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

@Procrastinator85

The judicial interventions are extremely positive so far.

[hopeful emoji][edgeofthseat emoji]

The huge problem with the Equality Act is that I think it was written assuming service providers would want to be able to provide single sex services.

As it turns out, some customers want those services but service providers want to look as if they are providing single sex services, but also, to those who want single gender services, look as if they are providing those.

just as an aside from live tweets, this...

Example of application of s.28: group counselling session for women survivors of violence, lawful to exclude transexual people

this reminds me of Bristol University males aggressively breaking up a meeting with Raquel Rosario Sanchez, for women to discuss rape, mensuration and female biological only subjects. the uni banned them

right ... back to live tweets

I don't believe women want 'single gender services'. What would they be?

LIVE TWEETS

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
6m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
A "trans-exclusionary policy" would have to exclude males with and without GRC.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
5m
While there should not be discrimination against transexual persons, in general, s.29 is an exception.

J: you seem to argue that exemptions apply to males and males with GRC, so what is the point in GR characteristic?
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
4m
J: if we're talking about transexual women who are biological men, you're saying they're protected by rules which apply to men.

A: the exception for single-sex services, the act is careful to preserve them notwithstanding the acquisition of the GR characteristic.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
2m
From the general to the specific, in the exceptions, GR characteristic has exceptions which still prevent discrimination.

J: so the provisions here don't impact on TW without a GRC?
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
A: it won't be unlawful under GR provisions to have a single-sex service. GR doesn't come into play because it's been excluded by the rules on single-sex.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
46s
Only the person with a GRC who has become female legally, who is dealt with under para 28.

J: how did you get from the language of the act that s.28 only deals with trans people with a GRC?
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
8s
A: if the conduct in question is objectively justified by paras 26-27, you don't need para 28 to justify excluding those with a GRC.

A: to make the point in a different way, re how to understand these sections together. S.26 tells us the service provider won't be liable for sex discrimination if joint provision is less effective.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
25s
S.27 says no liability for sex discrimination if physical contact between one person and another. That, again, would be reason to object if the people where not the same sex.

How can it be sex discrimination if you've already excluded someone on grounds of being male?

Exclusion of males includes exclusion of transexuals with a GRC.

J: does that submission mean that across the full range of conditions in para 27 it will always be justified to treat a transexual woman in the same way as any other biological male?
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
9s
A: point taken. Yes, it does apply for all of the sub-paragraphs because at base the reason for exclusion is to do with the male characteristic. Take example of hospital.

At base the justification for separation of sexes is sex.

Whether you look at any of these paragraphs, the justification is maleness.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
10s
It's reasonable to object to maleness in those settings, but if I'm wrong about that, and there is a residual question re GR discrimination, then it's difficult to conceive of a circumstance where a SP couldn't exclude a transexual person.

It's reasonable to object to maleness in those settings, but if I'm wrong about that, and there is a residual question re GR discrimination, then it's difficult to conceive of a circumstance where a SP couldn't exclude a transexual person.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
40s
J: submission of fact or law?

A: one has to interpret those provisions in context, as part of a specific section of the act (Sched 3), and the issue is the proper relationship with GR.

COP significantly undermines the protections of women by advising an approach found nowhere in the statute.

It doesn't make sense when you look at the wording of the statute re objecting to person of the opposite sex.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
9s
We say that, read properly, the ability of a SP to provide single & separate-sex services, eg. changing rooms at swimming baths, is deliberately maintained by the EA--the ability to provide single sex services is maintained.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
Replying to
@SexMattersOrg
Fear of violence, of intimate exposure to person of the opposite sex, of a young girl...The act maintains those protections. Bodily privacy is engaged, so its justified to exclude opposite sex.

(aside - we're seeing the Stanniland question in court)

LIVE TWEETS

COP says the default position should be that in single/separate sex service, transexual people should be treated according to the gender they prefer. We say that's not what the EA says: it says you should generally protect against GR discrimination, but there are exceptions.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
19s
If its done in the context of a single sex service, that will not be unlawful GR discrimination.

J: how to construe Parliament's intention?

Placemarking. Fabulous reporting FindTheTruth.

It's to be interesting to hear EHRCs arguments.

J: how to construe Parliament's intention?

51s

A: s.26-28 the protection created against having persons of opposite sex in intimate spaces & settings is incorporated into the act.

COP says denial of service to transexual person according to their gender should only be in exceptional circumstances. We say that's plain wrong.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
1m
This places a burden on service provider to show objective justification for limiting provision to single-sex.

Permitting legal males into single-sex services further undermines the exception for which justification is sought.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
44s
Defeats purpose of single-sex service to admit biological males with or without GRC.

By biological sex I mean not just external genitalia but internal reproductive biology.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
51s
There is a considerable difference between a SP being confident that it's OK to run a single-sex service, and having to undertake case-by-case exclusions, so they end up unable to run a single sex service due to that gatekeeping burden.

COP says transexual persons are not caught by the general exclusion, and the whole undertaking must be re-evaluated according to their inclusion claim. We say that's wrong.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
9s
J: is there evidence that this guidance has caused unworkability?

A: in recent years, trend towards removal of single-sex facilities, replaced with unisex toilets when refurbished. Women feel uncomfortable, esp menstruating, pregnant and menopausal women

@FindTheTruth

(aside - we're seeing the Stanniland question in court)

Woah!

Reasons for the trend to remove these single-sex facilities is because of guidance such a EHRC's.

Once you accept single-sex includes legal males, it's not a single-sex space anymore.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
29s
If males are entitled to use it, it's not a single-sex space anymore

A: the justification for excluding males with GRCs stands or falls with justification for running a single-sex service.

Not an irrationality challenge here, but that the guidance mis-states the law.
Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg
·
16s
We think the respondent is misunderstanding our claim. We are saying that you don't need to justify the same thing twice (exclusion on basis of sex).

We think the respondent is misunderstanding our claim. We are saying that you don't need to justify the same thing twice (exclusion on basis of sex).

That's interesting. So sex being actual sex, not legal sex?

Placemarking. Not really intelligent enough to keep up with just the Twitter feed so need the help of the amazing FWR-ers to help me make sense of it all!

I've just seen this:

Moving on to the definition of sex itself: Binary definition. Means natal sex. Sex in the EHRC does not mean self identify sex or gender on the GRC. Agreed by all.

twitter.com/kiwibirdxx