28.Submission from Christine Goodwin
Summary
In 1986 I made my application in the United
Kingdom for my change of gender to be recognised. Firstly to the
Department of Social Security and then the O.P.C.S.
I had completed full gender change operations
and the United Kingdom Government refused to recognise my new
gender and having exhausted all the means open to me in the United
Kingdom I applied to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to
accept my case. This was accepted in May 1995. Due to the complex
issues involved the Lower Chamber of seven Judges referred my
case to the Grand Chamber and my case was heard on 20 March 2002.
A decision was then made on 11 July 2002 in my favour by a majority
of 17 Judges to nil against the UK Government and I quote:
"Since there are no significant factors
of public interest to weigh against the interest of this individual
applicant in obtaining legal recognition of her gender re-assignment,
it reaches the conclusion that the fair balance that is inherent
in the Convention now tilts decisively in favour of the applicant
There has, accordingly, been a failure to respect her right to
private life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."
(Refer page 27, paragraph 93, Case of Christine
Goodwin v the United Kingdom Judgement in Strasbourg on 11
July 2002)
Fourteen months later the UK Government are
still in breach of Articles 8 and 12 of my case. Having spent
since 1986 on legal bills and other investigations to win this
case in Strasbourg I strongly object to the United Kingdom's proposed
"Gender Recognition Bill" in its present form.
The Gender Recognition Bill
I believe that as a first measure the UK Government
should have accepted the European Court of Human Rights decision
(17 Judges to nil in favour). The UK Government is therefore obliged
under international law to implement this decision, under Article
8 of the Convention and I quote:
"There has, accordingly, been a failure
to respect her right to private life in breach of Article 8 of
the Convention."
(Refer page 27, paragraph 93, Case of Christine
Goodwin v United Kingdom Judgement in Strasbourg on 11 July
2002)
The failure to respect my right to private life
is still in breach as of today September 2003 over a year later.
I make the point of post operative because it
would have made a Bill before Parliament and the House of Lords
as simple as possible to allow post operative transsexuals like
myself to be legally recognised as male/female in our gender change
and to regain our rights. It appears to me that the Government
have decided to make the legal recognition extremely complicated
trying to encapsulate the whole Gender issue in human beings in
one Gender Recognition Bill, which has many variations and problems.
To get a Bill of this type through Parliament and the House of
Lords will take many years after the life of this present Government,
because of the following proposals which will not be accepted
by the general public for the reasons detailed:
(1) People who do not change any anatomical
sex organs of their body will be able to have a change of Gender
Certificate, so we will have (men) still with their male organs
intact legally being a women.
(2) People who still retain their original
male or female anatomy will be able to revert back to their birth
sex at any time. It is really not possible for post operative
people to change back to their birth sex mainly for anatomical
reasons.
(3) It is obvious that it was not the Courts
intention to instruct and advise the UK Government to give Civil
Status to any person who feels feminine or masculine but specifically
to a Post operative Transsexual (myself). (Refer page 25, paragraph
85; page 26 paragraph 90; page 26 paragraph 91; page29, paragraph
101; page30, paragraph 103; page 31, paragraph 108; Case of Christine
Goodwin v the United Kingdom Judgement in Strasbourg on 11
July 2002).
(4) The only way forward is to introduce
a Bill specifically for post operative people, giving full recognition
and legal status. In my case legal recognition should have been
implemented when the Court of Human Rights accepted my case in
1995 and not later, in accordance with the Court of Human Rights
decision.
(5) The choice by the UK Government to introduce
a Bill of this nature causes such complications and delay with
so many diverse people to be catered for. If the reason for implementing
such a Bill is to delay until pension age is equalized in the
UK the Government will then save millions of Pounds.
(6) Instead of using stalling tactics the
UK Government could have followed the German and other European
Union members example in that the applicant could obtain legal
recognition by having a medical examination put forward to a Judge
or Magistrate who would then issue a change of Gender Certificate
to be placed on the Birth Certificate Registry.
(7) Nothing was done by the UK Government
until the year 2000 when they introduced the Interdepartmental
Working Group and then when my case was heard in Strasbourg in
2002 the Interdepartmental Working Group was reconvened just two
days before the Judgement Hearing in Strasbourg.
Conclusion
The UK Government should have and still can
recognise the Court of Human Rights decision of the breach of
Human Rights in my case which is still in breach today. This could
be recognised as a pre cursor to a simple Bill in Parliament,
if that is the only way the Government can comply with its obligations
to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg The proposed Bill in
its present form is bound to fail due to all the variations it
is try rut to incorporate and the objections it will receive.
"As Lord Justice Thorpe observed in the
Bellinger case, any "spectral difficulties", particularly
in the field of family law, are both manageable and acceptable
if confined to the case of fully achieved and post operative transsexuals."
(Refer page 13 paragraph 52, Bellinger v
Bellinger, EWCA Civ 1140(2001); see Case of Christine Goodwin
v the United Kingdom. Application no. 28957/95)
10 July 2003
| 
