The Equalities and Human Rights Commission: one of the roots of regulatory capture?

[theOtherPamAyres]

The EHRC says:
Our job is to help make Britain fairer. We do this by safeguarding and enforcing the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect.

As a statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act 2006, the Commission operates independently. We aim to be an expert and authoritative organisation that is a centre of excellence for evidence, analysis and equality and human rights law. We also aspire to be an essential point of contact for policy makers, public bodies and business.

Trans pressure groups have always relied on the interpretation of advice given by the EHRC. They relied on it during training for public bodies and businesses. The Government relied on it, when the Ministry of Justice out-sourced prison policy to Gendered Intelligence.

But the EHRC's advice was wrong. It has never hidden the fact that it wants to foster 'inclusion' and appears to have allowed that bias to cloud its judgement. In a nutshell it said that employers and service providers would be advised to allow a transgender person to access spaces and services "in their acquired gender" (sic).

Councils were persuaded that they would be guilty of discrimination unless they embraced 'inclusion'. Ditto girl guides, NSPCC, Womens Aid, the NHS, schools, Crown prosecutors and the police. It was no coincidence that codes of practice for these organisation began to talk about 'transgender identity' as a protected characteristic in both the civil and criminal law.

Trans people themselves were persuaded that they had a perfect right to be treated in their acquired gender and had no qualms about taking full advantage of those rights to enter toilets, short-lists and apply for women's jobs. "Transwomen are women" they proclaimed, under the illusion that the law was on their side..

It was only when organisations challenged the EHRC, that it revised the advice.

Even after getting it wrong, the EHRC pressed ahead with its inclusion agenda. In its written evidence to the Select Committee on reforms to the GRA,(2018) it recommended getting rid of the sex binary, saying:
....sex markers on administrative forms, identity documents and data collection forms should be reviewed to facilitate inclusion.

Today (15/06/2019) we learn in the Times that EHRC were keen to prosecute discrimination cases against schools and services, in collaboration with Mermaids. They are nowhere to be seen when it comes to the 'sex' protected characteristic. Funny that.

What sort of independent, purportedly neutral, 'expert' and 'authoritative' human rights defender gets the law wrong;
provides bad advice to trans people;
sets service providers and public bodies on a course to 'inclusion';
and wants to remove 'sex', in favour of gender?

A corrupt and dishonest human rights defender is the simple answer.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/who-we-are/our-commissioners-committees-and-governance/about-our-commissioners

EHRC commissioner David Isaac CBE (Chair)

"David is a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons and was previously Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012."

Worth reading this FOI. Scan all the way through. In there is an admission they aren't clear about the Equality Act single sex exemptions. It's very revealing.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/documents_related_to_change_in_e

EHRC commissioner David Isaac CBE (Chair)

David is a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons and was previously Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

Following

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/21/transgender-rights-equality-human-rights

The “period of reflection” a person wishing to change gender must observe before obtaining a gender recognition certificate is unnecessary, according to the equality watchdog.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission spells out its opposition in its submission to the government’s controversial consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, which was due to close on Friday, but has been extended until noon on Monday due to the high number of submissions.

While its thinking is in line with that of leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International, women’s organisations believe dispensing with a period of reflection would be a retrograde measure.

Neutral, independent?......

I think agree they're part of the problem. I also think that, like any organisation, their staff are pretty divided on this. I heard that from a friend who works closely with the EHRC and knows people there. Some people there, including senior women, are GC and really unhappy with the direction of travel. Others are really gung ho.

"David is a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons and was previously Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012."

Ah FFS, it's like living in a nightmare. A huge predatory octopus squatting with its tentacles strangling every aspect of women's and children's rights and safeguarding, all tentacles leading back to Stonewall.

Honestly, it's time that gay men started saying "not in my name". Instead gay men are leading the defence of those attacking women's rights. They're becoming associated in the public mind with what's going on at the moment.

Place marking

Completely inappropriate and against the aims and purpose of an org formed to balance people’s rights.

They are a big part of the problem. The report in the Times should be followed up. They need new leadership.

Stonewall was still a gay rights organisation in 2012 though.

When thinking about Stonewall I always cheer myself up by reading some of the powerful comments under this petition.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Placemarking

At the hearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee attended by Womens Aid and Karen Ingala Smith, there was a discussion about the interpretation of the Equality Act and the lack of clarity.

KIS told the Committee that her organisation had had to take independent pro bono legal advice, because the existing advice had been wrong. She walked them through examples. She educated them about the exemptions. She told them that the Equality Act protected single-sex services whereas the advice that everyone else relied on, dismantled single sex services.

Womens Aid was unable to explain why they were dismantling single sex services when the law (as explained by KIS) was clear.

This stark reveleation provided the perfect opportunity for the Select Committee to look at the EHRC's role in misrepresenting the law.

As far as safeguarding is concerned, the EHRC appears to have been the vehicle to blur the boundaries.

Would it have been too hard to require the EHRC to appear before the Committee (or provide a written reply) answering the question: What advice has been given to organisations since your inception in 2006?

Trevor Philips, the first head of the EHRC, is very critical, it seems, of where we have ended up (Times article, "Trans extremists are putting equality at risk"):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-extremists-are-putting-equality-at-risk-fjv8skwz0

I think the idea that there is a conflict within the EHRC is plausible.

Reading through the EHRC's response to the GRA reforms was interesting. Strangely, they admit to cobbling together a small group of stakeholders at the last minute.

