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

[Sickleg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kwk1204jno.amp

They’ve got millions . Make them pay some of those millions to a women’s charity.

BBC STORY:

A charity run organised by the East London Mosque Trust has excluded women and girls aged 13 and over from taking part.
The Muslim Charity Run, which was held in Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets on Sunday, said on its website: "Our inclusive atmosphere ensures that every individual, from the youngest to the oldest, can take part and make a difference."
It added: "This is open to men, boys of all ages and girls under 12, but everyone is welcome at the park to cheer on the runners."

You need to quote the correct PP in order to reply to them otherwise they won’t see your reply. I didn’t give the stats.

Document last updated on the 13th September 2021.

Take that up with the Government and the WHO if you don’t believe them - it’s their stats.

No one will thank you for your pretentious outrage.

I think the 60,000 girls IN THE UK identified as being at risk of FGM might thank us for raising awareness with a view to preventing it. 🤷‍♀️

I think you have a serious amount of reading up to do before you continue with your eye watering level of ignorance. Start by listening to Nimco Ali, FGM campaigner. One girl subjected to this barbaric practice is one girl too many don’t you think?

A reminder, all bar one of those countries are overwhelmingly Muslim (Eritrea is apparently Muslim and Christian)

www.gov.uk/government/news/fgm-campaigner-nimco-ali-appointed-as-tackling-violence-against-women-and-girls-adviser

Someone upthread said that it’s not an inclusive event. The inclusive (as we see it) part is based on the spectator side - anyone is able to make a day out of it, cheer on and observe, just like you would with the London Marathon.

It took place in a public park, in the same way parkrun or the London Marathon are run in public places so anyone in the area can watch and cheer if they wish....how does this make the run that excludes females over 12, "inclusive"? I mean I suppose its infinitely better than saying they are excluded from watching as well- but I think its a stretch to say its inclusive because they are able to watch (thats not the same as participating imo)

1 girl is different to 98% of women
That's a disgusting lie
I'm talking about the stats not about how horrible the practice is
98%?
How laughable
No wonder WHO has become a joke

Thank you. I saw that comment.

Here are the stats and the link to the current government document for anyone who missed them. I know it is shocking that in this day and age this is still a major issue but it is.

All are overwhelmingly Muslim countries (bar Eritrea which is 50:50).

60,000 girls are at risk in the UK - that’s 60,000 families that want to do this to their girls. We cannot allow any religious groups to think they are exempt from any UK law.

Countries with which UK residents are most likely to have links and which have a high prevalence of FGM, noting that estimates of FGM vary over time and between data sources
Change to table and accessible view
Estimated prevalence of FGM¹ (%)
Somalia 98
Egypt 87
Sudan 87
Sierra Leone 86
Eritrea 83
Gambia 76
Ethiopia 65
www.gov.uk/guidance/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-migrant-health-guide

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-migrant-health-guide

What’s a disgusting lie?

Why fot you read the document?

A woman who wanted to participate but was barred from doing so.

I'm interested to understand why you think it's a lie? Is it specifically the Somalia number?

I’d be really interested to know where this does stand legally tbh. Would it have to be a woman who had wanted to take part who took this to court?

Or is it the council who should be taken to court for allowing them to go ahead? Should they just have refused permission m, or said “men only is fine or children only, but not this mix”?

Because it seems all kind of wrong, doesn’t it? It’s suggesting that girls cease to be people who can take part in life when they reach 13.

The right to freedom of religion is an individual right, so it shouldn’t trump holding a non discriminatory event.

Exactly. Why should we allow women to be discriminated against just because of religion?

Let’s remember that the vast majority of Muslim women are born into the religion - they have no choice. The barriers for exit can be very high. I had a friend who was excommunicated from her entire family and social group because she didn’t want to be Muslim any more. Death can also be a consequence of leaving.

Why do Muslim women in this country apparently have more choice than Muslim women in other countries? It is because of our laws. We can’t continue to allow this slippery slope of religious groups being allowed to ignore the law. That ended very badly in Rotherham and the many other cities where police and authorities turned a blind eye to the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs. They don’t turn a blind eye to the white sex abuse gangs.

Do you have a reference for that
Google is your friend, and no it wasn’t anything Lily Madigan did. It had been challenged long before that, a man named John Taylor initiated it I think, but he wasn’t the only challenger.

And I’m not ‘pushing for questioning the legality’ of anything, I’m explaining what has already happened.

Finally, your point about boys in female spaces is a good one as it highlights nicely the difference between that and what has happened in this charity event.
Male babies and young boys are being invited in (for obvious reasons) to those single sex females spaces as an exception. The necessity of a single sex space in a woman’s refuge can be clearly explained and evidenced, in regard to safeguarding in particular, to ensure it complies with the EA Exemption.
In the case of the charity event, girls and women are being excluded from the event and no reason, that would comply with the EA Exemption has been stated. It will be interesting to see what they think the reason for applying the Exemption is, if they are challenged.

