• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Tickle v Giggle: A Gender Case with a Farcical Name and Even More Farcical Outcome

by Dr James Allan
29 August 2024 5:52 PM

I was tempted this week to write on an event that’s about as frequent as a transit of Venus. I refer to the scion of one of a country’s pre-eminent political families or dynasties coming out publicly to endorse the candidate for the other side. Because late last week there was Robert F. Kennedy Jr. officially endorsing Donald Trump in the sense of removing his own name from the ballot in the 10 key swing states and encouraging all his voters to vote for Trump. Why? RFK listed such factors as the unholy alliance between the Democrats and a house-trained legacy media that has abandoned any pretence of balance in favour of becoming the PR wing of the current administration; the Democrats’ weaponisation of Government agencies and the courts against their opponents; the huge inroads on free speech by the Democrats and their attacks on democracy – including the fact that Kamala has never received a single Democrat’s vote at any stage of the 2020 or 2024 nomination processes and the Dems’ collusion with Big Tech to suppress speech during lockdowns – in the Humpty-Dumpty name of supposedly ‘protecting democracy’; the huge concerns he has about public health in the U.S.; and the warmongering that he sees as lying behind U.S. policy in the Ukraine war. (Sidenote: I don’t agree with the whole RFK package but, surprisingly, I agree with an awful lot of it.) As I said, this is historic stuff to witness this sort of political apostasy. And you can bet your last dollar that the vitriol and unhinged personal attacks that are regularly thrown Trump’s way will now also be thrown at the nephew of JFK, and with an unrestrained abandon.

And yet as historic as this was, I have (the above paragraph excepted) resisted the temptation to write about U.S. politics in this week’s column. Instead, I opted to read the just released Tickle v Giggle Federal Court decision by Bromwich J., all excruciating 283 paragraphs. I’ve done this so that none of you have to do so. For those who don’t know, this was the case about a women’s only app and whether a transgender person – born male and transitioned to now want to be labelled a woman – could force access to that app through the courts. A lot was going on in this case but here is a précis that covers the key aspects of that decision. First off, it’s a predictably woke judgment. I don’t say that just because Justice Bromwich, who decided the case in the Federal Court, was appointed by the Liberals and by former Attorney-General George Brandis, though Lord knows Mr. Brandis’s record on High Court appointments was truly woeful for anyone who values interpretive legal conservatism. You see, the bulk of the fault for the outcome of this decision is political. In 2013 the then Gillard Government amended the Sex Discrimination Act (‘SDA’), most notably s.22, to include ‘gender identity’. We then had nine years of Coalition Governments that were well aware of the fact that courts around the Anglosphere were becoming ever more activist and prepared to adopt woke, Left-wing interpretations of the law. Did the Abbott Government attempt to remove this Gillard amendment to the SDA? Did Turnbull’s? Morrison’s? To ask is to answer with the current state of conservative MPs in Australia.

But that in no way is meant to suggest that Justice Bromwich had no choice in this case but to decide for the transgender applicant (named ‘Tickle’, as it happens). I would say that the outcome, given the state of today’s judiciary (again, thank you Liberal Party), was predictable, even likely; nor was it beyond the pale as a matter of straight-up legal analysis. At the same time, however, the result was in no way compelled by the legal materials. Indeed, I think a strong case could be made for the respondent winning (named ‘Giggle’ as it happens, giving us a British farce type case name here). But the judge in the case disagreed with me. As I said, that was highly predictable.

So why did Bromwich J. side with Tickle and not Giggle? Well, he gave leave to the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner to appear as a friend of the court and then basically accepted all of her submissions on the interpretive questions. The judge held there was indirect discrimination because sex is not confined to being a biological concept. Today it has a wider meaning. It encompasses the idea that a person’s sex can be changed. Most relevantly, the judge was swayed by the notion that the determination of sex nowadays takes into account not just biology but legal recognition. And the judge accepted the Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s view that it is legally sufficient that Tickle got an updated Queensland birth certificate – it now records Tickle as female. Long story short, that is that as far as the judge’s take on interpreting the Sex Discrimination Act was concerned – and notice this view implies the meaning of a legal text can change over time, sane originalism be damned! Personally, I was not convinced that this question was legally resolved by the updated birth certificate, but not remotely surprised by the outcome either.

