@Jebadoo2 A number of points on this Dennis. 1. As you know, what the Act means is determined by the meaning of the words used by Parliament in the Act, interpreted in accordance with the settled principles of statutory interpretation, such interpretation, if necessary, by the court.
@Broonjunior Sorry old chap, but I regard that as "not good enough", a minister should be able to say whether an act criminalises "misgendering", it is no part of responsible legislating to pass the buck to the courts/police. This could have been made clear and it wasn't.
Now if you claim the act doesn't do this with reference to the "reasonable" test, fair enough as a position but 1. You're prepared to go further than the actual Minister and 2. You're assuming a shared understanding of the term "reasonable" with enforcement, which I don't think can be safely assumed on the available evidence. It's tantamount to saying "go and police only unreasonable things" without guidance on where to draw the line in a heated and febrile debate.
@Jebadoo2 @Broonjunior Wouldn't it have been helpful if he'd been able to say, "well, any case is a matter for the police, but I refer you to this part of the Act" (as the Law Commission in England argued later in 2021 was needed for this issue)? But it was rejected on the advice of lobbyists.
@Jebadoo2 @Broonjunior Or even any of these. They wouldn't even take a power allowing them to refine the defences using an affirmative SI, in the light of experience.
@LucyHunterB @Jebadoo2 Yes, it would. And the reasons for the omissions were the ones you identify, which are bad reasons. But nevertheless the meaning of the Act is pretty clear and notwithstanding the absence of these provisions it does not criminalise that sort of speech.
@LucyHunterB @Jebadoo2 So the real risks are: 1. The process is the punishment; and 2. Police overreach/incompetence. I think I can say with considerable confidence that JKR will not be investigated far less prosecuted for yesterday’s tweets, and it is therefore clear that the emperor has no clothes.
@Broonjunior @Jebadoo2 I'm glad you say that. But I hate to tell you that for people trying to work out how much to worry about police over-reach, a lawyer on Twitter being reassuring like that is not enough. Would you issue a pro bono legal opinion to this effect? That would do some good here.
@Broonjunior @Jebadoo2 As Susan Smith of @forwomenscotland said earlier of basing risk assessment on whether or not one woman is prosecuted "I'm not sure that's a really sensible basis for policing your legislation".
@LucyHunterB @Broonjunior @Jebadoo2 @ForWomenScot At this moment in time, a farcical aquatic ceremony would offer a degree of clarity re: rule of law in a way that a Govt minister huffing + puffing round a mic doesn't.