EHRC response to GRA consultation

[Candidpeel]

The Equality & Human Rights Commission response to the GRA consultation...erm....not as good as Trevor's

ttps://twitter.com/EHRC/status/1054404541108629510?s=19

t sets out clearly at the beginning the EA treats people according to their legal sex.....but then throughout it says self ID will not effect single sex exemptions in any way... (by which I guess it means legal single sex spaces will remain but they just won't be not biologically single sex anyone )

so basically biological men should be entitled to men’s spaces plus women’s spaces. Biological Women on the other hand are told this won’t impact biological women. Yet there is strong evidence proving otherwise and real concerns about safeguarding

It's a disappointing response, especially after reading the Trevor Phillips article.

It's also still not clear which women's groups they consulted with.

If organisations like the EHRC believe women and girls still have a right to safety and dignity of sex segregation under the EA, I think the government need to promote the EA as part of the changes to the GRA. Individuals and organisations need to to know it exists, can be used to exclude male transpeople from women and girls spaces and be free to implement it without fear.

Given how many councils removed sex from their list of protected characteristic, I'm sure it is a concern for the government and organisations like EHRC.

There were some interesting links with some of the EHRC legal advisers in the Jess Bradley /TELI threads.

from current thread, TimeLady writes:
"Just printing the Malta comment text in The Times in full for the record. I'm still trying to figure out what she's implying:

This has nothing to do with Trans rights they know you cannot override objective realty (sex) with subjective identity (gender) If they choose gender over sex then everyone else loses. This has more to do with big business as an offshoot of the proposal to make identity 'fluid'. Both Linda Riley Labour LGBT Business adviser and Sue Graham Pascoe The Tory LGBT adviser both have a habit of liquidating companies with high book values.

The CEO of the EHRC David Isaacs was the subject of a judges comment on conflict of interest (a lawyer who works for the Business Sector and brought in Stonewalls 100 list of companies from banks to government agencies in a publicly funded organisation who may have to take discrimination cases against the government (or not). Nicky Morgan recruited him in 2016. The EHRCs response to the Scottish GRA consultation was that Nicky Morgan was looking into Companies House not 'dead naming' individuals who had cosmetic surgery and played out sex stereotypes for Companies House filing purposes. So in effect Riley would be named but Pascoe would not and be free to disguise their lack of business management.

When this whole affair was proposed to Maria Miller by equally 'dodgy' EU Rapoteur Deborah Schembri of Malta in December 2014 (she visited Miller to get approval for Resolution 2048 on sel id) It was in light of the Panama Papers scandals and the business affairs of prominent Maltese politicians. The journalist who exposed this was Daphne Galizia who was murdered by a car bomb not long after . Ms Schembri is now in charge of issuing birth certificates in Malta and has been associated with new properties in the millionaires mile of Malta.

This is just one example how gender self ID will impact on security and company law. Get a new birth certificate with no proof just a sex stereotype and liquidate, liquidate, liquidate."

Times article referred to: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0fe1693a-d56f-11e8-926d-96790161a92a

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3401790-trevor-phillips-in-the-times

If I recall correctly (it was on another thread and I can't find it now) the CEO Chair, David Isaacs, moved to EHRC from Stonewall.

Sorry I didn't spot that Isaacs is already mentioned in R0wan's post. But I'm sure there's another thread about him too.

I agree, disappointing overall but there is a lot in there that is helpful in countering the "legal advice" trans lobby groups keep giving out, especially with regard to the single sex exemptions.

I liked that they were clear about funding:

86. We have also been told that a growing number of funders, such as local authorities, apply equality requirements to funding criteria that make it increasingly difficult to continue to provide women-only domestic violence services. The lawful application of the single-sex provisions in the Equality Act 2010 should not, in our view, preclude an organisation securing funding.

99. We assume that question 18 is referring to...

So the question being asked wasn't even clear to the EHRC, how are the general public meant to decipher what is actually being asked?

Disappointing response overall, I have a feeling this was a done deal some time ago. BUT, a slight glimmer of hope is that the responses don't align perfectly with Stonewall's which surprised me

Helen Saxby has an interesting comment that is in line with what Baracker and others have said on occasion:

It's worrying that you reference the Yogyakarta Principles in your introduction - these were written by unelected, self-selected 'experts', mostly men, who did not consider women's rights, and the Principles have not been ratified or agreed to by any country in the world

twitter.com/helensaxby11/status/1054439989805760515