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

That's ridiculous. So it still means that no one understands the law?

He's saying the comparator under the equality act for a transexual male is a non-transexual woman. In other words, he's saying that any male can demand to be treated as a woman, and if refused can claim discrimination. I think.

ffs.

1m: On C's basis a transexual male could be excluded. The key question is whether a PCP places those with GR characteristic at a disadvantage.

'On C's basis a transexual male could be excluded. The key question is whether a PCP places those with GR characteristic at a disadvantage.'

Ffs

Can this be appealed?

1m:The claimant's first proposition is unarguable

I'm still trying to get my head around what just happened.

What can be done now? Is this the end?

Can anyone explain the timing thing please? From what/when to when? I don't understand what it means.

What about the effing disadvantage to women. Run along dear, that doesn't matter.

I'm not seeing the disadvantage.

Who else has the right to another group's spaces and organisations on the basis of a feeling? Who?

No one does.

So, in effect, trans people now have more rights than any other human.

40s: In the paradigm example of indirect discrimination, a full-time working requirement could not be seen as non-discriminatory.

Can this be appealed?

Yes but you'd need to get the Court of Appeal to grant permission.

1m: The defendant's code of practise seeks to give concise and generally applicable advice. The claimant has shown no error of law.

@BelleHathor

40s: In the paradigm example of indirect discrimination, a full-time working requirement could not be seen as non-discriminatory.

So could be seen as discriminatory? In that it would affect women more?

I don't get what this judge is saying, at all.

So, what now? Is there any way of Ann appealing this decision?

Ok. So far obvious grounds for appeal:

EHRC compromised beyond all ability to represent women and girls, case wholly biased one way only, and WTAF regarding some of the statements.

EHRC no longer fit for purpose as no longer fairly covering all brief.

Next steps:

GRA needs to be repealed, reasons now staringly obvious.

Women and girls need wholly separate and uncompromised brief kept separate and removed from LGBT+ labelled briefs in all parts of govt and law.

30s:C's view of the legislation is untenable WRT "birth men in general, and birth women in general."

25s: Para 28 applies to gender reassignment in general. It applied to birth men who are transexual women.

There has to be a better way of tackling this, a better case and if not, the Government has to sort it. The EHRC does not represent women

@fishareboring

Ok. So far obvious grounds for appeal:

EHRC compromised beyond all ability to represent women and girls, case wholly biased one way only, and WTAF regarding some of the statements.

EHRC no longer fit for purpose as no longer fairly covering all brief.

Next steps:

GRA needs to be repealed, reasons now staringly obvious.

Women and girls need wholly separate and uncompromised brief kept separate and removed from LGBT+ labelled briefs in all parts of govt and law.

I'm with you.

@BelleHathor

25s: Para 28 applies to gender reassignment in general. It applied to birth men who are transexual women.

Oh, and females of any kind inc trans just don't exist?

1m: The claimant points out that what must be justified is the PCP in general.

What I don’t get here, is that EHRC had already agreed months ago to replace some of their guidance, as they acknowledged it was wrong. What happened to that?