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

Is it wrong to point out that this cabal yelling about inequality comprise of: a rich, middle class white male whose speciality is helping people avoid tax; aided by a middle class white female whose goal in life it is to elevate delusional males; potentially aided by a former incumbent at EHRC (who did not have the grace to let his successor settle in before attacking her), who is another extremely wealthy, private and Oxford educated white male who has never done anything in his professional life other than elevate people like himself; banding together to attack an organisation that, for the first time in its history, is headed by a non white female, whom they claim, silly noodle, doesn't have the strength of mind to resist the political machinations of the Tory Party (but not like Isaacs, who was never influenced by his social and financial interests, oh no, not at all).

Guardian piece www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/11/lgbt-groups-call-for-anti-trans-ehrc-to-lose-international-status

No mention of the former EHRC chair being part of the Stonewall machine. And no comments allowed.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

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.)

Doesn't that mean that you are afforded protection from discrimination (e.g. employment discrimination) if you are undergoing gender reassignment as this is a protected characteristic, but this does not mean you have access to female only space;. as distinct from being afforded access to sex segregated spaces if you have a GRC unless there is a reason this should not be the case.

No mention of the former EHRC chair being part of the Stonewall machine. And no comments allowed.

And yet the Guardian were all over Isaacs being a controversial pick at the time of his appointment, because of the conflict of interest with his business concerns.

You cannot bring in law by stealth, or not consider those whose rights you chose to take and then complain when people want to discuss and protest

That nails it.

As a female homosexual (two crimes in one go) I don't just feel excluded by Stonewall, I find them actively hostile towards me and actively homophobic. This group represent nothing fair, or kind, or inclusive, or diverse, or tolerant. MN supports women to understand that you learn the most important things about someone when you tell them 'no'.

I would be concerned, the UN has previously said that the UK had some of the worst poverty in the world, and organisations like the European Council said that LGBT rights in the UK were no better than Russia, Hungary and Poland.

Essentially these organisations are very open to a lot of biased lobbying, and Stonewall know this.

But the point about LGB/T rights is demonstrably untrue. Stonewall has had a near universal hold over all our public services and our 2 state owned broadcasters for years. The fact that these bodies have been leaving their diversity scheme does not mean their policies are no longer in place - we know they are. Stonewall would have to claim that, rather than their training being a success, and organisations adapting to be naturally inclusive (and thus not need Stonewall's continued guidance), the diversity scheme cash cow must stay in place in order for an organisation to prove their LGB/T friendly credentials. Which means that it's not very effective training, and is more akin to a protection racket. Which is at once both a somewhat self serving and self defeating argument to take to the UN.

With regard to the poverty point, I don't doubt it. But the poverty in this country is mostly concentrated in the north, and amongst white, working class communities (the majority demographic of this country). Those are the people Liz Truss has apparently "demanded" the ECHR concentrate their efforts on, to the consternation of the outgoing Chair, Isaacs. Are Stonewall going to argue this group should continue to be ignored, in favour of a group whose rights are demonstrably protected, and existence constantly celebrated at every level of British society with the ever present rainbow?

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."

Has she gaslit herself so badly that she has forgetten that WOMEN are "protected by the Equality Act", by virtue of the protected characteristic of "SEX"? and LGB people, by virtue of the protected characteristic of "sexual orientation"? She's an absolute disgrace. And don't get me started on JoJo the Clown - he's lost the plot and is way out of control.

Relating to this point

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

I understood it to mean that the groups 'with GRC' and 'without GRC' cannot be separated. You either include both or exclude both, to distinguish between them is discrimination.

Very nice interview with Baroness Falkner on ‘Politically Speaking’ podcast called ‘Keeping it Human’ (Spotify). She made the very moderate point that their job is to be the regulator and as such meet with representatives of ALL affected groups. She points out that the Scottish self id proposals have not gone through the correct procedure and so far no comprehensive impact assessment has been published.

Have complained to bbc re that article's bias. Very easy to do and I encourage everyone to do the same.

Have a look at the Global Alliance of Human Rights Organisations that Stonewall et Al want EHRC removed from. Fellow ‘A’ grade countries include - Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, Nigeria, Egypt. None of them bastions of LGBT rights. They are measuring the human rights organization not the country government but it demonstrates that there is no link between the rating from this organization and actual human rights in the country in question. I don’t think the EHRC have much to fear.

So the discredited lobbying group and fox killer are chucking toys out of their collective prams then.

@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.

The thing is, the EHRC could legitimately present the OHCHR with an avalanche of testimonies of gay and lesbian UK citizens willing to say that Stonewalls stance, particularly its view that homosexuality is same-gender, not same-sex attraction, has been prejudicial against them. And it could likely do the same with testimonies from trans-men and trans-women willing to say that Stonewall's stance, particularly in its encouragement of cancel culture and the attempted erasure of women is not being performed with their consent.

