New Green council motion disagreeing with EHRC guidance on SSS

28 replies

GCburneraccount · Yesterday 17:20

My council recently became green controlled with lots of new and inexperienced councillors. This weeks council email led with news of a motion passed that disagrees with the EHRC guidance on SSS.

My heart sank, I hope they aren't going to go the way of Bristol and Scotland on this.
I'm going to write to them to ask to clarify what this means for their delivery of SSS and question their wisdom of getting involved in all of this.

I will appreciate any advice and useful examples that the wise women here can throw my way.

Full text of the weekly email:

At a meeting of Full Council yesterday, the Council passed a motion committing to protecting the rights of transgender, non-binary and intersex residents in our borough.
We believe that misinterpretation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) current guidance on the use of single sex services and spaces – published earlier this year following a supreme court ruling on the definition of sex – presents a significant risk of exclusion for transgender people. The government’s own equality impact assessment admits as much.
Not only that, misinterpretation of the guidance also threatens the privacy and human dignity of women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people through intrusive questioning about “biological sex” or “sex at birth”.
Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). We believe that every resident of this borough deserves to access council services safely, with dignity, and free from discrimination or harassment.
As well as ensuring that the council’s mandatory training, human resources, and procurement policies reflect PSED best practice, we are committed to ensuring the provision and expansion of non-gendered safe and private spaces in all council-owned facilities, new and old.
As it stands, we believe the EHRC guidance leaves transgender people at risk of intolerance and discrimination. As a Borough of Sanctuary, we are proud to stand by our long record of inclusion, diversity and equality.

OP posts:

BunfightBetty · Yesterday 20:24

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · Yesterday 19:29

More people here stick to this one :)

local residents need to make a fuss about this. Ask about costings, ask about actual risk assessments. Ask to see the reliable calculations about how things the best way forward

Show quote history

Absolutely. Including some pointed questions around risk assessments for likelihood and costs if the council are taken to court and lose a case.

They can refer to the Peggie and Darlington cases for an estimate of costs.

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · Yesterday 23:31

GCburneraccount · Yesterday 19:01

Thanks all. V useful as I try to work out how much of this is pointless posturing and how to approach.

Thanks to the PP who found the whole text of the motion. There's a lot of nonsense in it but also wording that allows a lot of wiggle room in case none of it ends up happening.

The bits leaping out at me are:

"The Supreme Court has defined “sex” as “biological sex” and “sex at birth”.
However, these phrases have no agreed medical or scientific meaning."
[Bonkers. Not sure where to start with this one.]

"Council believes that Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are valid. This is consistent with, and not in conflict with, the council's commitment to equality for all residents."
[Excellent, ideology over law. Exactly what you want in a council...]

"ensure that trans awareness and inclusion form part of mandatory equalities
training for all staff and elected members, and that the council's HR policies
- including on name, prefix, and pronoun use, facilities access, and dress
codes - are updated to reflect best practice."
[Depends how this one is done. Don't disagree with best practice informing equality training including all PCs, but I doubt this is what they mean.]

"Commit that, in the spirit of ensuring compliance with all relevant laws,
including data protection, health and safety, and non-discrimination against
those with protected characteristics, self-identification should be sufficient in
normal circumstances for the purposes of access to and use of any of the
London Borough of Waltham Forest’s facilities and services. As examples,
this principle need not apply when there is a reasonable suspicion of danger
to a service user, bystander, or employee, or where there is a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim."
[My emphasis. They are getting into deep hot water on this one. But have left wriggle room for it to be just posturing.]

"Commit that all new and refurbished council-owned public buildings, leisure
centres, and civic spaces will include non-gendered toilet and changing
facilities where practicable, in addition to facilities provided for people who
are disabled"
[If this means that in addition to SSS and disabled spaces they provide an extra space, I'm not going to argue with this. Hard to tell though. Hope it doesn't mean gender neutral for everyone.]

self-identification should be sufficient in
normal circumstances for the purposes of access to and use of any of the
London Borough of Waltham Forest’s facilities and services.

Here, they're just trying to rewrite the law to what they wish it could be.

principle need not apply when there is a reasonable suspicion of danger
to a service user, bystander, or employee, or where there is a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim." [my bold]

actually self-id never applies to any circumstance, and not even to any of the circumstances they list.

They are willfully misreading the Guidance and the law, or they haven't read either at all.

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

MsGreying · Yesterday 23:44

Are they ignoring legal advice?

Flip

1 2