6 London councils to ignore EHRC guidance

I'm not trying to be provocative, I just honestly don't understand it.

It's like Burnham's obsession with devolution. Fwiw I agree with a fair bit that Burnham has said lately. But I don't understand why we should give more and more control to separate councils, which is the opposite principle to the economy of scale. And they are all going to be short-termist as they have election cycles, compared to the civil service which has permanent positions.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it (and I'd like to)

Writing to object means they can't say no complaints have been made. Everyone in those areas who object needs to complain. Trans rights activists have very loud voices.

Separately this was making me wonder - why do we even elect local councillors when their role is more similar to the civil service than to that of an MP? They don't really have any law-making decision power, they just administrate local services. Surely this role is better suited to qualified professionals and continuity of provision, rather than short/medium-term elected people with political motivations.

We just want pothole free roads, reliable transport, regular bin collections... why is this even election-based?

We don't vote for our water or gas providers, why do we vote for the people in charge of the bins?

But that's entirely the council's fault. I really think the only way these people will change is if they're forced to. Otherwise, are we just going to let them get away with it?

Back in the 80s and 90s, if councillors did something illegal that ended up costing the council a lot of money, they could be surcharged to try to claw some of it back. Sadly that no longer applies, as it can help focus the mind remarkably.

This is what I don't understand. Apparently it's a civil problem not a criminal one, so all you can do is sue them.

The Scottish govt have been breaking the law regarding female prisons, seemingly with no consequence. The police have been reporting male criminals/suspects as female, and investigating people for related thought crimes. There's no recourse.

Surely if councillors break the law they should be stripped of being able to sit as councillors.

Like if I break the law my vetting is farked, as well as my professional registration, do councillors get to incite and introduce illegal action and still remain as councillors, because I'm sure if it was any other breaking of the law they would be gone asap.

Sorry for wording, just finished a set of night shifts

Basically we just need to make an example of one or two and the rest will fall into line.

But will they fall into line? It seems like the only negative consequence is a payout from the council's funds. These councillors don't care if they get their boroughs into debt, it's not their own personal money.

I think these people would rather swimming pools had to shut than make the changing rooms single sex.

They're on an ideological crusade. They don't care about the average service user

https://archive.is/cYOwm

Hackney is understood to have already been served with a formal legal challenge over its alleged failure to provide female-only services, in what appears to be the first move against a public authority since the code came into force.
Lambeth councillors had previously backed a motion calling for the borough to refuse to implement the code. Islington said it was “contradictory, poorly developed and risks creating a climate of suspicion of trans people”.

Bristol city council said services could admit people according to their gender identity, meaning trans women could be allowed into women’s services. However, it said any service operating in that way must not be described as female-only and should instead be labelled “single-gender” or “trans-inclusive”

Women in Bristol are bringing a discrimination and harassment claim against the council after being banned from attending meetings for six months when they raised concerns about its trans inclusion policy.
Wendy Stephenson and Phoebe Beedell, of the Women of Wessex group, are bringing the claim. Stephenson told The Times she was “delighted that we have a merits hearing scheduled and that the truth of the matter will be heard in court”, and added she was “disheartened” by the council’s updated policy. “They have learnt nothing,” she said
.

ACTION
Anyone in one of the affected boroughs write to your councillor AND opposition councillors as well. The point is to create debate and discussion and raise awareness of the legal risks at council level. These Councils are blatantly breaking the equality legislation. Every complaint raises tension.

Point out Hackney and Bristol are already facing legal action over their refusal to stop being sexist. Similar legal action WILL happen in your borough. Say you will be happy to crowdfund a legal challenge as will many other people.

These councils like the Scottish government will lose in court. Biology is accepted in British law. Basically we just need to make an example of one or two and the rest will fall into line.

I think my biggest problem with all of this is that I just simply don’t understand why it isn’t inclusive when we say that trans men should not be in women’s spaces.
Is it the opinion of these councils (and a lot of other organisations) that women have no rights or that they are trumped by the rights of trans women? Perhaps I am the idiot in believing that the law is clear but the head of the EHRC on R4 yesterday confirmed that I am correct so why on earth are these organisations wasting taxpayers money breaking the law because they can and will be challenged 😞

Wtf is this hyperbole:

councils who are proud to be boroughs of sanctuary

Like they're Notre Dame or something

From the article:

"... leaders of Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Waltham Forest - boroughs with some of the highest trans and non-binary communities in the country - have demanded the government clarifies that the code must not be used to exclude trans people from services. They have also warned that council staff should not be placed at risk of “inadvertent discrimination”, where no third spaces are available to Trans+ people.

