Ann Sinnott of Authentic Equity Alliance vs EHRC Judicial Review of incorrect Equality Act guidance

[R0wantrees]

The presiding judge decided that this should go straight to a 1-day oral Permissions Hearing.

This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC and will also rule on request for a costs cap (to protect AEA) should the case go forward.

AEA about the case,
"Official sources provide unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act!
Yes, you read that right! It's shocking, isn't it?

For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls."
Website: aealliance.co.uk/

Ann Sinnott (founder/director) twitter.com/AnnMSinnott

Twitter live tweeting of case via #AEAvEHRC and #IStandWithAnnSinnott

Fuck's sake

Noooooo

@Thecatonthemat

The only logical solution is to get rid of the GRC completely and repeal the GRA

How would one go about doing this?

Nooooooo. How on earth could this happen?

1m: J: this is an application for JR. Having considered the papers and oral submissions I have concluded that permission should be refused.

The Code came into force in April 2011 following pre- and post-consultation process, and going before Parliament in 2010.

Oh fuck.....

I thought the judge got it?????

Can't even give women the time of day...

It will be the timing issue.

He'd made up his mind before anyone spoke, hadn't he?

1m: The claimant argues that the code relies on mis-statements of the law. None of their grounds are, in my findings, sound.

Completely shattered.

Or maybe not...

What next? Amazed at this decision.

Obviously a pre determined outcome.

Timing

So he's saying there's no confusion about what the law says??

Timing issues probably means the judge can back out of this nicely, utter coward.

@Swimminglanes

I nearly stood up then

'The basis for C's contentions are that under s.13 EA 2010 dealing with direct GR discrimination, the relevant comparator for a transexual womanbeing a biological manis a non-transexual birth male.'

The claimant argues that the code relies on mis-statements of the law. None of their grounds are, in my findings, sound.

Oh dear, another cowardly judge. Men are not women, not a sound ground! It's like they just haven't got the bottle to be the one to move this ahead

He's not only citing timing though, he said that none of the arguments are sound.

How? How? How?

Sorry Arabella No idea, but it is the only thing that makes sense after we are told the indistinguishable thing though..

"Trans people" are both sexes, no?

I dont think transgender females featured.

To summarise, two male barristers have presented to a male judge reasons for/against a Judicial Review to challenge the EHRC's guidance which denies sex-based protections to girls and women. The EHRC being of the opinion that genital surgery makes a man indistiguishable from a woman?

1m: The basis for C's contentions are that under s.13 EA 2010 dealing with direct GR discrimination, the relevant comparator for a transexual womanbeing a biological manis a non-transexual birth male.