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

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

This ^^

@highame

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

I agree, this judge sounds like he's never really thought about this before and gave it barely 20 minutes today.

45s: In deciding whether a PCP is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate end, it is inevitable to look at the impact on those with protected characteristics, including birth males who are transexual women.

Bit lost on the tweets now. What's "PCP"?

@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GRA needs to be repealed, reasons now staringly obvious.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 actually think the EA needs to be revised, GRC was of no consequence as per EHRC argument. It’s the pc of GR that is the issue.

just got back... was not expecting this

I agree, this judge sounds like he's never really thought about this before and gave it barely 20 minutes today.

YY.

30s: In my view the claimant's argument is an obvious absurdity as it construes s.28 as never applying to a transexual woman lacking a GRC.

Oh great, here come the crowing twats on twitter all over the decision like flies on shit. Laughing at women, ha ha ha you can't say no to penises in your spaces. Absolute fuckers.

PCP is provision, criterion or practice

Indirect discrimination occurs when an employer has a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) which puts individuals with a given protected characteristic at a disadvantage when compared with individuals without that protected characteristic and it does so without justification

In deciding whether a PCP is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate end, it is inevitable to look at the impact on those with protected characteristics, including birth males who are transexual women.

However not birth females who are merely girls and women.

Refused? After all of that gobbledygook?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

The definition of "gender reassignment" is so woolly - "proposing to change an attribute of sex" that simply trying to get into a female-only space probably immediately qualifies you automatically.

Any male trying to get in a female space probably is protected by "gender reassignment" by the act of doing it.

It is a night to write to your MP again - using paper and the post is always best - and ask the government be pressed to legislate separately to protect single sex spaces for biological women and girls.

As stated in this article, the EHRC acknowledged they had been giving wrongful guidance:

“As a result of complaints, in Oct 2018 the EHRC amended two pieces of guidance which stated that transwomen with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) must not be refused access to women-only spaces – guidance which actually contravenes the Equality Act.”

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

Indirect discrimination occurs when an employer has a provision, criterion or practice (“PCP”) which puts individuals with a given protected characteristic at a disadvantage when compared with individuals without that protected characteristic and it does so without justification

Like the harassment of women by having to have males in spaces they reasonably expect to be single sex?

Laughing at women, ha ha ha you can't say no to penises in your spaces.

Marvellous. I shall collect screenshots to share with my MP to illustrate why there is very, very obvious misogyny, total disrespect for women and an enjoyment of abuse of power that is undeniably associated with this political position. And there it is.

1m: The code does not, as C suggests, make any suggestion go "automatic" entitlement to access on the basis of acquired gender. Exclusion is permissible when a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, eg. of privacy & decency.

1m: C gave an opinion as to the application of the test which the defendant is entitled to put forward in the context of general and practical guidance.

The statement that denial of services to transexual people should only apply exceptionally is a statement as to the application of the test.

It is a night to write to your MP again - using paper and the post is always best - and ask the government be pressed to legislate separately to protect single sex spaces for biological women and girls.

This^^
Also, the government need to legislate to protect the definition of woman.

1m: That comes close to an error of law such as might lead to permission for judicial review.

35s:The defendant gave an example of a defendant's approach to a women's hostel in the middle of the night, in an emergency.

This looks like another case, like Maya's, that sets such a horrible precedent that allowing it to go unappealed would be establishing a loophole that the law never intended to allow and that will be harmful. That is, that self-ID had in fact been created by the interaction of the GRA and the EA.

But it lands on Ann Sinnott an absolutely daunting task. It looked difficult enough already.

30s: I recognise the concern of women & girls and those who protect their interests. However, it is in my view clear that Parliament has chosen to place transexual persons in a different position to those of their birth sex.

recognise the concern of women & girls and those who protect their interests. However, it is in my view clear that Parliament has chosen to place transexual persons in a different position to those of their birth sex.

With no criteria as to what constitutes a transsexual person!

@MummBraTheEverLeaking

Oh great, here come the crowing twats on twitter all over the decision like flies on shit. Laughing at women, ha ha ha you can't say no to penises in your spaces. Absolute fuckers.

Mmm, well men have colonised the world and enjoyed it, there are centuries of history of this fun and laughter men had. The fact they are still colonising women hasn't bothered them yet.