What about Giggle’s constitutional law attacks on those 2013 amendments? In essence the Giggle line was that the Commonwealth Government could not point to a head of power that gave it the legal authority to do what it did. And in any sane federalism set-up, including the one our Founders created in this country, that argument would be patently correct. Alas, we can’t in any way blame Bromwich J. here. He followed High Court jurisprudence that has basically destroyed any competitive and sane version of federalism in this country – there is no doubt that over the last century we have had the most centralising top court in the federalist world. For one, Bromwich said this Commonwealth legislation was supported by the External Affairs power (s.51(xxix)). That flowed (sort of, because the judge’s take on Article 26 of the ICCPR was unconvincing to me) from the truly awful Tasmanian Dam Case that came close to giving the centre a power to legislate on anything at all, as long as the Executive first enters into a treaty on the matter. In my view that Tasmanian case had nothing to do with honest interpretation of the legal text. But Bromwich was bound by it. Bromwich also pointed to the Corporations power (s.51 (xx)). That flowed from the Work Choices case, one of the major errors of the at-heart centralising former PM John Howard, and again a woeful take by our High Court that left us, ultimately, with worse labour relations laws in this country and a worse version of federalism. But it wasn’t Bromwich’s fault because it is binding legal authority on him. So the Gillard 2013 amendments get a constitutional law tick. The judge then adopts the ‘living text’ interpretive view of the recently appointed new Sex Discrimination Commissioner as regards the interpretive force of getting an updated birth certificate on the core issue here. Giggle loses, after pre-emptively shutting down the women’s only app. The judge awards Tickle $10,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs.

Those, dear readers, are the wages of discrimination complaints to the Human Rights Commission in this country. Then Federal Court legal actions. Together with a cumulative total failure of backbone by successive Coalition Governments meshed with the general trend of heightened judicial activism around the common law world. Pretty depressing. Maybe I should have stuck to U.S. politics.

James Allan is the Garrick Professor of Law at Queensland University. This article first appeared in Spectator Australia.

Tags: AustraliaGenderRobert F. Kennedy Jr.The Democratic PartyTickle v GiggleTransgender RightsTransgenderismTrump

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Starmer: Ban on Smoking in Pub Gardens Could Reduce Burden on NHS

Next Post

Miliband Deals “Final Blow” to North Sea Oil After Siding with Greenpeace and Refusing to Fight Climate Lawsuits

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RW
RW
11 months ago

This is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t an expert in Austrialian law and judical practice.

4
0
soundofreason
soundofreason
11 months ago
Reply to  RW

Summary:

Bloke wants to join women only social media.

Social media outfit says no.

Bloke sues.

Social media outfit closes down rather than let him in.

Judge says that’s not good enough. Defunct social media outfit has to pay the bloke lots of dosh.

Judge deflects criticism saying it’s not my fault it’s the law.

Critic says the law is debatable (and is an ass).

8
0
RW
RW
11 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

I know the backstory. But I knew that before. I just didn’t understand any of the criticisms of the author of this article, eg, what’s a “head of power”, because I’m not even remotely as familiar with the involved legal technicalities as he is.

2
0
GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
11 months ago
Reply to  RW

I think it’s a euphemism.

0
0
GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
11 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

Tickle deserves a slap and should have received one.

The judge is a spineless ass. Their law is too. Ours will be soon.

There are laws I truly believe in and will follow.Then there’s legislation. This falls firmly in the latter category and this nonce (sorry, nonsense) must be resisted.

1
0
Free Lemming
Free Lemming
11 months ago
Reply to  GroundhogDayAgain

Laws are simply the morals of a society in print. When society breaks down – potentially caused by a malevolent state grasping for control – these documented morals can be ignored, distorted and rewritten. If it is law to pay £10 to take a bag for your shopping does that make the law right? If it is law to think and say only what the state wants does that make the law right? Etc etc etc. My point is that we’ve been brainwashed into believing that following the law is an indicator of moral correctness, but, although that may have been correct once upon a time, it no longer is; in fact, I’d argue that often the exact opposite is true – that a law is no longer a reflection of the moral bonds that hold a society together, but the exact opposite. We must rethink our relationship with what we think of as law.

