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

Thank you for doing this Sarah - it's hard to believe it has come to this :(. Heading over to x now.

Why are you assuming she's 'ignorant'?

You clearly didn't read the thread.

It blamed a woman who is the survivor of rape and has been denied acess to women only services for not having the correct analysis of what the political goals of her court case should be.

And as someone up thread has bothered to reprint the original appeal it is quite clear what she was fund raising for and what will happen to the money.

It is arrogant of these keyboard feminists to pick on an individual whenthe problem is the system. But so much easier than actually bothering to do anything themselves.

It has take two years to even get any where near the case being heard in court.

And yet some self important commentator, has added 2 + 2 together and made 5, and presumes to start scolding a rape victim on a trashy platform like twitter because she doesn't think her politics are right..

How low can you go.

Talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

I bet all her mean girl friends think she is an absolute hero.

Better still all the TRAs and queer activists in Brighton will be cheering this political parasite on.

"Better still all the TRAs and queer activists in Brighton will be cheering this political parasite on."

Did you miss that the woman you're calling a 'parasite' is also a victim and was also unable to access support through Survivors Network? That she wanted to take legal action but didn't have support as she wasn't the right sort of victim.

Why are you writing women off as 'keyboard feminists' when you know sod all about them?

How would I know that? If that was the issue then copying and pasting in random tweets with context onto this thread it just stirring up trouble.

And if the issue is someone not getting support for being the "wrong type of victim" why on earth be critical of someone who has managed through her own endeavour to get support.

Seriously blaming another victim.

Assuming those who are so in the loop genuine care, why on earth haven't you created a thread on FWR and explain what has happened (she obviously shouldn't be named) and come up with ideas and ask for ideas of how to support.

And if it is a sympton of some wider system failure address that.

Stirring up a bun fight between two survivors isn't exactly very sisterly or very productive.

How would I know that?

If you read the twitter thread you are reacting to, you would have known.

You're turning a perfectly civilised comment into world war three.

Sarah has suffered many attempts to derail her case. Someone always pops up on gardening threads to try and discourage women from digging. In at least one of those the person concerned lied about who they were.

Sarah has explained before that the costs of her case keep increasing due to the delays and her target needs to be increased. I have confdience once the case is over if there is a surplus it will be donated to support others. The surplus from a previous case was donated to Sarah.

This case is being presented as a dead cert that will result in single-sex women-only provisions across the land. Some women are donating on that basis. Some feel it is a disingenuous claim. Some, particularly those who have worked on the frontline, are concerned that, even if the single sex exceptions are forced onto service providers who believe TWAW and who have chosen not to utilise the SSEs, single-sex spaces are potentially challenging to provide and enforce whilst the GRA and de-facto self-ID are in place.

Supporting Sarah because you want to support her is a great reason to support, but supporting because you think this case, as it stands and in the context it sits, will bring back women-only provision across all similar services, might be a tad naive.

No legal case is ever a "dead cert". The original employment tribunal found against Maya Forstater, and the decision was only reversed on appeal.

However Sarah's case is about as strong as a case can get. Her case needs to be tried so that we can test the law. Whatever happens it may only be the first step on a long road. But it is far more important than just supporting one individual. This case is for all the women who need and have the right to expect women-only services.

I have confdience once the case is over if there is a surplus it will be donated to support others.

You do not need to simply rely on your confidence in this respect. It is in the terms of service of Crowdjustice.

“we shouldn’t bring sex discrimination claims because it is challenging for front line services not to be discriminatory”

Here’s a thought. If frontline services find it impossible not to discriminate against women and girls because of the GRA and Self ID then they should be bloody well saying so to parliament in enquiries, consultions, committees, campaigns.

I agree. But if services believe that TWAW they're not going to be doing that, are they?

@Spartacular we are all aware that this is a long war of attrition, not a quick win. Most of us have been at this for years. We know that even after this particular battle/case is over there will need to be others against councils and commissioning bodies to force them into funding truly single sex services, but we need this win 1st we need to prove in crt that not having them is sex discrimination. Then when we have that win we can demand that councils fund/commission single sex services aswell as the mixed sex 1s when they refuse or dont provide enough we then take each individual 1 to crt until they get the message or Westminster steps in and changes the equality act to say that single sex services must be provided instead of can be.
It's a long, hard, uphill battle, but we are prepared (have got a thermos of tea and biscuits packed 😋) and know what we're doing thanks

If services wish to discriminate on the basis of sex then they should be sued and should have public funding withdrawn.

