{"id":259044,"date":"2021-12-24T12:00:14","date_gmt":"2021-12-24T06:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259044"},"modified":"2022-02-04T15:01:14","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T09:31:14","slug":"is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/","title":{"rendered":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides"},"content":{"rendered":"

United Kingdom Supreme Court:<\/strong> Rejecting the demand for \u201cX\u201d marker passport (unspecified gender) for non-gendered people, the Bench of Lord Reed, President Lord Lloyd-Jones Lady Arden Lord Sales Lady Rose, JJ., stated,<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is true that applicants, including those who identify as non-gendered, have to select either \u201cmale\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d, but the purpose of providing that information is not to inform HMPO as to the applicants\u2019 feelings about their sexual identity…\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The question for adjudication was, whether article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights either taken in isolation or read together with article 14, impose an obligation on a contracting state, when it issues passports, to respect the private lives of individuals who identify as non-gendered, by including a non-gendered (\u201cX\u201d) marker for the passport-holder\u2019s gender, as an alternative to the markers for male and female?<\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/h4>\n

The appellant, a campaigner for the legal and social recognition of a non-gendered category of individuals, identifies as non-gendered. According to the appellant, \u201cX\u201d passports (that is to say, passports in which an individual\u2019s gender may be described not only as \u201cM\u201d or \u201cF\u201d but also as \u201cX\u201d) were a focal point of the campaign. The appellant argued that Her Majesty\u2019s Passport Office\u2019s \u00a0(\u201cHMPO\u201d) policy that an applicant for a passport must state on the application form whether their gender is male or female contravened the Convention rights of individuals who do not identify as either male or female.<\/p>\n

Stand taken by Home Secretary<\/span><\/h4>\n

In 2014 HMPO completed an internal review of gender marking in passports and noted:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The record of a person\u2019s gender in their passport is used for a variety of purposes, i.e. to assist in verifying the identity of applicants for passports.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gender recorded on the passport appears to match the gender of the person using the passport. This is particularly valuable in the case of persons with names which may not be indicative of gender to a border officer who is unfamiliar with the traveller\u2019s language or culture.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It enables officials to deal appropriately with members of the public in passport-related matters, for example by addressing them in appropriate terms, and by arranging for physical checks at borders to be carried out by officers of the appropriate gender, without their having to ask embarrassing questions about the passport-holder\u2019s gender.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 United Kingdom legislation, including discrimination and equality legislation, is based on the categorisation of all individuals as either male or female (and, if they are parents, as either mothers or fathers). There is no legislative provision for the recognition of individuals as non-gendered.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Introducing an \u201cX\u201d gender marker in passports would also result in administrative costs of about \u00a32m being incurred.<\/p>\n

The present case<\/span><\/h4>\n

Demeaning and Distressing to Carry Passport not Disclosing Real Identity<\/em><\/p>\n

The appellant maintained that it was demeaning and distressing to use a passport as an identification document, e.g. example when opening a bank account, when it does not reflect the appellant\u2019s identification as a non-gendered person. It was also argued that applicants for passports who identify as non-gendered are forced to make a false declaration of their identity. There was also said to be a risk of difficulties or harassment when a person who identifies as non-gendered uses a passport at borders.<\/p>\n

Opining that in the United Kingdom the need to establish one\u2019s identity arises only occasionally; e.g., when accessing certain financial services, such as opening a bank account, the Bench stated that when the need to establish one\u2019s identity arises, there is no obligation to use a passport for that purpose. The Bench stated that the gender recorded on the passport can also be used for purposes which are associated with the passport-holder\u2019s appearance and physiology rather than their innermost thoughts.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Bench was of the view that the form is concerned with the applicants\u2019 gender as a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity by checking it against the birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates provided and other official records. It is therefore the gender recognised for legal purposes.<\/p>\n

Whether NHS\u2019s action to provide free hysterectomy to the appellant on one hand and denying \u201cX\u201d marker passport on the other contradictory?<\/em><\/p>\n

Referring to the European court\u2019s decision in B v France and Goodwin v United Kin concerning transsexuals, where it was regarded as illogical for the state to provide gender reassignment surgery, on the one hand, but to decline to give legal recognition to the acquired gender, on the other hand, the appellant emphasised that the NHS had treated the appellant\u2019s gender dysphoria by providing the appellant with a hysterectomy it was therefore incoherent for the Secretary of State then to decline to provide the appellant with an \u201cX\u201d passport.<\/p>\n

Rejecting the arguments of the appellant the Bench pointed out two flaws to consider it ill-founded: First, the NHS did not recognise the applicant as being a non-gendered person: what it recognised was that the applicant was suffering from the medical condition of gender dysphoria, and it provided medical treatment to alleviate that condition. Secondly, the fact that the Government, through its funding of the NHS, bore the cost of the appellant\u2019s medical treatment did not logically entail that it should in addition bear the far greater costs which would be involved in introducing \u201cX\u201d passports, or accept the other disadvantages.<\/p>\n

