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
377
393
395
387
399
385
382
384
380
390
373
401
390
418
409
368
389
370
409
373
380
415
The answer is 33, which is, I suspect, rather less than the 4 billion you thought it would be.
412
380
395
378
375
404
GTFO
412
371
Snowflakes 1-0 Trumpites
393
395
401
383
387
389
The snowflakes are my people mate, the haters are yours. We're winning.
404
361
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.
395
383