Has Karon Monaghan QC, one of the UK's most repsected equalities lawyers who is sympathetic to the GC cause been brainwashed by Stonewall
No she hasn't and I can't work out what part of her oral evidence you think supports your position. Karon Monaghan has a very clear understanding of the EA and the way the GRA interacts with it.
From her evidence session for the ehrc inquiry:
But for certain safe spaces, so that people know and we don’t have to go through this exercise of proportionality and we don’t have to identify precisely what the issues are in every individual case, we can say, “We have a blanket policy and that is because there is an exemption.”
Even if Parliament hasn’t got the time at the moment to change the exemptions, at the very least there should be very clear guidance, so that people feel confident saying, “I’m sorry, but with this service—”.
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/92165.html
'Case by case' doesn't feature in the EA. EHRC put it in the statutory guidance but it's not backed by the primary legislation so it's open to judicial review. Obviously 'case by case' is unworkable if it means frontline charity workers and volunteers have to make a decision for each individual tw who wants access to a service or space. That's when we get into horrible discussions around feminine presentation, who has a beard, who has a penis, who 'passes' etc.
'Case by case' makes sense if it means 'service by service', as Karon Monaghan says, and I can think of no circumstances where it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to have a single sex service in the first place, but to also allow some male people to join in with that. Most of the focus seems to be on what's proportionate but if women's spaces and services must let in some male people then what was the legitimate aim in the first place?
Also I don't understand why you have been castigating Ann Sinnott's legal action against EHRC because of their unlawful guidance when your own link makes the following recommendations:
29. We recommend that the Government Equalities Office issue a clear statement of the law on single-sex services to all Departments, including the requirement under the public sector equality duty for commissioners of services to actively consider commissioning specialist and single-sex services to meet particular needs. (Paragraph 168)
30. We do not believe that non-statutory guidance will be sufficient to bring the clarity needed in what is clearly a contentious area. We recommend that, in the absence of case law the EHRC develop, and the Secretary of State lay before Parliament, a dedicated Code of Practice, with case studies drawn from organisations providing services to survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. This Code must set out clearly, with worked examples and guidance, (a) how the Act allows separate services for men and women, or provision of services to only men or only women in certain circumstances, and (b) how and under what circumstances it allows those providing such services to choose how and if to provide them to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (Paragraph 190)
EHRC statutory guidance is secondary legislation. It has the same legal status as the regulations that are currently keeping us all in lockdown, except there's no expiry date. Of course it matters if EHRC have misrepresented the law and if they have then of course it should be challenged and of course they should be required to produce new statutory guidance if the courts decide that is necessary.