Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

141 replies

IwantToRetire · 11/02/2024 01:58

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

This isn’t the fault of the Tribunal. Judges can only apply the law. In all of the above cases, the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law. The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues. GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority”.

Second, the law permits GC activists to use intemperate (arguably degrading) language to attack trans people but appears to prohibit criticism in response.

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute.

NB - these are only extracts, not the full arguement from the author - who is a Barrister -Sam Fowles. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Also a Director of ICDR which says:

Provide legislators and officials at all levels of government and devolution with non-partisan, concise, accessible, and strategic advice on constitutional and democratic issues.
https://www.icdr.co.uk/about

I wonder if he understands what non partisan means?!

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
SinnerBoy · 12/02/2024 19:58

Dennis Kavanagh is calling him a liar and explaining why!

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1757095208645251413

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1757095208645251413

RethinkingLife · 12/02/2024 19:56

Just so I know, what sort of lawyer is Whittle? (Solicitor, barrister, or some other category?)

I'm taken aback by either the ignorance or bad faith on display here. Given it crosses both Whittle's lived experience and area of expertise (law), this is modelling poor behaviour. The 2nd screenshot is part of the conversation thread after the 1st (Whittle's initial tweet).

https://x.com/stephenwhittle/status/1756989506031341916?s=20

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists
How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists
CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:53

Now he's doing an interview from the toilet?!

https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1757042360901349453

This man is great, he's a laugh a minute. Excellent value. More please! 😂

https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1757042360901349453

irishmurdoch · 12/02/2024 19:52

It looks like this article has been today put before the judge at the Rachel Meade tribunal as evidence of the legal profession being in need of education on the EA.
And quelle surprise, it has been taken down from the New European website...

ghislaine · 12/02/2024 19:52

I’ve just read it too. What piffle. It reads like an undergraduate fever dream. No wonder it’s been pulled. How embarrassing for he/him.

I thought the worst part was the repetition of the statements that drove Jo and Rachel to court and in response to which they won. If the best you’ve got is a losing argument, I wouldn’t make it your centrepiece.

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:43

Hooray, got it! Thanks, snannasaurus.

https://archive.is/lchN6

popebishop · 12/02/2024 19:33

Read it, thanks to pp

Honestly the minute someone is typing the words "right to exist" they may as well write "I don't really understand this so am pretending things"

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:29

It doesn't, pope - I linked it above, but it was paywalled when archived, so doesn't show more than the first para.

spannasaurus · 12/02/2024 19:28

spannasaurus · 12/02/2024 19:10

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2024.02.11-192816/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Archive link sorry that doesn't seem to work

Edited

If you copy and paste the whole of the link (not just the highlighted bit) in my earlier post you should be taken to an archive copy

popebishop · 12/02/2024 19:28

(Edit - sorry no it doesn't, just the opening sentences) The Wayback Machine has yesterday's version. Can't remember if we're allowed to post archive links but easy enough to find.

spannasaurus · 12/02/2024 19:10

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2024.02.11-192816/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Archive link sorry that doesn't seem to work

RoyalCorgi · 12/02/2024 19:08

I am fascinated by just how awful this article is. I could quite easily have written a better - as in, more accurate - article, as I'm sure could many of us on FWR. I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a reasonably good grasp of the Equality Act and its application in cases like Forstater, Bailey, Meade etc.

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:04

Joanna Cherry:

'What a disgrace this article is in its inaccurate description of Equality law. Hard to believe it was written by a lawyer. I see the@TheNewEuropean
has already had to delete the ref to @AllianceLGB
& issue a clarification'

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:03

Joanna Cherry:

'Excellent thread calling out a very disingenuous & poor piece of legal analysis, if I may dignify it with that name, in@TheNewEuropean
. I do hope they will allow a right of reply from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.'

SilverBranchGoldenPears · 12/02/2024 19:02

One needs to remember that Barristers (I say that as someone related to a few, one among them was a QC) are not as versed in the law as their solicitor peers. Barristers are there to get an argument (from a solicitor or advocate who works on it ) and perform it, not know the law intimately. Many barristers are people who could afford the training and the requisite dining, but who lost their way in the actual law somewhere after doing their bar exams. Be careful of what ‘legal minds’ you are listening to. Solicitor training is (or was) far more rigorous.

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:01

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240211001518/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240211001518/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Gah, paywalled, sorry

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 19:01

Yes, another inaccuracy!

ghislaine · 12/02/2024 19:00

Did anyone manage to archive it? I’m intrigued to read more about this “loophole” and where in the EA one might find it.

DworkinWasRight · 12/02/2024 18:59

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:36

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute. Forstater criticised an Endometriosis charityy^ for appointing Steph Richards, a trans-woman, as its CEO. Linehan was part of online attacks on Rape Crisis Scotland’s trans managerr^. The level of online hate and threats forced the centre into lockdown. Katherine Stock, a trustee of the LGB Alliance (of which Bailey is a founder) has called for the public outing of trans childrenn^. None of these attracted legal censure.

I'm still confused by this paragraph. None of these things happened while these people were employed by anyone related. They are all private individuals with a profile on social media. Outside of charging them all with hate crime for wrongthink, what "legal censure" could they attract?

Surely it is Rape Crisis Edinburgh, not Scotland, that has the trans manager?

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 18:57

Bugger it! I never thought to archive!

Chersfrozenface · 12/02/2024 18:56

I do hope someone has archived it.

Filed under "Very Silly Things People Have Written Which They Really Hope We'll Forget All About".

IwantToRetire · 12/02/2024 18:52

Page could not be found.

I never even took a copy.

What a shame - not!

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:36

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute. Forstater criticised an Endometriosis charityy^ for appointing Steph Richards, a trans-woman, as its CEO. Linehan was part of online attacks on Rape Crisis Scotland’s trans managerr^. The level of online hate and threats forced the centre into lockdown. Katherine Stock, a trustee of the LGB Alliance (of which Bailey is a founder) has called for the public outing of trans childrenn^. None of these attracted legal censure.

I'm still confused by this paragraph. None of these things happened while these people were employed by anyone related. They are all private individuals with a profile on social media. Outside of charging them all with hate crime for wrongthink, what "legal censure" could they attract?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:29

Looks like it's gone completely now, before that they retracted the retraction about Denise Fahmy, possibly because it made it look like they were saying the other four women had attacked trans people.