The Supreme Court judgement on WOMAN

An impassable terrain

The issue of access to women’s intimate spaces and the participation of natal males who have identified as female by gender reassignment in sport has been a controversial and sometimes impossible issue to discuss.

There are activists in what had become gender wars who had taken such implacably entrenched positions on either side of the debate, making those who even had the simplest, most innocent, or possibly naive questions feel silenced, for fear of being labelled phobic, exclusionary, bigoted or even worse.

Any opinion that appeared to go against the grain of the most liberal view of inclusion was an invitation to censure, ostracism, punishment, loss of status or livelihood, persecution, prosecution, and even death threats. I dare say, to the silent and quite likely reasonable majority, it was like the world had gone mad.

What is sex?

I awaited with anticipation and trepidation the judgement of The Supreme Court in the UK, framed in the context of what the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 explicitly referred to, was it biological sex alone or did it include certificated sex?

The section, as per what the Act refers to as sex, is Chapter 1, Section 11 shown below:

Sex

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

The Supreme Court in its 88-page judgement with 268 paragraphs exhaustively reviewed historical and superseded acts and laws that fed into the Equality Act 2010 and concluded that the definition of man and woman given in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 had not been changed in either the Gender Recognition Act 2004 or the succeeding Equality Act 2010. [The Supreme Court – Judgement - For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)] PDF

In Part 1, Section 5, Subsection 2, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 declares.

(2) In this Act—

" woman " includes a female of any age, and

" man " includes a male of any age.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that in 1975, woman and man referred to biological sex. Every assertion and consequent interpretation derives full context from here.

An appeal to predictability

The Supreme Court was at pains to stress a particular point in Paragraph 12:

Lord Nicholls’ important constitutional insight in Spath Holme, that citizens with the help of their advisers should be able to understand statutes, points towards an interpretation that is clear and predictable.

In other words, there is a need for consistent, clear, and predictable interpretation of words, contexts, meanings, and intention, when citizens read statutes as promulgated by parliament.

That means, if a woman or a man had not been explicitly redefined in a subsequent Act, the precedent definition remains.

Another crucial point made is that the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment remains valid by force of law in the Equality Act 2010, none of the rights of those persons who have undergone, are undergoing, or are in the process to undergo gender reassignment are impugned, they are protected against discrimination, victimisation, or harassment, as a matter of course.

The difficult question

However, the practical consequences of this situation and judgement will definitely leave people with certain protected characteristics who have had access to spaces of their acquired gender identity in a kind of limbo, possibly requiring a third space.

I would think, this is a matter for The Equality and Human Rights Commission to address, in terms of the changes to rules, regulations, notices, texts, and policies, along with the kinds of accommodations and exceptions that will continue to safeguard the protected characteristics of those whose biological sex has by gender reassignment acquired a certificated sex.

Knowledge is power

It is incumbent on every activist and advocate to study The Supreme Court judgement to appreciate the rationale behind their summation and conclusion.

At the very least, read Section 22, Summary of our reasoning, which contains Paragraph 265 on Pages 84 to 86; the attendant paragraphs informing their reasoning are suffixes to the respective subsections.

While I am not a lawyer and obviously not as emotionally invested in this situation, my reading of the judgement is that it is sound, based on unimpeachable legal precedent, and argued with due consideration of all parties involved, that they have stated, it is not a victory for either side.

It provides clarity that would roll back some unfortunate and extrapolated interpretations of the law that have both advantaged and disadvantaged certain groups with common characteristics; that would always be the result of a petition for interpretation made to the highest court of the land.

The fight for exclusive and/or inclusive places for protected characteristics as per the Equality Act 2010 must advance beyond protest to provision. I also do not believe the slippery slope argument is relevant to this case.

References

The Supreme Court – Judgement - For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) [PDF]

BBC News: Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling

Observer Editorial: The Observer view on Equality Act ruling: A dignified compromise that respects the rights of everyone

The changing texts of religious meditation

Seeking calm for the soul

Meditating on Psalm 23, because I was inspired and directed to look at the context of the first part of verse 3, ‘He restoreth my soul:’, my quest for calmness and peace brought me to a newer understanding of this Psalm along with a much needed peace. [Psalm 23 – BibleHub – KJV]

I would normally start my Bible study with the King James Version (KJV) and then access other translations as the Amplified Bible (AMP), The Message (MSG), New Living Translation (NLT) and the New King James Version (NKJV). I addressed the differences in the Bible translations in a blog I wrote in 2013.

