EHRC to appear before the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee 20 April

[ResisterRex]

20 April at 3pm

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/165945/ehrc-to-appear-before-women-and-equalities-committee/

"The Equalities and Human Rights Commission is to appear before the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee to discuss the EHRC's response to the Committee's December 2021 Report Reform of the Gender Recognition Actt_. The Committee will consider the EHRC's stance regarding the Government's 2018 consultation, more recent reforms in Scotland, and its approach to LGBTQ+ issues more widely.
The session will also scrutinise the EHRC's new three-year plan and its work following the Government’s Inclusive Britain report.
Witnesses
Wednesday 20 April
At 3pm
• Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairwoman, Equality and Human Rights Commission,
• Marcial Boo, Chief Executive, Equality and Human Rights Commission,
• Melanie Field, Chief Strategy and Policy Officer, Equality and Human Rights Commission."

Here's the EHRC's Strategic Plan:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/strategic-plan-2022-2025

And this should be the right link:

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f71c8699-64f0-4d59-ade4-f79572c550b6

Oh, and off again. What is going on?

WTF was that? Who were all those people and why did they vanish?

That was hardly worth coming back for. CN "I'm sorry" was said like the first words of an argument 😂

IM SORRY YOU BASTARDS

What happened? Did the people behind them do something? They were distracting me by their excessive fidgeting.

Meeting ended 4.02pm I missed the first 35 minutes. Will have to watch it once it's archived.

Exactly 😂

I’m watching from the beginning now. Interesting (and encouraging) that the EHRC board was unanimous about reversing their position on GRA reform.

Yes, thought this too. There was one who rather per formatively rolled their eyes. And, even though they only had a t-shirt on, then started shoving their hands back through the wrist part of the sleeve jacket; like having a 'blankie'.

Falkner says the proposed reforms included ‘unknown social and practical consequences’... and outlines some of the potential effects very clearly.

Has it just paused for voting?

I thought all the EHRC people seemed well prepared and calm. I'm not sure how you argue successfully or well against what they stated in that meeting.

What you do, if you’re Nokes, is assume the end point is ‘reform’, and hammer away with questions that assume the EHRC doesn’t have enough information yet. Ask them things like, ‘What evidence would you need, then?’ And ‘What work are you doing to collect that evidence?’

I had no idea what Bell Ribeiro-Addy was trying to say.

It's available already.

Gosh, Caroline Nokes REALLY doesn't like Baroness Falkner, does she?

‘Caroline Nokes REALLY doesn't like Baroness Falkner, does she?’

She’s that rude to all people who don’t support her versions of GRA reform or trans rights.

I think it's possible that the influence of Crispin Blunt is still all over the Equalities & Women Select Committee, unfortunately. It's ruining Nokes's career.

I remember her attitude to Kemi Badenoch, who was superb in her responses, was equally 'off'.

And I agree tabby she gives off a threatening vibe to those who don't agree with her stance

Kim Johnson wanted to know how the EHRC intends to ‘rebuild relationships with the LGBT community’.

Obviously do need to look after the legal rights of all people covered by the Equality Act. It‘s not their job to make friends.

‘I remember her attitude to Kemi Badenoch, who was superb in her responses, was equally 'off'.’

Occasionally I just rewatch Badenoch’s frankly magnificent NO. It was a thing of beauty.

So, many people and organisations (stonewall) have added the T to the LG (B?), thus joining Sexual orientation and gender identity. Others don't, like the LGB Alliance.

The EHRC have SO and Gender Reassignment (GI?) as two separate protected characteristics in the Equality Act. They have a duty to look at the balancing of rights and impacts on these separately, don't they? Otherwise it would be like joining belief and disability (or always conflating two or more protected characteristics) and not having a discrete characteristic with associated protection.

So, you have protections if you are disabled. Whether you have belief in a religion or not. You may be same sex attracted (LGB), yet wish to have protections of you single sex spaces (irrespective of someone's gender reassignment). The Committee kept using LGBT. Yet they are doubling up the protected characteristics as one in a way that doesn't make clear they are separate. It is discussing the EHRC and the Equality Act after all.

This is the problem when you co opt the term 'LGBT+ community' and actually mean 'people of my political gender ideological view' rather than 'all people with the protected characteristic of homosexuality or gender reassignment.'

It's intended to give the impression that they speak for everyone under that legal protection to give weight to their voice and wishes. They are not mentioning the many, many lesbian, gay and bi people they have disenfranchised and bounced out, and emphatically do not represent.

Oh no! Ended for another voting session.

But wasn’t the Baroness in fine form. She is very diplomatic. And the other two there too. All three were clear and prepped.

Watching again.
Good news on the GRA: unanimous decision. Makes all the hours of hard work worthwhile.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy's question about the law... She has no idea how much that revealed, did she? I admire the Baroness's restraint.
I like Marciel Boo's clarity and firmness.
I can see the Baroness is thoughtful and good at detail. Her rather nervous demeanour makes me nervous.
Nokes: another bit of paper and another 'Baroness you previously said... but now you're saying....' She's like a lawyer who thinks that if they can catch you out on minor discrepancies that will undermine everything you say and all your decisions. It's the strategy pursued by lawyers without a legal leg to stand on.
Kim Johnson: but what are you going to do to make it up with all the TQ+ people you've offended by not agreeing with them? She may regret allying herself to Stonewall once things get going next week.

Baroness Falkner: 'I think I would appeal your committee to move forward, to work together. It doesn't help the people of Britain who need an active/ pro-active legislator on their behalf for ONE protected characteristic group to wish to see its demise. We need to move beyond that...on the basis of good faith.' Caroline Nokes comes back in and says 'Did you mean to use the word 'legislator'?' Marcial Boo jumps in and says he thinks the Baroness meant 'regulator'. Caroline Nokes smirks.
Jackie Doyle-Price: we've all been too nice and tried not to talk about this, but we've got to tackle head-on the fact that there is a conflict of rights. In a desire to be kind and nice and inclusive we've avoided those. Have the way we (politicians) talk about this ended up with you in the firing line. Baroness Kishner agrees: slow-burning toxicity. Shut down debate with 'no debate, academics hounded out of jobs, the courts contradictory. There is a need for Parliamentary involvement: difficult pieces of legislation, retrospective legislator scrutiny required.
Jackie Doyle Price: LGB and TQ+ different and complex and there's been no Parliamentary scrutiny and now the EHRC are at the sharp end. (Suspension of proceedings while a vote is called).

My viewing got interrupted by a local election canvasser ringing the doorbell - his opening gambit, "I'm a Conservative - is that good or bad?" My instinctive response, "bad" - I then watched Jackie Doyle-Price appearing to be the Committee's only sensible member... Personally, I could never vote Tory, but regardless of their motivation they seem to be on the right side of this particular issue right now. I'm looking forward to a similar knock on the door from Labour and the Lib Dems though...!