Liberty launches legal action against EHRC over ‘unlawful’ Code of practice consultation

[IwantToRetire]

Human rights organisation Liberty has issued legal action against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), arguing that the Commission has breached its statutory duties by “trying to speed through sweeping changes” to its Code of practice and not giving individuals and businesses a lawful amount of time to respond to a consultation.

Liberty has said that any consultation period on the updated Code of practice should be a minimum of 12 weeks, as the previous consultation of this Code was, and has been established in law. The EHRC had initially given people just two weeks to respond to the consultation, before later extending this to six weeks. Liberty has said this is “wholly insufficient and simply does not comply with the law”.

Liberty believes that the consultation has “life-changing implications” for how trans people, as well as anyone who is perceived as not conforming to gender norms, access public services, education and social activities. It also has a wider impact on businesses and employers.

Liberty said that due to the significant impact the guidance will have on trans individuals and organisations who require more support to respond, the current consultation period is ‘so unfair as to be unlawful’.

Many of the amendments in the Code require individuals and organisations to seek external legal support, such as on changes to an organisation’s practices or in interpreting complex areas of the law, which Liberty said the current schedule for response does not suitably allow for.

UK courts have often ruled that consultation periods which impact vulnerable groups are unlawful when shorter than 12 weeks. In a recent case concerning disability benefits against the Department of Work and Pensions, the High Court ruled that an eight-week consultation was unlawful as affording vulnerable claimants “adequate time to consider, take advice upon and respond to the proposals was essential”.

In its legal challenge, Liberty also said the EHRC is in breach of the
public sector equality duty (PSED). The PSED enforces a duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate harassment and discrimination of people with protected characteristics, such as gender reassignment, when running consultations.

Liberty said that in not taking into account the complex needs of trans people when setting the length of the consultation period, the EHRC has failed to comply with its requirements under the PSED, and that too renders the entire process unlawful.

Liberty has called for the EHRC to urgently extend the consultation period to allow vulnerable and marginalised communities enough time to respond.

A High Court judge will now decide how quickly the case should be dealt with and whether it will go ahead to a hearing.

Full statement https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/liberty-launches-legal-action-against-ehrc-over-unlawful-code-of-practice-consultation/

not taking into account the complex needs of trans people
Complex needs??

'complex needs'

Yep.

Transwomens needs are different to women's needs and Transmens needs are different to men's needs.

They are complex. Not disagreeing with that.

Liberty has really gone to shit, hasn’t it? What a waste of time and money.

The complex needs of explaining why men need to be treated as if they are women, and why male hands and eyes are really female hands and eyes in a way that is more meaningful than their boring old physical existence as male. It's very complex, takes a lot of explaining.

Would have been nice if there had been a 12 week consultation before organisations allowed men into women’s toilets.

Women never get to discuss the impact on our rights.

In its early days as the NCCL it opposed the formation of women only groups whether as mutual support of refuge provision, as they claimed it was discriminatory.

So it hasn't gone to shit.

It has always been a patriarchal institution with its very own group of fan girls eg Harriet Harman.

What gives it away is its antogonistic position.

As it deals with the law and human rights it could so easliy have commented on the Supreme Court ruling and the implication on existing laws and practices, and worked with the EHRC.

But no it has jumped in straight at the deep end.

I wonder why.

They are trying to delay the guidance from EHRC to November when they hope Faulkner will be replaced by a gender ideologue and they will issue guidance that can effectively misrepresent the SC ruling.

As I understand it the consultation is aimed at those with a duty under the EQA, such as the NHS, and service providers, with regard to what they have obligations to provide or not provide. Not trans rights groups or employees or random individuals. So maybe they will get an extended consultation period, but the outcome will be the same as the SC ruling was very plain and simples.

And if the ECHR get it wrong it will be susceptible to a legal challenge as well. And i imagine that there are a few deep pockets sharpening their nails.

Exactly this

^In its legal challenge, Liberty also said the EHRC is in breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED). The PSED enforces a duty on public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate harassment and discrimination of people with protected characteristics, such as gender reassignment, when running consultations.^

Liberty seems to have no issue with the ongoing unlawful sex discrimination against women, or their hostile work environments and sexual harassment by the inclusion of males where they are undressed. There is also the linked religious/belief and sexual orientation discrimination.

Every time I think our public institutions have hit rock bottom, another one plumbs a new depth and proves me wrong.

I have so much respect for the founders of LGB Alliance, the Lesbian Project, the Gay Men’s Network and all of our wonderful grassroots women’s organisations for seeing the problem, rolling up their sleeves and working on fixing it.

This!

100%
Where was Liberty when language was being mangled to allow this situation in the first place?
These organisations are a complete joke

Doesn't surprise me at all. This is the organisation that allowed the Paedophile Information Exchange to affiliate to it for several years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

I stopped supporting them a few years back over exactly this issue.

Yes, they've gone to shit and it's a shame, along with Amnesty.

I'm laughing out of sheer bloody anger. Complex Needs my arse .

They haven't gone to shit.
They always were.
Over 50 years ago they supported PIE

Oh, I’m so fed up with this. It feels like one step forward, ten steps back.

Pushback to the SC ruling was expected, but it seems that we’re just going round in circles.

Gah, I’m in a grump tonight…off to eat some chocolate.

Please go all in Liberty? I have already cornered the popcorn market.

Thing is, all this frothing and ranting about the EHRC is completely misplaced. The EHRC doesn’t make the law. They just provide guidance to help organisations understand/implement the law.

Makes fuck all difference to the SC judgement if Liberty or the Shit Law Project take the EHRC “to court”

Virtue signalling muppets

'Complex needs' translates to multiple demands

God people really hate women.

I was unaware the NCCL had opposed single-sex groups for women to discuss their needs. Twerps then, twerps now.

“The EHRC is not seeking views on the legal aspects of the ruling which is clear”

So the PSED does not apply, since this is not a consultation on the interpretations of the law as it has now been determined to have always been.

It is a consultation on the practicalities of the proposed guidance.

we can expect this nonsense, but it is going to be a pointless activity.

I say watch the ideology die with pity as it fights its way against the grave.

Like the horror story that it is, we are going to have to chuck plenty of earth on the burial and beat the fucker down with a spade.

Can we launch a counter challenge asking why women had zero consultation period about men being given access to female spaces in the first instance?