Latest news with #JolyonMaugham
The National
6 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Second legal action launched against EHRC over trans guidance
Campaign group Liberty said it has submitted legal papers to the High Court alleging the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) six-week consultation period on the new guidance is 'unlawful', with anything less than 12 weeks 'wholly insufficient'. The Supreme Court ruled in April that said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, and a trans person acquiring a gender recognition certificate (GRC) did not allow them to access single-sex spaces. READ MORE: Comedian faces private prosecution over social media posts The equalities regulator published draft guidance earlier this month which said that trans people could be excluded from single-sex spaces which align with their acquired gender, but also that they could also be legally excluded from spaces which align with their birth gender. However, it also said trans people "should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use". The EHRC at that stage said it had tripled the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks, 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'. But Liberty is arguing this is not long enough and 'there is no good reason why it should not be' at least 12 weeks. The human rights organisation said it sent a pre-action letter to the EHRC earlier this week and has now submitted legal papers to the High Court and is waiting to see if a judge decides whether to proceed to a hearing based on its arguments. The group said it is also arguing that by having a consultation period shorter than 12 weeks, the commission is 'in breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED)' to 'eliminate unlawful discrimination'. Jolyon Maugham is the director of Good Law ProjectThe latest attempted legal challenge comes two weeks after campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) said it had taken the first step of a legal challenge against the commission over the aspect of the guidance related to trans people's use of toilets, which it is arguing is 'wrong in law'. Further EHRC draft guidance earlier this month indicated a birth certificate could be requested by a sports club or hospital if there is 'genuine concern' about what biological sex a person is. It said people can be asked to confirm their birth sex if it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'. It cautioned that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'. The commission added that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'. READ MORE: 'Do something!': Question Time audience member in fiery row with Labour MP on Israel The consultation on the draft guidance runs until June 30, with women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson likely to be presented with the finished guidance for approval in July. Akiko Hart, Liberty's director, said: 'We have taken legal action today because the consultation period set out by the EHRC is unlawful. 'As a public body, the EHRC has a legal duty to conduct a fair and lawful consultation process that allows everyone affected by a decision enough time to respond to it. 'Instead, they have tried to speed through sweeping changes to their guidance, initially giving just two weeks to people to respond to nearly 60 pages of amendments when printed out. Anything less than a minimum of 12 weeks on this issue is wholly insufficient and simply does not comply with the law. 'The EHRC's guidance will have life-changing implications for how all of us access vital services, from jobs, schooling, social clubs we might join, all the way up to how the armed forces operate. In particular, it will fundamentally change the ways in which trans people are able to safely participate in society, as well as how businesses and service providers operate. 'It is a fundamental part of our democracy that we are all given a fair opportunity to make our voices heard about any decision that impacts us. We urge the EHRC to extend the consultation period to at least 12 weeks, just as its previous consultation on this code of practice was. There is no good reason why it should not be.' The EHRC has been contacted for comment. Previously, responding to Good Law Project's legal action, it said: 'We are unable to comment on any threat of legal action at this stage.'
Telegraph
28-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Woke barrister Jolyon is going to find JK Rowling a far tougher opponent than the fox he beat to death
I could almost feel sorry for someone who has such a high opinion of themselves that they liken themselves to Gandhi but find they have feet of clay. 'I identify with the great protesters in history, people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King,' said Jolyon Maugham KC. I say 'almost'. But not quite. Because now this man has strayed into the issue of women's toilets and trans interlopers. And inevitably, he has taken aim at JK Rowling. Posting on the social media site Bluesky, Maugham declared that 'for JK Rowling 'sex-based rights' are not the right to be paid the same as men, to live without sexual violence or coercion, to share the burden of unpaid labour, to escape the motherhood penalty or have domestic abuse taken seriously. They are about the exclusion of trans women. Mind-blowing.' In her response on X (formerly Twitter), Rowling countered by saying that 'the only people who consider it 'anti-feminist' to point out that a woman is a woman by virtue of her biology are those who think female-specific anatomy or bodily functions are inferior in some way, that bearing young is a lowly, worthless occupation, or that misogynist social stereotypes are a worthier measure of who's a real woman'. If you don't live on X – and no one remotely sensible does – you may not know Jolyon Maugham. He is known chiefly for two things. He was a staunch Remainer who tried to stop Brexit by helping block Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament. And in Scotland and at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg he tried, with other lawyers, to get Article 50 revoked so that we could not withdraw from the EU. This was soon overturned, and Maugham was miffed but still preening. Yet there is something else he will be remembered for that is far more ignominious. On December 26 2019, he battered a fox to death. We know this because he tweeted about it. 