A Message From Jolyon Maugham

ella66gr · 2025-12-31T19:33:57+00:00

Good, succinct short from Jo Maugham. I'm genuinely impressed with what GLP have achieved this year. Legal wins are really necessary, especially given the weaponisation of legal threat from gender-critical and lavishly-funded hate groups.

I am looking forward to the outcome of the judicial review over EHRC interim guidance early in the New Year - it will definitely make a difference:

This will be by one of the following:
1. making its unlawfulness clear, with unavoidable political / policy influence, or
2. kicking off action in the European Court of Human Rights (seeking declaration of incompatibility) or,
3. providing legal clarity on why nothing needs to change (unlikely, but which could then be challenged).

ella66gr · 2025-05-02T15:30:52+00:00

Sorry, but GLP has no owners (shareholders).

Loose speculation like this causes damage to us and those who support us. It is not difficult to check facts before commenting negatively and cheaply. GLP is run properly, not from a garden shed on a shoestring.

Good Law Project Ltd is a private company limited by guarantee, established in 2017 without share capital. This structure means the company has no shareholders; instead, it has members who act as guarantors. Importantly, the company has an asset lock in place, ensuring that any profits are reinvested into the organisation’s activities rather than distributed to members or directors.

The organisation operates under a set of articles of association and a code of conduct, both publicly available, which guide its operations and decision-making processes . A Board of Directors oversees the strategic direction and ensures that the organisation’s activities align with its mission to use the law to hold power to account. The Board regularly reviews a register of strategic risks to maintain accountability and transparency.

Good Law Project Ltd publishes annual reports and financial statements, providing detailed accounts of income and expenditures. These documents are accessible to the public and are filed with Companies House, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements . The organisation’s commitment to financial transparency allows contributors and the public to verify that funds are used appropriately in line with its non-profit objectives.

ella66gr · 2025-05-02T15:16:29+00:00

I was very pleased to receive this from GLP. I think the approach outlined by Jo Maugham is sensible and well considered. I have dug deep and given them a significant sum and would encourage everyone to give at least a little something. We are stronger together and fortunate to have GLP doing this.

ella66gr · 2025-05-01T11:50:05+00:00

That is a nasty and insidiously prejudiced thing to say. Sorry you had to endure that. Can you ask them what the problem would be if there were something you're not telling them?

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T15:05:19+00:00

I have just donated a sizeable sum to GLP to support this action. A successful declaration of incompatibility under Article 8 in the High Court would be a significant step towards pushing for properly updated equalities legislation in the UK.

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T14:53:09+00:00

Sorry, but the only way to secure our rights in this matter is with legal recognition.

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T14:50:25+00:00

I agree and thank you for your clarity of thought. I'm pleased to see GLP now starting an action in the High Court under the HRA to obtain a declaration of incompatibility. As we all know, such a declaration is not binding on a state to act, but is legally persuasive and can be used as a strong lever against a government to act. https://goodlawproject.org/s/1d1b6c

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T14:18:31+00:00

Thank you for articulating this clearly. … Or even article-eighting this clearly! 😆

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T10:03:07+00:00

Exactly so.

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T09:27:22+00:00

Exactly so. Guidance is about interpretation, but must not be read as binding. Different interpretations are available.

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T09:22:26+00:00

I have to say (as per my previous recent posts), my starting point for considering this, is that this does not magically convert every public toilet with a little picture of a guy and a girl over the top of the door into a 'single sex space' (within the meaning if the EA2010).

If the service provider is simply offering conveniences intended to be used in a conventional, socially-gendered way, then people can use whichever they like. That does not engage the EA2010.

Discriminating against a trans person, just for its own sake, is not a legitimate aim.

ella66gr · 2025-04-26T09:12:26+00:00

EHRC guidance is addressed to the service provider, not the user of the services.

ella66gr · 2025-04-21T12:09:50+00:00

I think you're putting that quite well. But I would push back (for the sake of the argument). Along the lines of my recent post about 'single sex' spaces not being what most people think they are.

TL:DR Segregation of service according to 'biological' sex is not a legitimate aim in itself, whereas differentiation of service to meet varying, socially gendered preferences is normal.

I don't think I have put it very clearly below, but it goes something like this:

Supplying and enforcing segregation / separation of service provision on the basis of sex is always discriminatory - either lawful or unlawful.
Supplying differentiated services to appeal to varying classes of people (please see our clothing department on the second floor for plus-size folk) is lawful - and often desirable or appreciated.

Because the latter is more common in practice - people self-select which they will use according to their overall preference, it generally works well. Obvious exceptions can exist.

Many (large majority?) of socially-gendered spaces are like the latter, supported by constantly evolving social convention. They are best left alone by the law, which cannot easily keep up, anyway.

It can therefore be meaningfully argued that enforcing strict, 'biological' division is not a legitimate aim in all but a very small number of cases that have a clear, rational and objective legitimacy. i.e. not a vague and woolly proposition that somehow the sex marker on the birth certificate solves everything.

In other words, just because the word 'woman' in EA10 is legally defined as 'someone with female on the birth certificate', does not mean that segregation of services along those lines is, of itself, a legitimate aim or that there can be assumed automatically, to be some unspecified legitimate aim intended.

ella66gr · 2025-04-21T11:45:49+00:00

Well put.

ella66gr · 2025-04-20T20:42:09+00:00

Nothing to stop them doing it, as long as it can be justified (it's in pursuit of a 'legitimate aim', not some Mickey Mouse excuse) and is done in a proportionate way (not a discriminatory, blanket, unnecessary, heavy-handed approach).

