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

soundcloud.com/justplainsense/jps90-alice

Christine Burns interviewing Alice Purnell, co-founder of the Beaumont Society.

*PencilsInSpace, "One of the earliest heartwarming anecdotes in CB's book is of these two crashing a lesbian group even though they knew tw were not welcome. They believe they weren't spotted because nobody said anything."

Oh. Yuck. No ta, Christine.

Totally misread a previous post

I am very grateful for everything I have learnt from Christine Burns.

Report by TheHarpySings from September 2018 TRA conference, 'We're Still Here' organised by Jane Fae.

(extract)
5) HOW THE GRA WAS WON

This was a lecture by Christine Burns of Press for Change

CB cited a lot of case law.

One which is relevant to our interests is that of a trans man called Mark Reece (sp?) who wanted to be a vicar and also marry a woman (this was pre female clergy or same sex marriage)

Reece took his care to the ECHR and lost but it brought attention to the case and Alex Carlyle advised Reece.

They recommended tying to find the “lever” to force the Govt to do something. To chip away at laws which are discriminatory.

They are looking for good test cases.

Burns said that the TRAs need to make themselves the legislators friend. Apparently pre GRA 2004 there was an inter-departmental working group set up in Government to look at the issue and produce a report. Press for Change (CB’s org) wrote the report and the government basically just used that (!). This was 2000 - 2001 time- wonder if we can dig this up?

Anyway,, the GRA 2004 was not what the trans rights group wanted as they had to make concessions on things like medical evidence for a GRC." (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

If it makes no difference whether a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment has a GRC or not - if legal sex makes no difference - then for the purposes of the EA all trans people retain their birth sex, whether they have a GRC or not.

The alternative is that all people with the PC of GR can choose their legal sex category. The definition of GR is so loose that a person only has to propose to undergo [bla bla bla] to be protected. So a male person - any male person - only has to say a few words and they can lawfully identify into the female sex category.

Is sex a protected characteristic or not?

@Spoonrider wrote this on another thread.

I would appreciate the basic courtesy of not assuming all anime trolls saying "suck my lady dick" are trans.

Some are genuinely trans, of course. And they don't know what that kind of insult means. That's because they are stupid and inexperienced, and have barely lived as women (and many simply don't get seen as women because they went through a violent male puberty) and don't know what that kind of wording implies. Give them a decade and they might. But baby trans (as in "recently transitioned") rarely get it.

This "give them a decade" comment? Who has to "give them this decade"? We have gone from 5,000 GRC holders to Crispin Blunt telling us there are half a million people wanting GRCs. A massive chunk, going on the waiting lists that have escalated in the past five, years are these "babytrans" who don't "get it" and are "stupid and inexperienced" according to Spoonrider.

Women are the people you are expecting to "give them a decade". This is the problem we are talking about, exactly as you have set out here. Why do women have to provide this socialising of young adult males who are not women, in universities where it is already causing havoc, in dating sites, in lesbian groups, in politics. Why?

This is just abusive. I am glad you set out so clearly how the older generation expect this influx of males, some with autism, some with porn addictions, anime trolls saying suck my lady dick to be just dumped on women in real time to cope with it.

We know this, this is what we are saying. You have just confirmed it.

We have to give them ten years do we?

In the mid 90's, Christine Burns once shared a hot tub under the stars with Martine Rothblatt. The following are quotes from Burns's book, Pressing Matters Vol. 1. I've added a couple of my own footnotes:
-----------

"Greater use of CompuServe's tools also meant that I began to correspond with some of the women I had met at the conference in Amsterdam (1). One of those was an American named Martine Rothblatt. There was no world wide web for looking people up in those days, but I learned quickly through exchanges of emails that she was something of an accomplished entrepreneur. When one of her children was diagnosed with a rare and life-threatening condition, she founded a company and raised the venture capital to research a cure. This was a woman for whom no obstacle was too big. It really is worth looking her up online to discover what I mean. She was keen to have me over to the US as a guest. It was a really tempting prospect, although I wasn't at all sure when and how I could make it happen.

"The answer came soon. Alice (2) had also made contact with one of the board members of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association - Alice Webb. She was discussing the forthcoming biennial conference of the association for gender identity specialists (HBIGDA), which was to be held in New York in October. The question was asked whether I would like to go. I would probably have said "No" had it not been for the offer that was already on the table to visit Martine. I could see how I could put these two things together. Martine (who lived in Washington DC) was planning to go to the New York conference too. And then I also now had lots of interesting new girlfriends from the Women Online Forum. Maybe I could meet some of them face to face en-route?

[...] "It was resolved that I would fly to Washington DC, hire a car, drive to Martine Rothblatt's home to stay with her family, and then drive up the coast to New York with stops on the way if possible to meet new online girlfriends.

