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

@R0wantrees

The fuck does this even mean though? Aside from the fact that you cant change 'physiological attributes of sex' what 'other attributes of sex' are there that aren't phyisiological? What can that possibly even mean that isn't horrifically sexist?

Its making other people use opposite sex pronouns isn't it?

Jess Bradley explained this in the book, 'To My Trans Sisters'
edited by Charlie Craggs (publ Oct 2017)

"The first time I changed the world was when I told my mates to call me she rather than he. I literally constructed a new world where its possible to understand myself as a genderqueer woman, despite being asigned male at birth simply by changing the language to describe myself. This is why language and pronouns are so important. Its about creating a world in which trans people are allowed to exist"

"And I can honestly say that the work that trans people do for each other means that, for me at least, the trans community is a beautiful place to be. Despite our differences, we have each others' backs"

This is the same Jess Bradley who was caught publishing photos of himself flashing his dick at a bus stop, on a train and at work, yes?

So does this mean every time a woman feels uncomfortable/distressed about a male bodied person in a changing room/refuge/rape crisis centre/ hospital ward etc, the onus is on HER to go to court? That’s unworkable for safeguarding?? It’s also outrageous

That's the one!

FFS. Well, at least I no longer have any qualms about how to vote today.

@Leafstamp

One or two on Twitter saying that it might give pointers as to how the next case needs to be positioned. I don’t know enough to comment on that, but I really hope so.

I think this is the problems with JR's, though, where you are dealing with one judge who may have a strange interpretation of the law/facts/arguments. You can't really extrapolate any conclusions based on 'this judge thinks this way, so all judges think this way.'

I wish it were more useful than that.

This wasn't a JR though. I was to see if the case could progress to JR

The crowing on Twitter is so unpleasant. 'Suck it, transphobes'

Suck what? Your mini-lady dick? Is that the penis that is indistinguishable from a woman's anatomy? That one?

Fuck. Off.

@highame

This wasn't a JR though. I was to see if the case could progress to JR

No. I know. I meant the JR process. The initial hearing is one judge. So, like Maya's case, you are dealing with one person, who may have a skewed view.

If I was brave I'd be posting a link to this on my 'socials' saying "Amazing that justice has prevailed and a judge ruled that people who are trans or are thinking about changing gender absolutely DO have the right to use the spaces they prefer. Finally an end to single-sex spaces in law - there's no reason why women's prisons, changing rooms, rape crisis centres or refuges should exclude ANY people based on being born male!"

(I won't be though, so if you do see words to this effect, it's not me!)

This is the same Jess Bradley who was caught publishing photos of himself flashing his dick at a bus stop, on a train and at work, yes?

The allegations were made whilst Bradley was NUS Trans Officer.

Bradley also co-founded TELI with Tara Hewitt and Michelle Hudson as well as representing Action for Trans Health at Maria Miller's Trans Inquiry.

Just caught up & feel sick.
Literally any man just has to be in the women's toilets/changing room/whatever with my daughters to indicate that he's changing gender.
Fuck off.

How the fuck do we protect ourselves & our daughters when our only defence against men has been single sex spaces?

The judge bottled it and, yes, it is a technical case, with a high bar for success, but the concern is that it will make organisations even more reluctant to use the single sex exceptions than they are now. I am really angry because if you read all the Parliamentary debates it is blindingly obvious that the EA legislators assumed that they were talking about people who had surgery, not random blokes who felt “womanly”. Let’s hope the prisons case judgement will be released soon - it was a real world situation, where obvious harm was caused, so our learned friends have to confront the rights conflict head-on.

@Fallingirl

Going back to thepuredrops post on p15

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.

Is this what we should do now? How do we best go about that?

I’m going to write to my MP referencing the judgment, that the EHRC’s submission of a GRC being irrelevant, that gender reassignment is the issue will mean that service providers will have to make their services mixed sex or be subject to legal challenge if they do not, citing the instances where DV refuges lost funding.

I will ask her to raise the following questions in Parliament:
i) what constitutes a legitimate aim if the reasonable objection of a member of the opposite sex (as per EA 2010) does not?
ii) in which circumstances can a provider enact a single-sex provision, confident that they are operating within the law? ie, what are the proportionate means?
iii) what protections are there to dissuade service providers from neglecting a responsibility to enact single-sex provision, for fear of legal challenge against gender reassignment discrimination? Ie, how do we prevent mixed spaces being the default provision and single-sex services omitted? Is a monopoly of mixed-sex provision really in the spirit of the EA2010?
iv) repeal the GRA as EHRC deem it inconsequential for equalities.
v) amend the EA2010. It is not in the interest of natal females to be compared with natal males with GR, to determine whether single-sex provision is lawful.

Does anyone know if and why AS's submission used the word 'exemption' rather than 'exception'?

I was only on page 2 of this thread when I saw this, and thought, uh oh.

@lifeissweet

The crowing on Twitter is so unpleasant. 'Suck it, transphobes'

Suck what? Your mini-lady dick? Is that the penis that is indistinguishable from a woman's anatomy? That one?

Fuck. Off.

Try and ignore it. These people are petrified of women and their sex, and even more terrified of the men who support them.

