Fermanagh and Omagh District Council apologies for any hurt caused by saying it will follow Supreme Court

[IwantToRetire]

You couldn't make this up.

District Councils says it will follow guidance on toilets after the Supreme Court ruling.

It is told it has hurt feeling in saying this.

Then withdraws statement which merely stated it would follow legal guidance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq7qz85ldeo

FFS! They really do care only about men.

The optics.... dear men. It turns out women have legal protections in law. We're really sorry about that, we know it sucks.

The most depressing thing in all this is the eye opening depths of misogyny all this is soaked in.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s eye opening, enraging and bloody depressing all at the same time.

To be honest men are loud. And forceful. The point of good men/good people should be that they have principles they stand for which protect those who can't protect themselves.

But somehow that's been skewed to good men stand for democracy I.e. the majority I.e. the loud ones.

All women will feel the chill effect and know not to complain because they don't want that male mob on them. This council obviously is listening to "the people".

end result brains fall out of open minds and women have to go to court to avoid direct confrontation. Rinse repeat until the council finds a backbone and realises mantrums arent reflective of a democracy....

Northern Ireland's Equality Commission said it plans to publish formal guidance on the Supreme Court ruling next month.

Ms McCullagh said that the council would wait for this guidance.

"We are reviewing our policies in the context of the Supreme Court judgment, but crucially in the context of the Equality Commission, guidance, which we understand will be forthcoming in June, and nothing will be done in advance of that," she added.

In the interim they plan to continue breaking the law. Although, as it's devolved, perhaps they aren't.

Though as women keep patiently pointing out, if anything happens to a woman between then and now, she can sue and they are fucked.

'we were dithering and hoping for an interpretation of perfectly clear law that we liked better' won't save them or their insurers.

I honestly don't know what they're all on about. The judgment is incredibly clearly written and explained, it's a Peter and Jane explanation that's wholly accessible to laymen, and the EHRC cannot advise on anything except applying the law. They can't change the law or what the SC says it means. It will still be biological sex and single sex spaces.

Doesn't apply in NI though, so I can why they want clarification

You are correct the SC Ruling doesn’t apply in NI, disappointing anyway, listened to Julie Bindel last night saying how depressing it is after her 21years fighting this nonsense and HATE

I’m going to complain to the BBC about the accuracy of their article, specifically using gender when they meant sex in both the headline and the first paragraph (my emphasis):

Council chief apologises after gender ruling statement

The chief executive of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council has apologised for the "hurt" caused by a statement it issued following a ruling by the UK Supreme Court on the definition of gender.

It’s so much easier to garner sympathy when gender is used, as everyone accepts this is a subjective concept, so yes, of course it would have been unreasonable of the Supreme Court to rule that female gender identity is restricted to biological women (which is what the BBC article suggests).

But the SC ruled on the definition of sex for the purpose of the EA, and when you put it like that, it suddenly sounds a whole lot more reasonable, as most people understand that ‘sex’ is distinct from how ‘gender’ is widely used today.

Sorry - I got so caught up on my little soapbox that I forgot to make the point of my post:

If anyone else agrees with me, please do consider complaining to the BBC too.

These false narratives (especially in headlines and summaries) are often the first message someone outside of our little FWR bubble might encounter, so it’s really important they accurately reflect the facts of the SC ruling.

I had no idea that was the case (I'm in England), and I daresay I'm not the only one.

In the interim they plan to continue breaking the law. Although, as it's devolved, perhaps they aren't.

Well if that was the case why did they ever respond to the Court Ruling.

Because the Supreme Court is the highest court for all of the UK.

context of the Equality Commission guidance, which we understand will be forthcoming in June

As this has already been published and others are acting on it not sure why they thought June.

I have started a thread which nobody needs to comment on but to remind everybody that the Interime Guidelines have been publised and were effective from the date.

And a large part of it is about toilets!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5329755-ehrc-interim-guidelines-post-supreme-court-ruling-are-the-ones-employers-and-other-duty-bearers-should-follow

Supreme Court rulings on non-criminal law apply to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t apply to NI, which has its own set of equality legislation. I imagine there will be people looking to see if the wording in their own legislation is such that they may have misunderstood their own legislation and need to adjust their guidance.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court ruling that the word woman means biological sex only applies in relation to the Equality Act 2010, and in all other scenarios / laws the word woman doesn't necessarily mean that.