Blog - Good Samaritan Values - The Renewing Of Your Mind

Tongues are changing

Then, much as English is my mother tongue, Yorùbá, spoken in southwestern Nigeria is my mother’s tongue. I learnt Yorùbá under duress because my mother insisted on my reading the Psalms in Yorùbá rather than in English, though I did my Anglican confirmation study in English.

I then happened upon the Yoruba Contemporary Bible Copyright © 2009, 2017 by Biblica, Inc.® - BÍBÉLÌ MÍMỌ́ YORÙBÁ ÒDE ÒNÍ (BYO) on the Bible Gateway website, which jumped directly to my reference text of Psalm 23.

I did not realise it was a different Yorùbá translation until I read the beginning of the first verse, "The Lord is my shepherd..." which now, had a literal translation of "The Lord is the shepherd and I am His sheep."

"Olúwa ni Olùṣọ́ èmi àgùntàn rẹ̀"(BYO)

For I remember my traditional Yorùbá Bible writing that as, "Olúwa li Olùṣọ́-àgùntàn mi."

I was in for a treat, a revelatory one at that.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms+23&version=BYO

It was like the Amplified Yorùbá version, and read quite differently, even more expository, somewhat abandoning the classic Yorùbá grammar for an easily accessible vernacular.

Old Bible

I just found an old Yorùbá Bible by the Bible Society of Nigeria © 1960 and the differences in the text are starker than I realised. The accent diacritical marks are only applied for context and not on every word. ‘Li’ is used rather than ‘Ni’ for the English ‘Is’. My observations are not exhaustive, just a point of interest.

Comparing the ancient to the modern

Psalms in the old Yorùbá Bible was Orin Dáfídì which translates to Songs of David, but the BYO has not attempted to translate the name of the book at all but left it as Saamu without the diacritical marks. Taking liberties, one would think, saying an English word with a Yorùbá accent and all its inflexions, as we require a vowel sound ending except for the usually nasalised or gritting 'n'. 

I have nothing against modernising religious instruction for easy consumption and lax grammar rules, it just sometimes makes it quite unfamiliar to those of us brought up on the traditional text. It's the same thing when in the Anglican Church, the Apostle's Creed I was confirmed with does not read like the Nicene Creed of the current liturgy and when saying The Lord's Prayer, 'Thy kingdom come' could attract disapproving looks in church, as I might be reciting an 17^th Century version when the rest of the church is living in the 20^th Century.

In all, it is quite fascinating how so much more insight can be gained from meditating on Psalm 23 that I have probably repetitively recited a million times and yet, it yields new meaning.

Comments on Nigeria: Islam strongly discourages polygamy

Pointed in that direction

My blog on Nigeria: Islam strongly discourages polygamy seems to have gathered a bit of reading and reference along with comments from people who felt I probably should not be researching those areas.

The fact is I would never have been digging in those religious tomes if the learned leaders of the Supreme Council of Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) Kaduna State chapter had not categorically provided chapter and verse of what they claim supports their demand that the Senator decline invitations from the civil authorities on the accusation of marrying a child or even worse child trafficking.

My blog as I wrote it was not to be authoritative but enable a discourse that brought more scrutiny to what was accepted in relation to what was said or inferred to with regards to the verses quoted – it would be unfortunate if anyone suddenly finds offence where intelligent debate is the better means of learning and understanding the points that matter.

Facts of the 21^st Century

Most importantly, the human race has changed in interaction, knowledge and enlightenment since the 7^th Century of the times of the Prophet, the 1^st Century of Christ and the few Millennia before that of Abrahamic Judaism – the 21^st Century offers no carte blanche microcosm of civilisation that excludes us from the scrutiny of modernity if we live in these times but derive our verbatim societal standards from the times of yore.

All localities now suffer global intrusion of varying impact with the greatest import being the right to life, the right to free expression and the protection of the rights of the minorities – where those rights are impinged upon, regardless of allegiance the greater clamour of civilisation, civility, humanity and gradual liberalism that that affected all religions would demand that people be put first and not sacrificed on the altar of tenet, creed, tradition, culture, custom, belief or religion – all these came after humanity, not before.

We have to think for ourselves

This is where we all stand in the 21^st Century according to a ruling giving by Lord Justice Laws a few weeks ago.

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

“The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

In essence, it is egregious for any religion to feel that its remit extends beyond that of its firm adherents and those adherents should not have that imposed on them by heredity but by individual choice because our societies now offer the scope and latitude for those decisions to fall to individuals rather than a hierarchy of unaccountable clerics – in the broadest sense – who are answerable to no man, no state, no constituted authority or earthly realm.

