A women’s rights charity accused MPs and peers in two select committees as being ‘openly antagonistic’ towards the government’s preferred candidate to be the next chairperson of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Sex Matters wrote to two parliamentary Committees – the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Women and Equalities Committee – regarding the questioning of Mary-Ann Stephenson this month.
Last month, the government announced that Stephenson would be the preferred candidate for Baroness Kishwer Falkner to succeed her as EHRC Chairwoman at the end of her term in November.
Stephenson, a 30-year-old who has been working in the human rights and equality sector, appeared before both committees at a joint meeting on the 1st of July to be assessed for her suitability.
Sex Matters stated that questions to her regarding sex-based and trans rights, were “openly hostile” to those who held gender-critical beliefs. They also said they were ill-informed on the law, and did not support the EHRC in its work to ensure understanding and enforcement the Equality Act.
The charity led by Maya Forstater who won a landmark claim for belief discrimination in 2022 over gender-critical beliefs, claimed that the hearing asked Stephenson questions which “could have lead to a claim of unlawful belief bias”.
Stephenson wrote a letter in 2015 to The Guardian, criticizing a “worrying trend of intimidation and silence of individuals whose opinions are deemed as ‘transphobic.'” Stephenson was among the signatories of a letter sent to The Guardian in 2017, which defended women’s rights to discuss gender identity legislation.
She also donated money to the legal fund of Allison Bailey, the barrister that won her victimisation case for having gender-critical views against Garden Court Chambers 2022.
Stephenson’s actions were defended by her during the hearing. She said: “All the open letters dealt with my opposition to no-platforming practices and attempts to shut down debate.” I encourage anyone who is worried about my signing the letters to read the actual wording, as they have been widely misrepresented.
She continued: “I donated because I was angry at women who were harassed and fired from their jobs due to peacefully expressing legally protected beliefs. It was the point, as it has been, when the employment tribunal ruled that there had been unfair discrimination.
After the hearing, the chairs of the various committees wrote a Letter to Bridget Phillipson (Minister for Women and Equalities) saying that they “does not feel we can endorse the appointment of her to this role”. They cited concerns about leadership and vision, Stephenson’s expertise in all areas of the EHRC’s remit, and the need to rebuild trust in the equality monitor.
The statement read: “The debates in Parliament, the media and social media, along with the amount of correspondence that both committees receive, clearly show that the EHRC is losing the trust of certain communities.” It is not the candidate’s fault, but whoever is chosen must be able handle this challenge.
“Discriminatory” and “misinformed”
Sex Matters stated that the committees had referred to emails and letters received from organizations raising concerns about Stephenson. The communications are part of “a well-established pattern of attempts to cancel”: smearing and mobbing of women who have gender concerns, intimidation of them, discrimination of them, harassment of them, and a refusal to give their views a platform.
The report said that high-profile targets included JK Rowling and Dr Hilary Cass, as well as Professor Kathleen Stock. It also claimed there were hundreds of witch hunts against women who stood up for their sex rights, such the current chair of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner.
It provided examples of questions from MPs at the hearing which it described as being “discriminatory”. Peter Swallow, a Labour member of the JCHR, was said to have suggested that Stephenson would discriminate against those with a protected characteristic such as gender reassignment when he asked, “Would a trans commissioner be appointed to the EHRC?”
Stephenson replied, “Yes, provided they are suitably qualified.” You cannot refuse to include people with protected characteristics in the commission.
Sex Matters stated that Swallow’s suggestion that Stephenson would be a suitable candidate for this role if he refused to welcome a commissioner who was qualified and had ‘protected characteristics’, is “preposterous”.
The charity also pointed out that Rachel Taylor (Labour MP and WEC Member) had incorrectly stated that the Supreme Court disagreed on the EHRC interim update regarding the implications of the Supreme Court judgement concerning the definition of sexuality.
She said: “The Supreme Court observed that the EHRC interim guidance or statements went beyond what was required by law.”
The Supreme Court made no comment. The transcription of the meeting has a correction that Taylor was thinking of comments made by former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption.
Sex Matters reported that Lord Sumption had not made any comments on the interim update of the EHRC either. He only made one public comment on BBC Radio 4 two days after the ruling and before the interim report was published.
Toilets for both men and women
Baroness Kennedy (Labour peer and JCHR Member) stated that Waterloo Station did not have unisex toilets. She challenged Stephenson to tell a transgender woman to use the women’s toilets.
Sex Matters noted that there were unisex toilets located right next to the male and female restrooms at Waterloo Station and said it was “extremely disappointed” that the committee had asked questions that weren’t fact-checked.
The report said that a major part of the role of the chair is to “ensure the EHRC fulfills its mandate by ensuring the Equality Act 2010 has been understood, implemented and enforced”. The answers of Dr Stephenson showed that she was aware of this.
The charity stated: “The EHRC must engage with all interested parties, including those who are disappointed by the Supreme Court ruling. It cannot do its work and appease those who don’t accept the definitions of woman and man in law. And it shouldn’t try.
Media reports indicate that Phillipson does not agree with the criticism of Stephenson’s qualifications by the committee and will proceed with her nomination.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
Personnel Today offers HR director jobs.
Browse HR Director Jobs
