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

..... Or it's an easy cop-out and he just doesn't care.

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.

A 'transsexual' being any person proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

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

Indeed. And when it hits the press, more people will be aware.

And yes, I agree that his notion of what constitutes a transsexual is way out of date.

I don't think the judge has the appetite for this particular hot potato. Why do I get the feeling that this isn't going to go away...

any person proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Including, say, a haircut?

Cock up somewhere re time limits. Highly unusual to let cases go without a hearing on exceptions.

Government that's where I'm going. Come on Baroness how do we get this crap law changed

@BelleHathor

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.

This is where the judge is mistaken.

What service provider will enact a single-sex exception if they are subject to case-by-case legal challenge from males who insist on being admitted?
They will default move to mixed-sex provision and call it single-gender service. Single-sex services can only exist as mixed-sex services.
The onus is now on women to challenge this, and as today demonstrates, the challenge will fail.
If we can’t recourse to Court of Appeal, we have to go through Parliament. MPs and Private Member’s bills.

A 'transsexual' being any person proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

It's right there black and white. Did he even read it?

If we can’t recourse to Court of Appeal, we have to go through Parliament. MPs and Private Member’s bills.

Okay, then.

So anyone who says they're a woman then? Has the judge given this any thought at all?

@ArabellaScott

If we can’t recourse to Court of Appeal, we have to go through Parliament. MPs and Private Member’s bills.

Okay, then.

Yep, will do

I've got to pop out now. So will stop cutting and pasting. Hopefully the judge releases his full written reasoning soon

They'll have to start using the term transexual again

Does anyone know if this ruling will have an impact on DV provision which is currently single sex. Will they now be forced to admit makes.

Thanks Belle 👏

Lord Hunt cited the Equality Act in his speech to the Lords on the MOMA bill as a piece of legislation that was very carefully worded to balance the rights of holders of each of the protected characteristics - and that 'women' is a protected term under the PC of sex.

Anyone want to get his views on this?

Thanks, Belle, great work.

@Siablue

Does anyone know if this ruling will have an impact on DV provision which is currently single sex. Will they now be forced to admit makes.

They already do.

Knew the judge would do this. He'd already made his mind up. Men give no shits because it has no effect on them yet many benefits.

So fucking depressing.

Belle

Where exactly was this 'balance' the judge speaks of? There was no consideration at all of W&Gs interests. None. They were only mentioned in dismissal.

Knew the judge would do this. He'd already made his mind up. Men give no shits because it has no effect on them yet many benefits.

Quite. I agree.

So all the people who still insist women DO have some single-sex spaces, somewhere, just not the one you're thinking of because it's unkind not to let TW in that one - will they still be insisting we have these?

I've noticed a lot of people / posters' partners handwaving this notion away as if we're being silly but it's in black and white now isn't it - there is no legal right to single-sex spaces, for anyone, no matter what their situation?

Also giving thanks to @BelleHathor

physiological or other attributes of sex

Liking unicorns and the colour pink, obviously.