|
|
|
Notifications
|
|
|
|
Simply,
The applicants are British nationals who were born in 1939 and 1940 respectively, and live in Port Talbot. They are represented before the Court by the Student Law Office, lawyers practising in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The applicants married in 1960. They have had three children, born in 1961, 1963 and 1973. They remain lawfully married. Both have deep religious convictions; the first applicant was ordained as a church minister in 1970.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The first applicant was born male. However, the first applicant felt from an early age a strong desire to live as a woman. In 1998, the first applicant started to take steps to come to terms with this need. The first applicant was ultimately advised by doctors that he would require gender reassignment surgery; this was carried out at public expense on the National Health Service (although it is not entirely clear when this took place). She continues to undergo hormone replacement treatment and other forms of treatment such as laser treatment and electrolysis. She changed her name by deed poll from William David Parry to Wena Dean Parry in 1998. She has completed all of her surgical interventions and contends that she is in all private and public relationships a woman.
The second applicant has stood by the first applicant, and they contend that they remain together as “a loving and married couple.”
Following the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (‘GRA 2004’), the first applicant made an application to the Gender Recognition Panel (‘the Panel&rsquo
on 1 January 2005 for the issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate (‘GRC’).
Because the first applicant is married, the Panel could only issue an interim GRC, which they did on 25 May 2005. The only purpose of such a certificate is to enable the first applicant to seek annulment of a lawful marriage. On annulment, she would then be able to obtain a full GRC, a formal recognition of her acquired gender.
Neither applicant wishes to annul their marriage, so the first applicant is unable to obtain a full GRC.
Now because of the UK laws regarding Same sex marrieage, common Law and to all exclusions within the Gender Recognition act. The couple felt there was no way forward within the legal system in the UK for W. Parry to get the gender marker changed on her birth certificate until the marriage had been anulled, after taking legal advice they went direct to the european courts mistakenly thinking the EHRC and courts in strasbough would intervene and issue a directive to overule the directives and guidelines within the UK common law on marriage.
WRONG. The lawyers were on to a winner whichever way the case went but they lost. it was ruled that the UK law had taken into account all issues and was fair and above reproach.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (‘GRA 2004&rsquoprovides a mechanism whereby transsexuals may have their new genders recognised. Section 2 provides that a Gender Recognition Panel must grant an application if it is satisfied that the applicant: (1) has, or has had, gender dysphoria; (2) has lived in the acquired gender throughout the preceding two years; and (3) intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death.
By section 3, an application must include a report from a registered medical practitioner, or a chartered psychologist, either of whom must be practising in the field of gender dysphoria. This report must include details of diagnosis. A second report must also be included, which need not be from a medical professional practising in the field of gender dysphoria, but could be from any registered medical practitioner. At least one of the reports must include details of any treatment that the applicant has undergone, is undergoing or that is prescribed or planned, for the purposes of modifying sexual characteristics.
Section 4 sets down the consequences of an application being successful. It reads in material part as follows:
“(1) If a Gender Recognition Panel grants an application under section 1(1) it must issue a gender recognition certificate to the applicant.
(2) Unless the applicant is married, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate.
(3) If the applicant is married, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate.
(4) Schedule 2 (annulment or dissolution of marriage after issue of interim gender recognition certificate) has effect.
The only function of an interim gender recognition certificate is therefore to provide a document which can be used to obtain a divorce.
The other provisions of the GRA 2004 only apply where a full gender recognition certificate is concerned. These include, for instance, section 9, which provides that:
“(1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).”
Not all provisions of the GRA 2004 require status or situations existing prior to gender recognition to be changed or dissolved. For instance, provisions as to parenthood (section 12), succession (section 15) and peerages (section 16) explicitly provide that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender does not effect their status or rights flowing therefrom.
BUT Now we go back to the Infamous Corbet V Corbet (April Ashley)
2. Marriage in English law
Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides that a marriage is void unless the parties are “respectively male and female.”
In Corbett v Corbett [1971] Probate Reports 83 it was held that marriage could only be between a woman and a man, determined on genital, gonadal and chromosomal factors, and should not take into account the party’s psychological beliefs, however genuine and profound.
Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Corbett v Corbett have recently been reconsidered by the House of Lords in Bellinger v Bellinger Their Lordships considered that the words “male” and “female” were to be given their ordinary meaning and referred to a person’s biological gender as determined at birth so that, for purposes of marriage, a person born with one sex could not later become a person of the opposite sex. They therefore held that it was not possible under English law for a person to marry another person who was of the same gender at birth, even if one of them had undergone gender reassignment surgery. They did, however, issue a declaration that Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act represented a continuing obstacle to the ability of the (male to female) transsexual petitioner to enter into a valid marriage with a man, and that it was therefore incompatible with her rights under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention.
The applicants complained that the GRA 2004 breached their right to respect to family and private life in making the grant of a full gender recognition certificate conditional on their divorce. They invoked Article 8 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Government accepted that the decision to require a person to end his or her marriage before that person could obtain a full gender recognition certificate engaged the Article 8 right to respect for private life but not that concerning family life as the right to marry is governed by Article 12. They submitted that the effect on past marriages of a change in gender was left within the margin of appreciation as had been expressly mentioned in Christine Goodwin v . the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002 VI, § 103). This was entirely appropriate given the different approaches taken by Contracting States to the treatment of same-sex relationships and, even more so, to the recognition of same-sex marriages. It appeared that only three Contracting States permitted the latter while 11 allowed only for civil partnerships. Furthermore a substantial majority of Contracting States that allowed transsexuals to change their legal gender required those persons to bring any existing marriage to an end.
The UK Government in its defence submitted that the law of marriage in English law referred to marriage between different sexes and was a sensitive area with profound cultural and religious connotations. It was thus legitimate for the Government to have regard to social, religious, ethical and cultural views within a society when introducing legislation such as the GRA 2004. During the passage of the legislation they and the legislature had been well aware of the concerns now expressed by the applicants for preservation of existing marriages after a change of gender by one of partners but decided that it was appropriate for a clear ‘bright line’ rule to be maintained, reserving marriage for couples of different sexes. This was a proportionate response bearing in mind that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 permitted transsexuals to enter into a civil partnership with their former spouse, thereby enabling them to enjoy the same financial and other legal benefits associated with marriage. Indeed it permitted persons in the applicants’ position to enter such a partnership on the same day on which their marriage was annulled. They considered that there were only a few, very modest costs associated with the proceedings for nullity (some GBP 300 in court fees) and civil partnership processes(about GBP 70), together with drawing up new wills (some GBP 200 for a couple).
It goes on and on in all The Parry's claimed 5 different breaches of the EHRC. each one was rebutted by the International court on human rights, all based on previous rulings made by them, setting precedents.
IF only the greedy lawyers representing them had looked up case histories and precedents first.
1) I'm not familiar with the "marriage" regulations in the UK. If same-sex "legal marriage" is not permitted, then you would think after a married person has a sex change the married would be illegal - unless of course, both parties had changed their sex.
2) I would find it difficult to live in a country that has it's own set of laws... that can be overturned by someting like the EU. Who is running the UK? Brussels?
Common law is "unwritten law" and consent to be governed can be refused for cause. I find it frustrating that fictitious corporate states, and collective legislation continue to decieve the people into thinking they need permission by them to do anything.
As a Sovereign American, I am capable of creating any document in order to achieve whatever goal I need to; without malicious or fraudulent intent of course. Getting married and obtaining a "license" for anything turns it into a commercial venture and throws you out of common law and into admiralty maritime law/equity law.
In America we are all sovereign and understanding who we are, how to interpret law and understanding legalese; rights vs. privileges and of course contrat law will get you anything you want. The entire concept of "gender roles" is derived from religion which is not FACT and is still being practiced by government officials (even if they deny it). Proof - swearing upon the bible in court.
This is 15th century thinking, and we live in the 21st century. This is a major concern to me that society today is refusing to accept deductive reasoning with logic using evidence and their brains (phycial proof).
There is no such thing as slavery without consent. Countries with societies that choose to be governed can do so, and there's nothing wrong with that for people who are not capable of governing themselves, but those same people need to understand that if they choose that, they will have to "beg" definition of application for everything.
In the UK ''Common Law'' originally based on common sense, and prevailing judgements in the courts, was written and recorded in statutes. precedents set on determination of the judiciary, the ability to argue over the meaning of a law, the interpretation of laws enacted by Parliament. Under common law a person is innocent until proven guilty of the crime laid against them, under Civil law a person is guilty until they prove themselves innocent as in a defendant in a litigation or damages claim.
