GLP v EHRC judgement is coming tomorrow

[DownhillTeaTray]

Listing in the Administrative Court for tomorrow not before 11am: read out of the judgment in our challenge to the EHRC Interim Guidance.

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.org/post/3meo6ow7ow22k

Thats still quite a lot of money to piss up the wall.

Enough to cover Jolyon's defamation costs?

'... don’t need to take a “protest piss” and set more bad precedent. Nothing changes until you’re told it has and when you are, raise a grievance - in writing, after speaking with an advice agency. Push back EVERY SINGLE TIME…but do it with a brain in your head or you’ll fuck it up for the rest of us.'

Sometimes I wonder if that poster is one of us. They seem generally reasonable and sensible. But sadly, nobody listens to them.

Are we to expect more naked piss protests, then? Moobs out in public? Large angry men cry bullying in loos across the country?

https://goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/help-us-appeal-the-high-courts-judgment-on-trans-rights/

CROWDFUNDER

Help us appeal the High Court’s judgment on trans rights

The High Court has ruled on our case against the EHRC’s transphobic interim guidance.

On one side, the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case: it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men. This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten. It’s good news.

But for workplace toilets, the decision could mean that many trans people are excluded, and forced to use third spaces. We believe this is wrong, and that it is unacceptable. It reduces trans people to a third sex and gives little or no weight to the harm done to trans people by excluding them.

Overall, the judge has decided we’ve lost. But we will appeal.

For that we need your help. Litigation is not cheap – the EHRC is claiming costs of almost £300k, and we have to pay our lawyers too. They think a big bill is going to stop us, because we’re not backed by billionaires or the government. But they’re wrong. Trans rights are human rights – and we will defend them.
We always knew this would be a long and hard fight. We are going nowhere.
We will fight until the battle is won.

Incidentally, I also saw a comment on twitter that the loosing party doesn't have to pay costs if there is a possibility that they could appeal (so presumably costs are settled after the appeals process has been exhausted, and GLP would not be liable for costs if they appealed and won?). Is this true?

I think we can count on it.

Plus, for any predatory man intent on using women in a space, the presence of men presents a risk. He will be larger and stronger than most women, and doesn't fear them. The same doesnt go for other men.

Look at the footage of transwomen wanking in women's loos - they are often brazen - not even a little afraid of the consequences because they know most women will respond with flight/freeze/fawn.

Its the same impetus that is involved in any sexual coercion - the bullying of those unable to defend themselves is part of the fun.

He Is raising money to appeal Swift’s judgement before being given a right of appeal. The GLP have no right of appeal, because it was ruled that the GLP has no standing. Presumably, he is raising funds so that should the 3 TIMS who did have standing be granted an appeal, the GLP will use the funds raised to support them.

Michel Foran’s article yesterday about GLPs inaccurate reporting helped me understand how the GLP had contrived the lies. The FAQ document that the GLP produced used excerpts of the judgement taken out of context from what they were being used to exemplify and used them to support the erroneous claims the GLP made.

The pretzeling that the GLP has done to make the claims that they have made are extremely unlikely to result being given permission to appeal. They are far more likely to be told that they have misunderstood the ruling.

Just starting to read Foran's latest piece (thanks to a PP for linking to it), and this is brutal:

Despite the resounding loss, those reading the Good Law Project’s reporting of the judgment may be forgiven for thinking that the High Court made findings that it did not make. That is because the Good Law Project have claimed that the High Court made findings that it did not make.

Somebody post this link to those dim MP's (sadly, mainly women afaics) who have Xed/BlueSkyed repeating the GLP's nonsense!

https://knowingius.org/p/disinformation-and-the-good-law-project

The GLP cannot appeal. Only the interested parties (one TIM, one TIW and an "intersex" person) who the GLP were "helping" 🤔 can appeal.

"Concerns about the quality of advocacy"

Surely not. They have Crash. How could you fail to take seriously a lawyer called Crash? Not to mention Jane Russel and her near-spotless record (of losing GI cases).

It’s only ever about access to the women, it’s never about the room…..It requires the presence of women and girls to make it a validating space.

My take is that TRAs and their allies are very open and unashamed about this. This is the basis upon which they say having to use gender neutral facilities is degrading as it fails to recognise them as being the true women that they are. They openly claim that provision that is anything other than being included with women is unacceptable.

Those who say ‘we just wanna pee’, and talk about insufficient alternatives are just throwing out lines - this isn’t the basis of their argument.

Although at para 66 the judge repeated this EHRC interim guidance, also said
71 That condition tends against a situation where the consequence of the single-sex provision is either no provision for transsexual persons or a requirement that all must use lavatories corresponding to biological sex. Such an outcome would have to be justified as proportionate. [my emphasis]

I can't help looking at this from an 'ah c'mon now, let's-get-real' point of view, rather than the TRA's bubble of entitlement:

I suggest that requiring a very very small number of people to use the toilet corresponding to their biological sex when they'd prefer not to is a 'proportionate outcome' when the alternative is the expense and disruption of installing a building-regs-compliant fourth space, a universal toilet available for use by one of the approx. 262,000 transpeople* in the UK everywhere there are single sex toilets.
*[and as a PP pointed out, also non-trans-people who would just like to have a toilet to themselves]

I can imagine the pragmatic argument:

'We already have a women's toilet; we have a men's toilet; they both include special cubicles for ambulant disabled people; we have an accessible toilet for disabled people who need adaptations. We have neither the space nor the money to install a building-regs-compliant universal toilet as a fourth space on the off-chance that we are visited by one of a tiny percentage of population who are able to use the toilet corresponding to their biological sex, but prefer not to'.

