Ditto to my comment about politicians in part 2 - apart from a few notable exceptions. They destroy the Western world and sit sneering like Emperors without their clothes. But we see them.
I worry that Tickle v Giggle is the wrong hill to die on. Women's privacy, dignity and safety is not compromised by a man being on a website remote from contact. I think this is why the Australian courts have this far found against Sal Grover.
You have to remember that hundreds of larping men tried to join the app thus rendering the app useless. I think , regardless of the subject matter, the presence of the dreaded words 'gender identity' in the Aussie SDA is the problem but I think the high court can address that problem unlike the lower courts.
Plus the furore has woken up the Liberal Party!!!!
And the For Women Scotland v Scottish Government case was only about a policy for female representation on public boards, after all. As long as the legal definition of woman is integral to the case it will impact everything else that relies on it in law.
Sorry, I probably could have made my point more clearly. I’m comparing it to the FWS vs Scot Gov case because that wasn’t directly about privacy, dignity or safety either, but by clarifying what the definition of woman is in UK law it impacts UK legislation that is directly about those things. And in the same way, I think Sall defending her own particular hill is worthwhile for the more far-reaching effects it might have in Australia once it’s decided on in their High Court.
But the purpose of the Giggle app was for a female only online safe space. A place for finding flatmates, new acquaintances when you move fo a new city. A place to discuss personal things like pregnancy with other women. It was to have a Lesbian dating feature. Being safe online is a real concern for women. And men like Tickle trying to get on the app undermines its whole purpose. The simple principle that women should be able to have female only spaces in the physical and online world should be upheld in Australian law.
And I agree but the law doesn't. And hasn't for some time. In the UK for the past 50 years. Much Australian Law is based upon commonwealth traditional law. In 1975 the UK Government introduced the Sex Discrimination Act and in 1984 Australia all but mirrored it. In the decades that followed women (feminists) set about challenging and dismantling every men only club, men only golf club etc to force access for women. Give the feminists their due, they stopped short of the bathrooms and changing rooms. But men only spaces were all but eradicated.
The Law may be unjust but Sal isn't campaigning to change the Law in this action she is fighting a challenge under existing law, which isn't necessarily in her favour. Actual bodily privacy, dignity and safety are covered under the law and as in the For Women Scotland case the court upheld the rights of women under the current UK legislation because of those concerns. Notional feelings of unsafety are not likely to carry the same weight.
Who knows? This "Felling Unsafe Online" sounds like woke nonsense enough the Australian Supreme Court may just buy it.
I agree that men should be entitled to single sex spaces too and they already are eg toilets and changing rooms.
The problem of Stonewall law has been eradicated by the FWS judgment.
I believe the Aussie High Court can actually challenge the SDA itself much as our HRA can attack a piece of legislation?
I think safety is not the main aspect of a women only app. To take the example of lesbian dating that will be destroyed if it is full of larping blokes.
The Sex Discrimination Act was to put into law in Australia the international treaty CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Descrimination Against Women and Girls). The treaty didn't define 'woman' because no one thought they needed to in the early 1980s. The 2013 amendment adding transgender in direct contradiction with sex broke sex based rights. On principle, Giggle and Sal Grover should have won against Tickle. The loss to him proves the Act is broken
I believe the High Court (Australia's highest court) can direct the government to fix a broken (or contradictory) Act. I don't think the court can actively fix it
Everyone knows Roxy Tickle and others like him are men. Even the ideologically captured cultists know it as they double down on insisting that these creepy autogynephiles are totally women because they said so.
Ditto to my comment about politicians in part 2 - apart from a few notable exceptions. They destroy the Western world and sit sneering like Emperors without their clothes. But we see them.
Thanks Dusty. Lots to seethe over.
You're welcome, TT.
The Emperor's new Clothes is alwasy a good fairy story to quote!!
Yes lots to seethe over!
