Stella Creasy

[Arran2024]

Stella Creasy has been posting on X about using archaic process to overturned the EHRC guidelines and publicly arguing with the likes of Akua Reindorf KC. She is being given a pretty hard time but not backing down. Why does she want this so badly?!

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/2062174750235845041?s=20

It is such a strange thing that politicians do not, more often than not, understand LAW.

As we all on here know, the ECHR guidance is not the law. The FWS Supreme Court ruling is the law, and even if the guidance was not passed into a statutory code, it would make no difference

So i can safely conclude that she is talking a load of bollocks

I was wondering the same - baffling - didnt she benefit from an all woman short list when she became an MP?

Imagine if she’d been edged out of that list by a TIM back then and had ended up on a totally different career path?

Stella has been an abysmal disappointment on preserving women's single sex spaces.

All the banging on about being a feminist, and then to fight tooth and nail to get dick into women's spaces.

She's an absolute disgrace.

Oh good grief I just watched the video above!

Shes spent 16 years refusing to sign any Early Day Motions but shes decided to pop her cherry being a sponsor to an EDM hoping to destroy women’s rights?!

[slow hand clap] 👏🏻

Because scrutiny & debate aren't being applied here which as she says are fundamental pillars of the UK parliamentary process designed to hold the government to account, ensure transparency and improve proposed legislation.

there is an excellent book written by the secret barrister that scrutinises how politicians pretend to not understand the law, and pass laws that are not really needed.

What is her motivation. I just don't get it. That video made me think of Helen Webberly

@Baileyonice the guidance is not legislation it is an interpretive document, that does not require scrutiny or debate, because the law on the matter is settled law.

the MP’s tabling the EDM would have to come up with a reason why the EHRC guidance is not compatible with the law as it has been determined.

which they have not done. They just do not like the law.

the only thing they can correctly do procedurally is table a private members bill to change the law.

Exactly!

Theyve got almost no chance of getting a debate via this EDM. A prayer motion hasn’t succeeded since the 1970s which they must all know - so why try it? It’s all a too many words and no action…

If I were trans I’d be disappointed they've only managed this limp virtue signal after 12 months instead of getting a proper debate on the EA & EHRC guidance booked in…

ETA hypocrisy to then slam the negative SI process and say debate is needed without booking a debate 🤔

The EHRC guidelines are simply guidelines, designed to interpret the law for business that don't have their own legal advice. They are not some kind of new legislation. They simply explain the law in an easy to understand way.

If Stella Creasy doesn't like the law or its associated guidelines, she needs to get the law changed - then the guidelines will change too.

Atm she seems to be advocating for Parliament to just come up with its own guidelines, based on personal opinions, not the law.

Can someone tell me what Riendorf has said not on x

You can check various tweets on Nitter:
https://nitter.net/akuareindorf

My MP has signed the early day thing. He has a virtue signalling post about it on his Twitter account but funnily enough not on his Facebook which is all about local issues. His support for getting men into women's spaces doesn't feature on the millions of leaflets we get through the door either. It's like he knows it wouldn't go down well with his actual constituents.

I didn’t realise Creasy could be quite so dim when pushing an agenda. She must have been carefully guided through her PhD. (Available to read online btw for insomniacs, via her wiki page.)

ooh I get to give my Stella username an airing.

I see Stella is being her usual self and not really understanding simple stuff again.

My personal interactions with SC - she’s always looking over your shoulder for someone more important to hove into view so she can play ‘pick me’

I find this utterly baffling too. The ignorance about what their own job is quite stunning. It's basic stuff a lot of the time too, not the really complicated stuff.

I might be slightly more forgiving to fresh new MPs, but an MP in their second or more term? Fuck no.

It's embarrassing.

I think in some way it is just an extension of what has been happening every since the Supreme Court ruling.

Any number of people, politicians included, have been saying we dont agree with this ruling, it is anti trans (and who cares about women's rights) and as this is the stage of implementing it practically are just saying that the guidelines are anti trans because the judgement was.

So if they actually think, which obviously some of them did, that because they dont like the ruling therefore they dont have to abide by it, obviously they are going to attack anything that is part of implementing it.

