EHRC issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released interim guidance on how organisations should interpret the UK Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex in law.The new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities". It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use.The EHRC said it was releasing interim guidance because "many people have questions about the judgement and what it means for them".Guidance on when competitive sports can be single-sex will be published in due course, the EHRC said.
Last week the Supreme Court found the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.As part of the judgement, Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.The EHRC - which enforces equalities law and provides guidance to policymakers, public sector bodies and businesses - said the impact of the ruling was that "if somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the [Equalities] Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)".In this respect, the EHRC says, "a trans woman is a biological man" and "a trans man is a biological woman".In schools, it says: "Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls' toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys' toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required."In associations - groups or clubs with more than 25 members - the EHRC says "a women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women)".The guidance states that "where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use".Where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing or changing facilities should be provided in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities, according to the guidance.Alternatively, the guidance says it is possible to have toilet, washing or changing facilities which can be used by all, provided they are "in lockable rooms (not cubicles)" and intended to be used by one person at a time. One such example might be a single toilet in a small business such as a café.The EHRC says the interim guidance, published online on Friday evening, is intended to highlight the main consequences of the Supreme Court judgement. "Employers and other duty-bearers must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary," it adds.A two-week consultation to seek views from "affected stakeholders" is expected to be launched in May. The EHRC aims to provide an updated code of practice to the government for ministerial approval by the end of June.A government spokesperson said: "We welcome the ruling and the clarity it brings for women, and service providers."We will review and update policy wherever necessary to ensure it complies with the latest legal requirements."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
UK urged to reverse ruling on litigation funding, introduce 'light-touch regulation'
LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Britain should urgently reverse a landmark ruling that threw third-party funding of lawsuits into disarray, an influential advisory body recommended on Monday in a report which was welcomed by funders and industry critics alike. The Civil Justice Council (CJC) also called for "light-touch regulation" of the litigation funding sector, which is currently self-regulated, particularly where funding is provided for class action-style lawsuits or to consumers. Monday's report comes after Britain's funding industry was dealt a surprise blow in 2023, when the UK Supreme Court ruled that agreements used to fund many mass lawsuits were unenforceable as they did not comply with rules on so-called damages-based agreements. The CJC said the government should pass legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's decision "as soon as possible", citing the importance of funding for access to justice. Britain's previous government, which asked the CJC to review the sector, said last year it would reverse the Supreme Court decision, before the current government put legislation on hold pending the CJC's report. The Ministry of Justice said in a statement that it welcomed the report and would "outline next steps in due course." The CJC – which advises the government and judiciary on the civil justice system – called for some regulation, including requirements for funders to have adequate capital and provisions to prevent conflicts of interest. It also recommended that class action-style cases need court approval of funding agreements, to allow the court to consider whether the funder's return is fair, just and reasonable. The report rejected, however, the introduction of caps on funders' returns, which the CJC said could not properly take account of the risks of funding cases and was unnecessary for consumer protection if courts had to approve funding deals. Neil Purslow – chair of industry body the International Legal Finance Association, who also founded litigation funder Therium – welcomed the CJC's recommendation to legislate to reverse the Supreme Court ruling. Seema Kennedy, executive director of Fair Civil Justice, which has called for greater regulation of litigation funding, said the CJC's call to regulate the industry was "long overdue". She said: "Proper oversight is essential to protect consumers, ensure transparency, and restore public confidence in a sector that currently operates without sufficient safeguards." Litigation funding is increasingly used in Britain, with the CJC citing figures that funders in England and Wales had assets of 2.2 billion pounds ($3 billion) in 2021. English courts have repeatedly recognised the need for funding to bring mass lawsuits, where the case's total value is often in the billions but payouts to individual consumers can be as low as double figures. The CJC report comes after court approval of a 200 million-pound settlement in a case against Mastercard, despite the opposition of funder Innsworth, which stands to receive around 68 million pounds.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
GRAHAM GRANT: Drained of credibility by a woke crusade, Police Scotland is now disconnected from the lives of those it serves
You might dimly remember that the police are supposed to be impartial, refusing to take sides in political debate. But that is a fast-receding memory in Scotland, where officers were told gender-critical campaigners are on a par with Nazis. As we revealed last week, a dangerously barmy message was circulated within the ranks making the obscene comparison. It came to light just as top brass were preparing to host a summit with diversity groups about the Supreme Court transgender ruling. In the best traditions of the single force, the media were kept out and we've no idea, officially, about what went on behind closed doors. The timing couldn't have been much worse – it's hard to build bridges with people you've just smeared as fascists. Police officers and staff were told that 'gender binary' - the belief there are only two genders - was a 'key feature' of Nazism. The identities of the person who sent the memo, or the officers who okayed it, haven't been disclosed - but it was removed from the force intranet and 'advice will be given around the use of language'. Police Scotland officers were told gender-critical campaigners are on a par with Nazis Well, that's all right then – but doesn't it seem a woefully inadequate response, given the seriousness of the charge the document contained? In any sane universe, whoever gave the green light for this inflammatory and grossly offensive document would be sacked, or at the very least severely disciplined, with questions asked about how they passed vetting procedures. Tory MSP Tess White is pressing the Chief Constable, Jo Farrell, for answers - but so far the force hasn't gone beyond the rather woolly statement about 'advice' on language. There's a deafening silence, as you would expect, from John Swinney and his colleagues - passionate advocates of the radical transgender policies recently found to have been without legal foundation by the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court