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

It could also be thought to constitute indirect discrimination against women from particular ethnic groups.

IANAL either for the avoidance of doubt!

However they ask it, if they do end up forced to offer actual single sex provisions, it will be done under sufferance. I don't think that bodes well.

I agree with Eresh that testing whether it's lawful to offer 'single gender' provision would be extremely useful.

, if they do end up forced to offer actual single sex provisions, it will be done under sufferance. I don't think that bodes well.

Who's to say that the current implementation of "inclusive" policies is not equally "under sufferance"? If the ERCC case is anything to go by some service providers are trying to provide women-only services but are being prevented from doing so openly.

If the ERCC case is anything to go by some service providers are trying to provide women-only services but are being prevented from doing so openly.

Yes, there are definitely some women within these services who are trying to do this. Plus a few female centred organisations. What do you mean about ERCC? As far as I can see only one woman was advocating for women only services. It was an organisation wholly hostile to the very idea from top to bottom. Is she the "service provider" you are referring to? Because she didn't have any power there.

Spartacular

As I understand it, the basic premise of the EA is that everyone has the right to access any space/service/job opportunity etc by a provider which falls within the scope of the Act. You may not exclude anyone with a protected characteristic EXCEPT in certain circumstances. The exceptions/exemptions are what make it lawful to exclude men (for example) from a women-only group. The example of a rape crisis centre as somewhere where even males with a GRC can be excluded reassures providers.

But if, by choosing not to provide a genuinely women-only group, you cause a section of women to self-exclude, or if by insisting TWAW must be subscribed to by service users, you exclude women and men who don't subscribe to TWAW, you arguably are discriminating unlawfully against those groups who have the protected characteristic of sex and/or the protected characteristic of belief. I think in the first place it would be indirect sex discrimination because most people disadvantaged would be women who are mostly the victims and nearly always want to see a woman support worker. In the second case I think it would be direct discrimination on grounds of belief.

Is your understanding different?

@Spartacular I agree if Iamsarah wins organisations who believe TWAW may still be able to choose not to provide single sex services.

Remember Julie Bindel won against Nottingham City Council for discrimination by stopping her talk in a library to proceed. Other venues have similarly faced a legal challenge of discrimination.

In the same way Iamsarah would pave the way for organisation to provide single sex services and seek funding on that basis. Potentially local authorities and other funding organisations maybe required not to discriminate when allocating funding.

Look how Maya’s judgement has been built on. Each case is a brick in the wall protecting women’s hard won rights, freedom of speech and upholding the EA2010.

I agree with a pp rather than @ProseccoStormtrooper posting a tweet/x on this thread it would have been more supportive of the other victim to start a thread supporting them.

I agree with a pp irrespective of the subject matter going to an ET or court is very stressful for all parties. I have seen the impact on both claimants and respondents and it is brutal, time consuming and ££. Very rarely is there a real winner. Jo Phoenix won most of her claims but at what cost to her.

"Is your understanding different?"

Honestly, I have no idea, which is why I'm discussing here as some of the points raised by PPs have been thought-provoking. I'm trying to work out how in practice it could work to force a charity with a strong TWAW stance to use the SSE option.

Yes, in practice there might be problems but the first thing is to establish the principle.

Some organisations may be so far gone they can't change direction but most are capable of change. They set new policies, recruit new managers and new trustees. After all, ERCC itself used to be a women-only service.

No-one is telling them they can't offer some trans inclusive services. But there are different ways to structure RC services and some ways are more women-friendly than others. A more nuanced approach than "TWAW so tough tits" might work out best for all their service users.

Assuming Sarah wins (🤞) and providers comply (however grudgingly!), it would also be interesting to find out if the relative provision will be a factor in any further consideration by a court of a claim for unlawful discrimination. Sarah is only asking for 1 women's group a week from her RCC, but if in time that group became heavily oversubscribed and waiting lists were significantly longer for it than for other groups, would that be unfair discrimination as well? Ie the single-sex service provision for the majority of women who wanted/needed it was inferior in practice to the provision for the minority of other users who didn't want single-sex or didn't mind mixed-sex groups? Could the fightback develop like that?

"tough tits" 😀
Haven't heard that for years!

Yes I realised that I oversimplified discrimination based on sex. Yes they can discriminate based on sex but only where it is necessary in order to provide a service to that sex. You cannot say ‘we need to provide a single sex service in order to meet the needs of this population’ then only provide mixed sex services. Either mixed sex is fine or it is not because it prevents women accessing the service. If you have identified that single sex service is required in order for women to access the service then only provide mixed sex services you are unlawfully discriminating against women.

I'm sure the group who would rather see a woman go unsupported than permit her to escape submission to their politics would very grudgingly and unwillingly provide female only services. Whether they would be sufficiently petty and unprofessional enough to take it out on the women service users I suppose we will have to see.

But it's simple enough. They are awarded funding through bids. The bids will have to be changed in the long term to require any bids to state that they provide LGBT+ accessible facilities AND female accessible facilities which must include single sex. The exact way all the refuges etc were forced to go mixed sex or not get funding.

And there's nothing to stop separate groups arising, one which provides mixed sex resources and one that provides female only, both specialising as Beira's Place does. It will divide the funding, but should groups begin to demonstrate that they are neither willing nor able to be inclusive and accessible to all women then it will have to happen.

