Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

[Xanthangum]

1. Helen Staniland and Glinner giving evidence to the Commons

1. Fair Play For Women VS UK Statistics Authority at Royal Courts of Justice at 10am

1. The Court of Appeal and Harry/ We Are Fair Cop - The Court of Appeal will examine the validity of the College of Police Hate Crimes Guidance

I wanted to start a thread where any major decisions or outcomes and links to anyone live tweeting or online footage. See you back here tomorrow!

Worth noting that ONS brought out the biggest legal gun, James Eadie QC, to defend the case. He is the barrister the government uses for its most important/complex/sensitive legal work. I was a bit worried when I saw it was him but fortunately as ONS's arguments were "bobbins", as previously noted, not even he could do much with them.

I think my donation to the crowdfunder is the best money I've spent all year. 75 quid to defend the concept of sex (and hence my rights that flow from it)? Annoying that I have to do it, but still a bargain. Brava FPFW!

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/feminists-force-change-to-guidance-on-census-sex-question-nwnd82nl9

In The Times, @ovahere

Opening paragraph:

The Office of National Statistics has been forced to rewrite its guidance to the census question asking a person’s sex following a victory for feminist campaigners at the High Court.

Feminists force change to guidance on census sex question

Fantastic headline!

@Xanthangum

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/feminists-force-change-to-guidance-on-census-sex-question-nwnd82nl9

In The Times, @ovahere

Opening paragraph:

The Office of National Statistics has been forced to rewrite its guidance to the census question asking a person’s sex following a victory for feminist campaigners at the High Court.

Thanks for posting.

Does this mean they've already changed it online?

So happy to have gardened for this, although I am neither a UK citizen nor do I live in the UK. This is important for ALL women, everywhere. It sends a message.

Yes Bitoffun I think they did it almost immediately

Judge: "I do not doubt that the ONS has the power to publish guidance on the census questionnaire. It is expedient for its functions. However, if guidance is given it must match with the meaning permitted by the act." /67 From yesterday. Does this small statement have far reaching consequences??? I think maybe EHRC should be looking carefully at this one (and the rest)

Highame it's not a controversial statement in itself, and the same will apply to the EHRC guidance. The issue with EHRC will be whether or not the guidance does in fact do this.

Thanks Cailleach1, off to google him now.

@DisillusionedTech and @EmbarrassingAdmissions you might want to take that archer_rs twitter thread with a pinch of salt:
twitter.com/cloudtrapeze/status/1369383322200203277

[quote GAHgamel]**@DisillusionedTech* and @EmbarrassingAdmissions* you might want to take that archer_rs twitter thread with a pinch of salt:
twitter.com/cloudtrapeze/status/1369383322200203277[/quote]
Thank you - I'll ask MNHQ to pull it.

Someone asked if the guidance had been changed. Another poster kindly linked above to a tweet showing old and new guidance yesterday - the passport reference has been removed. (Passport being the thing apparently where you can choose what you like no matter what your birth or gender cert says).

Very good court decision. I understand (from what I read on line) that was the first hearing and they got the order BUT there may be the final hearing in a week or two? That is very common with these emergency injunctions - hearing after hearing - I put clients off them where I can as they end up being expensive although obviously they do have a place - so first the judge decides whether to grant it without much time in court, not much evidence etc as it is an emergency. Then the next stage is a proper full hearing for a final injunction I believe so I suspect that may be the case here.

Eg if it is ongoing if the guidance has only removed one word - passport - may be it needs to have added to it in addition - "this must be your legal sex, not what you choose . There is question below about gender choice".

If the judge said why have people filled it out already he is right to be concerned. It is to be a snapshot of the UK on the one census day and unless you read minds you won't know who might come over to stay on that night.

All the little dears on Twitter with their lovely anti-Glinner hashtag only proves their desperation as reality and actual science (not bollocks dressed as science) starts to assert itself.
This is getting coverage in mainstream media. And not even the Guardian could put a "there is another equally valid point of view let's ask Stonewall" spin on it.

Not the point really, but I don't understand why people have been permitted to fill out the census early. It's not rocket science to only open it up on the day, is it?

I also don't understand how the Census organisers can justify taking this to court anyway. Surely it should have gone:

• OK we'll put sex as in birth certificate, passport, GRC
• FPFW point out that passport can be changed to be not in line
• Census, oh yes you're right, better remove that. Sorted.

Census, oh yes you're right, better remove that. Sorted.

Yes, that's the thing I don't get. Did they even attempt to justify their actions in court? They seemed to be arguing more why they could do this, rather than why they should.

I'd imagine it is because the ONS won't be footing the bill out of their own individual pockets. It is costing them nothing personally (however, their reputation and credibility is probably destroyed in reasonable people's eyes) Most people don't want to end up in court because they have to fund it.

Public money being wasted, eh.

Why a statistics body seem to be in thrall to defend this ideological approach is anyone's guess.

I wonder this about many politicians as well.

Yes, that's the thing I don't get. Did they even attempt to justify their actions in court?

It's because so many organisations, and the Civil Service, have picked up the idea from somewhere that parts of UK laws that relate to sex and gender are optional or can be rewritten to suit themselves. That's why it's been necessary to involve the courts to try to get things back on track.

f the judge said why have people filled it out already he is right to be concerned. It is to be a snapshot of the UK on the one census day and unless you read minds you won't know who might come over to stay on that night.

Between now and census day, people will die, others will be born,, and a lot of stuff in between these two extremes - THAT is why it is supposed to be completed on the day.

It's because so many organisations, and the Civil Service, have picked up the idea from somewhere that parts of UK laws that relate to sex and gender are optional or can be rewritten to suit themselves

Somewhere = Stonewall. The ONS, and others, have been paying them thousands each year for bad advice.

That's why it's been necessary to involve the courts to try to get things back on track.

The response as always proves how big the problem is. If the institutions were just getting it wrong, or being badly advised, they wouldn't be fighting.

The fact they're fighting shows they're institutionally captured and the problem is deep-rooted.

Just seen an interesting Twitter exchange between Fair Play for Women and Allison Bailey:

FPFW:
'The government was in court backing @aons. The @cabinetofficeuk minister was an interested party and submitted papers saying they opposed granting the JR and interim order. Their barrister was in court on their behalf'

And further downthread:
'And the EHRC was an official stakeholder on the sex question and RECOMMENDED they ask for lived sex.'

Worth reading in full:
twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1369560032585605123

Sorry this link probably grabs the discussion better:
twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1369561813214523399