Last edited 11 months ago by Free Lemming
0
0
Old Brit
Old Brit
10 months ago
Reply to  Free Lemming

A very good point. No system stays true to its founding purpose though, and shouldn’t be expected to. All systems keep growing and evolving because their purpose is actually efficient, not intelligent. Intelligence cannot be delegated but efficiency is based upon it. The culmination of efficiency is automation, when the system becomes wholly self-referential.

0
0
Hester
Hester
11 months ago
Reply to  soundofreason

bloke says he is a woman goes into women’s gym changing room and watches young teenage girls and children undress, complaint is made by mother, Mother found guilty of discrimination and ordered to pay costs. A perverts chsrter

0
0
Mogwai
Mogwai
11 months ago

The whole shebang is anti-gay, anti-women, with a generous dollop of preying on children in order to groom and indoctrinate them into their Transtifa cult so that they can be irreparably medically altered and mutilated. Sprinkle all of that with some seasoning called ‘communism’. This horror show all look like Kamala Harris voters to me;

”Zoom in.

Do ya see it?
The hammer & sickle? ☭

It shows what we’ve been saying all along: this new LGBTQIAUSSR+ movement isn’t about civil equality.

It’s purely political—a candy-coated commie crusade that doesn’t represent the rights or values of gay Americans.

WAKE. UP.”

https://x.com/againstgrmrs/status/1829189904665858412

Comment of the day;

”You know what’s normal?

Teenagers experimenting with identity & unconventional clothing/hairstyles.

You know what’s NOT normal?

Sterilizing them because of it.”

4
0
DrDan
DrDan
11 months ago

When I was growing up Lefties had principles and trannies were glamorous. Not so today. The left started its decent when it let go of principles and instead grasped hold of every new shiny bit of ideological crap that was waved in front of it. Does this ruling mean that I can now identify as anything I like and it has be recognised by law?

0
0
Hester
Hester
11 months ago

I wonder in 500 tears time when they dig up tickles body what archaeologists will categorise him as.

0
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic | Episode 45: Jack Hadfield on the Anti-Asylum Protests, Alan Miller on the Tyranny of Digital ID and James Graham on the Net Zero Pension Threat

by Richard Eldred
25 July 2025
0

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

29 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

29 July 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

30 July 2025
by Toby Young

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Starmer to Recognise a Palestinian State

44

Farage Demands Apology After Labour Minister Says He is on the Side of Predators like Jimmy Savile for Wanting to Scrap Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns

29

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

43

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

22

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

20

Edinburgh University’s Decolonisation Report is Pure Left-Wing Politics

30 July 2025
by James Alexander

Trump Was Right to Skewer Starmer Over Britain’s “Windmills Scam”

30 July 2025
by Ben Pile

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

The Claim that the Epping Protest is Really a ‘Nazi Pogrom’ is a Classic Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory

29 July 2025
by Steven Tucker

POSTS BY DATE

August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jul   Sep »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jul   Sep »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

29 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

29 July 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

30 July 2025
by Toby Young

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Starmer to Recognise a Palestinian State

44

Farage Demands Apology After Labour Minister Says He is on the Side of Predators like Jimmy Savile for Wanting to Scrap Online Safety Act Over Free Speech Concerns

29

The False Promises of Electric Vehicles Are Being Exposed

43

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

22

Leaked Email Blows Apart BBC’s Impartiality Claims Over Gaza

20

Edinburgh University’s Decolonisation Report is Pure Left-Wing Politics

30 July 2025
by James Alexander

Trump Was Right to Skewer Starmer Over Britain’s “Windmills Scam”

30 July 2025
by Ben Pile

The NHS ‘Non-Jobs’ Bonanza

29 July 2025
by David Craig

Is the Tide Turning Against Woke Comedy?

29 July 2025
by C.J. Strachan

The Claim that the Epping Protest is Really a ‘Nazi Pogrom’ is a Classic Left-Wing Conspiracy Theory

29 July 2025
by Steven Tucker

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences