Oral evidence to WESC Wednesday 16th June Reform of the GRA

[PennineSpring]

Featuring Baroness Faulkner. Could be interesting. Link below for anyone wanting to watch tomorrow.

committees.parliament.uk/event/4875/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

I'm already booked solid from 07:00-23:00 tomorrow (with several overlapping events) or I'd definitely want to tune into this.

This should be interesting will try to watch live.

Thanks for this, I’ll try to tune in.

Good first question - basically why has the appetite changed from Teresa May's government to this one?

Hopefully they'll mention that previously they didn't consult with women!

BF saying there's important review of the law around single sex spaces to be done

@PennineSpring

BF saying there's important review of the law around single sex spaces to be done

Sounds promising that someone still thinks single sex spaces are a thing…

This is a very combative line of questioning from the MPs.

If you have never watched the WESC question the pro self ID people it is worth checking it. Very different attitude to those people.

I have and it's very telling. I think BF is being very fair - she's not there just to look after only one Protected Characteristic.

Who is asking the questions?

Elliot Cockburn asking questions now. The last questioner was very pro-trans.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy was very biased. I expected much more intelligent, balanced thinking from an MP.

Where it is justified... organisation seem to be not reading the bit in our code of practice about objective justification
...over providing trans-inclusive provision...
That is a conflict of rights...
That conflict of women's rights versus trans-identified peoples rights is extant.
...
He's asking now why guidance hasn't been produced on when it's lawful to exclude trans people

He's asking now why guidance hasn't been produced on when it's lawful to exclude trans people

I thought the single sex exemptions were quite clear - hospital wards, changing rooms etc - but government/orgs ignore it.

I would welcome any sort of guidance, which clarified that it is possible to exclude them.

I have only just been able to tune in but I was interested in the statement made by Baroness Falkner where she said that the EHRC was the place to go for advice. Although there is not enough case law so can't be definite regarding any legal proceedings, I think she was stating that the EHRC will be dealing with the actual law not Stonewall Law.

However, the real concern is that the GRA is not required if a Trans person wishes to access services, however they can be excluded. She seemed to be saying that services were reluctant to exclude.

This might cross post, so apologies if someone has already said this

Well it's ended now. It was all a bit depressing for the rest of the questioning - all about 'how can we increase the provision of services as they are in such demand' etc etc. Not a single nod to 'why are we chopping the breasts off young girls' or 'why aren't we listening to detransitioners'.

It's like they are operating in another, parallel world.

I thought Baroness Faulkner answered well considering some of the questions that were put to her. Very balanced.

I like Faulkner. Straight talking. I did think that both she and the Health Minister were getting a little bit frustrated - just a bit of a twinge in their voices but then the WESC doesn't always have the brightest cookies on its panel

Yes I like her too....

"Interaction between the GRA and EA is complex and we know that"

"Institutions are over-interpreting the law in terms of needing to provide trans inclusive spaces, they seem to be, from what we can see in the plethora of court cases, they seem to not be reading the bit in our code of practice on objective justification the ability to provide trans exclusionary spaces where there is objective justification to so do"

"when you have 9 protected characteristics you inevitably get a conflict of rights, and that point of the conflict of women's rights verses trans rights and in some cases trans identifying people's rights, is extant. It's there, we pick up a news paper and read about it every day and that's why we are seeing these legal challenges coming through. So that's the context in which I prefaced my earlier remarks that the government may wish to consider whether building up case law is adequate, which is my understanding of Secretary of State Truss''s views or whether it seeks to rethink the law but that's really where conflict of rights is where the discussions are and I think in human rights law it is becoming clearer that conflicts of rights where one tips the balance of one group against another, must be proportionate."

Thanks for that signalbox. Perhaps more letters to MP's and Liz Truss. They should now be getting their arses into gear because without clarity, in law, the turnaround into proportionate response is going to take forever.

sorry that really means, using the law as correction is going to take forever

I’m reading that as the Govt knows there’s problems but instead of doing something about it (and being accused of taking a side) they’re happy to let women take employers/institutions to court to get the legal direction?
Basically they don’t want to pull up their big girl pants and make a decision, it’s a way of kicking it into the long grass?

I wonder in the long run if it will be better to have good case law in this area. If there is already case law in place by the time Labour regain power I think it’ll be more difficult for them to misinterpret the law and fudge the meaning of the words. And then they would need to make an overt attack on women’s rights to change things which I think could prove to be quite difficult for them.