"Before that, there were other excitements. As I was now thoroughly involved with the organisation of the local Conservative branch, and that branch was an important part of the constituency organisation, everyone was encouraging me to attend the party conference at the end of September, in Blackpool.

[...]

"Arriving in Washinton DC I hired a car ... I followed Martine's directions and located her home in the very fancy suburb of Silver Spring.

"To call Martine Rothblatt's home just a "house" would be an understatement. I eventually counted 14 rooms. It was a millionaire neighbourhood. They had made a bed for me in a back room and then introduced the Hot Tub adjacent to it. We lay in the tub watching the stars through the skylight and sipping Gin and Tonics. I was rapidly redefining my impression of how successful a trans woman could be.

"The next day (Sunday) I was given a tour. We breakfasted on the banks of the Potomac and, afterwards, Martine introduced me to her basement office, where I was able to borrow a PC and draft something to the editor of the Guardian - this was becoming a new habit."
------
(1) The conference in Amsterdam was the 23rd Colloquy of the Council of Europe and was entitled 'Transsexualism, Medicine and the Law'. From what I can work out this was 1993.

(2) Alice Purnell was Burns's best mate and did a lot to introduce Burns to world class TRAs in the 1990s. Purnell co-founded the Beaumont Society following an epiphany in a Soho sex shop.

soundcloud.com/justplainsense/jps90-alice
-------

I agree with Christine Burns - It really is worth looking Martine Rothblatt up online.

This is just abusive. I am glad you set out so clearly how the older generation expect this influx of males,
to be just dumped on women in real time to cope with it.

It is interesting to see that comment and the fact that women are left to deal with this. The world is still stuck viewing women as having to ‘mother’ everyone.

give them ten years.

To what? Grow up and just be older abusers. Only this time they also think they are doubly deserving to abuse females who disagree with them. Because females are responsible for all that males do after all.

Shocked I tell you.

Not caught up but will

Just saw this
'The definition of GR is so loose that a person only has to propose to undergo [bla bla bla] to be protected. So a male person - any male person - only has to say a few words and they can lawfully identify into the female sex category.'

Yes people thinking about it are covered.

There is the asymmetry though.

I could go into men's toilets changing rooms etc. On this basis. As a short obvious female.

But
A. I don't want to, why would I
And
B. Men wouldn't like it and they would have no trouble immediately saying you've come into the wrong place
And
C. If I said no I identify as a man then... I mean I wouldn't because arguing with/ disagreeing with/ contradicting men if you're a woman can go very wrong
Because
D. Men are the vast majority of the time bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women

Conversely.
Well the above points are all completely different the other way around.

I am baffled by the assertion that weirdos won't exploit this.

They can and will not only take advantage of this but revel in it.

And of course loads of men enjoy making women and girls feel really uncomfy/ threatened but don't cross the line to illegal.

I've had so so many incidents. It's normal, background to life. Starts so young. For me about 12.

Why is this dismissed? Why is it that when women say, a large minority of men are dodgy. This is dismissed.

Women are saying, this gives any old bloke wide access to places which used to be understood as for women and girls. This will result in bad stuff for us. Because there are creepy men everywhere.

Why is this not ever acknowledged or discussed?

The replies are always
You're just a bigot
Men are going to assault and rape you anyway if they want to

I just find it awful tbh. We're what, prey anyway so what's the problem? I mean bloody hell.

Have caught up. Been mulling things over.

Single sex stuff takes up space and costs money.

It's cheaper and easier to do mixed.

Example. Changing villages in leisure centres have been around for years. Easier, more efficient use of space etc etc.

Recently. We've seen a spate of women's refuges that have been around for decades losing funding to big orgs that promise to deliver a more economical service. The basis the existing refuges lost in at least one case was because they didn't support men (even though they found other support etc). Mixed sex is cheaper etc. The fact that different groups of men and women need different types of support is not important. Councils I believe have a statutory duty to provide some services. They will go for what is easiest and cheapest.

We had austerity, loads of cuts and now are massively in debt because of covid.

Making things mixed sex is a simple way to save money.

And as with all other stuff that poses a risk to women and girls, it will be our responsibility to 'protect ourselves' and if anything goes wrong it will be our fault.

Certainly restaurants bars tube stations etc etc were very quick to switch their signage up so men could use everything/ shut the men's and have everyone use what was the ladies.

So I think there's a massive economic driver for this as well.

Sarah Phillimore Substack
Making sense of the EHRC judicial review

(extract)

"Illuminating and helpful commentary from one who was there!
I am grateful for permission to publish this commentary from someone who attended the hearing.