Dusty
I worry that Tickle v Giggle is the wrong hill to die on. Women's privacy, dignity and safety is not compromised by a man being on a website remote from contact. I think this is why the Australian courts have this far found against Sal Grover.
Hi Amanda
You have to remember that hundreds of larping men tried to join the app thus rendering the app useless. I think , regardless of the subject matter, the presence of the dreaded words 'gender identity' in the Aussie SDA is the problem but I think the high court can address that problem unlike the lower courts.
Plus the furore has woken up the Liberal Party!!!!
Dusty
And the For Women Scotland v Scottish Government case was only about a policy for female representation on public boards, after all. As long as the legal definition of woman is integral to the case it will impact everything else that relies on it in law.
Hi Becca
Obviously the Aussie courts are not bound by the FWS case but it ought to be taken into account at the very least
Dusty
Sorry, I probably could have made my point more clearly. I’m comparing it to the FWS vs Scot Gov case because that wasn’t directly about privacy, dignity or safety either, but by clarifying what the definition of woman is in UK law it impacts UK legislation that is directly about those things. And in the same way, I think Sall defending her own particular hill is worthwhile for the more far-reaching effects it might have in Australia once it’s decided on in their High Court.
Ah I see your point, Becca, thanks and agreed
Dusty
But the purpose of the Giggle app was for a female only online safe space. A place for finding flatmates, new acquaintances when you move fo a new city. A place to discuss personal things like pregnancy with other women. It was to have a Lesbian dating feature. Being safe online is a real concern for women. And men like Tickle trying to get on the app undermines its whole purpose. The simple principle that women should be able to have female only spaces in the physical and online world should be upheld in Australian law.
Hi Sam
I agree
Dusty
And I agree but the law doesn't. And hasn't for some time. In the UK for the past 50 years. Much Australian Law is based upon commonwealth traditional law. In 1975 the UK Government introduced the Sex Discrimination Act and in 1984 Australia all but mirrored it. In the decades that followed women (feminists) set about challenging and dismantling every men only club, men only golf club etc to force access for women. Give the feminists their due, they stopped short of the bathrooms and changing rooms. But men only spaces were all but eradicated.
The Law may be unjust but Sal isn't campaigning to change the Law in this action she is fighting a challenge under existing law, which isn't necessarily in her favour. Actual bodily privacy, dignity and safety are covered under the law and as in the For Women Scotland case the court upheld the rights of women under the current UK legislation because of those concerns. Notional feelings of unsafety are not likely to carry the same weight.
Who knows? This "Felling Unsafe Online" sounds like woke nonsense enough the Australian Supreme Court may just buy it.
Hi Amanda
I agree that men should be entitled to single sex spaces too and they already are eg toilets and changing rooms.
The problem of Stonewall law has been eradicated by the FWS judgment.
I believe the Aussie High Court can actually challenge the SDA itself much as our HRA can attack a piece of legislation?
I think safety is not the main aspect of a women only app. To take the example of lesbian dating that will be destroyed if it is full of larping blokes.
Dusty
The Sex Discrimination Act was to put into law in Australia the international treaty CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Descrimination Against Women and Girls). The treaty didn't define 'woman' because no one thought they needed to in the early 1980s. The 2013 amendment adding transgender in direct contradiction with sex broke sex based rights. On principle, Giggle and Sal Grover should have won against Tickle. The loss to him proves the Act is broken
Hi Sam
Yes the current version of the Act hardly complies with CEDAW.
I believe that the Aussie High Court can actually challenge the SDA itself much as our HRA can attack a piece of legislation? Is that right?
Dusty
I believe the High Court (Australia's highest court) can direct the government to fix a broken (or contradictory) Act. I don't think the court can actively fix it
Thanks Sam
Yes that’s what I thought- great! Hope springs eternal!!
Dusty .
Everyone knows Roxy Tickle and others like him are men. Even the ideologically captured cultists know it as they double down on insisting that these creepy autogynephiles are totally women because they said so.
Thanks for the comment and couldn't agree more.
Dusty