Not AI

Instagram

Valerio Minato on Instagram: "15 Dicembre 2023, ore 18:52.. Superga ed il Monviso hanno avuto un appuntamento indimenticabile con la Luna ❤️ Ieri pomeriggio, dalle alture di Castagneto Po, è andato in scena un momento davvero magico. In una piccolissima porzione di cielo, per pochissimi secondi, il Re di pietra, la basilica di Superga e la falce di Luna crescente si sono incontrati regalando uno spettacolo unico. Ben visibile anche la cosiddetta Luna cinerea: durante la prima ed ultima fase del ciclo lunare la luce del Sole viene riflessa dalla Terra verso la Luna, illuminandone la porzione di superficie in ombra #torinoèlamiacittà #monviso #monvisounesco #moon ##basilicadisuperga #piemonte #italy"

463K likes, 6,263 comments - valeriominato on December 16, 2023: "15 Dicembre 2023, ore 18:52.. Superga ed il Monviso hanno avuto un appuntamento i...

yep time to sue them all

Overpopulation myth https://archive.ph/AQ5Is "Scary, isn’t it? It’s also probably nonsense. One of the oddest things about the population debate is the ongoing insistence that we must worry about fast-rising population numbers — when even a cursory check of the numbers suggests rather the opposite: that one of the biggest challenges for humanity may soon be falling populations. The UN has slightly downgraded its peak population forecast — to 10.9bn by 2100 — and is already noting that the world population is growing at a slower pace than at any time since 1950 thanks to fast-falling fertility. So many countries have now fallen to or below replacement rates that the majority of population growth from now on “will be concentrated in just nine countries”, says the UN."

X (formerly Twitter)

Michael Foran (@michaelpforan) on X

Here is the Human Rights Act side of this: Domestic courts are precluded from developing human rights law beyond what has been recognised in a cl...

Here is the Human Rights Act side of this: Domestic courts are precluded from developing human rights law beyond what has been recognised in a clear and constant line of cases at Strasbourg (Elan-Cane v Home Department; AB v Secretary of State for Justice). There is no caselaw at Strasbourg holding that it is a violation of Article 8 to operate single sex services and spaces on a biological sex basis. Goodwin v United Kingdom enshrined a right to legal gender recognition where no concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest can be shown. This is not an absolute right. There can be legitimate and proportionate interference with it to protect the public interest and the rights of others. Since there have been no cases at Strasbourg finding a violation of Article 8 arising from single-sex spaces being based on biological sex, the legal test for domestic courts to develop the law to recognise such a right is that the court must be fully confident that Strasbourg would find a violation if the case was before it. If there is a reasonable chance that Strasbourg would find no violation because the issue falls to be determined within the zone of discretion afforded to member states, the a domestic court is precluded from developing the law in this manner. My own view is that this does fall squarely within the margin of appreciation given how contentious the issue is and the nature of the competing rights and public interest considerations which have to be balanced. Even if a court did conclude that this would be a violation of Article 8, the next question would be what remedy could be granted. Under s.3 of the Human Rights Act, a court must, so far as it is possible to do so, interpret legislation to be compatible with convention rights. The test for when it is possible to do so is set out in Ghaidan v Godin-Memdoza: courts cannot use s3 to provide an interpretation which conflicts with a fundamental feature of the legislation in question or which goes against the grain of the legislation. In For Women Scotland, the very test identified by the Supreme Court for the dissapplication of the GRA was if adopting a certificated interpretation of sex would conflict with a fundamental feature of the legislation. The Supreme Court concluded that a biological interpretation of sex was fundamental to the Equality Act. It is simply not possible to use s3 of the Human Rights Act to circumvent the For Women Scotland decision. Even if a court accepted that there was a violation of article 8 (which it’s precluded from doing except where it’s fully confident that Strasbourg would agree), the reasoning in FWS means that the test in Ghaidan would be failed: a s3 interpretation would conflict with he core features of the Equality Act.

🚨 BREAKING NEWS: ACON Exposed Today in the Australian Thanks to Stephen Rice Read 🔗: https://archive.md/ufZBC