Talk:Equality and Human Rights Commission

Edit request: 7 March 2017
Firstly, I am a member of the Communication team at the EHRC. I have declared my professional interest at the top of this page, please also see my user page.

I propose that the most recent edit to the page be reverted to the 12 February version.

Looking at the revision history, the page has been edited 6 times by the deactivated account Savetheehrc to add the section Industrial relations. On 12 February, the edits were removed by IronGargoyle with the reason given that "Sources are not independent, and edits seem to be POV". On 1 March, the edits were reverted by Savetheehrc citing the reasoning "Undid revision because my version is supported by evidence from the trade union representing the sacked staff and by an award winning journalist with over thirty years experience."

This explanation does not address the reason for the initial removal from IronGargoyle, that the sources cited in this section are not presenting an independent or neutral point of view, coming from a press release from the PCS Union and a blog post.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe the account Savetheehrc had an undeclared conflict of interest in editing this page. There is a Twitter handle under the same username and the account history indicates it was created with the sole intention of editing this page.

As this page has been edited and reverted numerous times in recent months, I also request that the page be placed on an editor's watchlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EHRC Comms (talk • contribs) 12:32, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

Addition to the lede 19 February 2022 by PanagiotisZois
The organisation and certain members have come under fire for issues relating to racial minorities, disabled people, and LGBT rights. Since 2021, the organisation has increasingly targeted and worked against LGBT rights, especially transgender rights. 

The lede should follow the body of the article. Your addition is not justified by the text in the body of the article. The onus is on you to justify your addition. Also, once your addition had been reverted by me, you should have taken the matter to this Talk page, instead of reverting me. That is the customary procedure, and I would be surprised if you don’t already know that. I see no justification for your edit: it should be reverted. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That proposed text is supported by the content in Equality and Human Rights Commission, particularly; Equality and Human Rights Commission and Equality and Human Rights Commission. Most recently the current head of the EHRC has taken some flak for her intervention in Scottish gender recognition reform, as well as her private meetings with anti-trans organisations. In light of this, it does seem DUE to include it to me, though I'd prefer if it was cited. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve read the parts of the article that you refer to. Please provide quotes which support the addition by PZ. I don’t see any. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In support for come under fire for issues relating to racial minorities see sources 27 and 68 in the main article. I think this is perhaps the weakest part of the sentence however.
 * In support for come under fire for issues relating to...disabled people see sources 69-72 in the main article. In particular I think A week later, Disability News Service revaled that the EHRC refused to consult its own disabled advisers before dropping the probe is quite damning of the EHRC's response to a request by an MP for investigation into the DWP.
 * In support of targeted and worked against LGBT rights, especially transgender rights. I would direct attention to the Guardian and Vice sources linked above, in addition to sources 78-108 in the main article. As for particular quotations, I think the joint press release of every major LGBT rights organisation in the UK referring to the EHRC no longer being fit for purpose, and asking the UN High Comissioner for Human Rights and the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions to intervene is the strongest part of the current body that supports that addition. Overall I think this is the most well supported part of the proposed text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, but that wasn’t actually what I meant. The lede should be a summary of what is in the body. You have referred me to sources, rather than the wording in the article.


 * As regards racial minorities, that, I think, is the strongest part of the addition, (sorry to disagree with you again!) since there is material in the body about criticism of the EHRC for its treatment of employees from racial minorities. I think this worth mentioning in the lede, because it is significant since the EHRC is supposed to be opposed to discrimination.


 * Disabled people: The section in the body does not say that the EHRC has been criticised for issues relating to disabled people. It merely sets out some exchanges on the subject.


 * LGBT including transgender rights: There is nothing in the body saying that the organisation has increasingly targeted and worked against LGBT rights, especially transgender rights This is particularly serious, since this is stated in wikivoice. It is also a bit of a nonsense: for instance, ‘targeted’ does not mean anything in particular, and it is not clear to me how the EHRC could ‘work against’ rights. As far as I can see, there is no suggestion that the EHRC has ever been criticised in relation to LGB matters: the recent criticism has related to transgender issues (rather than ‘transgender rights’, which don’t really exist as such in UK law).


 * Proposal: I agree that there should be something in the lede about the recent criticism of the Commission. I suggest: The Commission has been criticised for its treatment of minority staff, and for its attitude to transgender matters.


