Not so fast, Nottingham Council
This happened.
I can’t get the Twitter version to magnify but it’s readable if I copy it in here, so that’s what I’m doing, because we need to be able to read it.
“You cannot discriminate in the provision of services because you are prejudiced.”
Oh. Bump. How disappointing.
“Irrespective of what Stonewall has told you, I fear it is simply unlawful.”
“the cancellation was the product of misguided and systemically unlawful policy.”
Oh. Bump. Oops.
She looks to be giving them a route to save face with a public apology. It’s easy to look past the “500 million years of human evolution” bit.
I don’t want them to save face. To apologize yes, to save face no.
Rob Henderson coined the term luxury beliefs. Triggernometry interviewed him about it a few days ago, and the video is titled, “How Elites Hurt the Poor with Terrible Ideas”.
As I see luxury beliefs in this case, the councillors have the luxury to display their personal status: 1) By breaking equality law and facing no legal consequences personally, and 2) By instigating lawsuits and facing no financial consequences personally.
I can’t say the councillors are aware they are doing this, but the pattern fits. I expect the councillors will maintain their position, and their constituents will pay the price for lawsuits as their lessers.
I’d bet that the councillors expected a wave of good publicity with zero negative consequences to them. I’d bet that they haven’t given this issue more than a moment’s thought and don’t understand the laws they are charged with upholding.
I very much welcome Julie’s suing of the council, it could be a hugely important test case. I saw that someone on Twitter strongly disagrees, though, and castigated Julie for suing a council that was already strapped for cash. How dare she object to being unlawfully discriminated against if the perpetrators can’t afford to compensate her!