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

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
It is more complex when it comes to males with a GRC, who are treated as "their acquired gender" whichalthough debatedis taken to mean 'sex.'
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
21s
J: they are treated as the sex they have acquired, as it were?

A: correct. But now they're saying "I am female" so, on what basis are services excluding them? They can exclude both males and transwomen.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Schedule 3 para 28 Equality Act 2010 allows this mechanism.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
30s
If you have objectively justified excluding males, under the para 26-27 exceptions, its when an individual could have reasonable objections to the presence of a male. Perfectly understandable. If you follow the logic of that, if the
objectionable factor is their maleness, there is nothing left to justify. TW can be excluded on basis of their maleness.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
35s
Men and women are defined in a binary manner in the explanatory notes, which I will come to.
·
LIVE

The guidance is unlawful because it misunderstands and mis-states the law. Both parties agree that if the COP contains errors of law it is amenable to judicial review. In which case the burden is on me today to demonstrate, with a realistic prospect of success, that there is
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
36s
an error of law in the COP.

The interpretation was summarised by the select committee.

This might not be a good moment to ask, but the juducial review is (if I have understood) going to question the lawfulness of the statutory code of practice:
"Issue in case is the lawfulness of the 13.5.7+ of the statutory code: "Gender Reassignment Discrimination & Separate & Single Sex Services."
But, the statutory code of practice is itself law. It became law in 2011 (according to ehrc Web site). I don't know if it was voted on in parliament like an act, or if it went through committees, or what. I am not a lawyer! But is it possible for juducial reviews to rule that a statutory code is not legal?

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
The interpretation had the effect of making a single-sex service mixed sex.

At the heart of the error is the fundamental distinction between transexual persons who do and don't have a GRC.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
26s
Those without a GRC are legally of their birth sex (not 'gender').

It won't be direct discrimination on gender reassignment discrimination on basis of transsexualism, not indirect discrimination, because single-sex services are already justified as a legitimate aim.

·
LIVE

Single-sex services and spaces do not require a double/additional justification. If they're women-only, you've already excluded males, therefore there is no need to go further to justify excluding a sub-category of male people who identify as transgender.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Because a transperson with a GRC is of the other sex, the first justification holds.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Notwithstanding that they have acquired a GRC, they appear to other service users as male.

To describe a need for additional reasons for exclusion of that male is completely wrong.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
42s
J: to exclude males suffices to exclude males without a GRC?

A: yes, but males with a GRC are excluded via a different provision.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
If a male asked why he was being excluded from women's spaces/services, the reason for exclusion is on the basis of sex. A TW with a GRC is legally female, a rule that says "no males" does not exclude her.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
30s
If service provider wants to exclude her, they will have to say "no males and no TW with a GRC."

Single-sex services and spaces do not require a double/additional justification. If they're women-only, you've already excluded males, therefore there is no need to go further to justify excluding a sub-category of male people who identify as transgender.

EXACTLY

J: the difference is that, without a GRC facts exclude males; with a GRC the sex-based exemptions exclude males.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
A: The COP expresses a political viewpoint. It's quite wrong to advise service providers that it's wrong to exclude transexual persons from women's spaces.

Thanks so much for posting the tweets, FindtheTruth.

J: you end up saying there's not much difference in outcome to males with and without a GRC.

A: in outcome, in this context, yes.

The COP is expressly about provision of services.
Definition in EA 2010 of gender reassignment: "...if the person proposes to undergo, is undergoing, or has undergone part of the process of..."
11:29 am · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
2
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
Let's pause to consider how wide this definition is: GR purports to protect those who are "proposing to undergo..." This can be a state of mind, off-the-cuff. "I think I'm going to undergo a process of GR."
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
12s
Why is it important to understand how wide that is, and what that means? Women & girls are entitled to their own boundaries when it comes to intimate medical procedures, and not to be in the presence of a biological male however convincingly they pass as a woman.

Signing in, thanks R0

Eg. a woman using a rape crisis centre on the basis that there are no males there will not be comforted that only transwomen are there.

Woman and man are defines in the EA 2010 in binary terms (s.212). "Woman means female of any age; man means male of any age." Sex.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
5s
J: sex means natal sex here?

A: yes. Sex does not mean, in the EA, self-ID sex or gender identity, save in the GRC situation.

Let's look at GRA 2004. Provides for a process by which someone with gender dysphoria can apply for a GRC on the basis of "living in the other gender."
·
LIVE

Intention to "continue to live in the acquired gender until death..." Acquired gender.

J: nothing to do with any physiological changes?

A: no.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
18s
No physiological changes required.

Where a full GRC is issued, the person becomes "for all purposes" the other gender.

Subject to other relevant legislation.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
29s
Effect of s.9(1) when someone is issued a GRC their sex becomes the other one with some caveats, including schools and gender-specific offences.

We say the COP misunderstands where the exceptions in the act speak in terms of separate sex provision.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
18s
If a service provider relied on para 26-27 Schedule 3 to provide a single-sex service, the exception allows them to run an exclusively single-sex service. It follows that if the provider is a women's refuge and admits legal men, they're undermining the initial justification.

Sorry to interrupt the flow of tweets but I'm not sure I'm getting the argument here re how TW with a GRC are excluded on basis of sex if legal sex is female? (To get the "same outcome" as those without)?

The judicial interventions are extremely positive so far.

Is the argument that the exemptions exclude both legal men (should go without saying) and legal women because biologically they are still male?

They reduce single-sex availability by admitting legal males.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
3m
S.27 EA 2010: a person does not contravene s.29 by providing single sex service if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Gives examples of circumstances where person might object to someone of the opposite sex being present.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
3m
It won't be sex discrimination to provide single-sex services in these circumstances.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
A person does not contravene s.29 re GR "if the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Statutory interpretation: "conduct" covers both acts and omissions.

Within the para 28 exception is a direct reference to the explanatory note.

Within the para 28 exception is a direct reference to the explanatory note.
11:45 am · 6 May 2021·Twitter Web App
5
Likes
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
Example of application of s.28: group counselling session for women survivors of violence, lawful to exclude transexual people.

We say this applies to trans people with a GRC. Built into this para is provision of single-sex services, so those without GRC automatically excluded.

They reduce single-sex availability by admitting legal males.

No shit!