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

Yeah, what do judges think when someone stands up in a court and effectively says "so sue me"?

Sorry, my post should have said defenders of EHRC versions of the law have said that here.

As Eresh shows it has now changed. Are they going to mention that in court?

Hope Ann and their team are reading this thread on the lunch break :)

Or are they not allowed to be passed notes from Mumsnet?

What EHRC are saying is ANY male who thinks at some point in the future they may make changes to something about themselves that could be construed as masculine, but has not done so yet, must be welcomed onto female wards, communual changing rooms, counselling services for abused women, secure psychiatric services, prisons, clubs, etc etc

Someone on twitter pointed out Hansard makes it very cleR that this was not the intent.

What EHRC are saying is ANY male who thinks at some point in the future they may make changes to something about themselves that could be construed as masculine, but has not done so yet, must be welcomed onto female wards, communual changing rooms, counselling services for abused women, secure psychiatric services, prisons, clubs, etc etc

Its not necessary to think they may, only propose to eg

put forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others

tbh, between this an £5 for a GRC - I'm wondering why anybody who wished a legal cover for disruption and general destabilisation wouldn't apply for one.

It's almost under like being granted membership of a newly recognised sacred caste with many disruptive rights and few agreed responsibilities to use this status well.

Where is EHRCs consideration of women and girls in this?

Why is the GRC given a higher value than sex? Shouldn't we scale this? Many more people could be discriminated by sex so that is therefore the higher value protected characteristic, then that should trump the protection of a GRC?

It seems to me that EHRC really don't understand the law on this. Im genuinely surprised at the arguments that they seem to be making.

The cynic in me believes this is deliberate - this misunderstanding of the law is such a keystone of TRA tactics

@Tibtom

Where is EHRCs consideration of women and girls in this?

As they supported the hostile takeover and are now demanding a Judicial Review be thrown out, their consideration of women and girls is that we have been taken over already and must not be permitted to object unless we try to evict each male one at a time. They want this stacked in favour of men.

Thank you so much everyone for this thread and your excellent memories/ sources to the history behind this that seems to be changing before our eyes like a photo in Back To The Future!

At this rate, women are going to have to start invading men's spaces to make anyone notice.

Just trunks and a pink swimming hat in the men-only pool session ladies...?!

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/topless-woman-male-only-swimming-pool-protest-gender-recognition-act-amy-desir-dulwich-south-london-a8261801.html

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

It seems to me that EHRC really don't understand the law on this. Im genuinely surprised at the arguments that they seem to be making.

The cynic in me believes this is deliberate - this misunderstanding of the law is such a keystone of TRA tactics

To be fair, their QC has to put up some form of argument.

It's that - or disturbingly, this is a genuine breaking of cover on a "Two legs better" scale for a wholly captured EHRC.

In Cambridge, challenges to female single sex spaces/service exceptions began ten days after Equality Act was passed.

Cambridgeshire Live
26 SEP 2018
(extract)
"In 2010, Sarah Brown, then a Cambridge city councillor, proposed an amendment to the council’s equality policy in which it committed to non-discrimination against transgender people. Since then, self-identifying trans women have been allowed to access women-only facilities including toilets and changing rooms.

In July, Ann Sinnott, who represented Petersfield at Cambridge City Council, stood down from the council saying their policy allowing self-identifying trans-women to access women’s facilities was in breach the Equality Act 2010.

The city council has now responded and proposed amendments to the policy including replacing references to “gender” with “sex” and replacing references to “transgender” with “gender reassignment” or “transsexual people”. The council says these changes would mean the policy is consistent with the law." (continues)

“When it was pointed out that the wording of our Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy was not entirely consistent with the Equality Act, we immediately sought legal advice and have, as a result, made amendments to the policy. These amendments reflect specialist legal advice to ensure that the wording of the policy is consistent with the 2010 Equality Act." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3376567-anne-sinnott-vindicated-she-was-right

Sarah Brown is a member of Stonewall's Trans Advisory Group
www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

Original 2018 thread (includes the minutes detailing Cllr Sarah Brown's role in the change to Equality Act policies in Cambridge) :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3322389-labour-councillor-quits-in-row-over-facilities-for-trans-people-the-times

Ann Sinnott in discussion with Venice Allen:
www.youtube.com/embed/wgHOgO5HX1o

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327625-venice-allen-speaks-to-anne-sinnott

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

Wonder how that could be argued in court. For example, a reasonable adjustment is expected by employers for disabled employees. So, for service providers, a reasonable adjustment* could include (but not limited to) neutral third spaces.
So, if a retail shopping centre has a neutral third space in addition to single-sex provision, a reasonable adjustment has been made. Can discrimination be reliably have said to occur?

Of course, the consequence of Ann’s argument is, if service providers following EHRC guidance believe single-sex provision on grounds of natal sex is unlawful, they will not offer a third space on grounds of legality in addition to financial expense.

*small orgs with limited resources would not be expected to create third spaces

To be fair, their QC has to put up some form of argument.

Or they could just concede and follow the law. No-one's making them fight this. Are they?

It's all so contradictory. If they're saying any male can use any female service/space, GRC or not, why are lobby groups campaigning to remove the single sex exemptions?

Recent article by Dr EM
Cambridge Council's New Religion
(extract)
"Cambridge Council had been in breach of the Equality Act, 2010, almost since it came into force. Just ten days after the EA2010 became law, the trans... Liberal Democrat Councillor, Sarah Brown, managed to remove women’s single-sex spaces in the city. Eight years later, and after pressure from women, on the 4 October 2018 Cambridge Council changed its equality policy to bring it back in line with the law. Nevertheless, the male backlash to women’s rights has a strong foothold and in response to women’s concerns councillors were required to pledge allegiance to transgenderism.

Introduced by Liberal Democrat Councillor Josh Matthews, Cambridge Council voted on 22 October 2020 to support the statement that men are women if they claim to be, women are men if they believe so, and non-binary people are special because everyone else neatly fits into a stereotype. This entailed that they endorsed the underlying ideology that sex-role stereotypes are innate, single-sex attraction is bigoted and children who don’t conform to sexist expectations require medicalising and surgically fixing. In this motion Cambridge Council have changed the definition of sex to mean how one feels, something which needs to be swiftly reconsidered in light of the 17 March 2021 High Court Ruling against the Office of National Statistics. ‘This case established that sex is a distinct concept in law, not something shaped by how a person feels’ and that organisations can ask a person’s sex when it is appropriate (continues)
www.cambswomen-together.org.uk/cambridge-council-s-new-religion

It's all so contradictory. If they're saying any male can use any female service/space, GRC or not, why are lobby groups campaigning to remove the single sex exemptions?

The guidance is ahead of the law.

@NecessaryScene1

To be fair, their QC has to put up some form of argument.

Or they could just concede and follow the law. No-one's making them fight this. Are they?

Yes, men who don't want their behaviour restricted are.

Or they could just concede and follow the law. No-one's making them fight this. Are they?

There is a lot riding on the outcome of this, I suspect they are being leant on very heavily

Sometimes it’s easier for public bodies to be forced to act than reflect and act accordingly. The ONS intransigence over the Census was ridiculous.

There is a lot riding on the outcome of this, I suspect they are being leant on very heavily

My expectation would be that leverage is being applied by those people/organisations who've previously demonstrated privileged access on this contentious topic from 1998 onwards.