WESC 'scrutiny session' of EHRC today at 1.45pm

[ArabeIIaScott]

You can watch here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/17987/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session

'As part of its regular scrutiny of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Chairwoman Baroness Falkner and Chief Executive Marcial Boo will face questioning from the Women and Equalities Committee in an upcoming session

The EHRC is likely to answer questions on:

• the definition of sex in the Equality Act
• the internal investigation into Baroness Falkner in response to allegations of discriminatory behaviour
• staff retention

Following a request for advice from the Government earlier this year on clarifying the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act, the EHRC took the view it would bring “greater legal clarity”, but potential “ambiguity” in other areas. The cross-party Committee of MPs will examine the EHRC’s advice to the Government.'

They don't. Non executive boards are by design remote from the executive functioning in order to independently monitor the executive.

If a non executive was influenceable about an employee about their pay they would be a risk for example.

Marcial explained that the non execs had gone to an all staff meeting for visibility which is enough really.

Nokes is representing complainers who want non believers removed.

She's ludicrous.

Isn't it time she moved on, don't they have fixed periods as chairs?

Although it's entertainment watching her, and the three of them easily outclassed her in terms of competence.

I laughed when she said have you just written this as a sop to the committee.

Well as it was what the committee asked for then yes! You want a sop, you will get a sop.

She should head back to her stables.

If a non executive was influenceable BY an employee about their pay they would be a risk for example.

I can't think in all of my many, many jobs over the years of a single time when staff have been asked whether they were happy a board were performing satisfactorily. What an upside down view.

Here's Helen Belchers recollection of a conversation with them about biological sex.

Belcher presents the idea of psychological makeup. Or hormonal makeup.

They present this all with sneering condescension which is astonishing from people suggesting biological sex is psychological makeup or hormonal makeup.

Nokes and Elliot obviously believe in this too.

87:51 HB: OK. So would you accept then that there are other aspects of sex which are biological such as hormonal makeup, ah, for example, or psychological makeup which might, which also come under the term biological, which should also be part of the sex definition?

jane-67706.medium.com/gender-the-ehrc-explain-a17cd4332b5

Yes I can see for myself and I have. If they are defining it according to common usage (i.e we all know what it is) that's still a definition isn't it?

The EHRC is likely to answer questions on:

• the definition of sex in the Equality Act
• the internal investigation into Baroness Falkner in response to allegations of discriminatory behaviour
• staff retention

Is that from the Committee’s information page? It’s absolutely ludicrous. What that tells us is that whoever is in charge of the Committee’s information page has no interest in or respect for accuracy. It is not “likely” that the EHRC will answer questions on an ongoing internal investigation. On the contrary, it’s almost guaranteed that they won’t answer questions on that.

An accurate information page would have said “it is likely the EHRC will be asked questions about…”.

So would you accept then that there are other aspects of sex which are biological such as hormonal makeup, ah, for example, or psychological makeup which might, which also come under the term biological, which should also be part of the sex definition?

Because biology is the big obstacle, gender identity somehow has to magically also be an element of biological sex. The cognitive distortions required to argue this must result in major headaches for Nokes and co.

Psychological makeup?

If Belcher is typical, I’d say that there is crystal clear evidence that dressing up as a woman makes not one iota of difference to the psychological makeup of an arrogant, manipulative, condescending man.

But of course men are superior, so if they say they are women, then women should shut up and get on with it.

Thanks for this thread.

But it makes me feel I dont need to take time to listen to the recording.

Is there anyone take away from this event?

And stand out moments?

I can't get over how incredibly rude and hostile Caroline Nokes was.

I loved what Baroness Falkner said at the end about activist staff who want to bring their whole self to work and how they might be better suited to working in politics or for campaigning orgs.

I noticed at the end when Nokes asked another one of her attempted blaming questions about the current state of public discourse, Kishwer commented on the extreme levels of racism that she was greeted with in the 1970s when she arrived in the country and how things had improved since then (I paraphrase). Of course, tunnel vision trans activist Nokes did not have that in mind as the response. 🙄

I've just listened to the last 10 minutes as I missed it earlier.

Nokes again has a go about staff leaving over values. Boo repeats the data saying sorry you didn't like it first time.

She is DESPERATE.

@IwantToRetire I think it is worth listening to, simply to appreciate the level of scrutiny that EHRC is subject to. Then to appreciate the professionalism and grace of Baronness Faulkner and her team. I think they are really outstanding. It is easy, isn't it, to take for granted the committment of people like her to public life? But I really don't know where we would be without them. She and her two colleagues were outstanding. And Caroline Noakes was rude and arrogant and discourteous by comparison. She obviously has a high opnion of her own intellect and it appears misplaced.

The Guardian, Amelia Gentleman (she gets all these gigs)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/12/clarify-equality-act-to-better-distinguish-sex-and-gender-ehrc-chair-tells-mps

Also interesting to hear Nokes and others attempt to set up various narratives only to have them soundly batted away.

For one example: 'Asked about high level of staff departures, Marcial Boo, the chief executive, said many of those who left were pursuing opportunities for promotions elsewhere.'

Asked with a very pointed tone from Nokes what the reason was for high turnover he said very clearly that nearly half quoted 'pay and conditions', and Boo further made the point that EHRC hadn't been given money it was promised - I took that as effectively saying 'we're not paid enough to take this shit from you'.

