Stonewall taking the EHRC to the UN

[Cuck00soup]

Being discussed on radio 4 soon.

Seems SW and the Good Law Project are trying to remove the independence of the EHRC. At least in part it seems due to their intervention in Scotland.

Interview with SW coming up in the next hour

Countries with questionable human rights records that have served on the UNHRC include Pakistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia and Russia

I think Napoleon Bonaparte's comment is relevant for here;

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

With the initiative apparently led my Nancy Kelly and JC is automatically in the realms of being assembled through a warped view.

Like many I regard Stonewall as principally a homophobic charity organisation, which has turned traitor on to the very people it was formed to campaign-for.

The Fox Killer though has maintained a consistent history, no better expressed than in his utter incomprehension about the history of FiLiA.

And that will be important, because organisations like FiLiA will be able to complain to The Charity Commissioners that other charities like themselves are having their work interfered-with by another charity - Stonewall, which is attempting to prevent other organisations from getting their voice heard in forums like the UN, through the EHRC.

Stonewalls unwillingness to accept that the EHRC has all human rights in its brief, and not just those of middle-age white trans-women, is likely going to see it run into some serious jelly.

On this occasion, perhaps we should consider stepping-back and letting Stonewall, not-so-ably-advised by The Fox Killer, have a clear run at pursuing this 'initiative'.

I read the article on the BBC news site this morning. This bit jumped out at me:

*Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall, told the BBC 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."*

I feel gaslit. It’s Stonewall that is no longer credible and it’s women who have been placed in the firing line.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

In that case, Joshua Parry should have explained to viewers what is entailed: that with self ID it would be easier for people to get a Gender Recognition Certificate conferring the ‘legal fiction’ that they have changed sex, whereas at the moment people must (………the various conditions) before they can obtain this certificate.

@yourhairiswinterfire

I’m not sure what rights the EHRC are allegedly trying to remove from trans people

Some imaginary rights that lobby groups have led them to believe they have, by the looks of it.

The problem is that, without consultation or respect for current laws, groups such as Stonewall have had a heavy influence, encouraging companies and statutory bodies alike to “move ahead of the law”, the implication being that the law would change with 100% inevitability in the direction they wanted it to, and that those groups might as well show how progressive and principled they were by making the changes early.

So in effect, many rights have been introduced, despite a complete lack of current legal backing. Those would include the “right” for men who claim they are women to access any number of single-sex spaces, simply by making the claim.

By the time moves were made for the proposed laws to be brought in, enough women had woken up to the fact that their rights had been eroded to halt the changes (at least in England and Wales).

Under current law, single sex spaces are allowed (though not mandated). Stonewall et al have however, been heavily implying for years that single-sex should include the opposite sex on the principle of self-ID. The EHRC have previously gone along with this, as they were also captured.

What the EHRC is now attempting, is to rebalance the situation, taking into account the effect on women of allowing men who claim they are women into almost all women’s single sex spaces.

This is, of course, now being held up as “removing trans people’s rights” and to an extent it could be argued that is the case. However it needs to be taken into account that those “rights” were introduced without official consultation, or any consideration of how it would affect the rights of other groups. Therefore, whether they like it or not, for fairness to be restored, that consultation and consideration needs to be carried out, and the situation rebalanced.

It HRC must uphold the equality act, including the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.

It's unequivocal.

Personally, I'd love to see the sunlight shine on stonewalls testimony as to why that's not the case.

Not just bleat about it on Twitter, but write it down in words, sentences and paragraphs.

This is just nuts. I feel sorry for the EHRC. They've got enough to be getting on with without dealing with this bullshit.

Pathetic misogynistic & homophobic bullies. Shameful.

Both Stonewall and The Good Law Project are charities - I really wonder how this is furthering their objects and is good use of their charitable funds. There is so much more to fight for - even for Stonewall, if I was a gay person, I'd wonder whether they cared about me at all now.

Bloody Jo Maugham is just dreadful. If I was a Trustee on his Board, I'd be questioning his focus on this.

@NettleTea

literally why do they need to change their legal sex, as they are always shouting about how sex and gender are different things and that its a change of GENDER

A birth certificate records sex. Not gender. Its why the stupid AMAB and AFAB exist.

In the past. Way back when a handful of transexuals were trying to slip undetected under the radar, there may have been an argument for allowing this legal fiction. I persoanlly dont agree that it EVER should have been allowed. And the madness that you cant ask for a GRC. It created a madness from where all this sprung from. But I can sort of see a tenuous need for privacy

However we are in different times. Transexual has been replaced by transgender, and there doesnt appear to be many of the 'gender' variety who are at all quiet about their gender identity - its no bloody secret. As a result the need for privacy has been replaced as a driving force nas a desire to access, legally, single sex spaces that previously were denied to them. With step two being the removal of exemptions.