When I look at the response I suspect that it was completed and then added to later with a few sentences about concerns for the most vulnerable women in refuges and prisons only.

The EHRC makes no attempt to balance women's safeguarding in general, with the needs of trans people wanting to self i/d into womanhood. It focusses solely on the question of dismantling barriers for trans people - with the addition of the sentences mentioned above

It proposes a system where registrars for Births, Marriages and Deaths interview the trans person and impress upon them (really, really firmly) that the application has to be in good faith. EHRC said that registrars would be trained to spot the applications made frivolously or in bad faith. It didn't mention a system for revoking GRCs.

Is this the sort of gate-keeping and safeguarding system that women will consent to?

Hell, no.

I registered a death of a relative recently. The registrar was pressed for time because she had to officiate at a wedding at the other end of the county and was rather distracted and flustered. Documents and declarations were dealt with swiftly. Forms were dashed off with lightening speed and she read out a prepared script like a chipmunk on speed.

Would you think that registrars are the right people to deal with applicants? The EHRC thinks it would be very convenient and painless for trans applicants, but I'm not confident that they have researched registrar's capacity.

And I'm bleddy fuming that they haven't bothered to consider safeguarding concerns in general.

As the defender of my and your human rights, they are doing a piss poor job and it will take years to disentangle, if ever. The fact that they are seen as the go-to expert and authority on my and your human rights is scandalous.

Stonewall was still a gay rights organisation in 2012 though.

I think it's less about the work he did there and more about having a personal relationship with the people pushing this. Easier to back scratch if you're already on first name terms.

It’s jus5 like an octopus the whole erm stuff.
Same ppl or their partners or friends from other organisations keep popping up

You have to,wonder how corrupt this stuff is. And not even sure what stuff I am talking about

Thank,god you lot are here doing what government should have being doing

EHRC said that registrars would be trained to spot the applications made frivolously or in bad faith.

Really? Predatory men manage to go through a whole four years of training to become Catholic priests, but registrars will be able to spot them easily after a bit of training.

My eyes are rolling again.

Fuck's sake.

EHRC does not seem fit for purpose at present.

Just looking through the EHRC response to the GRA. This is utterly ridiculous:

32. The registrar would replace the current panel system, but should not be responsible for deciding whether the applicant should receive legal recognition of their acquired gender, as the decision to change legal sex should rest with the individual rather than being conditional on third-party evidence and evaluation.

As though changing legal sex has no effect on the rest of society that this individual interacts with.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/consultation-response-gender-recognition-act-18-october-2018.pdf

This is interesting.

An FOI request about Fair Play for Women's questions about EHRC's advice for businesses last year. The EHRC initially stated that trans people with a GRC cannot be excluded from single-sex spaces. This contradicts the Gender Recognition Act, which says that they can.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/documents_related_to_change_in_e#incoming-1298678

These are the internal emails at EHRC (plus ones from the Fawcett Society) blundering around trying to work out what to do. Much redaction but still gives an idea of how much of a mess it is. It does state that the EHRC team are not all in agreement with whether access to single sex spaces should be automatic for someone with a GRC.

Surely it doesn't matter what they think? It's the law. And so much for "the single sex exemptions will still apply with self-ID" mantra that we keep hearing. EHRC are clearly trying to get rid of them in practice anyway.

They want to change the word transsexual, which is the legal term used in the GRA and have just "trans" instead. Which has no legal meaning. The overall impression is one of an organisation which wants to ensure that single-sex spaces are opened up to opposite-sex people who have a GRC.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/525230/response/1298678/attach/html/9/Emails%20Redacted.pdf.html

And I'm bleddy fuming that they haven't bothered to consider safeguarding concerns in general.

They have considered them, they’ve just chosen to ignore them and not mention them in public.

Despite the acres of redacted correspondence, the Freedom of Information request by Fairplay for Women ( referred to above) catches the EHRC bang to rights.

Remember that EHRC has been asked to correct a substantial and misleading error/misinterpretation of the law around people with or working towards a GRC (transexuals).

The distinction between transexuals and other trans people is very important for the intrepretation of the protected characteristic 'gender reassignment'. The EHRC had widened the definition and Fairplay for Women challenged them. The Fawcett Society raises the same point.

We see correspondents try to work out ways to keep the wide definition. To paraphrase and using my own words the discussion goes:
Shall we say it's an "outdated" term?

Yes let's do that.

Let's correct the advice but signal that people will appear old-fashioned and out of touch if they restrict 'gender reassignment' to say transexuals.
One voice (Melanie?) isn't happy about the biased addition, and just wants the correction to be made.
Others believe that it is absolutely vital.
The redacted emails do not allow us to see why the EHRC thinks it's absolutely vital to undermine people's confidence in legal terms.

If I remember correctly, the caveat about 'transexual' (being old-fashioned, outmoded and by implication embarressing) is run past the Fawcett Society but not Fairplay for Women. The Fawcett Society gives a thumbs up to the the caveat.

There you have it. Civil servants working steathily to change definitions. When that doesn't work, and they are caught out, they look for ways round it.

You know where you are with a word like transexual - because it describes a medical pathway and legal process, with health care professionals acting as gatekeepers. The public know what a transexual is, and transexuals themselves want to be seen as a group unlike and totally separate from, other transgender people. It's not old-fashioned. Why would you want to erase them?