To call for this charity to be sued under UK equality act ?!

But could you have a career session for women and disabled people? (ie men allowed only if disabled, all women allowed).

My understanding of the law is no. I think that law produces unintuitive results in many cases.

It's breach not breech.

I think its unlikely that legal action will follow from this, bringing a discrimination case takes money and effort, and I would guess there is no one sufficiently motivated to do so. However, in holding this event, the charity has brought very bad publicity and greater scrutiny upon itself, and highlighted the issue of sexism in the Muslim community.

You’ve said this a few times but talking about things and building consensus on what is not right can effect change.

Women can be pretty good at this, including on mn.

Yes, I think per EA2010 that’s right. I still don’t think it’s morally obvious though. That was what I was originally questioning.

It’s also an odd bit of the law. Under EA2010 is a mother-and-toddler group legal if it permits male babies but not male adults? Or allowing boys under 5 (or whatever) into the female toilets? The law doesn’t differentiate by age in its definitions of the PC of sex, and doesn’t permit conjoint groups.

I’m not claiming those things are bad. I’m just pointing out that the law is weird in that area.

its true though isn’t it? All bravado on an internet forum and no action at all. Well done you

And if they had said both male and female children over the age of puberty could not take part, they probably would have been within the EA exemption. But they didn't. They just said the female children couldn't take part.

They very obviously were trying to hold a single sex sporting event that also included all children under a specific age (with the clear reasoning that pre-pubescent children are not subject to the same gender segregations in their faith). Phrasing it as "men of any age and all children under 12" doesn't actually have a functional difference from "Men and boys of any age and girls under 12".

I suspect they'll revise the language next year. It won't address the actual issue in any way whatsoever of course, but it will close this pedantic avenue of attack. It's a waste of people's energy to focus on the language they used here when they could be supporting actual efforts to increase opportunities and representation for women in Muslim communities.

And that's your opinion. You're more than entitled to it. Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing ? And one I'll fiercely defend to the nth degree, alongside our other package of human rights which seemingly you think very little of.

Only focusing on one or some groups is not the same as excluding one group!

It wasn't a men only event. Therefore, banning women only events is not comparable.
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

I'm not sure this is the equivalent of single sex changing rooms allowing opposite sex children under a certain age.

Single sex services are lawful if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The argument for admitting opposite sex children is that this does not undermine the aim (e.g. increased female participation in sports), in fact it works towards it because a lot of women would be excluded if they couldn't bring their kids. It's proportionate because young boys are not a serious threat to women's privacy, dignity or safety.

The single sex religious exception operates differently. They don't have to show proportionate means/legitimate aim, but without that, can there be a lawful justification for allowing opposite sex children? In any case, I can't imagine there are many men who would otherwise be excluded because they have no childcare for their daughters.

If you run a career session for women that’s fine. If you run one for disabled people that’s fine. Done separately they are legal, even laudable. If you put them together they are no longer laudable, they are so bad that they need to be illegal. It is odd

You can run a career session for disabled people, and make it a single sex group (if the need for single sex provision can be justified), under the exemption in the EA. What you couldn't do is run a career session, for women, except disabled women. The first example doesn't discriminate against men as the exemption is allowed. And it doesn't discriminate against non disabled people, because that isn't a protected characteristic.

Yes, I’m not challenging your analysis of EA2010. I think this is probably not legal.

The previous poster was fine with an all-male run though, but felt it was so obvious that it didn’t need saying why it’s not OK to have something for two groups. I don’t think it’s so obvious. Usually there’s some harm involved that a law is trying to avoid. If a service exclusively for A is fine and a service exclusively for B is fine, it’s at the very least not obvious why a service for A+B is not fine.

No, the thing that makes it illegal is that they’ve allowed females up to the age of 12. How is this a male only run ? It was billed as a family event and the small print made it clear that women over the age of 12 were not welcome. Whichever way you want to twist this, that’s discrimination.

Please try reading the thread. It is explained many times how single sex events are often lawful. This was not a single sex event. This was billed as a ‘family’ event.

Do you agree with them that women and 12+ girls shouldn’t count as family?

It is weird though. If your EA analysis is correct, the thing that makes this run illegal is that they’ve allowed 13-17 year old males.

Does EA make a distinction between those ages? I don’t think it does. A woman in the EA, for example, is a female “of any age”.

No, I think like the Op you’re clueless and haven’t got the first idea how to take action for a breech of the equalities act.

So I am simply asking what you are going to do. Clearly the answer is nothing. “Report them”- yeah right. What do you get think it is, a noise compliant to the council?

That seems to get things the wrong way round. I think the law should only ban things where there is a clear purpose to.

I think the onus is on anyone saying “we need to ban this harmless thing otherwise we can’t ban harmful things” to show why a different rule couldn’t achieve both.

The EA rule that says you can define a group based on an “or” but not an “and” produces weird results. If you run a career session for women that’s fine. If you run one for disabled people that’s fine. Done separately they are legal, even laudable. If you put them together they are no longer laudable, they are so bad that they need to be illegal. It is odd.

The East London Mosque Trust is a registered charity (1122613).
The Equality Act 2010 covers both charities and charitable events.
And if they had said both male and female children over the age of puberty could not take part, they probably would have been within the EA exemption. But they didn't. They just said the female children couldn't take part.

It was billed as a ‘family event’.

Presumably they don’t count women and girls of 12+ as ‘family’.

And Horton Women's Holiday Centre for example allows female children of any age to stay -as it is female only - but also allows male children to stay with restrictions on age. As I said, the problem seems to be the lack of transparency. Particularly claiming to be inclusive. I suspect they don't explicitly say 'males and children under 12' more prominently because they wanted to avoid the type of scrutiny that they've subsequently come under. Namely "what's your problem with women and older girls?"

Women haven’t been harmed (they weren’t allowed before, which you were fine with, and aren’t allowed now).

This was a ‘family’ event funded by money from the London Marathon. There was no justification for excluding women as it was not single sex. According to the mosque, women were excluded because of the objections of some men.

A group with a protected characteristic can be excluded if it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. What was the legitimate aim here?

I don't think your posting in good faith , you clearly don't care. Some of us choose not to look the other way.

This page is far more relevant than the link you are looking at:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/business/guidance-businesses/equality-law-voluntary-and-community/exceptions-charities-and

You are correct that there are some exceptions for religious organisations but as you can see, these are very specific. They don't appear to be excluding anyone on the grounds of religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

They would probably argue that they are using the single sex exception for religious organisations but this only applies to activities run by a religious minister, for the purposes of organised religion, at a place which is used for those purposes.

And they haven't advertised it as a single sex event.

I think it is great that men and children have their charity event but they have still preserved the modesty of the women who get to stand on the sidelines and cheer them on.

Now over in Jeddah, I’m just about to pop to the local pool in my bikini. I hope that fits in equally well with the local attitudes and I’m not being tone deaf.

But seriously, whilst I actually think they should be able to do their run in the way they want. I do find the attitude to women rather offensive.

Who is investigating it? Why would the op be posting for “call to legal action” if someone was already investigating it (what investigation would it even need, you’d just get an equalities lawyer to advise?)