This concerns me, though:

'It would be the government’s responsibility to come up with a clear definition of biological sex, ahead of any formal clarification of the UK’s equalities legislation, Falkner said.
“We didn’t define biological sex – we think it’s for government, with all legislation, to define what its terms are,” she told MPs. “So we leave it to the government, but I think most people would recognise that biological sex is a categorisation which accords with reproductive functions.
“So a woman is a person whose body is designed to produce eggs and a man is a person whose body is designed to produce sperm. We’re not scientists, this is not the definitive word on it, it’s for the government to decide on how they wish to define it.”'

Who would make this decision? Is it up to Nokes?

She specifically said scientists.

Not civil servants or politicians.

I can't remember her saying 'scientists' except when she said 'we're not scientists'.

She's right though, It's for the government to define terms and decide on the exact wording of laws and amendments, preferably in consultation with the public and allowing plenty of time for debate and scrutiny.

I know there has been a lot of concern and argument among feminists and women's rights campaigners about exactly how to tackle this and whether campaigning for sex to mean biological sex is shooting ourselves in the foot. TBH I can't quite get my head around all the arguments (beyond #RepealTheGRA which absolutely needs to happen, regardless of amendments to the EA) but I'm not worried, this is still in the very early stages.

There is a very, very long history of common law understanding of sex. Until relatively recently the law treated men and women differently in all sorts of areas, mostly to women's detriment.

Nobody was confused about the meaning of sex, male, female, man or woman when we were denied the right to own and manage our own property, or keep our children in the event of divorce, or when the grounds for divorce were different for men and women, or when we could not vote or stand for parliament because of our sex, or when we could legally be paid less because we were female or when we had different pension rights, or when women couldn't have bank accounts without a man's approval ...

On a more positive note, nobody was confused 200 years ago when Elizabeth Fry's campaigning resulted in the Gaols Act which for the first time separated and safeguarded female prisoners from males. She knew exactly how the prisons should be segregated and so did the government when they passed that law.

If clarification of the EA goes ahead, and I hope it does because I think repealing the GRA is years away and women are suffering now, then I expect the government will consult scientists but ultimately I expect them to defer to the precedent of hundreds of years' worth of common law. Nobody has ever really been confused about the meaning of sex, male, female, man or woman.

We already have birth certificates which are legal documents that record our sex, in accordance with the common law understanding AND in accordance with our biological sex. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Everyone knows what a woman is.

It's for the government to define terms and decide on the exact wording of laws and amendments, preferably in consultation with the public and allowing plenty of time for debate and scrutiny.

Although this is the usual route for a law coming into effect the actual confirmation of a new law or ammendment to an existing law is the House of Commons. In fact didn't the EA go through a process of amendments. If you look it up you can see the history of changes. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2279/contents/made

Presumably in the lottery that allows a Private Members Bill that could be the starting point for amending an existing law.

So as I understand it, if there are any changes they will be discussed by MPs (and then the Lords then agree or change). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/understanding-legislation

So it will be all the usual hurdles, will Parliamentary time be found to do this, and even if the Government comes up with wording, the majority of MPs will have to agree. I am sure normally amendments are nodded throught but something like this will be scruntinised by those with opinions either way. Is it something that will be a whip vote?

The debate in response to the 2 petitions could have been the start of the process but as we know the Tories just mouthed some platitudes about having to think about it in more depth.

I think it is worth listening to, simply to appreciate the level of scrutiny that EHRC is subject to.

Thanks - will put it on my must fit into the weekend to do list!

Yes, my understanding is that amendments can be basically waved through using a statutory instrument but in this case nobody wants that - everyone wants proper scrutiny so it's not fucked up.

Petition debates never go anywhere. They just have the debate and then vote on whether they have had the debate and everyone votes 'Aye'. It's a really good way of testing the waters though and that debate was by far the most balanced so far. The overton window has shifted massively over the past few years.

https://whatthetrans.com/ep88/

Just listening to this with Nokes pontificating about toilets.

Starts about 32 mins. She talks about her "grave misgivings" about Kishwar Falkner.
She's had anonymous complaints from staff.

Her comments on adding biological sex.
Hugely complicated.
Fails to understand why it's a priority for anyone unless looking for a wedge issue.
She doesn't understand why anyone would think it's a good issue in an election campaign.
Should leave it alone.
This is classic othering.
Bully tactic.
Make it all but impossible to access services.
Trans men are they coming in the ladies loo? Nobody ever talks about this.
She feels very anxious and uncomfortable about it.
This is an amendment that isn't going to work.
Will cause problems we haven't thought of.
The problems are huge.
Andy from Chrysalis (trans group in Southampton) came to educate her 3.5 years ago.

This podcast was just before the meeting this week.

She comes across in here as if she's single handedly going to fix the EHRC and yet she was a complete flop and made herself look silly.

I think that podcast is the basis for this article, after which I really question how Nokes can continue to be Chair.

Clear bias - and interference with an internatl reveiw.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4847075-sunak-and-bravermans-trans-jokes-unacceptable-and-dangerous-says-parliament-equalities-chief-caroline-nokes?page=1

So it is. The independent have published it almost verbatim.

The independent have published it almost verbatim.

That's interesting, as I had wondered if there was more.

Was going to say strange that the paper would have published in full, but then realised of course they are extremely biased in their coverage on trans rights.