'Already this morning I have killed a fox with a baseball bat. How's your Boxing Day going?' he posted. He then added that he was wearing his wife's too-small green kimono at the time. As you do. The RSPCA got involved. Like everyone else, I wondered: 'Why on earth would you tweet that unless you needed constant attention or possibly a court case?' Maybe he thought it added to the gaiety of the nation. Anyway, since Brexit is done, this KC, who made his fortune as a tax lawyer (which means exactly what you think it means: finding loopholes to help the very wealthy avoid tax through special schemes) and whose clients included Gary Barlow and Sir Alex Ferguson, has now become a fully fledged social justice warrior. He set up the Good Law Project to crowdfund his various hobby horses and bring cases to court and, to put it politely, he's had mixed results. Obviously, plebs like you and I think that with court cases, winning or losing are straightforward outcomes by which to judge someone. But Jolyon is very special: 'Winning and losing is a silly metric,' he once said. 'We could win all our cases if we chose only to pursue easy ones. But that would be to sacrifice impact for vanity.' Righto. He will also say things such as: 'We didn't lose. At a deeply technical level we lost. At every substantive level we won. It's not a good-faith assessment.' By 2022, of the 43 cases that the Good Law Project had funded with £4 million, it had won only eight. And just as Stonewall moved into agitating for trans rights when its other objectives had been achieved, so Maugham has moved into activism on that same topic. Some of this may be driven through personal connections. But, increasingly, I would say it is driven by his absolute contempt for any woman who dares to disagree with him. In 2023, he tried to stop the LGB Alliance, a group critical of trans activism, from becoming a charity, claiming it was funded by 'dark money'. And what the hell is this recent fantasy? 'You are a predatory cis man and walk into the women's showers at the gym,' he mused last month on Bluesky. 'You are challenged and pretend to be a trans man. You are disbelieved because your penis is erect but you claim to be post-op and 'biologically female'. What then happens? And how does any of this protect women?' What point does this make beyond an assertion of male privilege? He thinks about this stuff more than is healthy and the Supreme Court decision (that biological sex is a person's sex at birth) has, to use a technical term, made him even more insane in the membrane. This thought noodle is so perplexing, I really don't think Maugham is doing trans people any favours at all either. In fact, I think he is taking their money under false pretences. The Good Law Project is challenging the Supreme Court outcome, but this cannot work. In a now-deleted Bluesky post, he defamed Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, saying that nothing he said could be believed. As the evidence on the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones piles up, he has, in Rowling, picked on someone who has the cojones to put him in his place. He has the audacity to ask what she has done for women, trying to paint her as a transphobic bigot who cares little for women's equality. As a KC with a large number of staff, one might have thought someone would have informed him about all her decades of philanthropic work around women, children and domestic abuse survivors. Her private kindnesses and support are also legendary. This man, though, calls her 'a billionaire cry-baby'. He won't care what I say. He blocked me a long time ago for being 'rude'. In other words, I challenged him. Still, I have had the dubious pleasure of once being at a dinner with him. We got an extra chair for his ego. He was droning on and I went out for a lot of 'smoking breaks'. (I don't smoke.) He is now sailing close to the wind. The 'civil disobedience' that this social justice warrior is now proposing – urging trans women to ignore the Supreme Court ruling and use women's toilets – is an actual threat to women and their safety. He equates single-sex spaces as being close to fascism. An intervention needs to be made. He needs to lie down in a darkened room for a bit. With an angry fox in it.
Spectator
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Equalities watchdog faces legal action over trans rules
Oh dear. Now legal action has been launched against the UK's equalities watchdog – alleging that guidance around transgender people and toilet facilities breaches human rights law. Jolyon Maugham's Good Law Project has today announced it has instructed a team of lawyers in a case against the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Labour's equalities minister Bridget Phillipson. Good heavens… It comes after the ruling by the Supreme Court last month that backed the biological definition of a woman, concluding that 'sex' in the Equality Act referred to biological sex. The equalities watchdog insisted the ruling meant that transwomen should be prohibited from using female toilets and changing facilities – but despite the unanimous judgment coming from the highest court in the land, Maugham still isn't happy. 'Along either with a man and a woman who are trans and someone who is intersex,' he said, 'we are suing the EHRC and the equalities minister over the disgraceful and unlawful EHRC guidance.'
