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

@JudithButlerNot

I agree this is not the end , just the beginning of edging forward .

There do seem to have been some comments today that can be challenged .

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.

This is Stonewall bullshit lies. The law does not support this.

I very much hope this case is discussed in the mainstream media so as many people can see the arguments and judgement.

Such absurd times we live in.

Mabye this judge swallowed the bench book.

Well, I am hoping for some legal experts to write up an analysis of it, because I am getting more confused rather than less so!

What about the EHRC statement that with GRC and without GRC doesn't make any difference, and that it is true that gender reassignment characteristic applies from when you first start thinking about it.

So will the GRC now be redundant when it comes to everything and it'll be self ID? I know thats happening anyway but is this now codified? So for everything prison sport whatnot it's now self ID full stop?

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

[quote Unsure33]@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.[/quote]
Oh yes, believe you me, when the right case comes along, and it could be sooner than you think, some very wealthy women (and men) will be putting their hands in their very deep and full pockets.

Well as they say 'Rome wasn't built in a day'.

We just keep going forward and chipping away to prove that women and girls are disadvantaged by gender ideology as we know perfectly well we are.

Luckily we keep being provided with ammunition from those who seek to trample on our rights so sooner or later more test cases will present themselves and we'll keep on digging those gardens.

@Swimminglanes

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.

I’m really not following your point, can you explain? How can a service say it is single-sex when it cannot blanket exclude male people with a pc of GR, but must assess their application to use it on a case-by-case basis? That service is single-sex up to the point that a male with the pc of GR is considered ‘different to their birth sex’ enough, to be admitted. Then it is mixed sex, but also not mixed sex. So we have the practicality of a single-sex service occasionally being mixed sex whilst remaining single-sex, but different. How can a service determine itself to be operate as single sex if it has to be mixed sex, occasionally? This is what I’m trying to understand.

Just a reminder if you broke off from this thread to bath the kids, get the tea, finish some work - write to your MP, preferable by post but email will do.

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!

@NiceGerbil

What about the EHRC statement that with GRC and without GRC doesn't make any difference, and that it is true that gender reassignment characteristic applies from when you first start thinking about it.

So will the GRC now be redundant when it comes to everything and it'll be self ID? I know thats happening anyway but is this now codified? So for everything prison sport whatnot it's now self ID full stop?

The EHRC lawyer said that single sex discrimination was applicable because intent to change gender was on the same legal basis as having a GRC. The EA2010 does not say that. There are exceptions that apply to GRC holders.

This is a position frequently taken by sex denialist lawyers, that because in some instances male is legally female, it is always the case that male is legally female.

It is a strange argument. It was used today but the judge didn't comment on it.

It is the argument of "this can happen, therefore a dissimilar situation has to be considered, and therefore the exception means there is no rule.

It is a common abuse of exceptions. Creating one exception to a rule always leads to claims that the exception is the rule.

The exceptions are legal discrimination for a legitimate aim, not a door to be kicked down.

@OvaHere

Well as they say 'Rome wasn't built in a day'.

We just keep going forward and chipping away to prove that women and girls are disadvantaged by gender ideology as we know perfectly well we are.

Luckily we keep being provided with ammunition from those who seek to trample on our rights so sooner or later more test cases will present themselves and we'll keep on digging those gardens.

Absolutely!

Keira Bell's case apparently influenced Sweden to ban under 16s, so people are listening and each case brings more evidence.

Unless you mean we follow Stonewall’s lead, use the judgment to push back as much as we can and lobby Parliament behind the scenes?

I will be donating to any future cases and I am mostly interested from a legal point of view . At the moment I am confused but fascinated .

There are obviously differences between those with or without GRC and differences between those who have had surgery and those who have not . This is very problematic because there are differences but I don’t think anyone would want to come to a point where any other person has the right to ask for proof .

If there were certain situations which were specifically single sex what would the alternative be?

That is the question .

Also would be interesting to have a list of what these situations would be ?
Refuges are obviously the obvious one . Prisons ? Boarding schools ? Etc.

Also in what other situations could self ID a become a problem ? What if a person self ID as a different age because they wanted to access facilities only open to over 18 ? How would that work ? It seems that a birth certificate is not proof of anything ?

@thepuredrop

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).”

Yes

How can a service say it is single-sex when it cannot blanket exclude male people with a pc of GR, but must assess their application to use it on a case-by-case basis? That service is single-sex up to the point that a male with the pc of GR is considered ‘different to their birth sex’ enough, to be admitted. Then it is mixed sex, but also not mixed sex. So we have the practicality of a single-sex service occasionally being mixed sex whilst remaining single-sex, but different.
How can a service determine itself to be operate as single sex if it has to be mixed sex, occasionally? This is what I’m trying to understand.

I'm not saying any of that. I am saying some service providers can elect to be mixed sex and others can elect to be single sex.

If a single sex service is challenged by a male the law permits the provider to say no, single sex. There is no automatic inclusion.

The problem we have is that so many people have said exclusion is not legal discrimination.

This judge just said IT IS.

This is a real mess and if it ain't it'll do until the real one shows up

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.

In the judgement as tweeted. Exactly as the current law allows.

I'm totally lost at this point on what the judge and the EHRC thinks the single-sex service rules are. This seems more confused and contradictory than the situation before this judgment. I think we need some sort of review more than ever, even if a judicial review isn't it.

I do at least understand the point on "the guidance wasn't telling people to break the law". It's the difference between the Highways Agency telling people the motorway speed limit is 50mph and saying it's 90mph. The judge is saying he'd intervene if they were saying it was 90mph, but if they say it's 50mph, then no-one is being encouraged to break the law.

That's where I always felt this case was weakest - it's not illegal to be wrong. And it's not illegal to incite/confuse people into not doing something. So I was never super optimistic. But like Maya's round 1, it shows where we are.

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

In effect this says that the place for this is for PROVIDERS to use exceptions as we are perfectly reasonably and legally EXPECTED to do so. We were EXPECTED to use them. That's why they are in the Equality Act 2010.

The experience we have gone though of men talking over us and telling us not to use our rights on this is one of time immemorial.

We can use this.

We have the law on our side. Male colonialism over females in this ALREADY has public opinion on the side of women.

@Swimminglanes

But who decides when privacy and decency are a legitimate requirement?

Well you can let men tell you?

Lol but also sigh

Public opinion is on the side of women deciding.