Menschenrechte in Gefahr: Die dgti stellt 3 Fragen an den britischen Botschafter Andrew Gill im Fall des UK Supreme Court Urteils
Dies ist notwendig, weil Trans* feindliche Politik in den USA und UK auch die Situation in Deutschland beeinträchtigt. Dies ist zuletzt durch ein Urteil des britischen UK Supreme Court vom 16.4.2025 und eine darauf folgende verschärfte Richtlinie der Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) am 25.4.2025 geschehen. Weiterhin gibt es einen Vorschlag für eine Gesetzesänderung, die im Ergebnis bewirkt, dass Reisepässe und andere Dokumente trotz Gender Recognition Zertifikat das bei der Geburt zugewiesene Geschlecht enthalten müssten. Dieser soll am 8.5.2025 im Parlament behandelt werden. Der UK Supreme Court hat im Verfahren keine trans* Personen angehört, obwohl deren Rechte unmittelbar berührt werden.
Als Bundesverband, der sich für die Akzeptanz und Menschenrechte der tin*Community einsetzt, haben wir daher folgende Fragen an den britischen Botschafter Andrew Gill gestellt:
Wie stellt die britische Regierung sicher, dass die Würde von trans* Personen gewahrt bleibt?
Das Urteil des UK Supreme Court wird wahrscheinlich vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte angefochten. Wird die britische Regierung ein mögliches Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte anerkennen?
Will die britische Regierung die Art der Speicherung des Geschlechts in Registern ändern oder nicht und damit indirekt bewirken, dass in Dokumenten wie dem Reisepass das bei der Geburt zugewiesene Geschlecht anstatt der aktuellen Geschlechtsangabe bei trans* Personen angegeben werden muss?
Unser Brief im englischen Original:
Subject: Judgement UK Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers & relating EHRC-Guidelines
Your Excellency, The judgement of the UK Supreme Court in the case For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers has a devastating effect on the daily life of transgender and non-binary people, not just in the UK but anywhere in the western world like it has in Germany too. That´s why we‘re reaching out to you.
We are convinced that the court´s unanimous judgement is unanimously biased and that the judges sided with the appellants, regardless what transgender people had to say about it. They simply haven´t been heard. In a case like this that is not just unusual, it looks like basic procedures like those in any other supreme or constitutional court in the western world have been omitted. Though we are no experts in British judiciary, that can´t be right. The judgement itself does not create “clarity” as the British Government calls it.
In our opinion, it contradicts the Gender Recognition Act (2004) and the legal framework that made it come to life: The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice. On the contrary, the UK Supreme Court gave no hint that EU case law had to be set aside. The UK are still a member of the European Council on Human Rights. Back in 1997 the European Court of Justice decided discrimination on grounds of being transgender is discrimination on grounds of “sex”.
That judgement is part of the Supreme Court´s opinion making but hasn´t been fully taken into account. Even worse, the UK´s Equality and Human Rights Commission vastly overstretched the Supreme Court´s judgement with its preliminary guidelines published recently.
In our opinion it´s a violation of Art.11 Human Rights Act (1998) to tell women-only, lesbian-only or gay-only and men-only associations who should become a member or not. EHRC is telling these associations they have no say in that. If an association like those deliberately doesn´t admit trans* people so be it, but we think it´s illegal to force them.
The supposed “clarity” will probably lead to transgender men applying for membership in a women-only club let´s say a gym. A transgender man (“biological woman”) with a beard and a low voice there or a nice “female” looking trans* woman entering a men-only gym, forced into this situation by law, will clarify only the ignorance behind this legal action. Moreover, employers are now be forced to actively ask their employees whether they are trans* or not to avoid trespassing English law. Once a trans* person is known to the management, she will be forced to out herself as trans* every day, once she uses a bathroom.
This kind of “clarity” creates embarrassing and discriminating situations and contradicts provisions of the Equality Act regarding gender reassignment. First examples became apparent in May. For us, EHRC´s guidelines are a 21th century version of apartheid. EHRC is degrading itself to an institution promoting inequality on a path already laid out. We´d appreciate an answer from you to the following questions:
How exactly will the British Government ensure the dignity of transgender people in light of our arguments brought forward?
The Supreme Court Judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers will probably be contested at the European Court of Human Rights. Will the British Government accept a verdict from that court?
Does the British Government support or not support any change of how sex data are recorded, leading to passports and other documents showing the sex recorded at birth of transgender people rather than an updated gender marker?