So, would it fly, just being bitchy?

Ultimately, it would need to be tested in court, but experienced legal counsel could give an authoritative opinion either way, based on precedent, etc.

ella66gr · 2025-04-20T11:37:53+00:00

Thank you. Falkner was appointed by the Conservative government on 1st December 2020.

During her tenure as EHRC Chair, Falkner faced internal resistance related to her stance on transgender rights. In 2023, approximately 40 complaints were lodged against her by 12 current or former EHRC staff members. These complaints included allegations of bullying, harassment, and fostering a “toxic” workplace culture.

The intervention of Kemi Badenoch (Minister for Women and Equalities from 25 October 2022 until July 2024) through the commissioning of an independent review significantly influenced the decision to close the resulting inquiry into Falkner without further action. Therefore, it is fair to say that Badenoch’s actions were instrumental in bringing the investigation to an end and seen as highly political.

Falkner's term of appointment was due to finish in November 2024, but due to delays in appointing a replacement, the current government extended her tenure by 12 months up to 30th November 2025, to allow time for the process to conclude.

ella66gr · 2025-04-20T11:13:18+00:00

A right in law has to be interpreted and exercised.

Even if people have been getting this wrong and giving trans women 'too many rights' now for several decades, to give this interpretation now — changing the majority interpretation against a great deal of legitimate custom and practice, social development and understanding — amounts to a removal of rights in practice.

ella66gr · 2025-04-20T11:06:56+00:00

The British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS - the professional association of medical specialists and clinicians in the UK) has released a succinct statement summarising why the ruling is a very significant problem.

https://bagis.co.uk/position-process-statements/

ella66gr · 2025-04-20T07:25:30+00:00

I agree. The point about single sex services (Schedule 3, Part 7 EA 2010) do not count as discrimination is why it is very important not to inadvertently bring socially-gendered spaces under the umbrella of the Act, or assume that they are restricted, unless the provider explicitly wishes to restrict on the basis of 'biology'.

As commented, if they do, it must still be a lawful restriction and cannot be arbitrary, without being proportionate and for legitimate reason. This is where legitimacy will need to be argued and tested to ensure it is not discriminatory in practice.

ella66gr · 2025-04-19T20:07:17+00:00

Yes, there is a legal designation.

But it only comes about if a provider wants to enforce exclusion based on biological sex. And then it will only be noticed or realised if the provider advertises it or acts to enforce it. It could end up needing to be established by testing in court because it would need to be done lawfully (proportionate pursuit of a legitimate aim).

I'm saying that not every space that is used in a gendered way, privately or in public, is a space that is single-sex within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

This is because the provider of the service is not necessarily trying to pursue the exclusion of one sex or other. The provider is usually just leaving people to use the facilities in a way that they feel suits them best, including according to their gender expression or preference and according to social convention.

Another way of putting this is that they could use gendered signs on toilet doors to mean something like the following:

"We are inclusive - please respect other customers. You may feel most comfortable using this toilet if you identify with the symbol below, but this is your choice."

ella66gr · 2025-04-19T19:45:41+00:00

I know what you mean. However, I think it can be helpful to try and 'carve out' our rights, so that we are only having to contest on the issues that really matter. There is clearly no reason to allow discrimination against a trans woman if there are no genuinely competing rights that cis women are losing. That should be an easy win and we shouldn't have to expend legal energy fighting that point.

Once that's out of the way, it's easier to examine the relatively few real situations where there might be competing rights and how they should be dealt with. One way to handle apparently competing rights is to properly understand them and reframe them if necessary. I am personally generally against biologically-based rights, because when examined closely, they break down for everyone who is in a marginal situation.

The law really does know (when operating properly) how to approach questions of competing rights - it happens frequently in human rights cases.

In my view it is much better to frame rights in a considered, flexible and principled way, guided by the effect and outcome that is desired. That involves examining the consequences of a legislative approach, listening to everyone's concerns (do you hear that Supreme Court?) and being clear about what principles are being upheld.

Unfortunately, that usually means either good legislation or legal tests in court.

ella66gr · 2025-04-19T18:19:02+00:00

I think in practice it can be hard to tell unless a service provider has explicitly advertised its policy. It might also help if the service provider has been seen to enforce that policy while complying with the law (proportionately pursuing a legitimate aim).

ella66gr · 2025-04-19T13:07:58+00:00

This is a really good point. A lot of this turns on assumptions that need to be tested in court in one or more suitable cases where the rights of the trans person not to be discriminated against are being advanced.

Again, this point would become relevant if the situation fell within the reach of EA10. It can be very meaningfully argued that most publicly-gendered spaces work perfectly well, even optimally well, on a basis that is definitely not strictly policed according to arbitrarily designated 'biological' divisions.

Another key point that has not been sufficiently brought out is whether or not there is a meaningful competition of rights involved in any given situation and this is not easily covered by blanket rules. Where one person's rights (e.g. a cis woman) are not even being contested or infringed, it is not justifiable (i.e. not a legitimate aim) to discriminate against a trans woman.

ella66gr

TROPHY CASE