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

1m: I do not accept C's contention re errors of law. C's interpretation of the act is wrong in law.

A balance must be struck between the various interests at stake.

40s: No grounds to show that the guidance has placed women and girls at a disadvantage.

I doubt that this case is the proper forum to determine the broader questions re transexual women without a GRC using women's spaces.

35s: Such issues are better determined where an individual has been indirectly effected by the application of the guidance.

I doubt that this case is the proper forum to determine the broader questions re transexual women without a GRC using women's spaces.

What is then?

@BelleHathor

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.

But this is not happening in practice, for example NHS Guidance on Delivering Single-sex Accommodation. A curtain is sufficient to maintain the privacy and dignity of females in a female dorm to which a TW has been admitted (paraphrasing). But not, apparently, sufficient to maintain the privacy and dignity of a TW if admitted to a male dorm.

So we have to take each institution to court?

30s: WRT the issue of time bar, was this an abstract challenge which has to be undertaken within 3 months of the defendant making clear they would not amend the guidance.

I recognise the concern of women & girls and those who protect their interests. However,

'I can see that this is terrible for women and girls but I don't give a fuck'

What is then? Quite. How else do we do it?

@BelleHathor

40s: No grounds to show that the guidance has placed women and girls at a disadvantage.

I doubt that this case is the proper forum to determine the broader questions re transexual women without a GRC using women's spaces.

This is what I was wondering - what the actual scope was of this hearing. It sounded like it would consider "the broader questions re transexual women without a GRC using women's spaces" but looks like they didn't ... want to.

I read that as 'this probably will cause problems for women and girls, but we're not going to do anything about it until actual harm has been caused. Fuck you.'

40s: It wrote to C to say that it considered the code itself reflected the law. C contended that that was not the case. C wrote letters on 26 Mar & 7 April reiterating their position.

A balance must be struck between the various interests at stake.

Between the interests of males who call themselves men and males who say otherwise.

@NecessaryScene1

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.

In spite of lots of definition of "gender reasignment" the judge seems to be talking about transsexuals - in a way that involves lots of sex reassignment surgery, cosmetic surgery and cross sex hormones - which is not mentioned.

35s:In my view that letter made it clear that the defendant did not accept C's contentions. Further correspondence ensued.

The WESC agreed the guidance wasn't clear and needed strengthening when Karen Ingala Smith and others gave oral evidence a couple of years ago.

It sounded like it would consider "the broader questions re transexual women without a GRC using women's spaces" but looks like they didn't ... want to.

Nobody bloody wants to do they because of the scare tactics used widely. Not worth the fuss is it: it's only women.

40s: Had I been persuaded that the code contained clear illegality, or that SPs were acting unlawfully as a result of it, I might have dealt with this matter differently (per Banking case).

Judge is an idiot. They're not acting unlawfully. They are petrified of supporting women.

"No grounds to show that the guidance has placed women and girls at a disadvantage."

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

35s: Such issues are better determined where an individual has been indirectly effected by the application of the guidance.

So there is another angle to take. Was the MoJ following EHRC guidance when it let women get raped by men in women's prisons? Seriously fuck this judge though.

35s: The proceedings here began well over 3 months after the C's July 2020 letter.

Further refusal on grounds of delay, with no scope to apply for a time extension.

That’s annoying and confusing

Does Ann have enough to cover the costs? Or do we need to put a bit more in?

If anyone thinks women are going to give up they are mistaken

In spite of lots of definition of "gender reasignment" the judge seems to be talking about transsexuals - in a way that involves lots of sex reassignment surgery, cosmetic surgery and cross sex hormones - which is not mentioned.

This ^

This is judge who is imagining Haley Cropper, not Alex Drummond.

Where would he want the line drawn for who has the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment?

30s: Judge ends.

Discussion turns to costs.

I know I'm getting this second / third hand, but it almost reads like the judge is under the impression that all trans people who were born male are now post-operative transexuals.