In an ideal world, they might go on to say -
'If we somehow acquire enough space and enough money to install a fourth space, it will be for the over 250,000 people with complex disabilities who need rather than prefer a 'CPT' changing places toilet to enable them to get out and about at all.
Changing Places Toilets

That’s the accessible toilet. It’s already there in most places.

Non ambulant people don’t have the option. They have to use mixed sex.

Interesting question. And not only that, the GLP themselves cannot appeal.

I am waiting for someone to say everyone must have use of toilet for their sex. That would be lovely for disabled people. It could be held within the single sex block and have door gaps. It could also be prioritised for mothers or dads will small children so they wouldn’t be scared about leaving the buggy out of the cubicle. However, it would been so much cost to businesses it will never happen.

This next bit I can’t emphasize enough:

It you look carefully on Doc T analysis, the government costed out how much it would cost the country to change toilets for Document T. The conclusion was Doc T was not retrospective. Only toilets from 2024 would be built like this. But this was pre FWS. Now it may be that businesses and services who haven’t stuck to building regs will have to change their inclusive designs. This may include places that have historic loos that will be difficult to change. Remember the history of toilets and how women have never (even now) had equal provision.

I think everyone is stalling because lots of places are going to kick up a fuss that they have to spend ££££ changing their toilets. It’s not a vote winner.

The requirement is 'provision' not 'separate provision'. Same as the Supreme Court, which said nobody should be left without facilities - not that they must have dedicated or preferred facilities.

Of the circa £30k raised already, that’s £3k towards the estimated £300k costs order that the GLP will need to pay for the failed case. If they raise the full £150k, that will raise £15k towards the bill.

To spare them the £300k costs, they need to win the appeal.

A generous figure for the application stage is £25k. They are very unlikely to be granted permission to appeal, it’s more likely they will be told they have misunderstood the ruling.

This will give them £125k to spend on litigation other than the appeal that they are purporting to raise money for. It’s my understanding that they can only spend this on litigation, not paying bills for failed litigation. I think the costs of failed litigation need to come from the 10% top slice - so in this case £15k of the £150k goal.

They will have to change their strategy or they will go bust. I have no doubt that this will be presented as evidence of the super rich cabal removing trans rights. It will also work against the GC cause to some extent - we have done great case law arising from their failures. At least it’ll end his grift.

My understanding is that the consideration of provision for trans people is in addition to/ is different to provision of disabled people.

It wouldn’t be lawful to move from the current position of trans people being grouped with the opposite sex to the position of grouping them with people who aren’t able to use single sex provision due to their disability. Providers need to review the needs of each group and put suitable provision in place.

I totally agree. see India Willoughby publicly crowing that he would walk miles out of his way in an airport to go to the women only toilet, rather than the gender neutral.

But firstly when the cases were originally presented to the powers that be, it wasn't like that. It was all about most marginalised, vulnerable, and rights being akin to gay rights, be progressive, be kind.

And that evolved into the idea that denying these men access is 'wrong'. But there's still a leap to make the connection that they are purposely supplying women for these man to use.

it's down to the fact that even contemplating the women doesn't enter into the equation. They're no-where in it. So the idea of their use, is nowhere too.

To me, it's a very slight focus shift, that suddenly becomes blinding in its obviousness.

Totally. The presence of other men really spoil it for these men. On every conceivable level.

really, the whole "debate" (such as it is) feels very much as if some people have assumed that this situation leverages the attack on the "separate but equal" case that was fought in Brown v. Board of education That was a landmark case for equal rights and the TRAs appear to be arguing from the Brown point of view. Which would equate the government with the BOE.

Eventually as we all know the BOE lost that case.

However as the case was quite involved, I can see why less bright people might imagine it applies in GLP vs. reality. All of which being said, I am sure a few posters on this thread could identify the problems with this assumption.

Then there would be so many different varieties of provision it would be untenable.

It will end up being women (plus ambulant), men (plus ambulant) and accessible. Anyone who can’t use the toilet for their sex will use the accessible.

Jolly-on has done us all a massive favour with this latest case creating some assistance in relation to some of the ongoing appeals.

Money well wasted on behalf of those who donated.

Are all the board members aware of what the GLP are doing?

Leaving aside the subject matter, it doesn't seem ethical to raise money in this way, particularly as Maugham is also facing a personal libel claim and it's not clear how much of the legal defence is being funded by the GLP.

I really doubt they will raise £150,000. It's going slowly already, and even trans Reddit is getting weary of them.

And when you've lost trans Reddit...