Every imported question, contribution and motion, with its classification. Unflagged, uncertain and not-yet-analysed records are all included so the analysis can be checked independently.
I have not finished. As I have said, the test before us is not whether a term is contested; it is whether the courts could interpret it and apply it proportionately. I am glad that most of our judiciary have a bit more wit than Members when it comes to interpreting those terms and do not come up with such ludicrous…
I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Gaston talked about this being "ludicrous" and "folly": some of the contributions have been ludicrous and folly. For Members to talk in such dismissive and trivialising terms about people identifying as inanimate objects and as cats and dogs is ridiculous and deeply offensive. I…
I take Members back to the example of the child who is questioning their identity. It could be a challenging time. I will give way to the Bill sponsor if he allows me to make this point. For any child questioning their identity, it is a challenging time. We have talked about it in the Chamber. They need someone to…
I again say that that is central to the Bill's premise. It is what the courts would be deciding on, particularly when somebody is self-determining their gender identity and their orientation.
I thank Mrs Erskine for giving way. To build on Mr Frew's point, the danger is not limited to what he says. Clause 6(1) states that it "includes" the terminology that Mr Frew quoted, so it goes beyond that. It could go further. Does the Member agree that, when we have "gender identity" referred to 10 times in the Bill…
I ask Members not to fall into a trap. The Bill does define "gender identity". It defines it by stating that it is: "what the victim considers it to be". That is a most dangerous definition. It therefore has been defined by the Bill sponsor. The Bill sponsor has done that purposely, and that is what the court would…
I thank the Member for giving way. That brings me back to a point that I made in the House last week: the judiciary would be interpreting the legislation. In the House, we have been prevented from getting the definition of "gender identity" from the Bill sponsor. We look at clause 6, but we are still unclear. If the…
I thank the Member for giving way. I note that the Bill sponsor shakes his head in disgust when this is mentioned, yet, time and time again, he is unable to define the term that he wants to put in legislation. Clause 6 talks specifically about gender identity. The point that Mr Frew raises about children who may…
FlaggedDecided on a second assessment.Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issuesCriteria met: Dog-whistle messaging.
The Member poses a good question about how a court will define it. The court will be left with no choice but to define it as it is written in the legislation. It is written in the Bill that the victim considers it to be what they consider it to be. That is the danger here. The Bill sponsor knows rightly — it is why he…
FlaggedDecided on a second assessment.Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issuesCriteria met: Dog-whistle messaging.
Yes, and that is the exact fear that results from the legislation. I go back to the point that how somebody feels is included in the legislation, as is how someone will self-determine their gender identity as a result of the legislation. That is subjective and will allow organisations such as churches, parents and the…
FlaggedDecided on a second assessment.Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issuesCriteria met: Dog-whistle messaging.
I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has explained, in some depth, why he has made the exemption for medical practitioners. Does that Member agree that, if we are to believe what he has been stating throughout his contribution about the Bill not being intended to create a chilling effect in the family home or…
For clarity — sorry, it is late, and we have been in the Chamber for some time — a Health Minister could come along and decide to include another organisation such as a church. No? I ask for the sake of clarity.
I am sorry; I misconstrued the Member's question. The Education Minister — Paul Givan; he is speaking as a private Member — is correct in that there is a constraint. It has to be a regulatory body under section 25 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The exclusion is specifically…
I thank the Member for that intervention. He is following a train of thought that is similar to what I am looking at. It is concerning that it is wide open or open to interpretation, meaning that a Minister who may have different views could come along and add to it. I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.
I am trying to understand what Mr Tennyson has just said. It says that the exemption for the Department of Health would not apply in respect of any: "individual registered by, or subject to regulation by, any of the following regulatory bodies". Maybe I have picked up the inference incorrectly, but the Member for…