Britain’s human rights watchdog has accused “activist” trans rights campaigners of attempting to “unduly influence” its legal independence after successfully resisting an attempt to strip it of its international status (Telegraph, Times).
Stonewall and other LGBTQ+ organisations made a formal complaint against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) last year, claiming that the body was “trans hostile”, and had proposed protections for women’s sex-based rights that “actively harm trans people”.
The complaint led to a review of the EHRC’s UN accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (Ganhri), the independent body that accredits human rights organisations. One possible outcome was that the EHRC would be stripped of its so-called ‘A status’, meaning it would no longer have a place at the table of the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies. Countries which have previously been stripped of their A status in this way include Azerbaijan, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Afghanistan
However, Ganhri has now concluded its review and confirmed that the EHRC remained “fully compliant” with its obligations and was operationally independent.
Speaking to the Times about the decision, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairwoman of the EHRC, said: “We always believed there were inaccuracies in the submissions made against us. I can reassure all those we work with, and the British public we serve, that we take great pride in our independence from government.
“But it is important too, to maintain our independence from activist organisations wishing to unduly influence our legal opinions and policy. We routinely demonstrate our impartiality through our willingness to challenge both robustly,” she added.
Stonewall and others first lodged a complaint about the EHRC to Ganhri in February 2022, after Lady Falkner wrote to the governments in Holyrood and Westminster calling for them to pause before enacting laws governing legal gender recognition and conversion therapy.
The lobby groups’ request for a special review was rejected, but they were invited to contribute to a regular five-year review which took place later in the year. That review re-accredited the EHRC as an A status organisation.
However, Stonewall’s persecutory instincts were reactivated in April 2023, when the EHRC’s Chairwoman, Lady Falkner, provided advice to Kemi Badenoch, the Women and Equalities Minister, stating that changing the word “sex” to “biological sex” in the equalities law would help bring clarity on contentious issues such as the participation of biological men in women’s sport and the inclusion of biological men in ‘women-only’ shortlists drawn up by political parties.
Specifically, the EHRC Board’s advice on this complex and divisive issue made clear that the Government should lean towards a biological definition of sex as the fairest way of protecting everyone’s rights, but that it should carefully identify and consider the potential implications of any such change for the rights of trans people.
That, however, wasn’t enough for Stonewall et al, who fired off another complaint to Ganhri. The rationale behind the complaint was that the EHRC’s suggested protections for biological sex was “actively harming trans people”.
In their letter, which was also copied to UN human rights bosses, the organisations accused the EHRC of a lack of political independence and of issuing guidance on single-sex spaces which “sought to enable greater exclusion of trans women” from women-only spaces such as changing rooms and toilets. The suggestion that sex should be defined in law as biological was “unfair”, they added.
As if on cue, trans activists and their allies in the (at least nominally) politically neutral civil service then began what one EHRC insider describes as an “ideologically motivated witch-hunt” against Baroness Falkner, compiling a dossier setting out more than 40 complaints about her performance as EHRC chairwoman.
The dossier bemoaned “a lack of psychological safety” in the office, and said there is a “fear or who will be attacked next”. One source alleged that “unacceptable behaviour” by “transphobic” Baroness Falkner was “becoming normalised”. Another took issue with someone rolling their eyes, while another alleged Baroness Falkner referred to a trans activist as a “bloke in lipstick” [disinformation alert: she uttered that phrase while describing the abuse of trans people].
Baroness Falkner’s supporters believe these “ideological” and “vexatious” complaints were sparked by the position the EHRC has taken on the complex question of how to balance trans rights against women’s rights.
Following an independent legal investigation into the EHRC’s handling of these complaints commissioned by Ms Badenoch, the EHRC announced that the investigation into Baroness Falkner would be closed, and a full review would take place into the “process failures which occurred”.
Speaking at the time, a source close to Ms Badenoch said: “Kishwer Falkner has been a courageous chair of the EHRC who has dealt deftly with many contentious issues.
“Kemi has always been clear that good public servants should not be hounded out of office and she is pleased this process has now concluded.”
