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

FindTheTruth Many thanks

Excluding a transwomen from women's changing rooms would be direct GR discrimination.

Excluding any male from women's changing rooms is direct sex discrimination. And that is permitted.

The transwoman is being excluded on the basis of sex, not gender reassignment.

Just catching up

They're clearly not maintaining the "there's no confusion about the law, organisations aren't confused, trust us, we're the experts" approach they suggested at the start.

I am just a little bit appalled that the EHRC has been peddling self i-d and trying to back it up. Government has to take a look at this one. Hope the Baroness is watching

I think it's even clearer than ever that we must repeal the GRA

#RepealTheGRA website:
"Welcome to the Repeal the GRA website. We are a group of ordinary women who feel strongly that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 ('the GRA') is not fit for purpose and should be repealed because it is incompatible with safeguarding and the rights of women and children."
www.repealthegra.org/

EHRC are argiung that single sex exemptions don't exist????!!!!!

I’m not following EHRC’s argument.
They’re saying that single-sex provision is lawful, but as TW and TM are all protected under the characteristic of GR, then to exclude them on the basis of sex qualifies as discrimination in absence of further justification. Even though there is a schedule in the EA that relates to transsexual people saying it is not discriminatory to exclude them -even those with a GRC- this actually is discrimination as far as EHRC is concerned.
So, males can be excluded on the basis of their sex, but males with protected characteristic of GR need further justification to lawfully exclude them; their natal sex is not sufficient and constitutes discrimination.

Necessary, is this our Catch 22? Whatever way you look at it women are not entitled to single sex spaces

I’m really struggling with this. The EHRC appear to be saying self ID is law, that there’s no difference between a GRC holder and someone who just says they are thinking about it? I.e. there is no such thing as sex based protections?

Isn’t the EHRC’s argument directly contradicting established law that the equal-treatment comparator for a male (penis person, for avoidance of ambiguity) with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” is men, not women?

Like, they can’t DO that, can they? The judge literally just said they can’t make up their own version of the law! And they’re doing it right in front of the judge’s face!

I’m self-evidently not a lawyer but I would assume judges don’t like that sort of thing.

Just picking up on this, thanks for raising my awareness. Will be following. It feels like common sense is starting to matter.

The sheer stupidity of the EHRC argument beggars belief.

My gob is completely smacked. They seem to be going for broke - if there's no difference between those with a GRA and those without, and if it's discriminatory to exclude the former from women's single-sex spaces, then the EA provision is unlawful. Is that really what they are saying?

Jeez.

ah I hadn't read the update that EHRC saying sex exemptions don't matter / a GRC trumps sex. :(

Thank you so much for the updates. I was refreshing like a mad wimpund.

The judge literally just said they can’t make up their own version of the law! And they’re doing it right in front of the judge’s face!

That's exactly what I thought. I sense a "surprising" in their future.

And thanks Truth. We all owe you a pint.

@allmywhat

Isn’t the EHRC’s argument directly contradicting established law that the equal-treatment comparator for a male (penis person, for avoidance of ambiguity) with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” is men, not women?

Like, they can’t DO that, can they? The judge literally just said they can’t make up their own version of the law! And they’re doing it right in front of the judge’s face!

I’m self-evidently not a lawyer but I would assume judges don’t like that sort of thing.

I agree. Surely the EHRC should be asserting that excluding a TW from male changing rooms is discrimination based on GR.

Thanks for this thread @FindTheTruth

The EHRC appear to be saying self ID is law, that there’s no difference between a GRC holder and someone who just says they are thinking about it? I.e. there is no such thing as sex based protections?

I believe this is known as Stonewall law by some.

July 2018 James Kirkup,
"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.
I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.

August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that
“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes

This EHRC position has been defended here so many times. The story goes the same as this every time. It is a very hostile stance,, basically that boundaries have been walked over and now we have to go to court to evict one by one if we don't like it. EHRC have submitted to this argument and are part of the hostile takeover.

That's the point of challenging their statutory guidance, get to the source of the invasion.

So, males can be excluded on the basis of their sex, but males with protected characteristic of GR need further justification to lawfully exclude them; their natal sex is not sufficient and constitutes discrimination.

There's something I've seen in the works - some proposed changes to the EA2010 to bring in protection for "combos". Maybe someone is specifically discriminating against female disabled people, for example. The suggestion is that the EA2010 doesn't cover that.

I'm wondering if that is primarily aimed at this "male + gender reassignment" combo. Given that both "sex" and "gender reassignment" are in there, the combo rule would possibly allow anyone with "gender reassignment" (ie anyone) into any single-sex space.

Not sure the current EA2010 works like that though, or they wouldn't be needing to propose those changes.

EHRC Statement 2018

At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

What's changed?

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

@NecessaryScene1

The judge literally just said they can’t make up their own version of the law! And they’re doing it right in front of the judge’s face!

That's exactly what I thought. I sense a "surprising" in their future.

Posters quoting EHRC here have literally said they can on the basis that this version of the law would be backed up by the courts. It's pre-figurative law.

It's men isn't it? They expect to get what they want.

Come ON EHRC, that's just ridiculous!