One of the two major legal systems of the modern Western world (the other is civil law), it originated in the UK and is now followed in most English speaking countries
Better still http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.[1] By contrast, civil law (codified/continental law) is set on statutes adopted through the legislative/parliamentary process and/or regulations issued by the executive branch on base of the parliamentary statutes.
A common law system is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law,[2] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[3] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions
..................................................
One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Particularly common law is in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,[5] and in countries that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including India,[6] the United States (with the exception of Louisiana[7]), Pakistan,[8] Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada (with the exception of Quebec, which uses a mix of civil law in areas of provincial jurisdiction and common law in areas of federal jurisdiction), Malaysia, Ghana, Australia,[9] Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, Ireland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados,[10] South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Botswana, Guyana and Israel.
I'm sorry I disagree. Common law is taught that it's case law to lawyers who are part of the B.A.R. society. It is unwritten, and the definintion provided was created by the B.A.R. Common law is law without codifed statutes, and is not in equity/admiralty. The reason why I see it that way is because all countries and states everywhere are all tradenamed/trademarked and operate with a business license or in commerce which is equivilent to admiralty or "water" and not land. If you are not operating as "agent" or ward of the state/court you are not considered property which is what everyone is considered by the "law society"/B.A.R. because they are hiring lawyers to speak for them making them incompetant which is equiv. to idiot or child defined in the law dictionary. Everything is civil = by contract with penalties and fees and if such penalties and fees can not be paid, then the "person" or "defendant" pays them by sitting in jail or in a warehouse where they are bonded and the private jails/prisons make aprox $200 a day off every "person" stored until the fine is paid. This is also called a jail sentence. When one claims common law jurisdiction the court can not proceed until they somehow bind you into consent to do business. This is done by asking you to state your NAME which is tacit consent to contract. All courts are private law firms - This is how it is in the U.S. anyway.
If you don't believe me start investigating the following types of BONDS: 1. Bid Bond 2. Performance Bond 3. Appearance Bond. Also you may investigate why all letters in ones name at court are capitalized instead of spelled in proper form. Ex. JOHN DOE vs. John Doe. The capitalization of all letters demostrates a total loss of rights or Capitis Diminutio Maxima or complete loss of rights. Notice how all corporate "persons" are in all capital letters. ex. WAL-MART, TEXACO, CHEVERON, STARBUCKS ETC ETC. If you don't believe me look at the business license usually posted on the service desk walls at some of these places, then look in your wallet. Ask yourself why judges or officers ask you if you have your person on you aka license... It may sound like a conspiracy, but it's not because it's written in the law.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)
For purposes of understanding one's legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS -Capitis Diminutio Maxima- in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards & statements, loans, mortgages, speeding & parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!
Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as "To take advantage of - To use to ones own advantage."
Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
Capite. - Lat. By the head.
As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.
[The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner's manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.]
Due to the UK, Canada and the US being bankrupt countries, yes all these countries have been bankrupt for some time now; they all have currencies that are known as FIAT currency. In other words, all our money is worthless! There is no big Gold or Silver reserves to back it up…look on any UK banknote and you will see the words, I promise to pay the bearer. It is a promissory note…nothing more. Worthless basically!
So when we are registered at birth, the government produces a corporation, a straw-man, by placing our name in all capitals. But why I hear you ask? Well as we are a bankrupt country (just waiting to go into an economic fold – exactly what is about to happen in the US) the government needs collateral to invest and to receive loans on, so we, the people, become slaves in bondage to be used as collateral with lenders.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that still doesn’t apply! Do not make the mistake of taking advice from anyone who studies, or has studied orthodox law, as they especially will not know this…they were kept well away from this deliberately. Police do NOT know that us and them are slaves in bondage, solicitors & lawyers do NOT know that them and us are slaves in bondage, and most government agents do NOT know either.
ERM THIS IS A UK LAW FORUM THAT IS HOW IT WORKS HERE, Interesting if somewhat radical conception tho.
Later I will post some examples of precedent.
United Kingdom is no different and is operating as a business just like the U.S. We are not in the 15th Century anymore. Your geographical location on planet Earth has nothing to do with it. Everything is commercial/civil. Read the Hague Convention concerning the legalization of foreign documents. Many nations such as the UNITED KINGDOM are signatories to it. The convention is for people like me who understand private international law. Thanks for having me here. I'm done posting.