Yes that's how it will work and there's the added bonus of being able to point councils/commissioning bodies to the fact that if they don't fund single sex services they are discriminating against women and we can sue them too

In fact I increasingly think it would be far better to return to two separate types of provision, one being mixed sex and one being female only. They are two totally different focuses, two totally different sets of priorities, and females are very low interest and low priority to mixed sex focused groups as has been evidenced far and wide for several years now.

'Inclusive' has been tried, and isn't inclusive at all, men just bumped women out altogether. Women deserve services as equally dedicated and passionate about them and their needs as the mixed sex services are about those with a gender identity.

I agree. And our goal (not saying there aren't other goals) ultimately needs to be to make commissioners have to provide female only support to women who want it, as well as mixed sex.

‘Inclusive’ is a misnomer.

Certainly if a provider has no intention of providing accessible services to all female people due to politics that regard these females as unentitled to female only services, then their bid should state this clearly. The councils then need to ensure that services in the area meet ALL needs of their population and not just some of them.

Yes, makes sense. It would be reassuring for some women to know that they will not even bump into a man in the waiting area/coffee hub, etc. The provision of mixed-sex and male-only services could still be quite tailored - eg a group for women with a trans identity who can't bear to go to the women-only centre, a group for males with a trans identity, a group for gay men, a trans-only group, a general group, etc, etc.
Splitting the service as you suggest would also reveal that the need is overwhelmingly for provision for women, and funding should follow that.

It might not be possible to have different providers or different buildings, but it would be nice!

I'm not on twitter.

Randomly inferring in an indirect way that somehow Sarah is at fault and plonking it into the middle of a thread on FWR is appallingly unempathetic.

As I said if the issue is that important start your own thread instead of invading a thread about a particular court case.

Because if whatever is being talked about on twitter is that important a thread would have been started on FWR about how apparently someone couldn't get support.

Dumping it on Sarah is like questioning a women who had got a rape conviction and demanding they explain why the jury in another rape trial had't.

I've checked the newly added index to FWR and cant see a threat that might refer to whatever this is all about.

It has nothing to do with "world war three" it is about showing respect - and instead of in an underhand way try and derail a thread, have the integrity to start your own.

Certainly if a provider has no intention of providing accessible services to all female people due to politics that regard these females as unentitled to female only services, then their bid should state this clearly. The councils then need to ensure that services in the area meet ALL needs of their population and not just some of them.

Yes, this.

There seem to be some arguements put forward here that aren't based on anthing than some individuals misperseptions.

Who thinks that the outcome of this case is in any way anything other than about Sarah and SN? This just seems to be more tittle tattle on twitter or somewhere. The case is about one rape survivor and not being able to find same sex support in the area she is a rate payer.

Secondly there is no national mandate that any area of the UK has to provide certain types of rape services.

If a group of volunteers want to run a rape support service and not ask for any money to do this they can choose what service they want to offer and how.

The situation now is totally different and far more than anything to do with TW or SSE and funders, mainly local authorities looking for budget cuts.

Whether you or I like it or not, not only Brighton Council, but a number of charitable trust are happy to accept a bid from a service does quite clearly states that it does not provide single sex services.

Ask yourself why not only a local council, but charitable trusts things that is okay. Because over and above the TRA agenda, the MRAs have been cutting women's services for year. Are none of you aware of how many women's refuges have been closed because councils think women escaping DV can by housed in a multipurpose hostel or homeless project.

Added to which those providing services are also not that interested or concerened. It isn't just because of trans rights, but since the backlash against Women's Liberation, providers across all sectors have been whittling away at women's only services, in hospitals, mental health provisions, changing rooms whatever.

As I understand it from earlier posts the claim of indirect discrimination is seen as the only plausible legal arguement to make based on the fact that there is no legal obligation on funders to ensure that there are any single sex provision.

Instead of harrassing an individual, it would be far better for all women to be challening funders, whethre local or national governments and charitiable trusts.

Has anyone every done a survey of funders and asked if they have every done an assessment of what % of their money they give to women only provision.

I doubt any have or would think they would need to.

Not because of TRAs but because MRAs as part of the backlash against Women's Liberation mocked and undercut women only provision and aspiration. Which then became further entrenched thanks to 3rd Wave Feminism.

The least any of us can do is engage with local governments (and MPs?) and ask what they are doing to ensure that a % of services are provided as women only.

If we as ordinary members of the public dont make those who take financial decisions that we expect them to meet this need they wont bother.

Dont forget they have had 30 or maybe 40 years of nobody lobbying them to make sure there is adequate funding for women only services.

And with the level of budget cuts that are happening now, it is going to be an even harding to get women's issues anywhere near the top of the funding agenda.

Secondly there is no national mandate that any area of the UK has to provide certain types of rape services.

The point is, if you've ever written a bid for a local authority, that tax payer funded services for an area require inclusivity. This is an attempt to take the contract, claim inclusivity, and then exclude a good number of the majority and core clientele on political grounds.

This case is the beginning of shaming this political dirty secret into the open and ensuring that bids have to cover providing female only services, because otherwise they are not accessible or inclusive to the populace needing them, and hopefully this case will prove that there are legal consequences for that. A random private organisation (like Beiras Place) can of course do what they choose because they are not taking LA funding to provide their services. LA commissioned services cannot.

"This is the beginning of shaming this political dirty secret into the open and ensuring that bids have to cover providing female only services, because otherwise they are not accessible or inclusive, and hopefully this case will prove that there are legal consequences for that."

And this is why I'm interested to understand why this particular route was taken and not, for example, a judicial review of commissioning bodies.