@Yesterdaysleftovers

The judge bottled it and, yes, it is a technical case, with a high bar for success, but the concern is that it will make organisations even more reluctant to use the single sex exceptions than they are now. I am really angry because if you read all the Parliamentary debates it is blindingly obvious that the EA legislators assumed that they were talking about people who had surgery, not random blokes who felt “womanly”. Let’s hope the prisons case judgement will be released soon - it was a real world situation, where obvious harm was caused, so our learned friends have to confront the rights conflict head-on.

This is so depressing

Of course TRAs are crowing about the Bad Women "wasting" all that crowd funded money. Presumably we should be spending our hard-earned cash not on trying to desperately claw back the right to single sex spaces, but should give it to Good Causes or spend it on Womanly things like a nice new lipstick or twinset. Womanning wrong again!

So does this mean every time a woman feels uncomfortable/distressed about a male bodied person in a changing room/refuge/rape crisis centre/ hospital ward etc, the onus is on HER to go to court? That’s unworkable for safeguarding?? It’s also outrageous

Girls too.
Its important to remember the girls already intimidated and/or assaulted by transgender males in female spaces.

Some points from @ LegalFeminist on Twitter:

A few very brief thoughts on #AEAvEHRC -

1. it is a step towards clarity, and that is to be welcomed;

2. some important points made by Csl for EHRC in that this is not a blanket policy in either direction;

3. concessions by EHRC that there ARE circs where exclusion is lawful;

4. decision emphasises that Code is just 4 paras and gives a sketch, not a straitjacket;

5. suggestion is that cases better taken between service users & providers, in which case service providers need to ensure they have good legal insurance.

--- I think I need to re-read the live tweets with the EA to hand to really get my head around it, but it was also a bit difficult to tell who was saying what at one point! (No offence at all to the live tweeting which was doing a brilliant job - just the nature of a fast-moving case)

I have just posted this on Ovarit. I am keeping the request simple so as many people as possible can be rallied to write however brief a letter or email to their MP. If you feel able to share on social media or with a friend please do:

After what has happened today regarding Ann Sinott and the AEA versus the EHRC over the prospect of a judicial review of the EHRC guidance we need to flood our MPs offices with letters protesting this self-id by the back door.

Your letter does not have to be long just ask that women's single sex spaces are actively protected in law and the law should make clear what a woman is and what a man is keeping the definition tightly to biological sex. Ask that your MP raise this with Liz Truss and Priti Patel as the women's minister and home secretary.

members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

and try and get one more person from a different household to do it too!

If you can afford the time and stamp do it be ordinary post. It has a greater impact. Do it by email right now if you think you'll forget.

You could copy in Liz Truss and Priti Patel too - by post - if you can afford the stamps. In case your MP does not pass it on.

If your MP is openly hostile to women's sex based rights, still write if you feel you are able. If you feel unsafe doing so then write to Patel and Truss - they don't usually respond (they're not supposed to correspond with other MP's constituents) but it does not mean they won't notice.

If you've already written recently would your other half put his or her name to a letter? Just to show more breadth of support?

How to find your MP

members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

Let's try and imagine the flood of letters they might get on Monday!!

I do hope the Twitter users screen shot the vile reactions to send to their MPs

I am not sure what the answers are but there must be a way of letting women know what is happening without being accused of being transphobic.

thepuredrop

I’m going to write to my MP referencing the judgment, that the EHRC’s submission of a GRC being irrelevant, that gender reassignment is the issue will mean that service providers will have to make their services mixed sex or be subject to legal challenge if they do not, citing the instances where DV refuges lost funding.

I will ask her to raise the following questions in Parliament:
i) what constitutes a legitimate aim if the reasonable objection of a member of the opposite sex (as per EA 2010) does not?
ii) in which circumstances can a provider enact a single-sex provision, confident that they are operating within the law? ie, what are the proportionate means?
iii) what protections are there to dissuade service providers from neglecting a responsibility to enact single-sex provision, for fear of legal challenge against gender reassignment discrimination? Ie, how do we prevent mixed spaces being the default provision and single-sex services omitted? Is a monopoly of mixed-sex provision really in the spirit of the EA2010?
iv) repeal the GRA as EHRC deem it inconsequential for equalities.
v) amend the EA2010. It is not in the interest of natal females to be compared with natal males with GR, to determine whether single-sex provision is lawful.

All excellent points. I will do the same; although my tory MP is a massive coward, and will only say and do as he is told by those to whom he is currently sucking up.

In fact they have a thread of their own from this afternoon:
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1390292462506283008

Let’s hope the prisons case judgement will be released soon - it was a real world situation, where obvious harm was caused, so our learned friends have to confront the rights conflict head-on.

The problem is the EHRC have already said the law insists on a case-by-case examination of exclusion from single-sex services. The consequence of their position is that the exception cannot be applied proactively. We have to allow for the assault of female prisoners by male prisoners, then retrospectively say that shouldn’t have happened.
In effect, we’re just going to say it shouldn’t happen and stop short of doing anything to stop in from happening.

The thing is though, we are not going to give up. Ordinary people donated 100 grand to this case, a hundred thousand pounds! and we will donate again... And again, and again, if needs be. We are not going away, women are not going away.

TRAs are always trying to frame GC feminists as some kind of ridiculous BNP style fringe group, who can be dismissed easily and who the vast majority people scoff at. But it's not the reality, and more and more women are realising this and speaking up. Look at this forum, look at the lengths they go to to try and shut Mumsnet down, why would they even care if we were just a tiny minority of loons who just talked total shit?

Onwards.