How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

[IwantToRetire]

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

This isn’t the fault of the Tribunal. Judges can only apply the law. In all of the above cases, the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law. The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues. GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority”.

Second, the law permits GC activists to use intemperate (arguably degrading) language to attack trans people but appears to prohibit criticism in response.

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute.

NB - these are only extracts, not the full arguement from the author - who is a Barrister -Sam Fowles. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Also a Director of ICDR which says:

Provide legislators and officials at all levels of government and devolution with non-partisan, concise, accessible, and strategic advice on constitutional and democratic issues.
https://www.icdr.co.uk/about

I wonder if he understands what non partisan means?!

Good to know, thanks.

This person is a barrister? I have seen better posts from TRAs on this forum than in that article. He doesn’t seem very bright at all.

i have good news for the author of the article. He states:
These highlight a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

He will be relieved to hear that none of these things are true.

People with gender critical beliefs are not allowed “to publicly attack trans people”. They are allowed to express their belief that sex is immutable and important.

It is not the case that trans people are “without equivalent protection”. People with the belief that gender identities trump biological sex are also allowed to express that belief in exactly the same way. This has yet to be the basis of legal proceedings because nobody has alleged discrimination of that kind. If anyone loses their job for expressing the belief that trans women are women, they will have an excellent case.

That is an impressively dumb article for a barrister. Protecting people from being harassed at work isn't a 'legal loophole', it's part of the primary function of that legislation.

The only reason it 'appears trans people don't have the same protection' is because no one has been harassed for supporting self ID. Reading even a brief summary of the EA2010 make the author aware that Trans people have more explicit protection than GC feminist in the act.

I like the fact that the article is so well illustrated with sex based rights banners and posters!

Or are these meant to be an example of that really transphobic loophole?

The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues.

I hope the author can evidence that bold claim. 'Demonise transpeople' - do me a favour, they're teflon.

In all of the above cases, the employers made errors.

This sentence sums it up. Do better.

GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority

This translates as: Subjected to illegal campaigns of sustained harassment and bullying.

This guy and the truth are strangers, it would seem. I wonder if he got his law degree from one of those 6 week correspondence courses?

@drhf "People with gender critical beliefs are not allowed “to publicly attack trans people”. They are allowed to express their belief that sex is immutable and important."
Yeah but beliefs are transphobic and that's literal violence innit?

If this really is a barrister, you’ve got to wonder how they’re still getting work 🙄

The article recognises that employers have allowed people to bully and harass those with GC views, but there are no cases where individuals have been harassed for GI views.

Actually, this is a good summary of how GC people behave compared with TRA extremists - even in the relatively well-disciplined world of work (no barbed-wire baseball bats allowed!)

That was written by a barrister 😬

Jo Cherry's junior counsel at one point.

And recently on behalf of John Nicolson.

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/barrister/dr-sam-fowles/

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/parliaments-privileges-committee-acquits-john-nicolson-mp/

He seems to be some sort of regular TV pundit and commentator. How can he see women's rights, and freedom of speech in such a backwards way?

Many of the links are to debunked TRA propaganda as well. Pink News, "Owl"'s 2017 article in the Independent that Dr Nic Williams complained about and got them to post a retraction in part.

"the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law."

This confuses me. So if the law was different these cases would have gone the same way...? What point is he making?

DARVO?

Well, as we are all well aware of here, there do exist barristers who are happy to write a load of nonsense in the name of a cause.

To claim that the trans population is 0.5% he literally links to text in an article about how the accuracy of the census data is considered unreliable

The 2021 census reported there were 262,000 trans people, equivalent to 0.5% of the population. It was the first time the decennial survey had asked if people identified as a gender that was different from their registered birth sex.

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/08/census-records-trans-population-in-england-and-wales-but-accuracy-is-doubted

Bailey accused Stonewalll^ of hiring someone: “who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them.”

Yes, that literally was what it was about. As a lesbian, she's entitled to object to that.

Meade shared a postt^, commenting: “Boys that identify as girls go to Girl Guides. Girls that identify as boys go to Boy Scouts. Men that identify as paedophiles go to either.”

The sly way this is written suggests that these were Rachel Mead's words. They were not, it was a cartoon in Private Eye.

*Meade

Forstater criticised an Endometriosis charityy^ for appointing Steph Richards, a trans-woman, as its CEO.

This happened long after her employment tribunal was settled and damages were paid, so it is completely irrelevant to any "loophole" he thinks exists. Is he claiming that no one should ever be able to criticise this?

Holy misrepresentation, Batman.

Of course not. You can't criticise because trans women should be allowed to do what they want when they want it or else it's transphobic, literal violence, and then they get a little bit upset and accidentally display male traits... To Hell with anyone else's (women's)feelings on the matter: they don't matter. Apparently.

Oh and coercing women (anyone) into sex is rape. Consent should be freely given