Trans people must accept perceived reduced rights, EHRC commissioner
Speaking at a debate about the repercussions of April's ruling by the Supreme Court, Akua Reindorf said trans people have been misled and 'lied to over many years' about what their rights actually were.
Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and is drawing up the official post-ruling guidance, added that there 'has to be a period of correction' and believes the fault lay with trans lobbyists.
Reindorf was reportedly speaking in a personal capacity, but has been criticised as the director of the trans campaign group TransActual said the commissioner's remarks were profoundly unhelpful.
READ MORE: John Swinney defends 'two-horse race' comments after by-election loss to Labour
Human rights campaign groups Liberty and Amnesty have also called on the EHRC to safeguard the rights of trans people and to make sure they are properly considered when it draws up guidance for public bodies on how to implement the changed legal landscape.
Speaking at an event organised by the London School of Economics law school, Reindorf argued that the impact of the ruling was clear.
Reindorf condemned what she called 'this huge farce with organisations up and down the country wringing their hands and creating working groups and so on, and people in society worrying that they will have nowhere to go to the toilet'.
Asked by an audience member about worries the ruling could reduce the rights of trans people, another panellist, the barrister Naomi Cunningham, reportedly said trans people 'will have to give way'.
Cunningham added: 'It can't be helped, I'm afraid.'
Reindorf then agreed, as she said: 'Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are.
'It's like Naomi said – I just can't say it in a more diplomatic way than that.
'They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights.'
Reindorf said her comments reflected the fact that before the ruling, the law had been commonly misunderstood because pressure groups argued that trans people who self-identified should be treated as their identified sex, when this was in fact just the case for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Reindorf added that the Supreme Court decided that this mix of different rights made the Equality Act unworkable and called it 'the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place'.
She said: 'The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights.
'The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people.
'This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.'
In April, the EHRC released interim, non-statutory advice about how to interpret the ruling, which set out that transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they cannot use toilets of their birth sex.
A number of critics have since called the advice oversimplistic, with legal campaign groups saying they plan on challenging the verdict.
Chiara Capraro, head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, said: 'The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.'
Akiko Hart, Liberty's director, said: 'Any updated guidance from the EHRC must respect and uphold the rights of everyone in society. The supreme court's judgment was very narrow, and there are a lot of very legitimate questions about how it's implemented that must be carefully considered.'
A director of the trans campaign group TransActual, Jane Fae, rejected Reindorf's argument, stating: 'The characterisation of what was previously a widely held view both by the EHRC as well as by civil servants and lawyers working in the field of equality as 'lying' is profoundly unhelpful.
'Prior to the ruling of the supreme court in April, trans people just wanted to live their lives within the framework as it was understood.
''Activism' has only really come into being over the last few years in response to a never-ending campaign designed to deprive trans people of rights.'
A spokesperson for the EHRC said: 'Akua Reindorf KC spoke at this event in a personal capacity. This was made clear at the event and in the video recording published online.
'As Britain's equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission upholds and enforces the Equality Act 2010 to ensure everyone is treated fairly, consistent with the act.
'Our board come from all walks of life and bring with them a breadth of skills and experience. This helps us take impartial decisions, which are always based on evidence and the law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court curbs discrimination claims over lost retiree benefits
June 20 (Reuters) - Retirees cannot sue their former employers for disability discrimination after leaving their jobs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday in a ruling against a disabled former Florida firefighter that could make it harder to bring lawsuits seeking to restore lost retiree benefits. The ruling, opens new tab upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit by Karyn Stanley, who had worked as a firefighter in Sanford, that accused the city of discriminating against her by ending a health insurance subsidy for retirees. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the ruling, wrote that only job applicants and current employees are "qualified individuals" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, a landmark federal law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination," Gorsuch wrote. Gorsuch was joined by the court's five other conservative justices and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson penned separate dissenting opinions. While Stanley worked for Sanford, located in the suburbs of Orlando, the city changed its policy to limit health insurance coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley retired from her job after two decades because her Parkinson's disease had made it impossible for her to work, according to court filings. She sued the city in 2020, claiming it discriminated against workers who retired early because of a disability by giving them a smaller healthcare subsidy than employees who retired after 25 years of service. The city in court filings has said its policy was lawful and necessary to contain costs related to employee benefits. Sanford covers insurance costs for workers who retire after 25 years of service until they turn 65, and had previously done so for employees who retired due to a disability regardless of how long they worked for the city. While Stanley worked for the city, it changed its policy to limit coverage for disabled retirees to 24 months after they stopped working. Stanley was 47 when she retired. Friday's decision will help reduce the legal risks that employers face when they change or terminate retirement benefits, according to Caroline Pieper, a Chicago-based lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which represents employers. "While there are certainly other considerations ... this case should give employers more comfort under the ADA when they modify or reduce post-employment offerings," Pieper said, referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Friday's ruling affirmed decisions by a judge in Florida and the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Stanley's lawsuit.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court declines to fast-track challenge to Trump tariffs
The US supreme court declined on Friday to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs even before lower courts have ruled in the dispute. The supreme court denied a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the legal challenge against Trump's tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute by the nation's top judicial body. The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on 29 May that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the supreme court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court rejects toy makers' request to fast track tariff challenge
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs on products from China. The companies on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. 'In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process,' the companies argued in their request. Trump's tariffs, a key part of his economic agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. A federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments at the end of next month.
