Big update on Rape Crisis legal challenge

[IamSarah]

I know many of you have been waiting for an update so first of all thank you for your patience and the many messages of support.

I am suing Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service, as it refused to offer a single sex women’s group in addition to the mixed sex women’s groups. By mixed sex I mean inclusive of any males who identify as women.

I’ve been granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and it was submitted to Brighton County Court today.

I am being represented by law firm Didlaw and my Barrister is Naomi Cunningham (Chair of Sex Matters). So far they have acted pro bono which I am incredibly grateful for as it has taken a lot of time. The team are confident I have a good case but this is unchartered territory for women’s rights.

Many of you have very kindly offered to be involved and help with gardening. I don’t think I’m allowed to share details on here so please go to my Twitter page http://twitter.com/SarahSurviving/ which has all the info in a pinned post.

Of you’re not on Twitter feel free to send me a DM for more information on how you can help the case. Any publicity you can give the crowd funder would really help.

Thank you everyone.

Sarah x

Just catching up on the other messages on here and wanted to say that this whole situation Sarah is going through is like being an abused kid again. "sit down, shut up, behave like I told to and let that scary man over there do what he likes"

How can Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service not see that they, just like in my case my mother, have turned into the abusers facilitator?

Exactly that.

It hits the exact same bell in me. 'Don't upset me with your fear and feelings while I hurt you. Don't you dare show it in your face and make me feel bad. Shut up, co operate, and do good acting that what I'm doing to you is ok'.

Fuck. That.

What use is a service for abused women who don't get this, don't care about this fundamental part of working with an abused woman, and are too busy with meeting their own needs and being politically selective about which victims they will deign to support to be able to do any serving worth the name?

@Artichokeleaves it's like a stomach punch isn't it.

Parts of my childhood was about appeasing a man facilitated by a woman. Feeling and experiencing one thing whilst showing something completely different.

As an adult I appease no-one. Not a man not a woman. Not one of them thinking they are the other.

The TRA's think it's all about them and their feelings. That if we don't supplicate to them for meagre crumbs when they've finished eating from our plates that means we are transcribing bigots, thanks autocorrect I'll leave that one in in honour of the valiant tribunaltweeters!

It's not about them. It's about my life and it's about my feelings and about making sure that other women, women like me, get the services and rights they are legally entitled to.

If some people don't like that some women in some situations need a space to themselves well quite frankly that shouldn't be my issue to solve. If those people want to come up with a solution that doesn't stomp on my rights they can. And if they come to me with that idea I will support them every step of the way to achieve it. But I don't give up what's mine to someone it doesn't belong to.

@DisgustedofManchester thank you for inspiring me to plant an additional batch of flowers in support of the OP.

@IamSarah I was wondering, would it be possible to ask your legal team how much it is likely to cost to get a proper transcript of the case? While Tribunal Tweets do a fabulous job, I think it might be useful to have a full record of this one.

Sarah is maintaining her anonymity. I should think that might add to the complexity of producing a transcript. It might be necessary to have a recording and then a redacted transcript produced from that?

I can ask the question @GAHgamel - but yes my anonymity has been court ordered so that may complicate things.

I'll let you know what they say next week.

I've also donated with thanks to @DisgustedofManchester for making me really fucking angry that Sarah is having to do this at all.

Thank you gardeners. It has just past £58k which is amazing.

@MrsMidClegs thanks for sharing the survey, I have just filled it in. In my experience it is unusual for inclusive RC centres to ask women their opinion on trans inclusion as they won't like the answer. It's positive that they are giving women the opportunity to have their say.

True inclusion is meeting the needs of all service users, not just the ones you share your politics with.

Thanks Sarah.

Felt a bit cheeky posting that on your thread (my one about it disappearing in to the ether).

❤️❤️❤️

Well, I had intended to donate anyway but Disgusted spurred me on, so thank you DoM for that nasty little post.