The National
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
UK minister and watchdog sued over single-sex toilet guidance
The Good Law Project said on Friday that it had instructed a team of barristers including two KCs and two juniors (one of whom is trans) in a case against Labour's Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The case focuses on guidance from the EHRC which was issued in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biology and is not impacted by a trans person acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The EHRC said the ruling meant that trans people could not use toilets which align with their acquired gender, but also that they could be excluded from using toilets which align with their birth sex if they look too much like the opposite gender. READ MORE: International study tears into 'deeply flawed' Cass Review of trans healthcare in UK Jolyon Maugham, Good Law Project's director, said: 'Along with a man and a woman who are trans, and someone who is intersex, we are suing the EHRC and Equalities Minister over the disgraceful and unlawful EHRC guidance. 'In line with our transparency principles we are publishing the full 32-page letter.' The formal letter has been sent to the EHRC and Phillipson, and under the pre-action protocol for judicial review which requires a response within 14 days. The claimants say that the EHRC guidance is either wrong in law or, if right, breaches the UK's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. They are asking the High Court to declare the UK in breach of its human rights obligations. Labour's Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson (Image: James Manning/PA Wire) Good Law Project said: 'In their detailed legal analysis – the first to be published following the Supreme Court decision – the individuals set out why the EHRC's guidance is not sustainable as a matter of law. 'Put shortly, the definition of 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 does not read across to the different legislation which deals with toilets and the normal legal meaning of those words, which include lived gender, continues to apply.' It went on: 'The claimants also say that, in interpreting the Equality Act 2010, the Supreme Court ignored its obligation in section 3 to comply with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. READ MORE: 'Massive increase' in UK military equipment sent to Israel under Labour, data shows 'In their case, the obligation on the High Court will be placed centre stage, and the Minister for Women and Equalities will be asked to choose whether she abandons her statement that trans people must use the toilet of their 'biological' sex or defend it as consistent with the UK's human rights obligations.' Maugham, a KC himself, added: 'The stark and needlessly cruel position adopted by the Government and the EHRC humiliates trans people by forcing them to use the wrong toilets and obliges them to reveal deeply personal information about their gender to complete strangers just to take a wee. 'It is deeply unkind, far removed from the national mood of mutual respect and live and let live, and is unlawful to boot.' The EHRC and the UK Government's Equalities Office have been approached for a response.
The National
03-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Supreme Court gender ruling has had swift impact on transgender lives
It has been just over three weeks since the UK's highest court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010 a woman is defined by 'biological sex', and does not include a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) – as has been the interpretation of the law, across public and private bodies in the UK, for the past 20 years. In that short period, the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) interim guidance has banned trans men and women from toilets and other single-sex spaces, an approach dubbed 'authoritarian' and segregation. READ MORE: Jolyon Maugham: Why I think Supreme Court challenge would work in Scotland On Thursday, the Scottish Football Association, and England's, announced that transgender women were now banned from playing the women's game. The English FA then admitted this impacted fewer than 30 transgender players registered among millions of amateur players. By Friday, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) announced that transgender women would no longer be able to play in competitive women's and girl's cricket. The Scottish Government also revealed on Friday that plans to introduce a bill to criminalise misogyny would be parked until after the Holyrood election, citing the 'implications' of the Supreme Court ruling. Its plans to ban conversion practices for LGBT+ Scots were also dropped. (Image: PA) Ministers said that instead of bringing forward legislation that has been in the pipeline for years, they would instead wait to see if Westminster legislates on the issue UK-wide. If they don't, the Scottish Government would take on the mantle after the election in 2026. End Conversion Therapy, a campaign group who have pushed for the legislation to be brought to Holyrood, said it was the 'latest betrayal' by the Scottish Government against the LGBT+ community. Humanist Society Scotland also accused ministers of 'taking the easy option' to avoid negative press. Hundreds of campaigners took to the EHRC's Glasgow offices on Friday to protest the interim guidance and called for it to be scrapped. The strength of feeling was clear, with loud chanting reverberating around the city centre as the protesters called for the chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner to be removed from her role. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Labour Government also came under fire from the speakers. READ MORE: John Swinney stresses 'threat' of Nigel Farage after English elections One of the organisers Dr Kirstie Ken English told The National that the Scottish Government had 'kicked our rights into the long grass'. Asked if they thought that the Scottish Government would stand up for the push against transgender rights, they said ministers should 'do better'. 'You should be defending those who are most at risk, and that means coming out [in support of] trans people,' they added. The impact of the Supreme Court's ruling has been likened to Section 28, the infamous part of the Local Government Act 1988 brought in by then-Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher, that prohibited local authorities from 'promoting homosexuality'. While the scope of this part of legislation was legally relatively small, its cultural impact was much wider. The legislation was not repealed until 2000 in Scotland, and 2003 in England and Wales. (Image: Gordon Terris) It is not clear how long the fallout from the Supreme Court ruling will impact the lives of transgender people living in the UK, but the climate is already changing. While many beeped their horns in support of the Glasgow protesters, many passerbys could be heard shouting obscenities, one telling campaigners to 'f*** off'. 'They don't have any rights apparently,' another could be heard saying scornfully.