If services wish to discriminate on the basis of sex then they should be sued and should have public funding withdrawn.

The EqA does let organisations discriminate on the basis of sex. Thats what single sex spaces are.

If a RC center has clear policy to have mixed sex sessions, would a women be discriminated against for not been able to attend a single sex session?

The problem would be commissioners not funding SS services, not providers.

It's not about what the services believe, it's what their service users believe. If the service users believe TWAM and don't feel confident they can access a women-only service then a substantial number will be excluded.

You make it sound as if some services want to discriminate against women who don't feel that TWAW by failing to provide them with any service they can use.

You make it sound as if some services want to discriminate against women who don't feel that TWAW by failing to provide them with any service they can use.

We know full well that is the case in many. They cannot acknowledge that it's reasonable for women to even know which sex their support staff will be, as in the ERCC tribunal, and Wadhwa's various comments. The rot goes much deeper.

"It's not about what the services believe, it's what their service users believe. If the service users believe TWAM and don't feel confident they can access a women-only service then a substantial number will be excluded."

I agree. But how exactly would it work in practice for a strongly TWAW service provider to provide women-only services? Will women be asked "Do you want the LGBTQ+ inclusive women's group or do you want the non-inclusive women's group?". In an organisation with a determined TWAW approach to service provision, who will work the 'non-inclusive' group? How will women choosing that group be treated/talked about?

This is why I think it's a commissioning problem. The single sex exceptions are an option not a duty. No organisation or service provider is obligated to use them. This is a problem.

"You make it sound as if some services want to discriminate against women who don't feel that TWAW by failing to provide them with any service they can use."

Clearly they do, as we've seen in Edinburgh.

Providers who, because they believe TWAW, refuse single sex services - as defined by the Equality Act - could be sued for unlawful sex discrimination and unlawful discrimination against a protected belief. I would think. IANAL.

I am also not a lawyer but I have read enough of the Equality Act to be aware that the single sex exceptions are not obligatory. Providers can choose to use them, they don't have to.

I agree. But how exactly would it work in practice for a strongly TWAW service provider to provide women-only services? Will women be asked "Do you want the LGBTQ+ inclusive women's group or do you want the non-inclusive women's group?". In an organisation with a determined TWAW approach to service provision, who will work the 'non-inclusive' group? How will women choosing that group be treated/talked about?

This is why I think it's a commissioning problem. The single sex exceptions are an option not a duty. No organisation or service provider is obligated to use them. This is a problem.

These are important points, and worthy of discussion.

Will women be asked "Do you want the LGBTQ+ inclusive women's group or do you want the non-inclusive women's group?"

No, that wouldn't work for lesbian or bi women who want only other female people.

Ask specifically whether they are happy to be in a group that includes transwomen.

And fgs explain that that means 'people born boys who now see themselves as female'.

I am also not a lawyer but I have read enough of the Equality Act to be aware that the single sex exceptions are not obligatory. Providers can choose to use them, they don't have to.

I think there is an argument, which so far hasn't been tested properly in court, that this refusal to provide a single sex rather than single gender service might constitute indirect sex discrimination by these organisations. I guess the hope is that Sarah's case supports that.

If a RC center has clear policy to have mixed sex sessions, would a women be discriminated against for not been able to attend a single sex session?

If that policy causes women to avoid the service and there's no alternative then (I think) that's indirect discrimination. On grounds of sex because RC services are mainly used by women.

The problem would be commissioners not funding SS services, not providers.

No doubt providers and commissioners will try to blame each other. An RC centre could try that argument but if they're the only game in town they'll find it hard to justify. Especially if they've been obfuscating whether they provide single-sex services in addition to mixed-sex services. Saying "we do provide women-only services because TWAW" doesn't look likely to stand up in court any more.

Though IANAL and we haven't had the outcome of the ERCC case yet.