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

But the court just found that the EHRC guidance DID accurately reflect the law. Someone is telling porkies.

What does separate lavatories mean exaclty?

Very good to read this, which dismisses what was to me the stupidest argument of all.

The example of the mother taking her young son to use the female lavatory is a bad example. That (and the corresponding practice for fathers and young daughters) is a common practice but is no more than a facet of ordinary parental responsibilities. No one could reasonably or seriously contend that when a mother takes her young son to use a single-sex female lavatory the lavatory ceases to be single-sex.

Comment on judicial review brought by Good Law Project | EHRC

That was Phillipson's lawyers arguing that - the paedophile adjacent labour government

Classic example of when a woman suggests something (for a decade) it's dismissed but when you pay a rich man to say it, suddenly it's the solution...

Good to see one of the government's barristers ridiculous arguments being dismissed.

I'll be interested to see if the judgement addresses the case by case assessment that my MP is so in favour of.

Ok sounds good. No idea wtf the GLP is going on about with the stuff below.

🤣

My brain of limited use these days feels that when a case is dismissed, then all it's points are rejected.

I’ve just skim read the judgment, where are they getting the positive spin from? Can’t see it.

"The three claimants had each referred to being concerned about using unisex lavatories instead of the ones they wanted to use. Mr Justice Swift said: “I accept these concerns are sincerely held,” but said that in reality “it ought rarely, if ever, to be the case that a person using a unisex lavatory rather than an available single-sex one will ever be a matter of comment by others.” In any case, he said, workplace gossip is a fact of life that everyone can expect to bear from time to time"

Sensible comment from the judge.

It’s really a great read

The final contention in support of this submission is that a reading of regulation 20 that require the lavatories in the room provided for men to be used by biological men, and those in the room provided for women to be used by biological women, would place too great a burden on employers, requiring them to either “police” the use of lavatories or risk prosecution for breach of the 1992 Workplace Regulations. This point is significantly overstated.

The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to “police” the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a “logic” so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour.

Detailed analysis and measured reporting on the BBC. Which I would link to if it existed.

How are they celebrating this as a win?!

I'm going to have to look at that section of Reddit, always a disturbing joy.

They have read the GLP and think they have won

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r3m9x1/high_court_rules_on_lawfulness_of_the_ehrcs/

Yes it's a lot of 'this fails' and 'this fails' and ...yep 'this fails'...

Here's the whole text of para 61, carefully cut by GLP:

61. Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive. (For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)

This doesn't seem great - it would be deeply confusing for a woman to use a lavatory labelled "women" and then find men were allowed in - but the judgement is clear that this will not do if what the service provider needs to do is provide single-sex facilities.

I think this part from the Sex Matters analysis and summary addresses that seemingly problematic Paragraph 61 from the judgement? (Tell me if I'm wrong; skimming, and finding it all quite complex). It makes sense to me, though, and put like this is very clear.

The EHRC update says: “If trans women are permitted to use a single-sex female lavatory all biological males must be permitted to use that lavatory.” Mr Justice Swift accepted that it could be direct discrimination to exclude a man from the ladies’ toilets (or other services for women), but he said this would depend on the facts of the case as to whether this was “less favourable treatment”.

It is. We know they hide behind “privacy” and “othering” as an all encompassing reason that their wishes should be prioritised over everyone else’s. Great to hear the judge deal with that so unequivocally.

GLP FAQ on the judgement:

"Is it lawful for service providers to allow, for example, trans women to use women’s toilets and changing rooms (and vice versa for trans men)?

Yes. "

"Is it unlawful to require trans people to use services corresponding to their sex as recorded at birth, for example, requiring trans women to use the men’s toilets?
▼
It will likely be unlawful to require trans people to use services corresponding to their sex as recorded at birth."

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/

You will be surprised.

Such liars.

From SM:

He said that “trans-inclusive lavatories” might possibly be provided consistently with the requirements of the EA 2010 and the 1992 Workplace Regulations, if this was in addition to the suitable and sufficient provision for men and women. On this analysis he said, neither the EA 2010 nor the 1992 Workplace Regulations gives rise to any necessary interference with any aspect of the claimants’ Article 8 rights. Alternatively, he said, even if the law results in prohibition of a “trans-inclusive lavatory” (as opposed to a straightforward unisex one) that interference would be capable of being justified taking into account the rights and freedoms of others.

End

Phew! (climbs down off ceiling)

Still no press release on the Judiciary website, so I suppose we will just have to read the judgment to get a spin-free take.

I think your MP is confused.

'Case by case' doesn't imply that a single sex facility may be used by a trans -identified man sometimes, or in certain circummstances.......It means that the decision to provide a dedicated single sex facility in the first instance must consider whether this is legitimate ( 'dignity and privacy'). Once its legitimacy has been established, then single sex is what it means.

It’s hardly a ringing endorsement that service providers can let trans identified males into women only spaces, as Foxy has presented it.