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

Much too late for me to make a sensible comment, but I was just thinking of something really basic.

ie building on what Liz Truss said only a few months ago that under the EA single sex (and yes that means sex) are permissable where the service genuinely requires it.

ie it isn't up to the individual opinion of judges or self appointed gate keepers to change it

And the stupidity of it is any service provider can decide not to invoke this right, ie clearly say that women's services in their organisation include trans women.

This is what makes it so obviously that this is all part of a campaign strategy to undermine women's rights.

The fact that a group like Fawcett cant even speak up for women's rights is partly what is undermining us.

Forget even the fact of Stonewall training of whatever, what is wrong with people in the EHRC or wherever thinking that their role is to tell women they have less rights than anyone else.

It is really, really depressing to know there is not one organisation women can turn to and ask them to speak up for women's rights. Not the EHRC, not Liberty, not Amnesty, not your MP.

40+ years of queer indoctrination spreading out from universities in the 80s has now completed its objective of erasing the reality of sex. Not just to undermine women, but to exempt men from being the dominant sex class that is the oppressor. They have recast reality so that the oppressor is now presented as the victim.

Thanks, Stumbledin
“under the EA single sex (and yes that means sex) are permissable where the service genuinely requires it.

ie it isn't up to the individual opinion of judges or self appointed gate keepers to change it

And the stupidity of it is any service provider can decide not to invoke this right, ie clearly say that women's services in their organisation include trans women.”
This clarifies it for me and shows the chilling reality of a situation whereby the law ensures the rights of women AND permits appropriate inclusion of tw, yet people want to remove that women’s right in all cases.

Is it then a case to collect instances of abuse an harm to request a ring fence around certain spaces?

Soo depressing with the elections results and all!

I may have misunderstood this but essentially is the judge saying that protections are not currently there but it may be reconsidered if harm does occur?

If so, it's lovely to know that women will have to be hurt or traumatised to prove that they need safe spaces instead of having safeguards to prevent it in the first place. And how many incidents will it take to prompt a review - 1? 5? 100? 1000?

And how many incidents will it take to prompt a review - 1? 5? 100? 1000?

I think it's normally n + 1, so however many there have been, it's never enough.

For those wondering about EHRC's consultation on the codes of practice, the post-consultation report can be found here:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

While they say the draft codes and consultation were advertised on their website it doesn't appear that they were very interested in responses from the general public. It's all about 'expert reference groups' and 'specialist stakeholders' who participated in round-table events.

Page 11:

vii. Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the nonstatutory guidance.

Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.

Page 13:

e. Services, public functions and associations

• A number of concerns were raised about the exceptions, in particular the exceptions for charities, single sex services and separate services.

These sections have been revised as a result.

Appendix 1 provides a list of respondents which includes three 'transsexual stakeholder groups':

a:gender
GIRES
Press for Change

(Stonewall are also listed but this was 2011, before they turned into a trans org).

I wonder what the draft code said before it was revised in response to concerns raised by these groups

Lang
Would the wayback machine reveal previous versions of the guidance (disclaimer: know nothing about this apart from it caught Cummings out)

Unfortunately not, its not automatic, and people have to archive page by page.

Appendix 1 provides a list of respondents which includes three 'transsexual stakeholder groups':

a:gender
GIRES
Press for Change

See this important thread for background to the lobbying influence of these groups and their position/s:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

I wonder what the draft code said before it was revised in response to concerns raised by these groups

Would an FOI provide answers?

@MrsWooster

Lang Would the wayback machine reveal previous versions of the guidance (disclaimer: know nothing about this apart from it caught Cummings out)

Yes! Found the archived consultation page here:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/legislative-framework/equality-bill/equality-bill-codes-of-practice-consultation/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/legislative-framework/equality-bill/equality-bill-codes-of-practice-consultation/

Thank you!

If so, it's lovely to know that women will have to be hurt or traumatised to prove that they need safe spaces instead of having safeguards to prevent it in the first place. And how many incidents will it take to prompt a review - 1? 5? 100? 1000?

Keep in mind the successful prosecution rate for forensically evidenced rapes that make it into a court room? About 1% isn't it?

Basically proving harm is absolutely fucking impossible. There's vast amounts of women's voices and experience, the women who are writing to councils about where's a toilet I can use, the lesbian groups with no female people left in them, the single swims that used to cater for a range of women and now have hardly any female people left, the women in court to try and get their assaults recognised, the women who have given evidence about not being able to use refuges, the women who have fought the NHS over same sex hcps, and those are just the ones that have fought their way into public knowledge. They count for absolutely fuck all. This is a political movement that just won't acknowledge evidence that doesn't fit the desired outcomes.

I'm afraid this is the point where we have to get a hell of a lot louder, angrier, troublesome and a lot less naice. Because it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that naice female voices might as well not bother speaking at all.

