How a QC can genuinely believe
I’m not the only one who thinks it’s grotesque.
What a lazy patronizing git. We’re supposed to do what he orders us to do, we’re supposed to take his word for it that human rights are not negotiable, we’re supposed to go away if he doesn’t like us, but he’s too grand and important to defend his own stupid assertions.
Updating to add another commentator:
The thing is he’s an educated guy, so he most certainly does know that rights have come about through the combination of activism, negotiation, and legislation. He might genuinely believe that his version of what constitutes ‘trans rights are human rights’ should be so, but it’s utterly disingenuous to state that it is actually so without completing the process of negotiation and legislation. Basically he’s trying to cut out that central step and make the third a rubber stamp. Lawyers are also known as advocates of course. They can, for the sake of the argument, take positions that are not entirely truthful, correct, or even advisable.
It does make me wonder about his moral and ethical compass though. I get the impression sometimes that he regards women’s rights as only slightly above those of a Fox maybe. Certainly not fully ‘human’ rights that need to be considered as he batters those rights to bits with a (figurative) baseball bat.
He apparently sees himself as a crusader, fixated on the rights of trans ID men, and once one is so fixated there is no room for discussion, no debate, no quarter given. It’s not that he sees women’s rights as ony slightly above a fox (good one, Rob) but he just doesn’t see them.
And once one is a crusader the enemy becomes fit for burning.