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

Where do the quotes above come from? They're not correct, and they're not present in the uk.gov website you linked to.

The EHRC Code of Practice is legally similar to the Highway Code - summarises the law and adds suggestions on how to comply with it that road users must consider, and which they would have to be very persuasive to convince the courts are wrong. Building regulations are similar again.

None of this is secondary legislation. Possibly the confusion comes from the fact that at the end of the 40 day parliamentary period the government will issue a tiny piece of secondary legislation to bring the updated code into effect. But that doesn't make the code itself secondary legislation - it's just being referred to.

By way of an example, here is the secondary legislation that brought a previous EHRC code of practice into effect: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/857/made

Those few lines are the only bits of (secondary) legislation to do with the code. The actual code itself is just being referred to which is why even if there were a full parliamentary debate over this, parliament wouldn't be able to debate and pass amendments to the code.

If you're still not convinced, one further way to tell that the code itself is not secondary legislation is that the text is not on legislation.gov.uk

If you'd like a grown up to explain it to you, Bailey, Sonia Sodha does so.

That’s really useful to clarify the process- thanks

The legislation went through scrutiny and debate when is was passed 16 years ago.

The equality act is not new legislation, but it is the UK law.

The EHRC guidance is not legislation.

Bridget Phillipson:

"The draft Code will be laid before Parliament in both Houses for a 40-day period, in line with the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft within this time period, the Code currently in force will be revoked by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument and the new Code will be commenced by a separate statutory instrument."
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-21/hcws67

Sex Matters:

"What happens after the code is laid?
Like most statutory instruments, the code is subject to agreement by “negative procedure”. This means that it will have legal effect 40 days after it is laid before Parliament, unless either the House of Commons or the House of Lords passes a motion to annul it. The last time the House of Commons annulled a negative statutory instrument was 1979."
https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/ehrc-code-of-practice-expected-in-may/#:~:text=No.%20The%20code%20does%20not,the%20law.%20Its%20main%20purpose

I mean specifically this quote here: "a Statutory Code is considered secondary legislation (also known as delegated or subordinate legislation)"

That's incorrect and misleading. Where did it come from?

Unfortunately, I think it could make a difference if these MP’s managed to slow down the process. The law wouldn’t change, but lots of organisations seem to be adopting a holding pattern, waiting for the guidance to be released. If the guidance is impeded this will just send a stronger signal that no one needs to worry about the law, at least not yet.

Of course they could be challenged legally, but we all know how long that takes, and (obviously) one court case isn’t enough to sway everyone. The penalties are not punitive (eg the OU seems to be prepared to face case after case) and often the public purse pays anyway.

This kind of piecemeal approach to interpreting the law means it would be years before women retrieved their single-sex rights. This would buy time to work towards a change in the law (if that is their aim).

They are presenting as stupid, but the strategy might not be

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

If you click on the 1 (copied from @Baileyonice's earlier post) it takes you to Wikipedia.

I think Bailey's whole post was just a c&p from AI without any checking of sources (or any checking for accuracy).

AI = Always Incorrect

She's one of the most insufferable, vacuous MPs around. My guess is she has a close friend or relative who is trans and is virtue signalling her support.

It's never a good idea to rely on AI when you don't understand a subject...

Scott Wortley (Edinburgh University School of Law):

x.com/Scott_Wortley/status/2062264570232668563

Extract from his thread replying to Creasey

"The laying of the code before parliament does not make it law. It is not a statutory instrument. The procedure in the Equality Act 2006, s 14 mirrors the negative procedure for statutory instruments but it is not a statutory instrument. The code is guidance (as is made explicit in the 2006 Act). To suggest - as you do - that this is some form of making legislation is misleading. The code is explicitly narrated to be about facilitating compliance with the 2010 Act. Of itself it is not legally determinative."

Thank you - his whole thread is worth reading.

Stella Creasy is still stuck where she was 8 years ago:

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/975440621765873664

when she suggested that the solution to girls being exposed to sexual assault in female single-sex spaces was counselling after the event rather than acting to recognise and resolve breaches of safeguarding.

Frustrating the implementation of the code might seem a good strategy from inside the bubble, but it's not a great strategy for Labour. Endless possibilities for Reform attack ads if they drag this out, and great for any party that wants to get rid of equality law.

Creasey hasn't suggested any alternatives and is just making the law and parliament look ridiculous.

Apologies I meant 'legal authority" not 'legislative authority' as I already linked upthread:

"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."

"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]"

In any case, the new code having legal authority still lends itself to scrutiny & debate given its consequences when enforcing the law.

Could be. But also her seat is at risk from the Greens, so she needs to up her credentials on issues that the Greens push. I think it's all performative - she will know that most people have no clue about what she is talking about but it still presents her as being passionate about the cause.

@Baileyonice

AI is an overconfident sixth-form debater who will tell you all sorts of slightly (but crucially) incorrect things with utter confidence, polish and footnotes that don't say what they think they say.

It doesn't actually know anything and it's not even an encyclopaedia; it's a tool that essentially runs on predicting what the answer-words might be based on all the words and the order of words fed into it so far.

It's no substitute for actual knowledge and a critically reasoning brain. Treating it as though it is will land you in a misleading pickle.

It's lucky some other posters know enough to spot the flaws in your AI copy-paste but if they didn't (here or in any other place) you would be confidently posting unchallenged misinformation. Please consider not doing that.

Exactly. Creasy was an MP when this passed. Why did she not argue against the inclusion of Gender Reassignment as a separate category if she wanted sex and gender to be conflated?

This!!!!!

That was my mistake not AI as It correctly stated 'legal authority'. 😂

Maybe but surely the huge Muslim population in her east London’s seat might start to part ways with her?

Exactly. Tbh A1 is probably basing its answer partly on Stella Creasy's post! It will consider her a credible resource - see also article in The Guardian yesterday about the police officers wrongly identified as being the ones involved in the Southampton stabbing, where A1 believed posts circulating from people who seemed credible sources (they posted a pic of a bravery award presentation). I have seen those social media games where someone posts a pic of an 80s band and asks who invisible, and lots of people suggest eg The Cure, so A1 confidently tells you it's The Cure when in actual fact it's some one hit band no one recognised.

Err, as I already pointed out AI was correct on this issue it was my human error in 'misspeaking' just like you are doing now.