal action is that the group“ the group clearly violates the law ”because it remains in place of some policies related to transsexual students in schools and detention.

For women, Scotland applied to the session court trying to break the policies by saying that “vulnerable women and girls were damaged and that they did not leave us any other option than starting more legal proceedings”.