Comments to my blog

At first Portnoy wanted permission to translate my blog into Chinese for his audience to read my views which I promptly granted because this had become a matter for discussion.

I found your post via Global Voices and I really like the way you deal with this issue. I should translate this post into Chinese for more people to know what Qur’an really said. Do you mind?

Then Abdulkadir patronisingly addressed me with this

Akin my friend you need to understand Arabic language and sayings, action of Mohammad (peace be upon him) very well before you can understand Qur'anic verses. Please not say what you not know ask Muslims about their religion and make honest research.

To which I replied

The Qur'anic verses are clear about what they say, if you want them to mean something else that is another matter.

If you do have good objective teaching on these matters, publish them for serious scrutiny - that is the way learned people convey their knowledge in the modern world.

Subjective or objective

After that Auwal said

It is very impressive to see that a non Muslim is taking his time to study what Islam actually says. Unfortunately you are being objective with your interpretation, just like the rulers you are taking a jab at.

[I suppose he meant I was being subjective, because the rulers in my view were not being objective – fair point.]

The verse is referring to securing a good future for orphans. It doesn’t restrict the idea of polygamy to just marrying a widow. Because it goes on to say that if you fear that you may be unjust, then stick to one wife.  Simply because you are obliged to fulfil the rights of each wife, which is definitely not easy.

[Which was my point, I said polygamy was strongly discouraged because of difficulties with satisfying all the parties of the polygamy – I was highlighting the fact that human frailty was clearly identified as the issue – it would appear no one wants to accept that fact because they feel means and provision are the ready substitute for loving equally – sadly.]

Sunnahs and today

Abdulkadir then came back with this long comment

Muslims follow the both Qur'an and the Sunnah;  that’s (the sayings, actions, and approvals of Mohammad PBUH).

[Obviously, it is important to distinguish between the norms and mores of the 7^th Century compared with what can be the accepted in the 21^st Century – certain customs, traditions and habits of the 7^th Century as practised then cannot find expression today.]

(1). In Sahih Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 64 [I think he meant Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Book 62 referring to the Nikaah ] Under Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah), it been narrated from Aisha saying “that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”

(2). In Sahih Muslim :: Book 8 : Hadith 3309 Under The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah),

 It’s been narrated from 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates.

She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good.

She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

[Without contention what was perfectly permissible in the times of the Prophet as betrothal at 6 and marriage at 9 in the 7^th Century cannot be justified in these times for medical, cultural and legal reasons in the 21^st Century – this is not aspersion on the acts of the leaders of religion, in much earlier times in Judaism Jacob the son of Isaac married two sisters something that is not considered acceptable in these times for medical, cultural and legal reasons too.]

Messages to obey?

[I am not sure if this last part constitutes a threat of sorts, because what we all should realise is that different people at different times in different places have had different messengers and messages that presage their religious allegiances – egregious and arrogance would not begin to explain the situation if any one religion begins to seek preponderance over all humanity – I would refer all readers back to the beginning of my blog and the statements of Lord Justice Laws .]

[If religions that predate accept that fact that there were differences between people, tribes, beliefs and systems whilst accommodating a sense of public secularly in those times – these modern times would more so deal unfavourably with belief system that impose themselves on others are not persuaded of the message they bring. Let me categorically state, I am not a Muslim and this is no time for crusades, jihads or lawlessness.]

Also in Chapter 4 Verse 80 Of The Holy Qur'an States. He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allah, but he who turns away, then We have not sent you as a watcher over them.

Meaning: Allah states that whoever obeys His servant and Messenger, Muhammad , obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys him, disobeys Allah. Verily, whatever the Messenger utters is not of his own desire, but a revelation inspired to him.

Leaders and rulers

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah; and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys the Amir (leader, ruler), obeys me; and whoever disobeys the Amir, disobeys me.) This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs. Allah's statement.

I am at a loss as to what this last part relates to with regards to the discourse but if Amir means leader and ruler we do have leaders and rulers in Nigeria who are custodians of our laws and constitution – where a legally constituted authority demands the attendance of any Nigerian citizen, I would suppose regardless of religion and adherence they are answerable to that authority.

I am still saddened that every comment has not addressed the material issue that in the 21^st Century a 13-year old girl has been given in marriage to a 49 year old who is bringing Islam into disrepute in these times and can brazenly defend his actions without sanction. That is a blight on our humanity and it is unfortunate.