...We have written a response to the Supreme Court calling for it to fully address our concerns, including additional concerns about how our complaint was handled. We have therefore requested a formal review.
TACC
@tacc.org.uk
4.2K followers 250 following 2.6K posts
TACC is an intersectional organisation dedicated to advocating for trans rights, addressing transphobia, and unofficial EHRC watchdog. ❤️Donate: alturl.com/ipg2h 🌴 linktr.ee/tacc_uk 🏳️⚧️ The only true feminism is intersectional
![I am writing on behalf of the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC) to ask the Committee to
consider an issue that raises significant concerns for freedom of expression, parliamentary scrutiny and the
ability of civil society organisations to contribute to public debate.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International UK published a report entitled A Growing Threat: The Anti-rights
Movement in the UK, which examined a number of organisations campaigning on issues relating to
equality, LGBT+ rights and reproductive rights.
The report has since been removed from Amnesty International UK's website. In its place, Amnesty has
published a statement confirming that the briefing has been temporarily withdrawn while it undergoes an
internal review, while reaffirming its commitment to campaigning for the rights of women, LGBTQI people
and trans people.
Following publication, several organisations named in the report, including Sex Matters, and LGB Alliance,
have publicly stated that they had challenged the report and that, and they suggested their intention to
bring defamation proceedings, had it remained published. Amnesty has not publicly stated whether its
internal review is connected to these correspondence.
Regardless of whether these events are directly related, the situation raises broader questions that we
believe Parliament should examine.
Human rights organisations, charities, academics and campaign groups all play an important role in
informing public debate and assisting Parliament in its scrutiny of legislation and public policy. If
organisations become reluctant to publish evidence-based research because of the prospect of expensive
legal disputes, there is a real risk that matters of public importance will go unreported or unpublished.
This is not a question of whether one agrees with Amnesty International UK's conclusions [...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreicwk62zsoqstgo3533omvdigvzivyvj4r6wbhzy2y7nlfd76qajym)
![I am writing to express concern about the apparent chilling effect that threatened defamation proceedings
may be having on charities and civil society organisations publishing research on matters of significant
public interest.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International UK published a report entitled A Growing Threat: The Anti-rights
Movement in the UK. The report examined organisations campaigning on issues including transgender
rights, abortion and wider equality law, and made a series of recommendations to regulators, including the
Charity Commission.
The report has since been removed from Amnesty International UK's website. In its place, Amnesty has
published a short statement confirming only that the briefing has been "temporarily removed" while it
undergoes an internal review, while reaffirming its commitment to campaigning on the rights of women,
LGBTQI people and trans people.
Following publication, several organisations named in the report, including Sex Matters, and LGB Alliance,
have publicly stated that they had challenged the report and that, and they suggested their intention to
bring defamation proceedings, had it remained published. Amnesty has not publicly stated whether its
internal review is connected to these correspondence.
Whether or not those events are directly related, they raise an important question that extends far beyond
the substance of Amnesty's report.
If charities, researchers and civil society organisations begin withdrawing publications because of the
prospect of costly legal disputes, there is a risk that public interest research will increasingly be shaped not
by evidence, but by who has the greatest resources to threaten litigation.
Freedom of expression does not only protect popular opinions. It also protects the ability of organisations
to publish research, contribute to public debate and criticise powerful interests without facing
disproportionate legal pressure[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreidhrt7j4qryofinpr64iuzshqrh5kpv27yy22ub5s74yawtultddi)
![For years, Sex Matters has portrayed itself as a victim of censorship. According to its public messaging,
gender-critical voices are supposedly excluded from civil society, silenced by institutions, shut out of
debate and denied freedom of expression. Every disagreement is framed as an existential attack on free
speech.
Yet the moment a major human rights ('non-anti-rights') organisation publishes research that is critical of
them, their response is not to publish a rebuttal, commission alternative research, or engage with
Amnesty's arguments. Instead, they boast that they were prepared to sue Amnesty International for
defamation.
The irony is difficult to ignore.
This letter repeatedly invokes freedom of expression, dialogue and human rights. It speaks of "constructive
dialogue", complains that Amnesty failed to engage with them, and insists that differing views should be
respected. Yet the same letter proudly declares that had Amnesty not withdrawn its report, Sex Matters
intended to drag one of the world's best-known human rights organisations into court.
Apparently, freedom of expression is a universal principle right up until somebody expresses an opinion
they don't like.
This has become a familiar pattern. When gender-critical organisations are criticised, they frequently
respond by claiming persecution. They argue that disagreement amounts to censorship, that criticism
amounts to discrimination, and that being called out for their campaigning somehow infringes their human
rights. But criticism is not censorship. Being challenged is not being silenced. And having your views
scrutinised is not an attack on free speech.
Freedom of expression cuts both ways. If Sex Matters believes it has the right to publish reports, lobby
government, intervene in court cases, criticise public bodies and campaign against the rights of
transgender people, then Amnesty International has the same right to analyse those activities and reach
conclusions that Sex Matters dislikes[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreidy7kpyusod2zfw5swnir4kknhavqcx7vgqkfzuhddyxhik3fwv4a)
![Attach this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1psgpYr3XD-lgAq_uxdOjnGTezcnFIeDS/view?usp=sharing
The Email:
Dear [Enter relevant honorific or salutation],
Please find attached a letter regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the implications this may have for public authorities considering implementation of the EHRC Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
We would be grateful if this correspondence could be forwarded to the relevant legal, governance, equality, and policy teams for consideration.
