Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 7h

Next, CyberSTD.

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · Aug 10

When Cyberpunk 2077 was released a few years ago, I found the concept of Cyberpsychosis quite intriguing. Who would have imagined that this concept would become so relevant in our world so fast?

👹👻 boo-rit 👻👹 @britculpsapp.bsky.social · Aug 10

“my ai developed boundaries”

3

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 7h

Next step: shaders ☆*:.｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 7h

So smooth :D

1 4

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 8h

The right to sécurité morale may sound abstract (and French), but it really means being able to look in a toilet mirror, see your own reflection, and feel safe.

So you interfere with my ability to look at that mirror, cool, is it going to help?

2 17

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 8h

Therefore, even if the State claims that the law has been the same since 1975, it must still justify it today tomorrow next month next year by showing a pressing social need. No such need has ever been identified by any legislature or court.

1 1 24

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 8h

Remember, the starting point is liberty, you can do whatever you wish. It’s only when the State intervenes that your rights and freedoms may be limited.

Gender segregation is not the natural or default state of society. It is not freedom. You need enforcement to make it a reality.

1 2 24

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 8h

O’Flaherty’s intervention on trans rights and protest rights centers on the necessity test, not proportionality.

In the simplest terms, it’s the question of “is it going to help?” If a law achieves nothing good and only interferes with our freedom, it violates human rights.

1 8 44

Reposted by Ashleeee 🌊🪭

Tristan Grayford @tristangrayford.scot · 10h

I think it would have surprised even the most pessimistic if you'd told people during the 2024 campaign that a year into Government Starmer's team would be negatively briefing against the ECHR and Council of Europe for daring to question their assault on trans rights

8 62 200

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 9h

Haha 😛

Tristan Grayford @tristangrayford.scot · 10h

I think it would have surprised even the most pessimistic if you'd told people during the 2024 campaign that a year into Government Starmer's team would be negatively briefing against the ECHR and Council of Europe for daring to question their assault on trans rights

2 9

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 9h

It would not stand if we left. The principle of Thlimmenos discrimination is not incorporated into our domestic law.

1 1

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 12h

It’s chilly in the evening.

1 1

Reposted by Ashleeee 🌊🪭

Good Law Project @goodlawproject.bsky.social · 15h

"Are we going to abandon people whenever the rightwing press demands it?"

9 64 170

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 12h

The bunny is my comment 😆

1

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

A level English? Let’s do chemistry instead 🧪

a man in a yellow jacket with the words a level che written on the bottom

Alt: a man in a yellow jacket with the words a level che written on the bottom

media.tenor.com

1 3

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

Yes. Conor Gearty was truly legendary, and this marks his final contribution.

1 6

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

A couple of months ago, Hong Kong struck down its colonial-era “bathroom law” precisely on the grounds of Thlimmenos discrimination.

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

5/ Thlimmenos discrimination enters the stage 🥺

88. Seventh, in addition, employers which are public authorities remain bound by their duty under
section 6(1) HRA 1998 not to breach the rights of their trans employees under the Convention. Blanket exclusionary policies are likely to breach the rights of trans employees to respect for private life under Article 8. In addition, such policies may amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14 read with Article 8 by treating trans people differently without justification and/or failing without justification to treat trans women differently from cis women (i.e. women who are not trans) and trans men differently from cis men (Thlimmenos discrimination) despite their
different position. 89. Eighth, as noted above, employers who seek to adopt blanket exclusionary policies also risk committing the criminal offence of disclosing protected information about a trans employee with a GRC in breach of section 22 of the GRA 2004. That is further indicative
that Parliament cannot have intended these results (and that the legislation must be read

2 3 16

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

7/ I have no further substantive comments, but this case is largely discretionary, and it is ultimately up to the judge whether they would like to have some fun solving the intellectual puzzle of working out how to include trans people.

1 1 13

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

oh #3-5 is from the GLP.

2

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

6/ Haha, this is exactly the point I was making BEFORE the Scottish Ministers case was decided, to show how futile it would be for the hate group to bring the case and to explain why their strategy would not succeed.