ANALYSIS<\/span><\/h4>\n

International Practice<\/em><\/p>\n

There are agreed to be six contracting states Denmark, Malta, Iceland, Netherlands, Austria and Germany) of the Council of Europe which, in some circumstances, allow passports to include markers other than male and female. Other 41 contracting states issue passports only with male or female markers. Other countries which permit passports to bear an indicator other than male or female are New Zealand, Australia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, in the case of transgender people and Canada.<\/p>\n

Legislative Limitations<\/em><\/p>\n

The Bench observed, there is no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals. On the contrary, legislation across the statute book assumes that all individuals can be categorised as belonging to one of two sexes or genders (terms which have been used interchangeably). Some rights differ according to whether a person is a man or a woman: for example, rights of succession, maternity rights, female genital mutilation etc.<\/p>\n

Security Implications<\/em><\/p>\n

Regarding the appellant\u2019s contention that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a United Nations agency had issued international standards permitting to issue passports with \u201cM\u201d, \u201cF\u201d or \u201cX\u201d (denoting \u201cunspecified\u201d) in the section dealing with sex or gender, the Bench observed that introducing an \u201cX\u201d gender marker in passports would result in administrative costs of about \u00a32m being incurred. The Bench remarked,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ICAO is not responsible for the security of this country, or any other: the Secretary of State is. The ICAO\u2019s willingness to permit countries to use an \u201cX\u201d marker, if they choose to do so, does not imply that such a course of action is without security implications.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Commenting on the findings of Court of Appeal with regard to absence of evidence relating to difficulty for National security, specifically considering the visitors in United Kingdom from countries which have permitted \u201cX\u201d markers for many years, the Bench stated, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as there was no evidence before the Court of Appeal which contradicted, or even questioned, the evidence of the officials with responsibility for security.<\/p>\n

Positive Obligation under European Convention<\/em><\/p>\n

Turning to consider the margin of appreciation with regard to positive obligation on the State under European Convention, the Bench stated the width of the margin of appreciation varies according to the circumstances which requires two factors to be determined: first, whether a particularly important facet of an individual\u2019s existence or identity is at stake, and secondly, whether there is a consensus within the member states of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, the Bench opined that no particularly important facet of the appellant\u2019s existence or identity was at stake, specifically because it was only the designation of the appellant\u2019s gender in a passport which was in issue and that there is no consensus among the member states of the Council of Europe that passports should be available with an \u201cX\u201d marker, whether it is taken as signifying membership of a non-gendered category or of an unspecified gender.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/h4>\n

In the above backdrop, the Bench concluded that the Convention imposes no such obligation to issue passports with \u201cX\u201d marker, at least at the present time. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. [R v. Secretary of State, [2022<\/span>]\u00a02<\/span>\u00a0WLR<\/span>\u00a0133<\/span><\/a>, decided on 15-12-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

United Kingdom Supreme Court: Rejecting the demand for \u201cX\u201d marker passport (unspecified gender) for non-gendered people, the Bench of Lord Reed, President <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":56741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[48153,9971,48151,48152,48155,48154],"class_list":["post-259044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-european-convention","tag-human-rights","tag-lqbtq-rights","tag-non-gendered","tag-positive-obligation","tag-right-to-recognition"],"yoast_head":"\nIs rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"United Kingdom Supreme Court: Rejecting the demand for \u201cX\u201d marker passport (unspecified gender) for non-gendered people, the Bench of Lord Reed, President\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1260\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"827\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1470,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"European Convention\",\"human rights\",\"LQBTQ+ Rights\",\"Non-gendered\",\"Positive obligation\",\"Right to Recognition\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/\",\"name\":\"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"width\":1260,\"height\":827},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/12\\\/24\\\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides","og_description":"United Kingdom Supreme Court: Rejecting the demand for \u201cX\u201d marker passport (unspecified gender) for non-gendered people, the Bench of Lord Reed, President","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1260,"height":827,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides","datePublished":"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/"},"wordCount":1470,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","keywords":["European Convention","human rights","LQBTQ+ Rights","Non-gendered","Positive obligation","Right to Recognition"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/","name":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","datePublished":"2021-12-24T06:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-04T09:31:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","width":1260,"height":827},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/24\/is-rejection-to-issue-x-marker-unspecified-passport-for-non-gendered-people-violative-of-right-to-respect-for-private-life-and-discriminatory-under-eu-convention-uk-sc-decides\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Is rejection to issue \u201cX\u201d marker (unspecified) passport for non-gendered people violative of right to respect for private life and discriminatory under EU Convention? UK SC decides"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=259044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259044\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}