Clifford Chance is going to court to fight for a gender-free UK passport.
Having won a judicial review, next week the Magic Circle firm will argue in the Administrative Court that Her Majesty's Passport Office is breaching the right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights by requiring applicants for passports to declare their gender as either male or female.
Acting for Christie Elan-Cane, whose 'Non-Gendered' campaign seeks legal recognition for individuals who don't identify as either sex, Clifford Chance and barristers from Blackstone Chambers successfully argued last year that the case should be heard for inclusion of a third, non-gender specific 'X' option.
The firm will argue that the government's m/f-only policy is "discriminatory and irrational" and therefore unlawful. Australian and New Zealand passports already include an X option, as do those for Canada, Denmark, Germany, Malta and Pakistan. More countries, including India, Ireland and Nepal, provide equivalent third options.
The X-Men-Women-People's lead partner is Narind Singh, who told RollOnFriday that X-passports were "a crucial step" in the protection of the human rights of a group of people who "otherwise face an unacceptable choice between forgoing a passport, and making a false declaration, and using a passport which misrepresents their identity".
Tip Off ROF
Having won a judicial review, next week the Magic Circle firm will argue in the Administrative Court that Her Majesty's Passport Office is breaching the right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights by requiring applicants for passports to declare their gender as either male or female.
Acting for Christie Elan-Cane, whose 'Non-Gendered' campaign seeks legal recognition for individuals who don't identify as either sex, Clifford Chance and barristers from Blackstone Chambers successfully argued last year that the case should be heard for inclusion of a third, non-gender specific 'X' option.
Back off its undetermined bits. |
The firm will argue that the government's m/f-only policy is "discriminatory and irrational" and therefore unlawful. Australian and New Zealand passports already include an X option, as do those for Canada, Denmark, Germany, Malta and Pakistan. More countries, including India, Ireland and Nepal, provide equivalent third options.
The X-
Comments
393
405
410
401
407
392
392
396
391
402
386
412
400
430
418
379
397
380
421
387
389
430
The answer is 33, which is, I suspect, rather less than the 4 billion you thought it would be.
420
391
407
386
386
415
GTFO
425
379
Snowflakes 1-0 Trumpites
401
403
415
391
396
402
The snowflakes are my people mate, the haters are yours. We're winning.
423
376
1) it is readily discernible requiring no specialist equipment, apart from the case of the 0.1% of the population whose chromosomes are neither XX nor XY (source: wikipedia). In many of the other cases, the genitalia present will support an unambiguous classification as either male or female. In the very few edge cases, rather like a mixed race person, an arbitrary decision needs to be made which will *affect a person's passport* not the way they live their life. This case doesn't involve an intersex individual anyway.
2) it is an identifier universally understood around the world.
3) It is discernible from birth.
4) It is extremely difficult to convincingly fake or change, notwithstanding well publicised antics with burkas.
5) Certain legal rights and privileges including differential pension rights or maternity leave are granted to members of only 1 sex.
6) Various international standardisation agreements on the content of passports include reference to sex (look on Wikipedia for a list).
The tribalism "your people", "We're winning." Two words for you. Trump. Brexit. That's what happens when you sling mud to repress reasonable, liberal people raising reasonable concerns. Learn to defend your ideas without resorting to name calling.
The law is full of arbitrary decisions including legal voting, smoking and drinking ages, legal age of criminal responsibility, pension retirement age. The only way you can run a state which differentiates between classes of individual is to classify individuals either whimsically or consistently. Consistently is objectively fairer.
415
394