Apologies, can’t Edit the post above but I should have been clearer:

I didn’t mean Race For Life was required to change their criteria due to legal challenges (at least one was unsuccessful based on sex discrimination), I meant that they themselves ultimately did change their criteria and that came after being challenged more than once. The young boys being allowed join in with their mothers being the first change I think, after a woman made a challenge as she wished to run with her son. Then the mixed sex race it is today happened after that.

I find it interesting that women are welcome to watch the men run, and are presumed to be resistant to immodest thoughts about all these male bodies pounding past them. Whereas if men watched the women run they would be tempted to immorality.
I guess women are at a higher level of faith.

I don’t really understand your point. Your initial post suggested that Race for Life changed policy because they were acting illegally. (You were responding directly to a poster who stated nothing they were doing was illegal). Now you’re saying they weren’t required to change. It’s an important distinction because some posters on here are saying that the very fact of including some girls means that the event is ‘illegal’ as it is not truly single sex.
I don’t actually disagree with you on the rest though. We all know why girls over 12 are excluded. The organisers would be hard pressed to justify it under the legislation and I suspect they thought they’d just slip under the radar and people would say “it’s just like women-only events”. Possibly the publicity has highlighted that single sex things aren’t just single sex because people feel like it. Although I doubt it.
I think you could conceive of different circumstances where a similar format would be justified. Maybe a men’s fun run where a focus was the role of fathers may be able to make an argument for their young daughters to also take part, But that isn’t this.

This is now being reported on by the guardian. The ehrc have received numerous complaints so will be looking into it. The communities Secretary has confirmed its unacceptable and a breach of the equality act. I'll await the apologies from numerous posters who said it was ok, goaded people into submission, thought it was absolutely fine for women to be ' othered ' due to religion, stated that it was no big deal and in one especially charming post, was a fine example of 'our diverse society discriminating against women for the greater good '. Think I'll be waiting a long time.

That's good news that the EHRC have picked it up. They can advise the organisation on their responsibilities under the EA.

Thank you for that update.

Maybe Khan will make a statement as surely he would if a ‘cis people only’ race was organised he won’t

I explained that I had worded the original response badly. Which is what I was trying to then clarify, also badly, apparently 😁. I wasn’t suggesting they were acting illegally, I just said they were challenged and at some point after that they changed their criteria.

The challenge of sex discrimination (brought by a man who wanted to run) was found to not be valid. Presumably, because there are exemptions to the act that they could provide good reason for using. I don’t know if that was actually why, I’d have to try to find the original judgement, but making an assumption.

But then there was at least one other challenge, this time by a woman who wanted her young male child to be allowed to run with her. I don’t know if it was just raised with the charity or if an official complaint was made so I don’t know if it was found to be in breach or not.

But (and this was my original point in the response), it was after being challenged (even though at least one challenge had failed) that the charity then decided to change the criteria. First to allowing male children, and then to allowing all males.

And your further point about the distinction - I already mentioned that in the previous post, and why the two scenarios may be found to be different. Because one was including young males in an otherwise single sex space by consent but the other is excluding older females because, well that’s the question. But I think that’s the bit you’re agreeing with. I suppose we will find out if the experts on the EA agree now it’s being looked into by the EHRC.

This Op and the one from Sunday are just trying to demonize muslim men and the religion. Just admit that you are a racist Islamophobic person. No point trying to hide behind a keyboard after overdosing on GB news.

The morally bankrup government and trashy media are brainwashing certain people into thinking Muslims/boat ppl/ethnic minorities are the root cause of UKs issues so that they can get away with all sorts. You think the government will deliver on all its promises once it stops the boats ? No one is trying to impose sharia law in the UK, ffs stop listening to trash, dont you have better things to focus on in your life?

If you want to save women, go tell the gov to stop supporting and arming the state that is killing and bombing its neighbours to bits and that includes over 16,000 children and those still under the rubble . Women are being killed with unborn babies in their womb as well as giving birth without medical intervention. Newborns are dying from lack of medicine and food. So please stop your selective racist outrage and look deep into real issues. Your tax is funding the bombing of these women, they want to live and also possibly jog with freedom not under an apartheid state.

Yes, good news. This event has been d allowed to continue with permission from tower hamlets council for years; it will be interesting to find out why no one has whistle blown well before now, if the same t&c were implemented. Somebody needs to be held accountable.

This may be a downside of having a Muslim led council run by a man who made a hostile environment for people not in board with his agenda.

Yes, clan-based corruption has been brought into this country and the authorities have been too weak and cowardly to deal with it.

But the tide is definatly starting to turn.

" and in one especially charming post, was a fine example of 'our diverse society discriminating against women for the greater good '"

Satire not your strong point I take it?

Comprehension not yours?