With a little bit of coordination, this could easily turn in an awful self-inflicted sh3tsh4w for Stonewall. And The Fox Killer has managed to mess things-up for his clients, and those being advised by him on the periphery in-the-past. The Mermaids vs. LBG Alliance upcoming case being one example. Indeed he seems to do his best to give the impression of being stunningly incompetent.

As I've written earlier, I don't reckon Stonewall and The Fox Killer should be actively-discouraged from pursuing this 'initiative'. Rather than a threat, it should be seen as a gift.

organisations like the European Council said that LGBT rights in the UK were no better than Russia, Hungary and Poland.

Good article on that by Debbie Hayton in Unherd: Stop saying the UK is transphobic

(Title seems to have been changed from "pretending" to a more neutral "saying" at some point since Martina Navratilova tweeted it. URL is still "pretending").

I agree @secular111 (I made the comment you've quoted upthread). There's grounds for people to legitimately challenge Stonewall (at least) about what it's doing - it's no longer acting in the best interests of its beneficiaries. It's definitely not the best use of its resources. Lesbians/gay men do have power here if they want to challenge this and make it difficult for Stonewall. JM too, the supporters of that charity could legitimately challenge his obsession because it is that, and it's not at all in line with what the GLP was set up to do. If I had donated to the GLP I'd be pretty annoyed.

I understood it to mean that the groups 'with GRC' and 'without GRC' cannot be separated. You either include both or exclude both, to distinguish between them is discrimination.

That certainly isn't the case in prisons. GRC holders have automatic right to be housed in the male estate.

Male GRC holders have the automatic right to be housed in the female estate

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Male GRC holders have the automatic right to be housed in the female estate

Yes, is there no risk assessment at all for male GRC holders before being sent to female estate?

I think there is but they still have to be held in the female estate which gives the lie to the idea that there is no difference between GRC holders and those who self ID.

Trevor Phillips has commented.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1492134530089734146.html

"It would be bad manners to comment on decisions of my estimable successors at the @EHRCC^ David Isaac and Kishwer Falkner, both appointed in much the same way as I was.But I served a three full terms at CRE/EHRC under both Labour administrations and Tory/Lib Dem coalition…..1/5
…so being the only other person to go through the proposed UN process may I respectfully suggest to @EHRCC^ critics that they consider the irony of arraigning Falkner before a body whose expert committee recently appointed as its rapporteur a longtime representative from….2/5
……Uganda, where homosexual acts get you life in prison; or demanding that a Pakistani heritage Muslim woman be judged by a body whose advisory group proudly features representatives from Saudi Arabia, China and Russia given their records on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights….3/5
To be fair, I do have beef with the UN human rights conference circus, which declared me persona non grata when I led the EHRC….partly because when I was asked to endorse the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the chair of a UN body sitting in judgement on the rights of women….4/5
……I laughed out loud and couldn’t stop. I do hope the current EHRC is not asked to pay a price for my over-developed sense of the absurd…..5/5"

Looking at this Twitter thread is a useful pointer to the teaming strategy (equivalences for Muslims, people with disabilities etc.) and framing it thus:

EHRC has been caving in to the culture of white grievance

twitter.com/mzaheer88/status/1492120975529422856

The remarkable irony of the context of the grievances of largely white, privileged appropriation of the same victim status as trans sex workers in Brazil is staggering.

The remarkable irony of the context of the grievances of largely white, privileged appropriation of the same victim status as trans sex workers in Brazil is staggering.

Quite a nice juxtaposition of Trevor Phillips's thread and the one you've just posted EmbarrassingHadrosaurus.

@BootsAndRoots

I would be concerned, the UN has previously said that the UK had some of the worst poverty in the world, and organisations like the European Council said that LGBT rights in the UK were no better than Russia, Hungary and Poland.

Essentially these organisations are very open to a lot of biased lobbying, and Stonewall know this.

And what have the UN actually DONE about the worst poverty in the world apart from say 'its very bad'?

Its one thing to say something. Its another to do something actionable from that. The UN doesn't have much tangible power in that sense.

Not only that the UN is made up of a bunch of countries from around the world - all of whom have various voting rights on various issues - who are hardly likely to say 'OMG the treatment of trans people by the EHRC in the UK is APPALLING, we must prioritise and stop this NOW'.

Either the cognitive dissonance and lack of understanding about global politics and the issue of women's right / LGBT rights elsewhere in the world and ignorance of how the UN works is laughable.

Or

They are trying to generate domestic headlines and publicity. Its a stunt. Thats all.

I am not sure which reflects on them better.

Either way, its a chancers move.

[quote Chersfrozenface]The story on the BBC News website is disgracefully one-sided.

Complaints needed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962[/quote]
complained