ruling in April stipulated that 'sex' means biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 - which presents something of a challenge for the public sector, including Police Scotland. Trans ideology is baked into their protocols to comply with SNP government diktats - and now it will have to be rooted out. Much dragging of feet has ensued - though we're promised a new Police Scotland gender strategy soon, which will make everything crystal clear. Presumably, it won't repeat the Nazi slur - but who knows? The police position on these issues is hopelessly muddled. It had to write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for guidance on whether rapists should be allowed to self-identify as women. And last month Ms Farrell said police wouldn't be rushed into change in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, while her deputy Alan Speirs said it had had 'no bearing' on how the force does business. The Scottish Police Authority, which is supposed to hold the force to account, seemed largely content with this inertia, with some honourable exceptions on the board. The lack of urgency comes as the United Nations warns against letting criminals choose their own gender, after a new report found that 49 rapists were allowed to identify as female offenders in the UK. Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, said at least a third of UK forces were still collecting data on criminals and victims' self-identified gender rather than their assigned sex at birth. Police Scotland has been accused of misleading parliament over its own policy on recording gender, after any number of apparent flip-flops. Ms Farrell said last year that a man who commits rape or serious sexual assault will always be recorded as male. But in March it emerged that this stance - which campaigners said was a major policy U-turn - was not communicated to officers. With the number of claims of rape and attempted rape soaring to a record level, it's hard to see how any of this will provide reassurance to victims who might be considering whether to report their ordeal to the police. A woke crusade has drained credibility from a force which seems to be disconnected from the reality of life for those it is supposed to serve. Outside the sanctuary of police bosses' Zoom chats, gangland and youth violence are spiralling out of control. A diminished front line is battling this rising tide while police chiefs, who once kowtowed to a legally baseless equalities agenda, are busy trying to reverse out of the cul-de-sac they built for themselves. On streets where the reek of cannabis fumes is ever-present, young people are being stabbed and addicts are openly injecting drugs, sometimes only yards away from the SNP-backed heroin 'shooting gallery' - which costs us more than £2million a year. Beat bobbies are rarely seen on patrol and police stations are being sold off, reinforcing the impression that the force is in headlong retreat. More than 12,000 supposedly 'minor' crimes have been effectively written off under the 'proportionate response' approach, which is good news for criminals - but just another slap in the face for long-suffering victims. Yet the many mistakes of the SNP as it inflicted swingeing cutbacks on policing have been compounded by the misjudgments of police chiefs who approved this disgraceful abdication of responsibility. Last month a senior officer broke ranks to suggest that police need to stop 'wasting their time' probing social media posts and get back on the streets to deter crime. Rob Hay, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, deserves praise for pointing out that it is not the job of police to intervene when people were offended by posts. He said unless a crime was suspected, officers should be 'nowhere near' social media and must get back into the community to prevent and fight crime. Mr Hay has previously warned police must be 'pacifists in the culture war' and stay away from the 'divisive, political and toxic nature of some of the debate raging in wider society'. It's the kind of common sense which Police Scotland badly needs - but it shows no sign of heeding Mr Hay's wise counsel. For proof, consider the case of Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, whose mocking tweet about the SNP government's transgender policy was logged as a 'hate incident'. He shared a column which claimed the government's non-binary equality action plan would lead to children being 'damaged by this cult'. The row over Police Scotland's Nazi claim gives us an insight into the mindset of police chiefs - and makes it easier to see why police would regard an MSP's honestly held view as something akin to a thought crime. Once again, the only beneficiaries of this absurd shambles are the real criminals who are running riot - while policing is reduced to a laughing stock.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to review GEO Group's loss in immigrant detainee forced labor case
June 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if GEO Group can quickly appeal a judge's ruling denying the private prison operator governmental immunity in a class action claiming immigrant detainees were forced to work and paid $1 a day. The justices will consider, opens new tab whether the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct that it could not immediately hear GEO's appeal of that ruling because it was incremental and merely allowed the 2014 lawsuit to proceed. The issue is technical, but a Supreme Court ruling in favor of GEO could be an important victory for other federal contractors who are sued in connection with government contracts and raise immunity as a defense. The lawsuit in Colorado federal court accuses GEO of engaging in labor trafficking by threatening detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, facility with solitary confinement if they refused to participate in a work program. GEO operates more than a dozen federal civil immigrant detention centers across the country and has faced at least two lawsuits over a work program at a Washington facility. The company in its petition said the appeal issue has divided federal appeals courts and created uncertainty for federal contractors. The government is generally immune from legal liability arising from its performance of typical governmental functions, and that can extend to contractors in some situations. "The alternative is a legal backdoor through which activists can undermine policies with which they disagree by targeting contractors with lawsuits they could never bring against the government," the company said in its petition. Florida-based GEO and lawyers for the former detainees who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GEO has said that work programs at its facilities are voluntary and that federal regulations permitted the company to pay detainees as little as $1 a day to cook, clean, perform repairs, and staff a barber shop and library. The plaintiffs in a brief, opens new tab urging the Supreme Court not to take the case said the immunity issue overlaps with the merits of their claims against GEO, which should first be reviewed by the lower court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld rulings in separate cases requiring GEO to pay more than $23 million to the state of Washington and hundreds of immigrant detainees in the state for failing to pay the minimum wage to detainees who worked. The court rejected GEO's claim that it was entitled to immunity, saying the government did not dictate the wages GEO must pay to detainees or require it to operate the work program. The case is GEO Group v. Menocal, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-758. For GEO: Dominic Draye of Greenberg Traurig For the plaintiffs: Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler Read more: GEO Group can't nix $23 mln verdict over immigrant detainee pay GEO Group must pay minimum wage to immigrant detainees, court rules GEO Group wins legal challenge to California ban on private immigrant prisons