Its not that they dont understand, but somehow in the Rainbow world created by years of Stonewall training (indoctrination) they really do think you just need to say enough times it is unkind to trans people and the whole world will agree with them.

That is what is so staggering. Not that some businesses etc., were a bit like what are we meant to do, but that politicians are actively saying we dont like the outcome of this court case, so we are going to obstruct its implementation.

And nobody says anything.

With Labour becoming more and more of a comedy routine, you would think someone would be monitoring what they say and do and how this then portrays them to the public.

After all it is within their power to re-write the EA.

Not all these empty gestures.

Which I suspect they all think is a vote winner.

I suspect she knows damn well this is the instruction manual rather than the washing machine. She knows she could rewrite the whole thing in iambic pentameter to be about roses and the law would still be the same. She also knows that the loony side of the TRAs want this done and that this is what worked in 2011. Distort the guidance and the TRAs can try to pull another Stonewall.

I think it’s daft to reuse this tactic in the sunlight. It only works if the women of Mumsnet look the other way for some considerable time and I really don’t think that’s likely to happen but SC and the TRA allies clearly aren’t very bright. That list of signatories should be interesting.

What would come as a shock to them if somebody in the HoCsupport services, or even the House of Commons Library that provides briefs etc., were to publish a detailed explanation for MPs pointing out what they hadn't understood about the process.

And how much HoC time was being taken up with this play acting.

The new EHRC guidelines will be authorised under statutory instrument if passed also known as secondary legislation that If an MP or Peer successfully moves a motion to annul the legislation, it can be rejected. And why not? The logistics & practically of statutory guidelines heve consequences.

According to AI:

MPs are utilizing Early Day Motions (EDMs) because the EHRC Code of Practice is not a court ruling; it is statutory guidance that requires a 40-day parliamentary review period before it can come into force. By challenging the guidance, MPs are attempting to use the only available legislative mechanism to stop or debate the specific parameters of how service providers enforce the law on the ground. 1, 2, 3, 4]

Under UK law, the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) creates non-binding statutory guidance to help organizations implement court rulings. The recent court decisions clarify what the Equality Act currently says, but the guidance dictates how businesses, schools, and hospitals should apply those rules in practice. 1, 2, 3, 4]

Critics of the EHRC guidance argue that the way it is written is confusing, disproportionately impacts marginalized groups, or goes beyond what the court ruling strictly requires. Therefore, instead of challenging the Supreme Court—which is final—they are pushing to disapprove the EHRC Code to force the government to rewrite the practical instructions given to service providers.

Yes? No?

Wrong again I’m afraid.

The EHRC’s power to issue guidance comes from primary legislation.

Guidance is not passed by any statutory instrument. It comes into effect automatically via a negative resolution procedure, ie unless a resolution is passed against it.

Guidance does not carry the force of law (either primary or secondary), though it does have persuasive power on courts.

ie it is not the law, it describes the law.

Describing things correctly matters. Failing to do that is how we got into this mess.

Status of the Code
1.5 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the EHRC) has prepared and issued this code of practice (referred to as the ‘Code’) based on its powers under the Equality Act 2006. It is a statutory Code. This means it has been approved by the Secretary of State and formally laid before Parliament.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

"a Statutory Code is considered secondary legislation (also known as delegated or subordinate legislation). 1]"

"a statutory code can be issued under a statutory instrument, but it depends on whether the code itself is granted direct legal force or functions merely as formal guidance. 1]"

"Yes, the updated Code of Practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for services, public functions, and associations is subject to formal legal enactment through a statutory instrument. 1, 2]
The guidelines were laid before Parliament by the Minister for Women and Equalities and are processed under the "negative procedure". This means that after being laid, Parliament has 40 days to review the code. Unless either the House of Commons or the House of Lords passes a motion to annul it within that timeframe, the equalities minister issues a statutory instrument to formally bring the code into full legal force. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
While the Code of Practice itself does not create new law, it is given statutory authority by Parliament. Once it is brought into force, it serves as the authoritative guide for complying with the Equality Act 2010 and can be used as evidence in court and tribunal proceedings. 1, 2, 3]"

Ironically, that would have been a better outcome for everyone.