The consultation draft COP for Services, public functions and associations says:

Gender reassignment

11.35 The prohibition on gender reassignment discrimination does not apply in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services, provided that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

and:

Gender reassignment discrimination and separate and single-sex services

15.52 A service provider will not breach the prohibition on gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate (including where these are different) or single-sex services, but only if such provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The service provider will be expected to consider the needs and wishes of the transsexual person as well as those of the women or men using separate or single-sex services.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Equality%20Bill/services_code1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Equality%20Bill/services_code1.pdf

The final COP for Services, public functions and associations says:

Gender reassignment discrimination and separate and single-sex services

13.57 If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate. [sic]

13.58 The intention is to ensure that the transsexual person is treated in a way that best meets their needs. Service providers need to be aware that transsexual people may need access to services relating to their birth sex which are otherwise provided only to people of that sex. For example, a transsexual man may need access to breast screening or gynaecological services. In order to protect the privacy of all users, it is recommended that the service provider should discuss with any transsexual service users the best way to enable them to have access to the service.

Example:
A clothes shop has separate changing areas for male and female customers to try on garments in cubicles. The shop concludes that it would not be appropriate or necessary to exclude a transsexual woman from the female changing room as privacy and decency of all users can be assured by the provision of separate cubicles.

13.59 Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.

13.60 As stated at the beginning of this chapter, any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also, the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

The consultation draft COP for Services, public functions and associations says:

15.61 Discriminatory treatment of transsexuals in relation to communal accommodation must be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Equality%20Bill/services_code1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20100224003236/www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Equality%20Bill/services_code1.pdf

The final COP for Services, public functions and associations says:

13.66 The Act permits a service provider to exclude a person who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment from communal accommodation. However, this will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

13.67 As discussed above in relation to separate services and single sex services, this must be considered on a case by case basis. In each case, the provider of communal accommodation must assess whether it is proportionate to exclude the transsexual person. The matters which a provider of communal accommodation should consider are similar to those set out in paragraphs [sic]

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice

Appendix 1 provides a list of respondents which includes three 'transsexual stakeholder groups':

Are any women's groups or service providers such as WA or RC listed as having been consulted?

Fawcett Society
Maternity Action
Scottish Women’s Aid
Women's Resource Centre

What's not clear is whether the women's orgs were aware of the trans orgs' suggested revisions. Were they at the same round-table events? Did EHRC go to the women's orgs and say, 'here's what the trans orgs have suggested, what do you think?'

We are falling into the trap of asking 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'

The fact remains that men cannot be women, no matter how many pieces of paper they gather, no matter how may organisations say they can.

The EqA2010 is clear: Equality Act 2010

SCHEDULE 3 Part 7 Single-sex services
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

Just keep quoting the law to those who believe otherwise.

Thanks
Fawcett Society
Scottish Women’s Aid
Women's Resource Centre

But these groups are unlikely to stand up for women's sex based rights - let alone if it was to be publicly known.

Is someone brave enought to ask them, after all they accepted the role as being the spokeswomen for women service?

I dont know about Maternity Action - but was pleased to see they do recognise pregnant mothers quote:

Maternity Action is the UK’s maternity rights charity dedicated to promoting, protecting and enhancing the rights of all pregnant women, new mothers and their families to employment, social security and health care.

Yes TheFleegleHasLanded - I've argued that up thread.

But too many people are spending their time undermining this - and again as I said up thread - as there is no compulsion on women's services providers to invoke the single sex excemption, ie can choose to offer trans inclusive services, why all this pressure on the few who do maintain women only services.

It isn't because trans women cant access services, so it can only be to make the political point that TWAW and anyone who denies that has to be erased, underminces, and generally got out of the way.

So still think we just need to get Liz Truss to restate her position from a few months ago - as my other idea of a petition on the Parliamentary web site to lead to a HoC discussion is that so many MPs have enbraced the rainbow juggernaut that they wont have a problem with throwing women under that juggernaut.

Is someone brave enought to ask them, after all they accepted the role as being the spokeswomen for women service?

I don’t know about the other three but Fawcett have explicitly stated now that they don’t support women as a sex.

@fishareboring agreed. It's gone way past the point of discussions or carefully explaining our position.

The position is now fuck, no. We're no longer being nice or 'kind'. We're no longer pandering to people who, at their very core, despise women. Just no.

We are still being called ignorant.

Christine Burns MBE MermaidTransgender flagRainbow flagBooks⧖
@christineburns
Remember, ignorance is a bad lifestyle choice but there is an easy-to-read primer on all the stuff they didn’t teach you at Mumsnet.

It’ll stop you making a repeated arse of yourself.

@Swimminglanes

We are still being called ignorant.

Christine Burns MBE MermaidTransgender flagRainbow flagBooks⧖
@christineburns
Remember, ignorance is a bad lifestyle choice but there is an easy-to-read primer on all the stuff they didn’t teach you at Mumsnet.

It’ll stop you making a repeated arse of yourself.

Ooh where is this wonderful primer?

It's charming isn't it? Trying to unravel this deliberate mess of law purposefully fudged because you can't actually make a man into a woman, is described as "making an arse of yourself".

I think I know who looks the biggest arse frankly.

It's Burn's book. I'm not linking to it.