Britain's Equalities Watchdog Met Privately With Anti-Trans Groups

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Ben Hunte and Steph Place have carried out an investigation into the EHRC. Steph's Place is now demanding:

. The immediate resignation of the Chair of the EHRC, Baroness Kishwar Falkner, and the entire Board of Commissioners

• The immediate resignation of the Ministers for Equality Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch, who are directly responsible for the political appointment of the EHRC leadership

• The EHRC immediately cease all activities in relation to the Equalities Act 2010 and any associated guidance which may impact the rights of trans people in the UK

• Removal of the EHRC's 'A' status as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) as it is clearly unfit for purpose

• A full review of the EHRC's fitness to practice as a human rights organisation as a United Nations accredited National Human Rights Institution.

• All EHRC Board and Chair replacements should be selected based on a proven track record of defending and promoting human rights for all UK citizens and approved by the Women & Equalities Select Committee.

As far as I can tell the main findings of the investigation are that the EHRC had the temerity to meet with FPFW and LGB Alliance

www.vice.com/en/article/wxdzwn/ehrc-trans-rights-leaked-emails
Also at archive.md/z5RP6

We also have to thank Ben Hunte for his article about Harrop, mid tribunal - which I'm sure helped to get him suspended

@OnlyTheTitosaurusOfTheIceberg 😂😂. That article is hilarious. Suddenly... she sent an email. Suddenly, she met with some women, Suddenly .. . I can only link to it on the archive now, so maybe they're embarrassed and have taken it down.

I’m sure if they think carefully, they can come up with a snappy word or phrase that combines Ben Hunte and Kent Police 🤔 Purely for promotional purposes, you understand.

K E N T + H U N T Police

No I'm struggling to come up with anything there...

Ah gender zealots and their unhinged demands.... So predictable. 😆

Reading some of the Twitter reaction yesterday and then the EHRC statement, I couldn’t help thinking it was positive for women. Women have been saying for years “we are worried about a conflict of rights. We think some of TRAs demands are unreasonable and adversely affect women.” The activists’ reaction to the EHRC simply clarifying the current legal position and recognising that a conflict exists has been astonishing and completely unhinged. It may have persuaded EHRC and others that more robust, unequivocal guidance is needed than they’d planned. The last few days have proven women’s rights groups’ arguments that existing legislation is being wilfully misinterpreted and ignored and that clearer guidance is needed about implementation. At this point half of our work is being done for us by activists on the other side of the fence.

It may have persuaded EHRC and others that more robust, unequivocal guidance is needed than they’d planned.

Wasn't there a report on a public consultation released a couple of months ago that had something like that? It cited one of the responses from the TRA side as evidence that the women were right to be concerned.

I forget what it was now - can anyone help?

Yup, no matter how balanced and reasonable various organisations try to be, the gender zealots continue to ramp up the crazy hyperbole. Thus proving that women's concerns were completely justified - you can't reason with these types of people and you need clear policies to protect female only spaces and services because they will never respect any boundaries. They are not interested in the same rights as everyone else. They shamelessly want exclusive privileges that trample on every other protected characteristic and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

@BettyFilous

Reading some of the Twitter reaction yesterday and then the EHRC statement, I couldn’t help thinking it was positive for women. Women have been saying for years “we are worried about a conflict of rights. We think some of TRAs demands are unreasonable and adversely affect women.” The activists’ reaction to the EHRC simply clarifying the current legal position and recognising that a conflict exists has been astonishing and completely unhinged. It may have persuaded EHRC and others that more robust, unequivocal guidance is needed than they’d planned. The last few days have proven women’s rights groups’ arguments that existing legislation is being wilfully misinterpreted and ignored and that clearer guidance is needed about implementation. At this point half of our work is being done for us by activists on the other side of the fence.

Yes I'm inclined to agree. Very interesting comparing and contrasting Steph's place's website with FPFW for example.

Vice Media was in the Guardian yesterday for secretly organising festivals for the Saudi government.

