Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

WEC to question the EHRC Chair and Chief Executive 11 June 2025 2:20pm

236 replies

IwantToRetire · 09/06/2025 18:13

The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) will question the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner of Margravine in Parliament on Wednesday, 11 June during its annual scrutiny session of the EHRC.

Venue: The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
Watch live: Visit parliamentlive.tv Women and Equalities Committee

The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) will question the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner of Margravine in Parliament on Wednesday, 11 June during its annual scrutiny session of the EHRC.

MPs on the cross-party committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Owen, will discuss the EHRC’s work and resources and wider equalities policy, including the implications of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and the EHRC’s subsequent consultation on the Code of Practice.

The Committee will hear from the EHRC’s Chief Executive, John Kirkpatrick, alongside Baroness Falkner.

Witnesses
Starting at 2.20pm
Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine, Chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission
John Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive, Equality and Human Rights Commission

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/207403/wec-to-question-the-ehrc-chair-and-chief-executive/

(I came across this by chance whilst looking for a date for the WEC interview with Mary-Ann Stephenson but could find nothing - anybody know when it will be.)

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 20/06/2025 17:38

IwantToRetire · 13/06/2025 18:14

Just to say that as yet I haven't had a response to my email to WEC to ask now to make a formal complaint.

I have now had a reply but they haven't told me how to complain, although added that they had noted my comments!

OP posts:
AmaryllisNightAndDay · 15/06/2025 19:49

Oops - I meant "commission" (EHRC) not "committee".

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 15/06/2025 18:01

I am punishing myself by sitting through (the recording of) this committee. The Chair welcomes Baroness Falkner by telling her "your committee is pants and everyone hates you".

And the Chair does not want to hear that the vituperative personal attacks on committee members and threats are coming from one side but sidesteps neatly into "oh you're not accusing everyone and trying to suppress protest are you?" No love, she most certainly wasn't accusing everyone. She pointed out that women were staying within the law and that their protests don't involve bottles of pee or stopping the committee from holding its conference due to security concerns.

Anzena · 15/06/2025 16:44

Willoughby the cornered rat. Watch your tail there luv.

TheOtherRaven · 15/06/2025 16:37

A certain catchphrase of Frankie Howerd's comes often to mind there.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 14/06/2025 17:51

Note none of India's claimed constant porky pies are actually listed for scrutiny - by her account there must many of them.

How about a top 10?

WallaceinAnderland · 14/06/2025 16:23

This is disgusting. Why be so personal?

WEC to question the EHRC Chair and Chief Executive 11 June 2025 2:20pm
Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/06/2025 09:53

Really good piece from Hannah.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 13/06/2025 18:14

Just to say that as yet I haven't had a response to my email to WEC to ask now to make a formal complaint.

OP posts:
PalGalfeminist · 13/06/2025 11:48

WEC were busy little Bees defending men rights to access women ( female) single sex public provisions .
one even called ‘us’ c-s then mumbled in correction ‘women’. No doubt after this encounter she will dash to rinse her mouth-out with soap to retain her woke credentials!
These women both wore white !!!! What a betrayal of 51% of the population for the viperous less than one % of men who are Trans Identified Males ( TIMs) .
WEC ignored the Supreme Court ruling of April 25 that made it Crystal clear that in Law sex= female and male no 3rd sex or gender waffle!

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 12/06/2025 20:49

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 20:33

Just occurred to me - perhaps people align with Stonewall law so readily because it is easier to understand than the actual law

Or because loud angry men are taken as being more authoratative than women quietly and intelligently explaining that they too have rights!

OP posts:
SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 20:33

Just occurred to me - perhaps people align with Stonewall law so readily because it is easier to understand than the actual law

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 20:18

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:14

Well, quite.

I guess that it all works provided that our judiciary are chosen based on merit rather than to be representative of a particular point of view.