As the Supreme Court is the final Court of Appeal for all parts of the UK, doesn't a ruling in relation to an appeal from another part of the UK (Scotland) apply to all parts.

It seems that this District Council did as they dont refer to not being under the EA 2010 but only that they thought there weren't guidelines on it?

ie logically even if within NI there was a legal challenge on the use of the word woman and it was said that in NI it could include men with a GRC, and this was then appealed in the Supreme Court wouldn't the recent ruling apply

Or are you saying that a legal challenge in NI could lead to another Supreme Court hearing that could rule that the word woman didn't just mean biological.

Have just realised that I assumed the District Council was referring to the EHRC, but of course this too does not cover NI which has its own Equality Commission.

So presumably they would wait for them to clarify.

So whole thread is a non story?

Yes. The Supreme Court explicitly limited its ruling to the equality act 2010.

That doesn’t mean its reasoning cannot be looked at and may be applicable to other acts, but it cannot be assumed that “woman” and “man” do not apply to trans people of the opposite sex with a GRC in every instance that they are included in legislation. The GRA was clearly intended to give trans people with a GRC some standing in law. The SC ruling was straight forward and very clear, but its reasoning was comprehensive and nuanced, they didn’t just say “of course it’s sex, duh!”

The GRA was clearly intended to give trans people with a GRC some standing in law.

Yes but it was used in a discriminatory way within the EA.

So although it may have been intended to give those with a GRC some standing, not as the Supreme Court has made clear, at the expense of biological sex.

So the problem is the GRA and whether it was a mistake or impossible to implement in real life.

ie if in the EA sex means biology how could any other law not obey that ruling?

If anyone attempted to say it meant something different wouldn't it just end up in court as being discriminatory towards the protected characteristic of sex.

Hi, I understand your discomfort. Sadly, every Act of Parliament stands alone unless it specifically changes one or more other Acts. NI isn't subject to the EqA and has its broadly equivalent Act. Sooner or later the definition of sex in the NI act will be challenged. Every court, up to and including the Supreme Court, will defer to the recent Supreme Court ruling and then all will be well with the world.

So the problem is the GRA and whether it was a mistake or impossible to implement in real life.
ie if in the EA sex means biology how could any other law not obey that ruling?

The SC looked at what parliament intended by “woman” and “man” in the equality act and came to the conclusion, given all the things that were covered, that they must have meant bio sex. But it is possible for parliament to have written it differently, it wasn’t a given. So it is possible in other acts for parliament to mean certificated sex. As previous courts have in some instances. The courts will have to decide for each act.

As Janes says, they will heed the SC’s reasoning, and that might well lead to the same conclusion but if other acts would be consistent with certificated sex, they may decide that’s what was intended and we’d need to get parliament to act, not rely on the courts.

So it is possible in other acts for parliament to mean certificated sex

Yes I understand that, but as the Supreme Court ruling was based on the fact that giving the same status to those with a "legal sex" as those with actual biological sex was discriminatory against the protect characteristic of sex then logically it is in all circumstances discriminatory.

At the very least gender reassignment should not be a protected characteristic and removed from the EA, even it it itself is not annulled.

What is the point of an EA if it itself allows discrimination?

Well that's a turn out. Turns out the District Council was right!

Since the UK’s top court ruled that sex is defined by biology not gender identity under equality laws in Great Britain, a number of public bodies in NI have avoided taking action to protect single sex facilities – saying that they will wait for advice from the commission (ECNI).

Its position confirms that laws are already in place and employers can act now. It says that it is “for each organisation to consider its own policies” and has not said employers must wait for its advice.

“Organisations both can and should act to update their policies in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court which gives clarity on the defence of female only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms.

“One hopes that the political parties at Stormont and ideologically driven journalists who have peddled misinformation on this topic will take note - particularly ahead of a debate in the Assembly on Monday”.

Only some paragraphs from article at https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/supreme-court-sex-ruling-northern-ireland-not-in-state-of-limbo-as-equality-commission-says-its-advice-will-not-be-statutory-5122022

Turns out they did say this on their web site back in April!

https://www.equalityni.org/Footer-Links/News/Employers-Service-Providers/Statement-on-Supreme-Court-Ruling