We KNOW that many people are already acting as if its done deal and trampling over the single sex provisions willy nilly via self ID by stealth - frightening companies into compliance by fear of repercussions, or enticing them with woke credentials. But allowing the sex marker on the birth certificate to be removed, and the 'individual cases only' bit of the exemptions means that there would be no way to keep men, ANY men, out.

I dont want men in my spaces, or my daughters spaces, or any womens spaces. I dont care if they are 'real' trans or if they are predatory men abusing a system that is wide open to them. The TRAs have made it perfectly clear that any man is who he says he is, and have campaigned to remove any checks and measures (however weak) that were in place to attempt to identify them - its meaningless anyway as the numbers who fitted the gender dysphoria/transexual model are marginalised by the crossdressers who form the hugest majority and dont match the criteria. They have also reacted so angrily, so aggressively and with such misogynistic threats and slurs, that we know we are right to want to exclude them.

This 💯 They've given us all the reasons we need to fight to exclude them.

@Nilbog

I read the article on the BBC news site this morning. This bit jumped out at me:

*Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall, told the BBC 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."*

I feel gaslit. It’s Stonewall that is no longer credible and it’s women who have been placed in the firing line.

If Kelley considers herself to be a credible source when assessing if something is "credible evidence" then she's an interesting perspective on her performance to date and how she comes across in interviews.

I have a sneaky feeling Stonewall may have shot its bolt with this action. It may cause many more organisations to withdraw because Stonewall is effectively saying "do it our way or else".

If I was a gay person, I'd wonder whether they cared about me at all now.

I don’t wonder whether Stonewall care about me at all now as a lesbian - I know for certain that they don’t give a flying fuck.

When you've always been in the room and listened to and now you're having to argue your corner... I really don't think this is the way to win friends and influence people. Their arrogance will be their downfall.

Golden child syndrome. The golden children often grow up into unhappy adults.

@EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn

If I was a gay person, I'd wonder whether they cared about me at all now.

I don’t wonder whether Stonewall care about me at all now as a lesbian - I know for certain that they don’t give a flying fuck.

Shove a rolled up sock down your trousers then they might care.

Shove a rolled up sock down your trousers then they might care.

And come up with some exotic gender .

Waiting now for any of the usual suspects to appear & give examples of what Stonewall are doing to support biologically female lesbians specifically as opposed to the ‘LGBTQ+++ community’.

I agree with both secular 111 and mimblecat. They are showing their true colours and a complete disregard for current legislation

EHRC have responded:. www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/response-misinformation-about-single-sex-spaces-guidance

“We aim to publish guidance on single-sex spaces in due course, in line with our mandate to advise on equality and human rights laws, and in response to longstanding calls from a range of stakeholders and service providers.

"Any guidance we produce will explain how to comply with the legal provisions approved by Parliament in the Equality Act.

“It is completely false to suggest that we are looking to bar trans people from accessing spaces without a Gender Recognition Certificate. We are not aware of any document produced by the EHRC that would support this.

"The Equality Act provisions on gender reassignment are not predicated on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate.”

@WhereAreWeNow

This is just nuts. I feel sorry for the EHRC. They've got enough to be getting on with without dealing with this bullshit.

In a way it is, but in a way it's exactly their remit, isn't it? To listen to all the various groups, and work out how to balance rights & protections.

"The Equality Act provisions on gender reassignment are not predicated on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate.”

Exactly. This was clarified before - if a space is single sex then it's single sex, a GRC is neither here nor there.

This case is a scam. It is doomed from the start. Take a look at the list of countries with A status which they are trying to get the UK revoked from. They include Russia, Egypt, Haiti, Iraq and many other countries where being LGB let alone trans is far from being safe:

www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NHRI/StatusAccreditationChartNHRIs.pdf

No need to worry it is going to fail in a spectacular fashion.

Why do it then? It is all about getting income before the grift ends. The Fox Killer needs more Kimonos clearly. They must be desperate and greedy for cash to try something which has zero chance of success.

Well, if it keeps them busy, let them get on with it, I suppose.

It is completely false to suggest that we are looking to bar trans people from accessing spaces without a Gender Recognition Certificate. We are not aware of any document produced by the EHRC that would support this.

The Equality Act provisions on gender reassignment are not predicated on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate

Worryingly, that looks to me as if they're agreeing with self-ID. Have I misunderstood?

Up till now, women have had the right to single-sex spaces if we can provide a good enough justification for an exemption from TWs' general right to be treated as women. (Getting councils and other organisation to apply that exemption is another matter, of course.)