Rights watchdog 'should lose status' over trans row

[GreenUp]

Stonewall and Good Law Project (aka JM's vanity law project) are now trying to threaten the EHRC by demanding that the UN revokes the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) status as an independent group.

Apparently "this would prevent it from being able to make representations at the UN Human Rights Council, or its committees on human rights."....

They accuse the EHRC of "being 'excessively' influenced by the UK government in the appointments of the chair and board members."....

"Jolyon Maugham, of The Good Law Project, said: "The EHRC is subject to a level of oversight and micro-management from the department which is just not consistent with being a UN Human Rights Institution.""....

"The submission accuses Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who is also the women and equalities minister, of making "politically motivated" appointments to the EHRC."....

"Since Ms Truss' appointments took up their posts, the submission letter alleges there has been a marked change in the EHRC's stance on Scotland's planned changes to the Gender Recognition act."....

"Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall, said she believed there was "credible evidence" that the EHRC no longer met the criteria of a national human rights institution."....

""The politicisation of the UK's human rights body has placed trans people in the firing line, but this attempt to create a hierarchy of human rights in the UK is a very real threat to everyone, particularly those of us protected by the Equality Act.""....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962

So basically now that the EHRC has disassociated itself from lobbying group, Stonewall's Diversity Scheme and has taken an independent stance not overly influenced by Stonewall, Stonewall and GLP have taken to threatening the EHRC.

We didn't see Stonewall and GLP complaining of a lack of government independence when the EHRC were paying for Stonewall advice or when a Conservative MP appointed ex-Stonewall Chair David Isaac to head up the EHRC.

The EHRC's remit is to support all the protected characteristics, not just Stonewall and JM's personal demands.

Stonewall's way of operating really does seem more and more like a protection racket..... Nice human rights organisation you got there - shame if it were to lose it's status.

I hope this action serves as a lesson to other organisations paying for Stonewall lobbying.

"Citing concerns in a vague way" - no very clear Nancy. Concerns about women and children.

Good interviewing!

Oh my fucking god. Nancy. Head in sand.

Well done nick (?) for pointing out there are cases.

She's more slippery than an eel.

She hasn't a clue.

Justin Webb has done his homework! He is so well-informed.

She's making no sense.

Ah Justin! Thanks Justin.

Justin has politely skewered Nancy. Well done!

Maya's case May have impact here.

Really good interview .

Twitter is fascinating. So many people seem to be ignorant that the convention on human rights covers more than just LGB and T.

Stonewall are furious that they can no longer dictate and that other groups impacted by change will be consulted. I suppose when you have been so used to dictating, it must be a shock when that is no longer the case.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Justin Webb has done his homework! He is so well-informed.

He's the latest to be reported for a single - entirely reasonable - word, as evidence of wrongthink.

It doesn't take a genius to see that going after intelligent journalists might encourage them to dig deeper, rather than the reverse.

Which is hilarious imho

One of my favourite self help quotes. “You can argue with reality all you want - you’ll only lose 100% of the time”

In a perfect world their policies could work. But in the world we live in, we might need to balance the needs of different groups from time to time

@JennyForeigner I hadn't heard that Justin has been reported, although I suppose it was only a matter of time. What did he say?

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@JennyForeigner I hadn't heard that Justin has been reported, although I suppose it was only a matter of time. What did he say?[/quote]
Likewise agog to learn what this single word of transgression was that was sufficient on which to ground a complaint.

What with women being able to get nowhere when reporting threats of violence, rape, death etc.

Justin Webb was told off for saying that students "falsely" accused Kathleen Stock of transphobia and that they were "abusing" her.

Seven people complained that the words in inverted commas were opinion not fact.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/07/bbc-rebukes-justin-webb-over-comment-on-kathleen-stock-row

Meanwhile in the real world Stock who is not transphobic, was bullied by students which resulted in her resignation.
I wish her all the best.
Thank you Justin Webb.

Just heard this get a big chunk of 6 Music's news bulletin. It's really quite unbelievable.

I was pleasantly surprised by Justin Webb's Q's as he gives the impression of arrogance. But of course possibly being arrogant doesn't necessarily mean ill-informed. He was much better than Evan Davies discussing trans rights.

I didn't catch if NK used the 'trans people are the most vulnerable 1% line'? I wish journalists would correct that. Disabled people must be furious when they hear that.

I didn't know he's been reported.

[quote DisappearingGirl]Justin Webb was told off for saying that students "falsely" accused Kathleen Stock of transphobia and that they were "abusing" her.

Seven people complained that the words in inverted commas were opinion not fact.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/07/bbc-rebukes-justin-webb-over-comment-on-kathleen-stock-row[/quote]
Meanwhile, when I complained to the BBC about Anita Rani - current affairs presenter at Woman's Hour - calling people on Twitter transphobes for disliking her obsequious interview with Paris Lees and expressing their view enshrined in law that Lees is not a woman, I was told she had done nothing wrong.

I agree, Clymene. His behaviour is really quite something.

@NecessaryScene

Stonewall's kind of stepped in it here, haven't they? Isn't a large chunk of their business being "experts" on the Equality Act, and providing training etc?

How could anyone employ them to do that if they're coming out against it? If the Nolan report was bad, this is worse.

Thing is, they sold themselves as being those 'experts' on the EqA in order to (proven, multiple times) re write the law and steer as many large agencies as possible into believing that the EqA is a hierarchy, the gender identity replaces sex, that women don't have sex based rights and no one has religious or belief or disability based rights either if they happen to present a boundary to a TQ+ person's wishes.

And it's worked for a long time, hence the utter mess we're in and having to repeatedly point out to LAs and authorities that sex is a protected characteristic and stonewall re wrote the law to say what served them . This is group without conscience.

And I'll bet that not a single member of Stonewall has any qualification or life experience in any of the other protected characteristics, or in impartial, actual equality and inclusion process. They have zero interest in other groups other than to make sure that they aren't able to get in the TQ+ political agenda's way.

It's entertaining to watch the tantrums now they're finally running up against a boundary of 'other people have rights too'. 'No' is not a word this lobby is used to hearing. Hence the special pleading being trotted out to try to reinforce, this group matters more than the others.

Also being discussed here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4478402-stonewall-taking-the-ehrc-to-the-un

Part of me loves the idea of Stonewall trying to cancel the EHRC! Curse those pesky human rights ... But part of me fears there is so much regulatory capture, backed by plain old misogyny, that they may succeed.

We need to keep speaking out and letting MPs etc know that we don't accept having our rights given away.

Haven't heard the radio bit yet so can't comment on that, but the article on the BBC website seems very biased in quoting all the Stonewall complaints about supposed politicisation of the EHRC, their implication that the appointment process is dodgy, and their complaints about the change of tack at the EHRC from supporting GRA reforms previously to now raising concerns, while totally failing to mention that the EHRC chair at that time was ex-Stonewall (and was also appointed under the same process they criticise!) and that the EHRC was also in SW's Diversity Champions scheme at that point! So if anything, it seems more likely that the previous EHRC statements were politicised/unduly influenced (by Stonewall!) and their current stance is more of a return to normal! Might be worth getting some complaints in.

@mibbelucieachwell

I was pleasantly surprised by Justin Webb's Q's as he gives the impression of arrogance. But of course possibly being arrogant doesn't necessarily mean ill-informed. He was much better than Evan Davies discussing trans rights.

I didn't catch if NK used the 'trans people are the most vulnerable 1% line'? I wish journalists would correct that. Disabled people must be furious when they hear that.

I didn't know he's been reported.

Justin Webb has been very good on interviews around sex/gender for quite some time. He understands the issues.