bens_dad (
bens_dad
) wrote
2025-06-19 05:35 pm (UTC)
no subject
They were very quick to make a statement that seemed unnecessarily anti-trans. I already suspected that they had an agenda; now that their lawyers are choosing not to defend it, I am sure that someone important in the EHRC had an agenda.
Lord Sumption, former Master of the Rolls, was at least a figure-head for an anti-woke backlash against the
Natiional Trust
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/national-trust-defends-right-to-campaign-on-nature-amid-pressure-from-lobby-group
and
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/past-recast-inside-row-engulfing-national-trust
Yet he says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html
that whilst the Supreme Court ruling
allows
one to be anti-trans, it does not
require
one to be.
(
3 comments
)
Post a comment in response:
From:
Anonymous
(will be screened)
OpenID
(will be screened if not validated)
Identity URL:
Log in?
Dreamwidth account
Account name
Password
Log in?
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
.
Subject
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Formatting type
Casual HTML
Markdown
Raw HTML
Rich Text Editor
Message
[
Home
|
Post Entry
|
Log in
|
Search
|
Browse Options
|
Site Map
]
no subject
Lord Sumption, former Master of the Rolls, was at least a figure-head for an anti-woke backlash against the Natiional Trust https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/02/national-trust-defends-right-to-campaign-on-nature-amid-pressure-from-lobby-group and https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/past-recast-inside-row-engulfing-national-trust Yet he says https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html that whilst the Supreme Court ruling allows one to be anti-trans, it does not require one to be.