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."

Yes, I’m not challenging your analysis of EA2010. I think this is probably not legal.

The previous poster was fine with an all-male run though, but felt it was so obvious that it didn’t need saying why it’s not OK to have something for two groups. I don’t think it’s so obvious. Usually there’s some harm involved that a law is trying to avoid. If a service exclusively for A is fine and a service exclusively for B is fine, it’s at the very least not obvious why a service for A+B is not fine.

If you run a career session for women that’s fine. If you run one for disabled people that’s fine. Done separately they are legal, even laudable. If you put them together they are no longer laudable, they are so bad that they need to be illegal. It is odd

You can run a career session for disabled people, and make it a single sex group (if the need for single sex provision can be justified), under the exemption in the EA. What you couldn't do is run a career session, for women, except disabled women. The first example doesn't discriminate against men as the exemption is allowed. And it doesn't discriminate against non disabled people, because that isn't a protected characteristic.

I'm not sure this is the equivalent of single sex changing rooms allowing opposite sex children under a certain age.

Single sex services are lawful if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The argument for admitting opposite sex children is that this does not undermine the aim (e.g. increased female participation in sports), in fact it works towards it because a lot of women would be excluded if they couldn't bring their kids. It's proportionate because young boys are not a serious threat to women's privacy, dignity or safety.

The single sex religious exception operates differently. They don't have to show proportionate means/legitimate aim, but without that, can there be a lawful justification for allowing opposite sex children? In any case, I can't imagine there are many men who would otherwise be excluded because they have no childcare for their daughters.

It wasn't a men only event. Therefore, banning women only events is not comparable.
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the issue.

Only focusing on one or some groups is not the same as excluding one group!

And that's your opinion. You're more than entitled to it. Isn't freedom of speech a wonderful thing ? And one I'll fiercely defend to the nth degree, alongside our other package of human rights which seemingly you think very little of.

And if they had said both male and female children over the age of puberty could not take part, they probably would have been within the EA exemption. But they didn't. They just said the female children couldn't take part.

They very obviously were trying to hold a single sex sporting event that also included all children under a specific age (with the clear reasoning that pre-pubescent children are not subject to the same gender segregations in their faith). Phrasing it as "men of any age and all children under 12" doesn't actually have a functional difference from "Men and boys of any age and girls under 12".

I suspect they'll revise the language next year. It won't address the actual issue in any way whatsoever of course, but it will close this pedantic avenue of attack. It's a waste of people's energy to focus on the language they used here when they could be supporting actual efforts to increase opportunities and representation for women in Muslim communities.

its true though isn’t it? All bravado on an internet forum and no action at all. Well done you

Yes, I think per EA2010 that’s right. I still don’t think it’s morally obvious though. That was what I was originally questioning.

It’s also an odd bit of the law. Under EA2010 is a mother-and-toddler group legal if it permits male babies but not male adults? Or allowing boys under 5 (or whatever) into the female toilets? The law doesn’t differentiate by age in its definitions of the PC of sex, and doesn’t permit conjoint groups.

I’m not claiming those things are bad. I’m just pointing out that the law is weird in that area.

You’ve said this a few times but talking about things and building consensus on what is not right can effect change.

Women can be pretty good at this, including on mn.

It's breach not breech.

I think its unlikely that legal action will follow from this, bringing a discrimination case takes money and effort, and I would guess there is no one sufficiently motivated to do so. However, in holding this event, the charity has brought very bad publicity and greater scrutiny upon itself, and highlighted the issue of sexism in the Muslim community.

But could you have a career session for women and disabled people? (ie men allowed only if disabled, all women allowed).

My understanding of the law is no. I think that law produces unintuitive results in many cases.

I’ll bet you £10 this won’t effect any change. It’s bonkers. They can’t even be arsed to send a formal complaint.

We’ll see. Many women are not so blasé at seeing teen girls excluded from sports.

You do seem more concerned re what others are doing rather than the issue of exclusion.

I don’t understand why a woman is trying to get other woman to do the work rather than take some on herself, tbh.

Race for Life races are open to anyone now, but when they were single sex they were for women and girls of any age, plus boys under 12. It wasn't illegal.

It’s a conversation, I think she’s aware you feel that way. Other women will pick it up, discuss and help effect change.

OP was asking for advice on the best way forward. You have responded with derision and insults. I’m not sure you’re the right person to help here.

There are lots of different exceptions in the EA which apply in different circumstances. It's confusing to work out which one(s) people have in mind.

The examples you give fall under services. Single sex services are lawful if they're a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As long as admitting young opposite sex children does not undermine the legitimate aim and is proportionate, that would likely be lawful.

If adult men are admitted it fatally undermines any legitimate aim justification for the women's service in the first place.

Yanbu. Unbelievable people are thinking this is OK

But they were advertised as women's events.

This wasn't advertised as a men's event.

From the fight against trans activism, many women have learnt a lot about how the Equality Act works. I can see how it might not be ‘so obvious it doesn’t need saying’.

There have been so many lies propagated by trans activist organisations like Stonewall and activist lawyers, I’m not surprised there is some room for confusion.

😂

when they could be supporting actual efforts to increase opportunities and representation for women in Muslim communities.

In what way is this discussion not attempting to support actual efforts to increase opportunities for Muslim women?

Have you forgotten that the upshot is that women and girls aged 12-17 were excluded from a ‘family’ fun run because some men in the mosque didn’t want them there?

Race for Life entrance criteria was changed specifically because it was challenged legally…