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

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

Metro opinion piece by Owl:
metro.co.uk/2021/05/05/trans-people-change-their-sex-believing-otherwise-is-discriminatory-14518761/

Independent opinion piece by Robin White and Molly Mullready:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4230369-Maya-Forstater-is-entitled-to-her-views-but-anti-transgender-beliefs-don-t-belong-in-the-workplace

I wonder if the EHRC actually want a Judicial Review to get the ever-escalating mess around these guidelines sorted out once and for all.

I know the barristers wouldn't deliberately make bad arguments. But I assume the client has got some kind of choice between the usual manipulative, salami-slicing, sob-stories-and-corner-cases and 'that never happens' and 'what are these hysterical harpies even talking about' approach, and going full on balls-to-the-wall, "yeah, we rewrote the law and what are you going to do about it, Your Honour?"

And it kind of seems like they're doing the latter. Which would be the correct route to take if you simply want the entire mess sorted out once and for all. The salami-slicing has worked very well for TRAs in the past.

I have no idea what to expect re the outcome of this. Could the judge say eg the GRC is the relevant distinction as to whether SSExemptions can be applied? I feel like any other outcome than "biological sex is biological sex" will open many more cans of worms?

@CardinalLolzy

I have no idea what to expect re the outcome of this. Could the judge say eg the GRC is the relevant distinction as to whether SSExemptions can be applied? I feel like any other outcome than "biological sex is biological sex" will open many more cans of worms?

I think all the cans were opened this morning and the worms liberally thrown around the court.

[Grin] well yes, I suppose I wonder how much the judge can actually say/ write into law. But this is just the initial hearing anyway.

I think all the cans were opened this morning and the worms liberally thrown around the court.

"I find the number of worms in this courtroom surprising."

As always, thanks for the thread. And (as always) I'm a bit confused. I thought the following was actual law:

• a trans person without a GRC has the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" but their sex comparator is always their biological sex (as this is also their legal sex).
• a trans person with a GRC and has the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" and their sex comparator is usually their legal (but not biological) sex.
• the exceptions in the EA make it clear that single sex spaces are permissible discrimination on the grounds of sex AND gender reassignment

Thank you for this thread and informative post. I was wondering just the other day what official action if any was being taken about this scandal of the lawyer(s) responsible for the EHRC official guidance. It is shocking that this went on and if nothing has been done officially to hold them responsible and accountable.

On checking for the date of hearing, I see that this application is listed for TODAY before Mr Justice Henshaw in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

R: the claimant claims that there is no reason to justify the exclusion, from women's spaces, transgender males with a GRC, and that there is no practical difference between excluding a trans person with and without a GRC.

Well, yes That's what the law says...

This is just the permissions hearing so the AEA just need to demonstrate that there is enough of an issue to justify a Judicial Review. This is not a full hearing of the arguments.

@NecessaryScene1

I think all the cans were opened this morning and the worms liberally thrown around the court.

"I find the number of worms in this courtroom surprising."

We're back, but on a new Twitter thread. I think - I don't have an account, so not sure if it's different if you're logged in...

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

Current threads discussing appointment of male CEO to Edinburgh Rape Relief despite position advertised as restricted to women.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4234774-New-CEO-of-Edinburgh-Rape-Crisis

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4235031-To-think-that-a-Rape-Crisis-centre-should-not-have-a-transwoman-CEO

R. said transgender males does this mean he is using this term instead of transwomen so that the Judge doesn't ask too many questions about the obfuscation?

Sex Matters (@SexMattersOrg) Tweeted:
R: as a matter of law it must be proportionate to exclude trans people if they have a GRC twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1390295960232898560?s=20

My copy pasting looks rubbish. Sorry.

@highame

R. said transgender males does this mean he is using this term instead of transwomen so that the Judge doesn't ask too many questions about the obfuscation?

Very important this gets clarified.

How could you possibly decide that every women's refuge and every women's changing room must always exclude transwomen?

WTF?!

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

This is just the permissions hearing so the AEA just need to demonstrate that there is enough of an issue to justify a Judicial Review. This is not a full hearing of the arguments.

In that case, given the amount of worms, surely there is plenty of evidence that there is enough of an issue to justify a JR?

It cannot be the case that you must exclude transwomen from women's changing rooms.

Surely no-one is arguing that you must, just that you may...

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

How could you possibly decide that every women's refuge and every women's changing room must always exclude transwomen?

WTF?!

Thanks me too. I'm refreshing the SexMatters Twitter thread and cannot understand this.

In the Parliamentary materials, there were some women's refuges which allowed transwomen in, and others which don't. Could one say that the ones which admit TW are infringing the law? This is the claimant's legal error.

Are the claimants actually arguing that? I didn't understand it that way.

Post-operative transexuals are indistinguishable from women, hence there should be strong reasons to treat them differently.

Sex Matters (@SexMattersOrg) Tweeted:
It cannot be the case that you must exclude transwomen from women's changing rooms. twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1390298803425538063?s=20

Sex Matters (@SexMattersOrg) Tweeted:
The Commission states that there must be strong reasons not to treat someone according to their acquired gender.

J: this means fully physically indistinguishable?

R: yes. twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1390299071953342466?s=20

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Post-operative transexuals are indistinguishable from women, hence there should be strong reasons to treat them differently.

Differently from women?

I'm getting a lot of "oops" messages on Twitter. Anyone else?