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

If you rely on the kindness of women, them pretending they cannot see what they see, the very least you can do is pretend to be the slightest bit grateful for it!

The level of male arrogance and entitlement on show here makes me wince. It's embarrassing. Not least because it proves an awful lot of feminists weren't exaggerating.

That usually is considered a highly objectionable term. Interesting that the judge consistently referred to it

I've been at some court cases in which the judges are really doddery old fools, completely out of touch.......Seems like this one, too, has not caught up with the realities of contemporary transgenderism, with his references to "transsexuals".

Gutted but we fight on

Yes, this was always going to be a long haul struggle. So much needs to be exposed, and to have a light shone on it; and so much needs to be picked apart. As has been said by Alison Bailey, the real issue is that the GRA is no longer fit for contemporary developments.

@Justhadathought

That usually is considered a highly objectionable term. Interesting that the judge consistently referred to it

I've been at some court cases in which the judges are really doddery old fools, completely out of touch.......Seems like this one, too, has not caught up with the realities of contemporary transgenderism, with his references to "transsexuals".

But why does he need to use non legal terms? The law says transsexuals. He's quite clearly stated that the intent of Parliament was to consider transsexuals as DIFFERENT to their birth sex, and not to give an automatic entitlement.

This is very clear.

@MadBadDaddy

Thanks to whoever contributed money to this case. Trans people's protections, as enshrined in the Equality Act, have now been re-affirmed by a court! This is wonderful news for a vulnerable minority and we couldn't have done it without you.

You should start a thread in AIBU about it.

As if women need to busk to earn 🤣

Bit of a sexist assumption. We're not chained to kitchen sinks anymore relying on the menz for money, we're capable of earning our own and spending it however we please.

£60,000 in a few hours for Allison Bailey, wasn't it? That was some damn fast and successful busking, wimpunds 🤑

I don't want to be in your "section of society" any more than I want to be in the section of society that campaigns against gay rights, or against the rights of immigrants.

The ‘section of society’ I know that campaigns against gay rights is Stonewall, with their fight to erase the concept of same-sex attraction & their penchant for calling the police on lesbians who object.

You don’t have to sit with us though Shiz, that’s ok.

£60,000 in a few hours for Allison Bailey, wasn't it? That was some damn fast and successful busking, wimpunds 🤑

Not to mention what we did for Fair Play’s case against the ONS!

@BoreOfWhabylon

Hang on though... The Judge was referring to transexuals not trangendered people. He also asked and was reassured that they were physically indistinguishable from women. This is not the case though, judge has been misled, surely?

I don’t know why* being physically indistinguishable from women needed to be considered, EA2010 defines a transsexual as a person with the pc of GR and doesn’t qualify a requirement to look like the opposite sex. I don’t think it matters one bit that the judge said Parliament considers them different to their birth sex, when the issue is whether they are entitled to use opposite-sex services which are single-sex.

I do* know why. Not sure the best way of challenging this.

Not to mention what we did for Fair Play’s case against the ONS!

And Maya's case which reached its target very quickly.

But why does he need to use non legal terms? The law says transsexuals. He's quite clearly stated that the intent of Parliament was to consider transsexuals as DIFFERENT to their birth sex, and not to give an automatic entitlement

I guess you are right! It is the law as it is currently worded and framed that is the problem, then...as it was formulated in another era.

@thepuredrop

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.

If that is the case we have to do a case by case funder. The harm has already happened to many women and girls. Hospital wards and women’s refuges should be priority for this.

I don’t think it matters one bit that the judge said Parliament considers them different to their birth sex, when the issue is whether they are entitled to use opposite-sex services which are single-sex.

No automatic entitlement to opposite sex provision because they are only considered different to their birth sex and therefore not actually considered the opposite sex as per the current provisions for legal discrimination in the EA2010. If there were not simply considered DIFFERENT then it would be automatic.

I know the tendency is to catastrophise but I actually think this was a useful REINFORCEMENT.

You should start a thread in AIBU about it.

