Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

[fromorbit]

After raising over 418K it turns out the GLP's amazing legal case is all about toilets. Details:

https://archive.is/TWRTl

No doubt it will fail like most of their previous legal cases.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5336208-good-law-project-suing-the-ehrc-and-bridget-phillipson-letter-before-action?page=1

'you’re saying it requires them to act unlawfully, if TP are permitted to use facilities of LG,
that means that facilities are no longer SS, point 2, in some circumstances you can prevent
TP from using facilities of bio sex, but cannot provide TP with no facilities, if possible provide
MS facilities, it doesn’t provide the answer to all questions, but that’s life isn’t it.'

I like this judge.

Sounds like the judge is listening to a presentation from a law student who has decided to take the Bart Simpson book report approach

Thank goodness: he's worked out that you avoid discrimination by avoiding unfair disadvantage, not by treating people identically.

Seems a strange line of argument, particularly the end point about appropriate comparators.

They are arguing the appropriate comparator re. discrimination against a male with the PC of gender reassignment is a women... but only when the male trans person reaches a certain point of their transition? How on earth is that supposed to work?

I'm up to p4 of the TT summary (thanks as ever, comrades, for sitting through this painful shite so we don't have to) and into the weeping and wailing of the poor complainants. Who are stealth and don't want to out themselves by using the 'right' toilet for their bio sex, but are now getting challenged about using the 'correct' (preferred) toilets for their gender.

Both can't be true, lads.

Fucking hell, it really is all about getting into the ladies for these guys isn't it? Pages and pages about the minutae of exactly when in a transition GLP believe the differences between TW and women should no longer matter to women in the specific circumstances of the ladies toilet. In the opinion of TRAS anyway. Actual women need not be consulted.

Just got to the bit where the judge demonstrates understanding of SS provision and says service providers may want to take advice, and the GLP silk says not all SPs are able to.

THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE GUIDANCE YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT IS MEANT TO TAKE THE PLACE OF, NUMBNUTS.

It's directly contrary to FWS. And you can make a case for sex discrimination and GR discrimination if disadvantaged relative to both sexes (can't pee anywhere) so what is he even on about? Is this all about them not wanting to admit they're men again? I think they're too steeped in transthink and J is finding it hard to understand.

One of GLPs arguments is that a TP using the disabled gender neutral toilets outs them as trans. However, most disabilities are hidden so how does an observer know if someone using the disabled toilets is disabled or a TP or both? So no outing as trans.

It’s interesting that GLP are using Croft and in that judgement which includes at some undefined point a TP may have transitioned sufficiently to use toilets of acquired gender. At no point does it define what that is.

The Judge also keeps saying Croft is Dead.

The PM notes are now up too.

I'm not entirely sure of the legal process - is it usual for the judge to get so involved in questioning and telling the GLP lawyer that they are wrong?

I'm just wondering that! Fucking mental argument. The comparator changes according to hairstyle? Angle of head tilt?

This is still the hearing for permission to apply for JR, isn't it? Presumably any process that helps the Judge understand the legal points the claimants are making so he can decide if the test for a JR is met is acceptable?

Yes, that TP claiming that having to use the disabled toilet distressed them because it was 'outing' them as trans is a strange tack. Aren't they more likely to assume they have a disability?

Nasty sleight of hand, suggesting that Schedule 3 is not broken by trans-inclusive women's toilets, because the cis men have their own place to pee (oh, now they understand about comparative disadvantage!)

That's not how it works 😠

It’s fascinating reading TT.

The judge is taking no prisoners, very focused on the points of law.

From the pdf: C - collective noun for GLP and individuals

This made me think of Blockbusters back in the day. “What C is the collective noun for the GLP?”

Does it rhyme with hunt?

This is fascinating (transcription errors corrected by me)

J – what do you mean managed, the regs say there should be separate rooms,

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

J – so these occasional cases mean that a TW can use a women’s toilet at any time. Let’s take a step back – employers have to only provide the room and then do nothing, it’s a free for all.

DS – if one has a free for all and the entire convention breaks down, I’m not suggestng that, I’m suggesting that you can have trans inclusive toilets.

J – you are saying that the employer has to provide m/f toilets but can allow TW and TM to use the toilets of LG. What are you saying? Is it a definitional problem. An employer must provide the facility, but an employer could operate a policy of trans inclusion.

DS – yes, that is precisely the policy the EHRC recommended in 2011,
J – yes but life has moved on

Life has indeed moved on.

I went to Scotland last month. The service station had already implemented the law. There was the ladies, the gents and the inclusive toilets which were marked with disabled and trans logos.

So all you know is that someone has a need to use those toilets. So either it's 'outing' in the sense that every fucker can tell anyway and it just confirms what everyone can already tell with their eyes. Or these people are disabledphobic and don't want to be associated with disabled people or mistaken for one. How very none inclusive.

I have no time for this bullshit.

Might have been in those same services a few weeks ago, Red!

I read through the notes from today’s hearing and I felt like I was reading the script of an Aaron Sorkin show.

Just caught up on this. GLP's case is batshit crazy. They can't possibly win. Is this their attempt to get to the European Court?

For those who ask if it is usual for a judge to be so interventionist, in the Admin Court it is. He has a limited amount of time (the GLP silks have already gone over their allocation) and needs to understand what their point actually is. I am not sure he managed to get any clarity.

As I have said before, as lawyers we work with definitions. Without definitions, the law crumbles. The inability of the GLP to define trans people (and some of their submissions might offend some of their more vocal donors) is irritating the judge.

Finally, there are some lovely points in there about the 1992 Regs and applicability to work places. I am afraid the argument that FWS "only applies to boards in Scotland" is as dead as Croft after this...

I should also say that I think an ECtHR judgment on this would be fascinating. As far as I am aware (and my fellow lawyers on here may be able to assist) there has not been a judgment in this area from Europe that has properly grappled with the issue of competing rights.

A question for those who have read the Tribunal Tweets notes from today - will the fremdschamen I get from the GLP's attempts at pleading their case be outweighed by the enjoyment at the judge slapping them down? I'm not sure I can face the levels of cringe involved.