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?!

Hopefully one of the many sex realist barristers who have actually worked on those tribunal cases can write a response and the New European will publish it.

Like I said Eresh, if a poster tried linking that nonsense here to make any sort of point they’d get a very quick “Nope. Try again.” Either the editor of this publication (that I’ve never heard of) just trusted him because he’s a barrister or was complicit in the misinformation.

There’s so much misinformation it’s hard to make a complaint!

It's one of the worst, most bad faith articles I've ever read outside of Pink News or the US section of the Guardian.

Holy misrepresentation, Batman.

And he repeats this claim in this GB news video, saying that Keir Starmer should have said that 99.5% of women don't have a penis, which would be accurate, according to him. When actually the number of "trans women" is only 48k in the census.

He also makes a ridiculous comment "if you're gender critical don't have a sex change. But leave trans people alone." He appears to think that's some kind of mic drop argument.

https://x.com/samfowles/status/1755900696879137056?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Actually I think he's not wrong, and it's a shift from the TRA argument and insistence that the EA protects them and means you have to use their pronouns and play along.

Here he's finally admitting, as a result of the tribunals, that the EA protects GC beliefs, which it does.

He's just obviously very upset about that.

It seems to me more an admission they can't get what they want in terms of controlling language and compelling people to say things they don't believe under the current law.

Which is good news.

Unfortunately the EA does also protect men who have a fetish who want to dress up as women at work and their right to do so.

We just don't have to pretend they're women.

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's right, I've never seen anyone criticise GC activists without legal repercussions.

.... I mean, really? No-one is actually expected to believe this, right?

He seems to be an expert in planning and licensing law. Probably a good thing since I assume he can argue those cases on the evidence without frothing at the mouth.

I was going to look at his legal area. He doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of the Equality Act.

I wouldn't personally describe the protected characteristic of religion and belief in the Equality Act 2010 as a "loophole". It's not like someone put it in by mistake.

It's not a loophole and it doesn't allow abuse, but they are realising it does allow GC views.

Until these tribunals they denied this. They claimed it protected Trans people and prevented anyone expressing a view they didn't like.

This 'loophole' argument is an admission; the EA protects GC views.

It's in The New European.

The publication is tribal "progressive" left wing, lacking in critical thought, absolutely no wrongthink allowed.

It’s not a loophole it’s a feature.
trans women are men. This is a protected belief.
humans can’t change sex. This is also a protected belief.

It's a concerning indication of the way some in the legal system would wish to behave. It's the more disturbing to consider what would happen if they were in a position with political influence to set laws and policies.

We have a preview of how they'd frame those changes as bringing about a society that matches the aspirations of The Right Side of History.

Because he’s a posh white bloke?

Love watching these men spitting feathers that they can no longer bully the public out of knowing what everyone in the world knows - that there are 2 sexes and only women give birth. They had a good scam going for a number of years that's finally being shut down and aren't they cross? 😂

Ignoring his shoddy maths

he repeats this claim in this GB news video, saying that Keir Starmer should have said that 99.5% of women don't have a penis, which would be accurate, according to him.

seems to be acknowledging that virtually all transwomen do still have a penis.

It's not a loophole. You're supposed to understand the difference between anti-trans and gender critical and if you don't then that's on you.

God I can't take much more of this. Ffs

We these laws written way before, then how can politicians be at fault ? Plus who wrote the laws too

It was a loophole that the act was written explicitly defining sex and gender reassignment as separate with explicit exemptions on the basis of sex? Right o mate.

Also, you can read Hansard. It's not a loophole. It was deliberate.

You utter dick.

Though having said that, if I wasn't sure about the difference I wouldn't rely on Stonewall to explain it to me.

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.”^

I thought that was because Stonewall did hire such a person, or at least someone who claimed to have run those "cotton ceiling" workshops, though I'm not aware if they ever ran any while employed at Stonewall.

He has a face you'd never tire of slapping.

ein Backpfeifengesicht

That's easy for you to say.