Bad Law project to sue Gov over sex education

[Imnobody4]

UK Govt to be sued over trans ideology being taught in primary schools by the Bad Law project.

Dr Anna Loutfi is very impressive.

https://twitter.com/BadLawTeam/status/1684898430391349248?t=AVFKEuSMtqgN7ZR0omIi2g&s=19

She's also been on GB News.

twitter.com/bjportraits/status/1688589222570070016?t=AVFKEuSMtqgN7ZR0omIi2g&s=19

And before anyone says anything this is linked to the Reclaim Party, so please don'tbother to try and derail.

The CaseTen parents are suing the Department for Education (DfE) in negligence. The DfE has failed to act to prevent serious harm to children in violation of its own statutory guidance and the law, which prioritises child safeguarding and prohibits political indoctrination.Litigants seek compensation for the foreseeable harms caused by gender ideology and hope that the case will help amplify the concerns of teachers, parents and young people who have experienced the harm of gender ideology firsthand, and put an end to the shameless political activism in schools preying on the most vulnerable of our young people - many of them with learning disabilities or autism, as well as other underlying co-morbidities.The case would also seek to have gender ideology properly defined in law so that it can be exposed for the political extremism that it is, with preventative measures mitigating against future harms to children.The case remains open for parents, teachers and de-transitioners to join as litigants.

The case would also seek to have gender ideology properly defined in law so that it can be exposed for the political extremism that it is

That’ll be tricky. I’ve never seen a definition of gender identity that doesn’t rely on circular definitions or that makes any sense. I wonder what they are suggesting?

The view that biological sex is not important, that everyone has a gender identity which may not align with biological sex, that self-identified gender should be used in place of sex in any and all contexts, including to determine access to ostensibly single-sex services, activities and spaces, and that biological sex should not be referred to, including in biological and health contexts where it is relevant.

This looks really interesting. The DfE & government have openly funded Stonewall, Mermaids and countless other adult trans groups to produce SRE / PSHE materials for schools. Remember the tampon tax funding for the repellent Proud Trust dice game? They've used statutory guidance for the Equality Act to "advertise" Stonewall, Mermaids and other groups with actual links going directly to them.
Jonathon Slater (ex senior civil servant at the DfE) boasted of involving political activists groups like Stonewall in the DfE.
All of this despite the legal requirement for schools to be politically neutral. At face value it seems to be exceptionally easy to prove that the DfE & government have promoted all this directly to schools (with the incontinent shouting from the trans lobbyists working at the DfE providing more evidence of how little child safeguarding matters there).

I don’t see how a claim
in negligence can succeed. Not a fan of attempts to use litigation to try and settle what are in essence political debates, either when jolyon does it or people I agree with do.

I think there is a big hole in her argument that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EA 2010 can only apply to people aged 18 and over because of the wording of the GRA 2004.

The wording of the gender reassignment PC was lifted from previous sex discrimination law that was extant before the GRA even existed therefore it can't be right to assume the GRA dictates the age that is relevant to the gender reassignment PC.

It may take something like this to get no 10 able to overcome the inner resistance to any actual protections for children.

It's not a "political debate" that children should be safeguarded - including from age inappropriate sexual matters, porn and dangerous beliefs (that changing sex is great with drugs & surgery the perfect solution.
The DfE have failed to use due diligence with the result that countless organisations and individuals who should be nowhere near schools or children have been welcomed because the DfE funded or advocated for them. Schools by law are meant to be politically neutral yet the DfE promoted groups to schools who:

Politically agitate for the removal of girl's rights to single sex showering, changing, sports & dormitories
Advocate for queer theory
Promote deeply age inappropriate extreme porn to children
Lie to children that puberty blockers are harmless & reversible
Promote an anti science / anti fact ideology & tell children they could be born in the wrong body.

Countless examples to evidence all of the above.

I think you're right. I read a recent piece by Maya Forstater that says: "Children may have the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act, but this does not mean that children who adopt a transgender identity must be treated differently from other children."

https://sex-matters.org/posts/schools-and-safeguarding/why-is-the-government-getting-in-such-a-mess-over-the-schools-guidance/

It's a difficult argument, because the wording in the Equality Act is so vague. It talks about "proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex." Arguably a child could be proposing to undergo a process to reassign their sex, though the meaning of "reassign their sex" is also open to debate.

It'll be useful to get this teased out in the courts. And for the public generally to be aware of how easily a group of predominantly men have been allowed to undermine the fundamental principle of society's need to safeguard children from harm. Presumably they'll be arguing that the need to safeguard children doesn't apply to this group of children who are currently banned from getting a tattoo, driving, having sex etc? This group of children of any age miraculously have the capability to consent to future infertility, loss of sexual function etc for ...reasons... Reasons that are not evident to the rest of society but when a sacred caste demands etc...

There's no argument that the law is a mess - both the GRA and the EA, but I think we should be very wary about taking cases that are not fully thought through - not only does it induce crowd funding fatigue and waste money that could be better directed, but it undermines the direction of travel.

Use the term “policy debate” if you prefer. The courts are not the place to get these issues settled. The courts are there to decide on the rights and obligations of individuals, companies etc in a particular set of circumstances.