Seems very unfair that the survivors' network gets their legal stuff pro bono while Sarah has to pay. Maybe the other side will do a crap job.

Sarah 💪💪✊

Definitely not cheeky @MrsMidClegs I hope some others also fill it in.

I think I mentioned before that the other side's legal team are all male. My legal team are all female.

It takes a certain type of male to work for free to fight a court case opposing women's rights to single sex rape crisis groups. I wonder how their mums feel about it.

I filled it. Crap questions though

It takes a certain type of male to work for free to fight a court case opposing women's rights to single sex rape crisis groups.

Doesn't it just.

Another profitable day for lawyers and a waste fo money and time for a charity. You cannot force a rape crisis centre to provide a service based on your needs. The EA allows them to choose to if they wish to discriminate for a legitimate aim. There is no legal compulsion to do so. I see another rape support service (Rape Crisis Surrey and Sussex (RCSAS)) which did offer female only services in Sussex has had to shut down, I'm guessing 75k would have gone a long way to keeping them open....

Look up "indirect discrimination"

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/

The survey states at the end that they are running it with LGBT+ Inclusivity Scotland. So a completely agenda-free survey then.

So far the communication from the SN lawyers has been farcical.

SN Lawyers: Survivors Network is committed to offering the claimant support and has offered her 1:1 therapy

(I email the Head of Operations at SN enquiring about this as I definitely haven't been offered 1:1 therapy)

SN Lawyers to my lawyers: Please tell the claimant not to contact SN again.

SN Lawyers to my lawyers: Please tell the claimant not to contact SN again.

I should think that's quite standard, to be fair. I'd be surprised if your legal team advised you differently and I'd expect that all the communications would be handled by them (frustrating as it is).

Yes I do understand that. Just strange that they would claim in a statement (which is still online) they they are committed to offering me support. Why say that when the reality is I'm not even allowed to contact SN? It just seems really cruel. Especially as I need support!

I watched as much of Allison's tribunal as i could. The personal cost of undertaking this kind of legal action is immense, i admire your bravery and fortitude greatly.

I did wonder about settlements. I suppose from your side you might consider settling if they committed to providing single sex services? That would avoid them having lots of sunlight pointed in their direction.

I have been wondering if Garden Court wishes they had found a way to settle. Even if Allison loses, they have come out of this very poorly.

So awful that is is taking women who have been brutalised to bring this to court to enable any kind of open scrutiny of gender ideology.

This.

Not to mention, if there was any genuinely held belief in this exclude females from females services so that male people can use them being right and ethical and obviously going to stand up in court as fine to do, then they'd be here, supporting the case and helping with funding you to go do it.

Instead of doing every damn thing possible to try and prevent it being heard in a court room.

Mind you, considering what an absolute unprofessional and shoddy outfit GCC turned out to be, with their employees rampantly misogynist and homophobic and apparently only interested in working with white, straight clients with penises, (unless from interesting and exciting groups of people with penises), and only then if they weren't busy, on holiday, travelling and could manage to remember anything, I can see that there are risks to organisations caught up in SW's mess in addition to 'this exclusionary inclusion based on we only serve People Like Us - is it possibly a really unethical and stupid thing to do? '

Screenshot it, archive the text on several sites and report it to your lawyers.

I suppose from your side you might consider settling if they committed to providing single sex services?

I would argue that a group so openly prejudiced against females, so biased in their politics to believe that raped females not compliant should be left without any help at all as consequences for their sins (shades of bloody Magdalen laundries really), and so absolutely uninformed and unaware of and uncaring of the basic principles of working with raped female people should not be allowed anywhere near a female only service, never mind permitted to provide it.

TQ+ focused groups are qualified to provide for TQ+ needs. And as this political position includes really quite staggering bias, misogyny, homophobia and prejudice against females, it is not compatible with providing services for any other group where things like ethics and impartiality and duty of care and basic sense of compassion and responsibility are involved. The politics don't permit for it.