“[AEA barrister] started off the argument on the complexities of the exemptions in the EA and very early on he conceded that GRA changes sex. I do not think that’s correct for all purposes but there was no exploration of that. So that was the first big mistake. He failed to highlight that GR is a strange PC in that it impinges on another PC - sex - he didn’t explore sex vs gender at all. This potential for conflict of rights is a unique situation that only arises because of the GRA. It is separate to the broader point about not discriminating against people with PC of GR. His examination of the exceptions was very detailed and he lost the big picture. The J was confused and asking Qs and the QC’s response was to say things like ‘I’m not explaining this very well’ ‘I’ll come to that’ ‘If I am right…’ IT WAS PAINFUL.

The J said things like: ‘a trans woman is a biological male’ and instead of picking up his points and arguing from those e.g. TW are not W, he carried on with his textual analysis. The Judge was clearly lost and trying to Zoom out to the big picture. In response the QC carried on with these points making a distinction between trans people with a GRC and those without. He ended up in a cul de sac where the J asked him if his argument meant that trans women without a GRC should be treated just like men. This was not a good place to end up.

Of course the Judge then had to honour that the EA gives rights to people on the basis of GR, because it looked like he was denying those all together. I think in the judgement he said the arguments were absurd. He left it to the respondent to appear clear and logical. It was tragic. He should have started with the big picture. GR and Sex are different issues. This means the point where the law meets both PCs is tricky - hence the convoluted exemptions.

NO ONE asked if the exercise of rights to protect people with PC GR could impinge on the rights of women with PC sex but not GR. The whole conversation was about how sex exemptions might discriminate against people with GR. This is their conversation. It’s territory on which they win. The argument needs to be run the other way to expose how ludicrous this proposition is. The J accepted without Q the hidden assumption that GR discrimination trumps Sex discrimination. No where does the EA say that. It’s bullshit. I think the J would have been open to the flipped arguments but no one presented them to him. If a measure has to be reasonable proportionate, of course you can exclude one person - who is different - to protect the majority. Particularly as there is a solution to provide specialist services for people with GR. ARRGGHHHHH”
sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-ehrc-judicial

(2) Alice Purnell was Burns's best mate and did a lot to introduce Burns to world class TRAs in the 1990s. Purnell co-founded the Beaumont Society following an epiphany in a Soho sex shop.

Short early history of the Beamont society describes how in 1976, Stephen Whittle had joined & was helping 'Alice100' with the artwork for BB (newsletter sent to members) & babysitting.
'Alice100' writes:
"That is how he met his wife Sarah as we had double booked them one night. The quality of the BB improved with time and experience, including some quite nice Art Deco covers from Steve"
www.beaumontsociety.org.uk/documents/Beaumont_History.pdf

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3913831-How-a-radical-lesbian-became-a-leading-trans-activists-as-a-trans-man-one-of-the-usual-suspects

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3595285-interesting-twitter-thread-if-you-ever-wondered-what-stephen-whittle-took-from-exchanges-here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4239359-Making-sense-of-the-EHRC-judicial-review

You pay a legal team including a QC £100,000+ only to watch them come out with a confused and ineffective argument that does the oppo's job for them. And then someone on a blog site comes along and explains for free how this ought to have been argued, and if argued properly might well have led to the desired result. Aaaaargh indeed.

Recently. We've seen a spate of women's refuges that have been around for decades losing funding to big orgs that promise to deliver a more economical service. The basis the existing refuges lost in at least one case was because they didn't support men (even though they found other support etc). Mixed sex is cheaper etc. The fact that different groups of men and women need different types of support is not important. Councils I believe have a statutory duty to provide some services. They will go for what is easiest and cheapest.

In the case of Rise losing their funding, the council also had a commitment that they'd agreed for the procurement process across all departments, to look at the "social value" the services providers gave, not to only use money to make a decision.

However, somehow they seem to have forgotten about this, as far as Rise was concerned.

The WPUK talk on this was excellent, I highly recommend watching it. I think it was Vivienne Hayes MBE (CEO of the Women’s Resource Centre) who pointed out in that having feminist women running refuges (as has been the norm for decades as it's feminists who set them up in the first place) means feminists get a place at the table. If you remove feminists management from refuges and women's services, a "benefit" to the council is they don't have to deal with those uppity women who speak out for women's rights any more.

(I'm paraphrasing and my memory is terrible so best to listen to Vivviene to see what she actually said and if was indeed her who said it!).

was also excellent, I strongly advise women to listen to her deeply moving account and what the loss of single sex spaces means for women.

Nicola Benge's account of and the brilliant campaign from her and other local women is well worth a watch also.

And I must confess I missed the first talk, but for completeness, and because Shonnagh Dillon is generally brilliant on VAWG, .