I have often wondered how the US system works where many of the Judges seem to be selected on the basis of political alignment

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:14

Well, quite.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 20:13

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:08

Not based on numbers, that’s what I was saying. Based on a perception that it’s more important to give women support after sexual assault where they would otherwise self exclude, than having a female only social group.

Show quote history

Based on perception always leads on to 'based on whose perception' but guess that is what the courts decide

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:13

I’m cautiously hopeful following the way the CEO described it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:12

Yes, and I hope the EHRC guidance will be crystal clear on this point.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 12/06/2025 20:11

I think it's worth repeating that the proportionate means to a legitimate end test no longer applies to exclusion of opposite sex trans people from those single-sex scenarios explicitly dealt with in the EA. Single-sex must be strictly single-sex and that's that.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:10

The reason it’s confusing is because it was never particularly clear or well defined @SlackJawedDisbeliefXY

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 20:08

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 19:56

So how would the proportionality test work?

Is this proportion based on the number of people affected or an an assessment of the response itself?

Would 10% of WI members leaving balance admitting a small number of trans members or is the proportionality test be one of assessing that leaving the WI in response to admitting trans members is an excessive response?

Crossed post with explanation of societies

Edited
Show quote history

Not based on numbers, that’s what I was saying. Based on a perception that it’s more important to give women support after sexual assault where they would otherwise self exclude, than having a female only social group.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 12/06/2025 20:08

Would 10% of WI members leaving balance admitting a small number of trans members or is the proportionality test be one of assessing that leaving the WI in response to admitting trans members is an excessive response?

This would come down to the aims and objectives of this or any other organisation.

So groups that have been set up at a time when saying it was only for women and everyone knew that meant biological females have been challenged to accept the "legal women" ie men with a GRC (although more likely self id).

Depending on the constitution it would be up to members to challenge the whoever was taking decisions had breached the intention of the organisation. Assuming that in the meantime the constitution hadn't been changed to say women and trans women.

Proportionate in relation to something like the WI is not relevant.

Propostionate is in relation to provision of services.

So within the overall structure of the WI which has become trans inclusive, if it was to offer a service that was thought should be only open to biological women they would need to statee why that was proportional.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 12/06/2025 20:02

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 19:33

Is there any guidance as to how many biological women users need to object for the exception to be valid?

Many biological women might object to transsexual people competing in women's sports / using single sex toilets etc.

How much objection is enough objection?

Show quote history

This is about service provision. ie it is for the service provider (or was) to show that it was "proportionate" to say the only way they could provide proper support to women who have been sexually assaulted by a man was for it to be single sex as in biological women only. So the case for it is made by the service providers who can justify based on their professional experience. (Although again this was distorted to somehow make out that in each case each woman would have to be assessed as to whether they really needed women only!! For TWaddle)

The issue of say a commercial operation say a sauna or whatever arguing they wanted to provide genuinely women (biological sex) only might be framed differently. ie that that is what their customers wanted. Whether they could use the same arguement about single sex for women who have suffered male violence would be accepted because of the perceived potential of male violence or the one used for toilets eg dignity and respect.

OP posts:
SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 19:56

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/06/2025 19:46

I think the proportionality test would come in there, having support for female sexual assault victims would be seen as proportionally more important in a way that alienating women from the WI would be less likely to be.

So how would the proportionality test work?

Is this proportion based on the number of people affected or an an assessment of the response itself?

Would 10% of WI members leaving balance admitting a small number of trans members or is the proportionality test be one of assessing that leaving the WI in response to admitting trans members is an excessive response?

Crossed post with explanation of societies

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 12/06/2025 19:54

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 12/06/2025 19:39

To turn the original EA explanatory note on its head - if every single member of the Women's Institute agreed that it was OK to accept transwomen then that would be acceptable - but if anyone decided to stop being a member then it would not be OK?

No! Schedule 16, which governs Associations, doesn't have any of that proportionate means to legitimate ends malarkey, and it never did. To justify its single-sex status, the WI must keep all biological males out.