GLP already screwing up not even clear if they are going do anything;
Richard Dunstan
Sending a letter before action is not "starting legal proceedings". The very point of a Pre-Action Protocol LBA is to "try to settle the dispute without [legal] proceedings".
The Good Law Project have previously had to apologise for making such misleading statements:
https://x.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1923399139758313775
Maya Forstater
The Good Law Project's 32 page letter before action to the EHRC
The whole thing is answered by Art 8(2) - govts (and regulated bodies etc…) infringe on people’s private life and autonomy all the time. They have to so by a means that is lawful & proportionate for a reason under 8(2) - this requires clear rules (and yes they apply to you).
A couple of years ago we held a legal seminar where I presented the Sex Matters argument that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. A senior lawyer presented the case that sex in the EqA means "legal sex" but that it creates problems, and there was discussion with the audience (I know, radical idea, right?)
A judge who was in the audience crossed his arms and leaned back and said to me, as if he had dropped the mic "you will have to deal with Article 8".
He was right. Trans rights are privacy rights. But people's privacy and autonomy is curtailed all of the time for lawful reasons, as provided for by the qualifications in Art8(2).
The FWS judgment does deal with Art 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). Article 8 doesn't require magic, and it can't do magic.
But the other thing that is often forgotten is that everyone has the same Art 8 rights.
And the primary purpose of article 8 is to protect against arbitrary interferences with private and family life, home, and correspondence by a public authority.
Clarity about the law is important to article 8, since without clarity the state may capriciously intervene in people’s private life.
The phrase “in accordance with the law” in Art 8(2) implies that the law must be sufficiently foreseeable that individuals have an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which the authorities are entitled to limit their freedoms (such as by putting up signs telling them not to go into places).
Legal ambiguity over whether sex and other associated words mean biological sex or sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate (or even self-declared “gender identity”) put the foreseeability of the law in question.
The same is true about lawful rules (including those that are communicated with simple symbols 🚹🚺🚻).
If you put up this sign 🚺 that means no men allowed in.
➡️ It is lawful to discriminate against men in this situation.
➡️ It is reasonable for women to expect that there will be no men trying to come in, and they can challenge or report any that try it on.
So if you are a man - this sign 🚺 (and the expectation that you comply with it just like everyone else) is not an unlawful infringement on your Article 8 rights.
In fact the clarity of the rule supports your Art 8 rights.