In that it enabled other with beliefs just short of explicit fascism to claim “protected belief”? Or in that the claimant and her “women’s rights” charity have spent every moment since claiming the decision enables them to harass and discriminate against anyone who disagrees with them (it does not)?
We aren't here to re-litigate. The question was "what ECHR cases would you cite to persuade someone on the right, like me, that jt isn't simply a way of advancing progressive agenda via other means" and this answer would fit that bill, whether you like it or not.
Thanks for letting me know the rules of engagement Rob. /s I was pointing out what I thought were the obvious benefits of Forstater: anything short of Nazism is potentially protected and if you lie enough about what a decision says, the right wing press will amplify your voice.
You're welcome. /s Want to make your point again for a third time in case anyone at the back didn't get it?
I found this Rwanda case interesting. The government wanted to deport someone before their case had reached its conclusion through UK courts. The ECtHR said (paraphrasing) “no, that’s for UK courts to decide, not UK Government”. Real protection against rogue government action.
Full ruling here. And rather than “interfering” in UK courts, the ECtHR recognised the authority of UK courts in this matter. hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversi...
Restricting, or wishing to restrict, somebody else’s human rights should not be a protected belief. On the other hand it does equate the TERFs with being a cult.