LAST WEEK, DELEGATES attending the annual conference of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) in Blackpool voted to support a highly-controversial emergency resolution claiming that a recent ruling by the supreme court – which held that women and men are defined by biological sex for the purposes of equalities law – was neither ‘sensible’ nor ‘workable’ and was ‘driven by far-right ideologies’.
The ruling – which is, in fact, entirely sensible and workable and had nothing to do with the ‘far right’ – means that duty-bearers (such as employers, service providers and public bodies) can legitimately prevent trans-identifying individuals from accessing spaces and services – such as toilet facilities, changing rooms, prisons, hostels and refuges – that were intended for the sole use of the opposite sex. That was how the law had been designed to work, and that was how it had, in fact, always worked – at least until some ‘trans rights’ activists and their allies began routinely ignoring it. It was this constant flouting of the law which forced women campaigners to seek redress through the courts – a course which ultimately proved successful.
Far from being driven by ‘far-right ideologies’, these women were simply concerned with safeguarding their sex-based rights – rights which, in many cases, were secured after years of struggle. Not surprisingly, many women have expressed relief at the court’s decision.
The emergency resolution, which was moved by the union’s LGBT committee (and, quite unbelievably, seconded by the national women’s committee), claimed that ‘trans rights and women’s rights are not in opposition’ and that the court’s ruling amounted to an attempt to ‘divide our movement’. It further called on fire and rescue service employers to ‘protect and uplift trans individuals’ and to provide ‘safe and inclusive spaces, free from discrimination’. When read in the context of the resolution as a whole, it is difficult to see how these passages amount to anything less than a demand that employers reject the court’s ruling and permit trans-identifying individuals to access spaces and services intended for the opposite sex. Indeed, if that were not the correct interpretation, then the resolution would lose much of its impact.
The resolution came hot on the heels of a statement co-signed by the union’s general secretary, Steve Wright, assistant general secretary, Ben Selby, and minority sections, which expressed similar sentiments. (Selby’s signature wasn’t a surprise. He once stated openly on social media that he would have ‘no problem’ if his wife or daughter were required to share a changing room with a trans-identifying male and also argued that the Labour party should have expelled one of its female MPs, Rosie Duffield, who had taken a brave and principled stance on these issues.) The statement from Wright, Selby and the minority sections resulted in a major backlash on social media, with many FBU members arguing that it did not reflect the views of the mainstream majority.
The decision by conference delegates to support the emergency resolution is likely to provoke a similar reaction. Given that the resolution was circulated just 48 hours in advance of the vote, it is almost certain that no meaningful consultation took place with the membership. The resolution cannot therefore be seen as reflective of the views of members at large.
Moreover, the terms of the resolution give rise to some very serious practical and legal implications. For example, any woman firefighter or control operator who in the future challenges a trans-identifying male trying to access female-only spaces or services would simply be exercising her lawful right in line with the supreme court ruling. But if, as per the terms of the emergency resolution, the FBU considers it discriminatory and divisive for trans-identifying individuals to be denied access to spaces and services intended for the opposite sex, it is hard to see how that female would receive any support in the matter from the union (for example, if she later lodged a grievance or legal claim against her employer).
Even more troubling, if an internal union complaint were made against that female member on the grounds that her actions constituted a breach of policy as agreed by conference, the union could try to take disciplinary action against her. Indeed, if the terms of the emergency resolution are to mean anything at all, it is hard to see how the union could avoid instigating disciplinary proceedings in those circumstances.
And where would that leave the union? A female member would be denied assistance, and very possibly left facing internal disciplinary action, simply for asserting her lawful right as determined by the supreme court. In that situation, it is very possible that the female member would then sue the union under equalities law for having victimised her on the basis of a ‘protected characteristic’. Indeed, that precise scenario is currently playing out in the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) after one of its members, nurse Sandie Peggie, was denied assistance when she was suspended by her NHS employer for having challenged a trans-identifying male colleague who was attempting to use a female-only changing room at a hospital.
This blog understands that some of these questions were asked from the rostrum by a female delegate during the debate on the emergency resolution at FBU annual conference. But she didn’t receive an answer. Did the LGBT committee consider these vital questions when drafting the emergency resolution? Did the executive council when recommending support for it? Did delegates when voting for it? Or were they all more interested in posturing in the hope of being seen as on the ‘right side of history’ (whatever that means)?
The resolution was anti-women and anti-reason. It amounted to simplistic, ill-considered, dangerous nonsense, and made the basic error of appealing to emotion rather than relying on facts and common sense.
In backing it, conference delegates may well have opened Pandora’s box.