For further information, please respond to info@tacc.org.uk
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Please add the name of the public body you have emailed to this form once sent, so we can keep a log: https://forms.gle/G5mgb2R45JQBWMCZ7](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreidktlwugocw5ipymgzib3yns7orvmrap3seps53b6ohogoeatb2se)
![Dear Colleague,
We write to draw your attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in RR v Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions [2019] UKSC 52, which has significant implications for all public authorities considering implementation of
the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
In RR, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that public authorities, courts and tribunals are not merely
permitted but are required to disapply subordinate legislation where its application would result in a breach of
Convention rights. Lady Hale stated:
"There is nothing unconstitutional about a public authority, court or tribunal disapplying a provision of
subordinate legislation which would otherwise result in their acting incompatibly with a Convention
right, where this is necessary in order to comply with the HRA."
This reaffirmed the central principle of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
This principle remains relevant when considering the EHRC Draft Code of Practice.
The Equality Act 2010 is primary legislation, and public authorities must comply with it as interpreted by the courts.
However, the Draft Code itself is guidance. While it is intended to assist service providers and public authorities in
understanding the law, it does not override obligations arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, nor does it remove
the need for public authorities to undertake their own equality and human rights assessments[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreibx4gdjd33inmgxods7udsitvqtcgroittdpndk45437tfs55lsp4)
![[...]Many of the harms identified within the Equality Impact Assessment engage rights protected by Articles 8 and 14 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. These include rights relating to privacy, dignity, personal autonomy,
personal identity, and protection from discrimination. The Draft Code itself recognises that requests for information
concerning a person's sex engage Article 8 rights and that any interference must pursue a legitimate aim and be
proportionate.
Public authorities should therefore ensure that any policy derived from the Draft Code is supported by a rigorous
assessment of its compatibility with Convention rights, including whether the proposed approach is evidence-based,
proportionate, and the least intrusive means available of achieving a legitimate aim.
We therefore urge all public authorities to undertake a comprehensive assessment under the Human Rights Act and
the Equality Act before adopting policies based on the Draft Code of Practice. Particular attention should be paid to:
Article 8 rights to privacy, dignity, personal identity and bodily autonomy;
Article 14 protections against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights;
The findings of the Government's Equality Impact Assessment and the foreseeable harms identified within it;
The requirement for evidence-based and case-specific proportionality assessments;
The availability of less intrusive measures capable of achieving any legitimate aim;
The potential impact upon trans people, gender non-conforming people, disabled people, and others who
may be disproportionately affected by ‘sex-verification’ or exclusionary practices;
The risk that implementation may leave some individuals without practical access to services.
The Supreme Court's judgment in RR is a reminder that public authorities must independently consider their
obligations under the Human Rights Act when exercising any discretion available to them[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreiffbdqwocld5py5ry6rtv3cimjy4hivyv6kjtjd2l3wfg656r2xya)
![We write on behalf of the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective about a matter of immediate and
grave public concern. We have seen recent reports1
that young people and families have received NHS
letters stating that endocrine care, including blockers and HRT, is being fully withdrawn within seven weeks
(31 July 2026), and that forced medical detransition is being imposed. If that report is accurate, this is not a
technical change in commissioning. It is coercive state action with direct, foreseeable consequences for
trans children and young people.
Particularly concerning is the apparent convergence between Government policy and the stated objectives
of organisations that have argued that transition itself has become "ethically untenable" following the
Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland2
. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information
requests3
indicate sustained engagement between the Department of Health and Social Care and
organisations including Sex Matters, LGB Alliance and Transgender Trend.
The legal and human rights stakes here are serious. The Supreme Court itself recognised4
that the trans
community is “historically and currently a vulnerable community” which Parliament has sought to protect.
The Human Rights Act brings into UK law rights including the right to life, the prohibition on inhuman or
degrading treatment, respect for private and family life, and protection from discrimination, while the
Equality Act expressly protects the characteristic of gender reassignment. A policy that compels withdrawal
of medically indicated care, or forces young people into detransition, raises profound questions under all
of those protections.
The clinical case is just as damning. TransActual reports5
that more than 80 clinicians, researchers and
academics have signed an open letter6 warning that NHS England’s evidence reviews on gender-affirming
hormone therapy have no clear rationale, ignore previous and ongoing research[...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreihjrcjmbru5kq3inngrgecdnkugearjehprmd4t6g363fo4mvgdjm)
![[...]
As this is a serious allegation, made in a parliamentary setting and presented as a statement of fact, we would be grateful if you could provide the evidence on which this claim is based.
Specifically, we would welcome details of:
• The instances in which women or girls have demonstrably lost medals or podium positions as a result of sporting bodies acting unlawfully or in breach of the Equality Act.
• The evidence that women or girls have suffered financial losses or lost earnings as a consequence of sporting bodies failing to comply with the Equality Act.
• The cases to which you were referring when you stated that women or girls "may have even been injured" due to sporting bodies not complying with the Equality Act.
• Any assessments, reports, legal findings, regulatory decisions, governing body investigations, or other evidence that support the assertion that sporting organisations have failed to comply with the Equality Act in the manner described.
We note that there is a significant difference between arguing that sporting bodies should adopt a particular policy and alleging that they have acted unlawfully. Your statement appeared to make the latter claim.
Given the seriousness of the allegation, and the fact that it was made during a parliamentary committee session, we believe it is reasonable to ask for the evidential basis underpinning it.
We would therefore appreciate any sources, data, case studies, legal decisions, or other material that informed your remarks.
If the statement was intended to reflect a general concern rather than specific evidenced cases of non-compliance with the Equality Act, we would be grateful if you could clarify this distinction...](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:njup4kv6td4bzhh6g64faacb/bafkreie5ftvff5hcix225om4bhdzzfs4xhsifaiyc6ibinjo4g2cnmcn6u)