Sugar, I posted the wrong link for Cátia Freitas. Here's her talk on single sex spaces. I highly recommend it.

Thanks R0 for this and pointing to the new thread.

sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/making-sense-of-the-ehrc-judicial

Glad I'm not the only one who couldn't quite follow what was being argued.

@Shedbuilder

You pay a legal team including a QC £100,000+ only to watch them come out with a confused and ineffective argument that does the oppo's job for them. And then someone on a blog site comes along and explains for free how this ought to have been argued, and if argued properly might well have led to the desired result. Aaaaargh indeed.

@Shedbuilder, I sensed this night be going awry very early on in the live tweeting when AS's barrister talked of 'exemptions' rather than 'exceptions'. I was sitting with DP who heard me say, 'oh for fuck's sake!'

We've discussed here on FWR recently how important this accurate distinction is.

And on it went ...

I'm a bit bewildered that the case was presented like this given all the successfully presented preceding arguments.

Shoulda called Ben Cooper.

I know it's a risk one takes with the law but it's absolutely galling, isn't it, to think of all that money, and all those weeks and months of preparation and discussion and planning, being thrown away.

I don't find it easy to understand a lot of the finer legal arguments but like you, I watched those first few tweets come in and wondered why on earth they started where they did. I was also confused because the Barrister arguing for Ann seemed to concede early on that when sex markers were changed on documentation, people changed sex...

So now we know how it should have been argued, do we have to find another £100,000+ to do it again?

I do think the Ann S has nevertheless extracted a lot of positives out of this case, despite the hysterical twitterati claims of a 'loss'.

Prior the case, the EHRC had already started sorting itself out, modifying and withdrawing shit guidance, and finally actually stating the law, e.g. In the Forstater appeal hearing.

Ann's day in court did actually clarify the legal position around exceptions as being NOT what Stonewall wants it to be.

I don't know if another court date is needed; or just some better PR.

I don't mind seeing or being party to more fundraising - but I know I'd be more enthusiastic if the legal submission and barrister's presentation were pinned down with clarity in advance, and better examples used.

Update on this, which really clarifies a couple of points:

'At the Hearing on 6 May, permission to proceed to judicial review of EHRC was not granted to AEA. After much soul searching and advice from multiple quarters, the decision won’t be appealed.

I’ve seen a great deal of comment about the Hearing, the principal actors, the judge, as well as the outcome. It would serve no good purpose for me to add to that, suffice it to say I was bitterly disappointed.

But the process of litigation and the Hearing itself was not without gain.

The first gain in the process was getting EHRC to correct its popular guidance which contained unlawful statements relating to single-sex spaces and routinely used ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’.

We then shifted our focus to the Code of Practice for service-providers which, in our opinion, contained a misinterpretation of the Equality Act and prescriptive language that went beyond the Act’s ‘a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim’. The judge rejected this.

But it’s clear from the judge's comment - our argument an “obvious absurdity” - that he hadn’t understood. As laid out in our skeleton, our argument was cogent and coherent and far from absurd. Whether or not the judge, had he understood, would have agreed is another matter. It’s important to note: this Hearing did not set a legal precedent.

There were interesting elements in the Defendant’s skeleton that were also mentioned in the Hearing.

For the second time in little over a week, EHRC confirmed - in open court - that people with a Gender Recognition Certificate can be lawfully excluded from single-sex services and spaces – the first occasion was at Maya Forstater’s Appeal.

EHRC stated that it had informed some organisations that their policies were unlawful and that it would do the same with other organisations that came to its attention.
Some of you might like to think about letter-writing…

EHRC asserted that it could not be held responsible for unlawful policies adopted by service-providers and that complainants should take legal action against service providers.
Some of you might like to get your thinking caps on…

These are significant developments, which AEA's action undoubtedly helped bring about.

With a new Board, including a new Chair, and with a new CEO soon to be in position, maybe we can hope for further change - including a future revision of the Code of Practice.'

EHRC confirmed - in open court - that people with a Gender Recognition Certificate can be lawfully excluded from single-sex services and spaces

EHRC stated that it had informed some organisations that their policies were unlawful and that it would do the same with other organisations that came to its attention.

EHRC asserted that it could not be held responsible for unlawful policies adopted by service-providers and that complainants should take legal action against service providers.

Thank you, Ann.

Thank you Ann and Arabella for posting.

Every case brings sunlight and every ray brings hope.

Is there a link to somewhere on the EHRC website that states their confirmation that single sex means single sex ie that a GRC does not give you the right to enter women's spaces.

Really important that those wishing to make complaints whether to service providers or funders have this available.

Shame that it is, but somehow providing a link to a quote on mumsnet FWR I doubt will have the same authority!.