 * Sweet6970 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Racial minorities: that's fair. I felt that section was the weakest due to it having the fewest sources, dated 2017 and 2020. I wonder if perhaps there are more recent sources to expand that section in general?
 * Disabilities: fair. Like with the section on racism, it's largely limited to a single intervention, and I wonder if there are more recent sources for expanding that section as well?
 * LGBT including transgender rights: I guess that's a perspective thing? When it comes to anti-LGBT actions or words, I largely consider an attack on one to be an attack on them all, especially given the overlap (eg, someone can be gay and trans). However The 'work against' rights I would argue is both their recent interventions against Scottish GRA reform which affects trans people primarily, and submissions to the public consultation on conversion therapy. Their submission in that consultation proposed that "consensual" efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity should be excluded from any ban, which would explicitly impact both sexual orientations and gender identity. Again though, this is a recent thing, primarily affecting the last five or so years of the organisation's history.
 * Assuming we can't come to agreement on the scope of the EHRC's actions on sexuality and gender, I do like the proposal, with one suggested substitution. I'd maybe swap "attitude" for a different word, as I don't think it fully encompasses why every major LGBT organisation made their recent joint statement. The issue isn't just the attitude of the EHRC, which would apply to the internal allegations by whistleblowers, but the actions it has taken in public consultations (Scottish GRA reform, conversion therapy ban), legal interventions (Forstater v CGD), and the revelations by VICE of the seemingly inappropriate high level contact between Baroness Falkner and anti-trans organisations (though I've just realised this source isn't in the article). It's also not true for the entire history of the organisation, as it seems to be something specific over the last five or so years and I think we should reflect that in the wording. Perhaps for its recent interventions in transgender matters. or for its recent actions in transgender matters. would be more suitable and accurate? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To Sideswipe9th: Thank you for your suggestion. I prefer ‘its recent actions in transgender matters’, so this would give The Commission has been criticised for its treatment of minority staff, and for its recent actions in transgender matters. Do you agree to this? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the EHRC fought to have "gender critical" beliefs recognized as a protected category, which are often part of TERF rhetoric, as well as trying to make it so that "consensual" forms of conversion therapy are allowed, despite the fact that any form of conversion therapy has been deemed as charlatanism and a form of torture, I'd argue that the organization as a whole is very much working against LGBT rights. And lets not forget that in regards to conversion therapy, the didn't just state that consensual forms of it should be allowed solely in regard to gender identity, but also sexual orientation. So it's not just T rights they're working against but LGB-T rights as a whole. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To PanagiotisZois : I would prefer not to get into discussion about so-called “TERF rhetoric”. I have a feeling this would rapidly degenerate into WP:NOTFORUM. Do you agree with the proposed alternative wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the "The Commission has been criticised for its treatment of minority staff, and for its recent actions in transgender matters" wording? That looks good, although I believe it'd be better if we also stated the year these issues started appearing. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "The Commission has been criticised for its treatment of minority staff, and for its actions since 2021 in transgender matters. " Sweet6970 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe put since 2021 before for like ...and since 2021 for its actions in transgender matters.? I think that flows more naturally in English. Having since 2021 after actions reads more stilted to me. It's a tough one to place though, as the criticism flows from the post 2021 actions, and you don't want to confuse readers that only the criticism is recent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean: "The Commission has been criticised for its treatment of minority staff, and since 2021 for its actions in transgender matters. ". If so, I would be happy with this wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is a very appropriate way to phrase things. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is I feel a more natural way of saying that. Looks good. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now made the change. I am glad that we have been able to reach agreement on this. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Clean up
Hi all,

Just popping in to note that I have 'cleaned up' the article a bit and added extra sources. I've split the controversy/criticism section into two, but I am still not happy with the title I have picked. If anyone has better ideas for the 'gender-critical' bit please have a bit of a discussion on it. Also, if anyone knows whether for 'parent department' if Cabinet Office or Gov Equals Office is more accurate, please tell me!

Regardless, I am coming back to do more, especially on Powers! Nordrhein-Westfalen-CanlntoSpace (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Latinamarcy (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits re ‘blanket basis’ etc. to 'Definition of sex in the Equality Act'
An IP has added (a) blanket basis without requiring justification This is not in the source, and I don’t think it can be inferred from the source, and (b) Currently trans people in posession of a GRC may only be excluded where this is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". This appears to be an explanation of the law, using a primary source. My view is that neither of these should be included, as the additions are, in effect, a Wikipedia editor’s view on the effect of the proposed change in the law. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit does appear to be an WP:OR read of the primary source, so I've reverted for now. The IP is free to discuss the changes here and we can see if their argument is persuasive. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)