I'd like to see the ratio on that. All this noise around the issues is unlikely to have the effect that proponents of self-ID desire, if it were likely to organisations like Dentons wouldn't have advised pushing trans policies through by stealth - attaching them to LGB and abortion rights (as in Ireland, for example). If there's no clash of rights here, why the need for secrecy? Why target spaces with the most vulnerable women in them first - like prisons and refuges? Because they're least likely to result in push back. The noise is getting louder and it is all to the good. Woman means something, it is not you cannot annex and fundamentally alter womanhood without expecting a fight. But then a fight was expected wasn't it? That's why institutional capture, flying under the radar, was the approach of choice...

@Justhadathought

But why does he need to use non legal terms? The law says transsexuals. He's quite clearly stated that the intent of Parliament was to consider transsexuals as DIFFERENT to their birth sex, and not to give an automatic entitlement

I guess you are right! It is the law as it is currently worded and framed that is the problem, then...as it was formulated in another era.

The bar for getting a GRA has remained a medical diagnosis.

The law still says transsexual.

This judge has stated that the law does not give automatic entitlement. All the reasons for single sex services are in there.

Stonewall guidance has been seriously holed under the waterline.

Anyone know timescales for when the Judge might publish the judgement? I'd like to see it in their own words rather than rely on an abridged version - just to round out my understanding.

Various people keep telling me that FWR is just a den of transphobia, so presumably, out in the wilds of AIBU or chat, everyone will be delighted alongside MadBadDaddy?

I notice they have all disappeared to celebrate a pyrrhic victory.

DIFFERENT. It is what we have been saying all along. It is what the fecking non binaries believe. It is what the sex is a spectrum advocates believe.

Different, not the opposite sex.

The judgement may be more nuanced than appears, it would be good to see in its entirety.
The law has been changed by the back door, as per the Denton's document, instead of through Parliament so we have this mess that serves no one apart from politicians who want to further their career by virtue signalling. Its the kind of thing that contributes to people's general distrust of democracy which is dangerous and leaves all of us more vulnerable.
In the long run, win or lose, these cases are a good thing, each judgement adds to a way forward. We'll keep contributing and being accused of being funded by right wing extremists because obs women don't have independent income and aren't able to think for ourselves.

@Swimminglanes

I don’t think it matters one bit that the judge said Parliament considers them different to their birth sex, when the issue is whether they are entitled to use opposite-sex services which are single-sex.

No automatic entitlement to opposite sex provision because they are only considered different to their birth sex and therefore not actually considered the opposite sex as per the current provisions for legal discrimination in the EA2010. If there were not simply considered DIFFERENT then it would be automatic.

I know the tendency is to catastrophise but I actually think this was a useful REINFORCEMENT.

Well, the example given was emergency access to a women’s refuge. Judge cannot see that a TW could always be excluded. I think this means that a service can only be single-sex until a male with the pc of GR wants to use it, then it has to be mixed-sex because a woman objecting to the presence of a person of the opposite sex (not different sex) is not considered reasonable. So, being different to their birth sex means the legitimate aims (objecting to the opposite sex) criteria (of EA2010) cannot be evidenced. But I am happy to be proved a pessimist. Indeed, I hope I am.

This was the reaction of Ryan John Butcher, a transactivist and editor at PN.

"a judge just told a bunch of tiresome terfs that there's 'no grounds' to show that allowing trans women to use single-sex spaces 'places [cis] women and girls at a disadvantage'. they crowdfunded 100k to be told that

adults in the room"

twitter.com/ryanjohnbutcher/status/1390328174337212419?s=19

I think further crowdfunders would be minded of the following

”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).”

@Shizuku

Busking 😂 hilarious .

Personally I could pay the court costs for today out of my savings account now . MINE no one else’s. I am an independent woman .

We do exist .

You should not make assumptions.

Well, the example given was emergency access to a women’s refuge. Judge cannot see that a TW could always be excluded. I think this means that a service can only be single-sex until a male with the pc of GR wants to use it, then it has to be mixed-sex because a woman objecting to the presence of a person of the opposite sex (not different sex) is not considered reasonable.
So, being different to their birth sex means the legitimate aims (objecting to the opposite sex) criteria (of EA2010) cannot be evidenced.
But I am happy to be proved a pessimist. Indeed, I hope I am.

ALWAYS is the key word there though isn't it?

The Stonewall interpretation is never. I do agree that there should be mixed sex services sometimes, but the judge reinforced that single sex can exclude.

We need to focus on this.