How long will it be until people, or even Stonewall, call upon Adrian Harrop and Ben Hunte to denounce Vice and to apologise for publishing that journalistic coup with them part way through Harrop's tribunal.

Yet again proving the utter, utter hypocrisy at work here.

How many times have these private meetings happened with TQ+ lobby groups? It's in the bloody policy, Stephen Whittle openly put in the public domain that so much was politically achieved over quiet cups of tea without public scrutiny or anyone else having a chance to have a say. No one thought that was a problem, other than women, who were told it was fine and perfectly appropriate.

But women? Getting to speak without supervision and someone to shout them down and scrub out anything that drops out of their mouth that might be inconvenient? Panic! Outrage!

@NonnyMouse1337

Yup, no matter how balanced and reasonable various organisations try to be, the gender zealots continue to ramp up the crazy hyperbole. Thus proving that women's concerns were completely justified - you can't reason with these types of people and you need clear policies to protect female only spaces and services because they will never respect any boundaries. They are not interested in the same rights as everyone else. They shamelessly want exclusive privileges that trample on every other protected characteristic and they don't care about anyone but themselves.

That ^^

Thus proving that women's concerns were completely justified - you can't reason with these types of people and you need clear policies to protect female only spaces and services because they will never respect any boundaries.

The law exists to maintain boundaries that protect people when those boundaries will not be respected voluntarily.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Vice Media was in the Guardian yesterday for secretly organising festivals for the Saudi government.

How long will it be until people, or even Stonewall, call upon Adrian Harrop and Ben Hunte to denounce Vice and to apologise for publishing that journalistic coup with them part way through Harrop's tribunal.

But Vice identifies as progressive.

Meeting privately with trans groups to discuss trans widows rights is of course, fine though.

twitter.com/transwidows/status/1489000598917812229?s=21

Of course it is

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Steph's place would like their pear both cutted up and whole and also demand to be taken seriously

Bother you, now I have to read Cutted Up Pear and I'm supposed to be working.

[quote TinselAngel]Meeting privately with trans groups to discuss trans widows rights is of course, fine though.

twitter.com/transwidows/status/1489000598917812229?s=21[/quote]
They weren't just discussing transwidows either. They were also discussing education guidance and single sex spaces.

[quote TinselAngel]Meeting privately with trans groups to discuss trans widows rights is of course, fine though.

twitter.com/transwidows/status/1489000598917812229?s=21[/quote]
My God those minutes....

working flat out to remove women's rights in every conceivable way, on multiple fronts, while ensuring no one is present to put forward the views of the missing stakeholders.

If women have no place in meetings about TQ+ requirements, then TQ+ have no place in meetings about women's rights. Obviously.

This Vice?
www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/11/max-clark-fashion-editor-vice-i-d-magazine-suspended-sexual-misconduct-claims

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/12/cambodia-vice-edited-photos-khmer-rouge-victims-smiling-tuol-sleng-prison-genocide

www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/vice-media-sued-after-employee-assaulted-assignment-n867811

www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/vice-media-apologizes-workplace-fostered-sexual-harassment-n832351

Can't see any problems with that source.

When the EHRC talk to women its an acknowledgement of sex and that sex is a protected characteristic as defined in law.

It highlights that in law you can not conflate gender and sex.

It highlights that the likes of Creasy and Nokes in doing so are fundamentally misrepresenting the law and deliberately going out of their way to acknowledge that because sex and gender are different things there might be an areas where there is a point of conflict.

When you go about solving a problem, the correct way to do this is to identify the problem. For a number of years the approach has been to deny the existence of a problem. Once you acknowledge there is a problem, it cannot be taken back. Naturally the next port of call is to fix the problem or offer advice as how best to fairly solve it.

Of course if women had no case there wouldn't be an acknowledgement of anything.

There wouldnt be an identified problem.

There would be no need to address it or fix it fairly. Because it would already be fair.

If theres an identified problem arising it suggests women aren't being treated fairly and in line with the law as it stands.

Surely everyone just wants things to be fair? Don't they?

Remind me, why is there a hissy fit going on?