In an open letter to Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, the six leaders and other senior councillors said:

“We say this to you in no uncertain terms: Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are fundamentally valid.

“It is simply unacceptable that the Code of Practice introduced today is harmful to the rights of trans people and will make their exclusion from public life more likely, not less. This will feel like an attack to the countless trans people in our communities who are simply trying to live their lives in safety and wish to be treated with respect.

“As councils who are proud to be boroughs of sanctuary, with significant LGBTQ+ communities, we are committed to being safe, welcoming and inclusive places for all residents, regardless of their background or identity. We have an unshakeable commitment to ensuring that Trans+ residents can access services safely, with dignity and free from discrimination or harassment.”

Leaders from each council met at the London LGBTQ+ Centre in central London on Wednesday morning, to discuss joint action to protect trans rights and continue to deliver inclusive services.

The councils have underlined their commitment to providing safe, welcoming and inclusive places for all residents, regardless of their background or identity. With all six councils now “reviewing all of our internal practices to ensure that no trans person is excluded on the basis of our actions”.

But, warning that “the government is failing trans people when they need its support the most”, they are calling on Ms Phillipson to:

• confirm that the EHRC Code of Practice cannot be used to exclude trans people from services - and must be used to create inclusive services for diverse communities

• introduce legislation which protects the rights of trans and non-binary people, to ensure that “they are able to participate fully in public life and access services safely and with dignity”

• create an equalities framework that protects trans people’s safety, dignity and humanity

It adds:

“The government's own Equalities Impact Assessment acknowledges that there is a real risk Trans+ people could face exclusion, discrimination, or difficulties accessing services if organisations misinterpret the ruling, based on appearance alone. Overly broad enforcement can, and will, lead to trans and non-trans people alike being challenged and excluded from services and facilities.

“Meanwhile, the code introduces a dangerous lack of clarity for us as service providers, leaving our staff at risk of inadvertent discrimination where no third spaces are available to Trans+ people. We won't put our staff in the impossible position of policing entry to public spaces.

“We stand in solidarity with trans people, an already marginalised community subject to increasing discrimination. This government claims it is standing up for equality. That can never be the case while the rights of trans people are treated as an afterthought.”

Interestingly, 6 of the 8 signatories are apparently male

Thanks... that open letter is awful. Not a single mention of women. I don't think they understand what single sex spaces are for. It's just a mechanism for "validation" for them.

Do these absolute numpties know that this isn't voluntary? It's not a suggestion.
The Equality Act doesn't have an 'opt out' option for anyone who doesn't want to follow the law. Anyone with this little respect for women or the law shouldn't be in any position of authority.

Reporting for duty as a Lewisham resident. How shall we tackle this?

Article about their open letter to Bridget Phillipson (might be a security certificate issue with this webpage):

https://lewisham.gov.uk/articles/news/councils-urge-government-to-protect-trans-rights

Yes I live in one of those boroughs too. I'm angry about it. I don't think writing to them will make any difference

It seems that the only recourse is suing a council, but (as I understand it) that money would just come out of council budgets, which would affect services for residents. So either way we are screwed over. No personal consequences for the councillors, and no way of preventing these "motions" from being voted for in the first place.

Thanks, @Kingdomofsleep . I was right.

What i find shocking is that there don't seem to be any consequences for councils that don't comply with the law. Why isn't there a system for firing councillors under these circumstances? Or not allowing votes for "motions" that are unlawful?

Waaah waaaah waaaah - we don't wanna uphold the law

I'm sure the elected members of these councils won't mind their residents ignoring the laws they don't personally like then - I mean that's how it works right? If you the council think it's fine to ignore laws you don't like then it's fine for residents to do so as well

honestly how do these absolute fuckwits function on a daily basis?

It is new guidance published in June of this year. I agree that no rules have actually changed in terms of single sex spaces remaining so. But it is still a new "code"

@KingdomofsleepIt’s not new guidance though, it’s old guidance that had to be confirmed when folk thought self ID is a thing in England like it is in Scotland and Ireland. You hear a lot of representatives from trans groups starting with “I don’t quite understand”, because they don’t…

(I meant EHRC...!)

What absolute tripe. And I hate that every time this new ECHR guidance is reported (for example yesterday on the radio) they then do a quote from some trans rights charity.

Why not do a vox pop from some ordinary women? "Yeah, relieved to hear common sense returning", "i thought this was the whole point of the Ladies' changing room, it's for us ladies" etc