Finally, it is bizarre and worrying that the Guidance went out of its way to note that
"it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex." To the extent that this may be the case, it is a fortiori true that it could be gender reassignment discrimination against trans people if organisations adopt blanket policies which exclude trans people from using the toilets which align with their gender identity.

1 2 20

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

5/ Thlimmenos discrimination enters the stage 🥺

2 1 15

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

btw this is unacceptable because the transphobic Labour government refuses to commit even to the non-controversial position that discretionary trans inclusion is certainly lawful. Instead, they go “may be” and cast doubt on it.

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 14h

2/ That said, ha, haha.

Did the government lawyers actually plagiarise my work?

38. If such derogations are made, questions in law then arise. They include: (a) whether the CSS provider is automatically deprived of the ability to rely on the CSS Exceptions; and (b) if so, for how long and in relation to what claims.
39. If derogations arguably do not automatically deprive a CSS provider from the ability to rely on the CSS Exceptions, the question in law is what interpretation of the CSS Exceptions allows for such derogations and whether that interpretation would or could allow for a trans-inclusive approach. One answer may be that the focus in CSS Exceptions should not be on a CSS provider's service in general, but on the service being specifically provided to a specific individual.
GROUNDS 2 and 3
40. The Minister does not propose to address Ground 2. This relates to the Defendant's own statutory functions in relation to the production of the Interim Update. The Minister had no involvement in that.

6 18

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

4/ I particularly agree with point (c). The EHRC’s attempt to portray their misstatement of law as merely the “main consequence” should not allow them to evade responsibility. On the contrary, it actually satisfies the “full account” criterion in A by limiting the scope of what needs to be examined.

a.
Authorise and approve unlawful action by those to whom the Guidance is directed;
b. Breach the duties imposed on the Commission by sections 8 and 9 of the EqA 2006 to provide accurate advice about equality and human rights law;
c. Present a misleading picture of the true legal position while also purporting to provide a full account of the "main consequences" of the judgment in For Women Scotland.

2 1 20

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 13h

I think judicial independence in the UK remains strong. Judges are generally still willing to challenge their colleagues.

4

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 14h

That’s a lot of new jargon and abbreviations the government lawyers made up just for this.

Can’t you guys just write normal legal English like I did with “composite provision” and “in personam nature of contraventions and exceptions”?

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 14h

2/ That said, ha, haha.

Did the government lawyers actually plagiarise my work?

1 2 9

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 @reactiveashley.bsky.social · 14h

3/ I really like this. The “admin law” part of the case will be decided on this point.

Some words are highlighted.

Further, the Claimants challenge any future iteration of the Guidance that remains materially the same and/or persists in making the following assertions of law:

1 That references to "men", "women" in Regulation 20 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 are to be construed as referring to a person's "biological sex" and/or that Regulation 20 requires employers not to permit trans men to use the men's toilets and not to permit trans women to use the women's toilets. (specifically bullet 1 as at 30 July 2025).
2 That when service providers make toilets available, if trans men are permitted to use the men's toilets, or trans women permitted to use the women's toilets, this means that the toilets must be made open to all users of the opposite sex. (Bullet 1 as at 30 July 2025)
3 That where single sex facilities are made available, it is lawful for trans men to be required to use the women's toilets, and trans women to be required to use the men's toilets, as long as they are not put in a position where there are "no facilities for them to use". (Bullet 3 as at 30 July 2025)
4 That it is sufficient to ensure lawfulness (under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010) for trans people to be provided only "where possible" with mixed facilities in addition to "biological" single sex facilities: (Bullet 4 as at 30 July 2025)
a despite the fact that, when it is not possible, then, following the Commission's Guidance read as a whole, trans men must be required to use the women's toilets, and trans women must be required to use the men's toilets; and
b even when it is possible, requiring trans people to use additional mixed facilities may cause them to out themselves to colleagues or other service users or otherwise undermine their privacy and dignity.

2 1 18