Very very hard agree with this.

I do take the point about unthought through cases. I'm just terminally frustrated that this useless government have openly funded political indoctrination & the downright dangerous erosion of safeguarding because the DfE were captured by extreme transactivists who have been given free rein to run riot in schools.

Hopefully good legal minds are thinking this one through in more detail.

Seems the lawyers are divided about whether or not this claim is a good idea.

https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1689215276787605504

I’ve no idea if this will be successful either in the court case or raising awareness but I do find what goes on in schools worrying regarding these issues. They don’t let parents have access to what they’ll teach and the providers of materials are third parties who don’t seem to have any oversight.

The case should be brought on the basis of the repeated breaking of safeguarding law and guidance. Which takes precedence over the equality act in schools.

Children's Act, Education Act and KCSIE. All of which have been repeatedly broken. Not to mention the law that there are single sex toilets in schools over the age of 8.

Why is everyone so obsessed with and intent on misinterpreting the equality act which does NOT apply to personal childhood interactions?

Arguably the Ea could perhaps apply to how teachers treat children in schools and on that basis treating trans kids differently to the other children probably is discriminatory to he other children in and to the trans children if they're removing safeguards e.g. keeping secrets from parents.

It's an obsession, the TRAs have successfully undermined safeguarding and even GC feminists like Maya have fallen into their trap - what about safeguarding law?

Thank you - that's interesting. I do wonder whether there's some mileage for parents in challenging schools breaching their legal duty to be impartial? Organisations that openly campaign to remove the rights of girls to single sex spaces, sports etc are by definition political activist organisations. They're not impartial and should only be given access as part of a balanced political offer - just as schools do when inviting in politicians to speak to children - they're part of a "balanced" offer.
Allowing these untrained in anything except queer theory & sexual politics to sell their personal views, to influence the organisation and curriculum of a school, let alone to offer "Stonewall clubs" must surely breach those legal requirements?

How any school serious about safeguarding runs LGBT etc clubs defies belief?
They're a massive risk to child participants along with staff & older pupils for allegations of grooming.

The inability to challenge this is a major issue.

The EA absolutely does apply to how children are treated by teachers. See Part 6, Chapter 1 and schedules 11, 13 and 17 - i.e. sizeable chunks of the EA deal with children in education, including how they are treated by teachers.

There is no hierarchy of laws. All primary legislation has equal status.

If a pupil (via their parents) brought a discrimination case against a school for something they did for safeguarding reasons, but which the EA nevertheless said was unlawful, then the school would lose. The judge would not decide that safeguarding laws took precedence although they would hopefully highlight the incompatibility of the two laws and the government would then hopefully amend the law to remove the conflict.

Re: keeping secrets from parents - there is nothing in the EA that would make that a requirement for certain groups of pupils. If a school had a sensible blanket policy of never keeping secrets except when required by safeguarding law then a pupil with the PC of gender reassignment could try to argue that this was indirect discrimination - the same rule applied to everyone has a disproportionate adverse effect on them.

However, indirect discrimination is lawful if it is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. The legitimate aim here is safeguarding. Telling parents all important information about their children is a proportionate means of achieving this aim and is therefore lawful.

The EA does not apply directly to interactions between school pupils, however schools are bound by the public sector equality duty which means they must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between those who have a PC and those who don't. So if they allowed discriminatory behaviour to go unchecked between pupils they would be failing their PSED.

There's a really simple fix to all this - just amend S.84 so that along with age, and marriage & civil partnership, gender reassignment is not a relevant protected characteristic for school pupils.

We don't protect 'child marriage', we should not be protecting 'child transition' either. We should just be protecting children.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/84

Scottish Union for Education hosting a zoom with Anna Loutfi TONIGHT. Might be of interest? https://www.facebook.com/groups/199024469048342/permalink/656687513282033/?mibextid=oMANbw

Whether or not this particular case can win in court (and I think the negligence argument actually has a lot of merit), there is huge benefit in reminding the DofE, the Minister in charge of it, and indeed the schools that they can all be sued.

They’re supposed to be teaching and protecting children, not brainwashing them and lying to them about science. Reminding them that they are not above the law may help rein in some of the madder extremism being promoted in schools.

Unfortunately the harms of gender ideology in safeguarding terms will no doubt never be fully quantified.

Teaching children to deny their senses and that it's 'unkind' to correctly sex someone or have a perfectly natural 'uncanny valley' reaction when someone is trying to appear as something they're not is a massive safeguarding fail.

We know about Andrew / Amy Miller, now convicted child rapist, and the fact the judge believed his dressing as a woman was a factor in why the child got into the car with him, but we don't know how many young girls are subverting their instincts because they've been told they're bigots if they don't and it's the 'right thing to do' to prioritise adult feelings over their own.

Well I'm teaching my daughters that screw be kind and if the tiniest thing feels off get the hell out of there. You don't have to answer anyone who talks to you, you don't have to interact with anyone who scares you just get away. You owe them nothing. Horrifying that some schools aren't supporting children to be able to tell their truth. Safeguarding red flag.