Some thoughts on anger and where it is directed
Reflections on #RespectMySex campaign and the response to the EHRC guidance. If the rule of law is lost, what else will we lose?
I attended the event at Bush Hall on April 1st, to celebrate the 1st birthday of Sex Matters and also the courage of ‘the Claimants’ - those men and women who had put their emotional and financial health on the line to challenge unlawful acts and omissions by powerful individuals and organisations. As compere Helen Joyce said - they shouldn’t have had to do this, but those responsible were asleep at the wheel. This was a powerful line up of those who had fought and won legal cases which re-affirmed some very basic and fundamental principles of law; for example, protection of belief in Forstater and protection of speech in Miller.
What was amazing for me was the continued good humour and high spirits of those on stage and the recognition and appetite for the continued legal battles to come. This was reflected in the audience with much laughter and cheering as the panel considered various questions from Joyce about what they had learned from this whole experience, what they had found most bizarre and what had made them laugh the hardest.
The buoyant mood continued into the next day with the launch of the #RespectMySex campaign, to make it clear at the local elections in May that if would be representatives were not able to answer the question ‘what is a woman?’ then they couldn’t expect our vote.
But there was also anger. I spoke to some women in the pub before the event. Their emotions were tangible. How had this been allowed to happen? What was behind this virulent misogyny and denial of female rights? This worried me. Where does anger go if it cannot be directed? What do the powerless do if they find themselves denied a voice? These rhetorical questions are easily answered by any half serious student of history.
By Monday April 4th my concerns about misdirected anger increased. The EHRC finally released a sensible summary about the state of the current law on single sex spaces. My only quibble was with the definition of ‘trans’ which requires more close attention, but various discrimination and employment law specialists agreed that this was a clear and accurate statement of the law as it is and helpful guidance about how to apply it. See for example this twitter thread from specialist QC Karon Monaghan
So what were some other responses to this? I will mention just a handful; the BBC LGBT correspondent decided to misstate the law by claiming that prior to this guidance, no exclusion of transwomen from single sex spaces had ever been allowed and Jolyon Maugham darkly hinted at further judicial review (and many of us wished very hard for this to happen). But most concerning of all, a number of people and organisations that had purported links to the NHS simply declared they would not follow the guidance, i.e. that they did not intend to follow the law.
I appreciate the difference between law and guidance. One is not like the other. Laws must be obeyed. It is usually wise to follow guidance but much will depend on its weight and authority. I suggest however you cannot get much weightier than the guidance from the EHRC
… a statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act 2006, the Commission operates independently. We aim to be an expert and authoritative organisation that is a centre of excellence for evidence, analysis and equality and human rights law. We also aspire to be an essential point of contact for policy makers, public bodies and business.
What the EHRC says about the operation of the Equality Act matters. To ignore the EHRC guidance - worse, to explicitly declare you will not follow it - makes you and your organisation immediately vulnerable to legal challenge. That will be a problem for individuals and their organisations.
But what we are witnessing here is something much worse than individual stupidity or petulance. This is a direct challenge to the rule of law and the consequences are extremely serious for us all. I have written about the importance of the rule of law many times, see this example for EBSWA. Basically, if you don’t have a system of laws that are accessible and fairly enforced, you won’t have a society worth living in. But don’t take my word for it. See what the UN has to say.
The rule of law is fundamental to international peace and security and political stability; to achieve economic and social progress and development; and to protect people’s rights and fundamental freedoms. It is foundational to people’s access to public services, curbing corruption, restraining the abuse of power, and to establishing the social contract between people and the state. Rule of law and development are strongly interlinked, and strengthened rule of law-based society should be considered as an outcome of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
It would be ironic if the final consequence of ‘be kind’ and ‘no debate’ was to undermine our peace, security and political stability; by having created and empowered a class of people who think they are above and beyond the law.
I can only hope this mass delusion is close to burning itself out. If it isn’t, then for next year’s event we are going to need a much, much bigger venue to celebrate a much more numerous line up of Claimants.
Some thoughts on anger and where it is directed
..that’s why this issue is much much more then just about women’s rights (or trans rights). It goes to the heart of our democratic societies: they must be rooted in reality and the rule of law or we all risk losing much more than a penis-free environment where women & girls are vulnerable and/or undressing.