From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get
a free pass

Women still can't be Catholic priests either.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kwk1204jno

A charity run organised by the East London Mosque Trust has excluded
women and girls aged 13 and over from taking part.

The Muslim Charity Run, which was held in Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets
on Sunday, said on its website: "Our inclusive atmosphere ensures that
every individual, from the youngest to the oldest, can take part and make
a difference."

It added: "This is open to men, boys of all ages and girls under 12, but everyone is welcome at the park to cheer on the runners."




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:19:36 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions
get a free pass

Women still can't be Catholic priests either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kwk1204jno

A charity run organised by the East London Mosque Trust has excluded
women and girls aged 13 and over from taking part.

The Muslim Charity Run, which was held in Victoria Park in Tower
Hamlets on Sunday, said on its website: "Our inclusive atmosphere
ensures that every individual, from the youngest to the oldest, can
take part and make a difference."

It added: "This is open to men, boys of all ages and girls under 12,
but everyone is welcome at the park to cheer on the runners."

As a private person, and citizen of this country by birth, my personal
take is that everyone should abide by the laws of the country. Which
means, I hope, that such discrimination is not allowed. What is
'Inclusive' about not letting adult females and even teenagers take
part?

Your opinion may differ, unfortunately.
--
Davey.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get
a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14 Oct 2025 at 12:15:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get
a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

Well there could be if it was a proportionate means to a legitimate end and if it was a men and boys only event. But the one thing that FWS made clear was that if you include girls under 12 you can't claim a single sex exception for males only.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-10-14, GB wrote:

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get
a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

It's not men-only, though: it's "men, boys of all ages and girls under
12", which is an unusual combination.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14 Oct 2025 at 13:28:52 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 12:15:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get >>> a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

Well there could be if it was a proportionate means to a legitimate end and if
it was a men and boys only event. But the one thing that FWS made clear was that if you include girls under 12 you can't claim a single sex exception for males only.

Well actually the Equality Act was perfectly clear before that, and I'm quite wrong. The park event would always have been unlawfully discriminatory at
least since 2010, I haven't studied the previous equality legislation. The
only thing FWS added was that trans people retain their original sex for the purpose of single sex organisations. But at least it made me read the EA.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:15:48 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get
a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

An all-male race would be lawful, as would an all-female, all-child or all-adult race. All of those cases would be within the sport-related exemptions. But you can't have it both ways.

If you consider this grid:

male female
+-----+-----+
adult | A | B |
+-----+-----+
child | C | D |
+-----+-----+

Then you could, lawfully, have a race which only permits one category (A, B,
C or D) to enter. That is, after all, precisely how most competitive sport
is organised. You could also split it vertically, and allow only A & C or
only B & D to compete. And you could split it horizontally, and allow either only A & B or only C & D to compete. All of those can be justified within
the wording of the sport exemption.

However, having a race which allows three out of four categories to enter,
but not the fourth (eg, as in this case, A, C & D but not B), then it
doesn't meet the exemption criteria. If both male and female children are allowed to participate, then there are no sporting grounds to allow male
adults but not female adults. If all ages of males are allowed, then there
are no sporting grounds to allow young females but not older females.
Because in this case, the exclusion isn't based on grounds of fair
competition or safety[1], as set out in the Act.

Since you can't use the sport exemption, you'd have to find some other
grounds to specifically exclude one of the four categories. Given the nature
of the organisation in question here, you might think rthe various
exceptions related to religious organisations might kick in. But, none of
them do. Religious organisations are allowed to discriminate on sex when it comes to employment and voluntary roles (so the Catholic Church doesn't have
to have female priests, and Mosques don't have to have female Imams). And
they are also allowed to discriminate on belief itself, so a Christian organisation is allowed to exclude non-Christians from its activities and a Jewish organisation is allowed to exclude non-Jews[2]. But they can't discriminate on sex when it comes to what the Act calls "provision of
service". And running a fun run is the provision of a service.

So a mosque could organise a fun run that's only open to Muslims, and
further qualify that by insisting that all participants are observant
MUslims in the sense understood by the mosque (in which case, no adult women would want to participate anyway). How they would police that is their
problem, but it wouldn't be unlawful. But they can't open it up to the
general public (ie, choose not to use their right to discriminate on grounds
of religion) and then discriminate on sex.

[1] You'd struggle to use fair competition as a reason for discrimination in
a non-competitive fun run anyway, although you can still use safety - there
are good reasons why Parkrun has separate adult and junior categories.

[2] There are other situations where religious organisations can
discriminate on a wide variety of grounds, including the hire of their
premises and performance of legal and ceremonial functions such as weddings
and funerals. But none of them are relevant here.

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 13:28:52 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 12:15:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get >>>> a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

Well there could be if it was a proportionate means to a legitimate end and if
it was a men and boys only event. But the one thing that FWS made clear was >> that if you include girls under 12 you can't claim a single sex exception for
males only.

Well actually the Equality Act was perfectly clear before that, and I'm quite wrong. The park event would always have been unlawfully discriminatory at least since 2010, I haven't studied the previous equality legislation. The only thing FWS added was that trans people retain their original sex for the purpose of single sex organisations. But at least it made me read the EA.

A couple of years ago, my son was doing a half-marathon every month. One month, the only ticket he could get at late notice was from a female
runner who had injured herself. He duly completed the run using her
number and ranked number 2 amongst the ladies. Well, at least he did for
a while, until they disqualified him. Do you think he was illegally discriminated against? :)





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14 Oct 2025 at 16:13:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 13:28:52 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 12:15:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do religions get >>>>> a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

Well there could be if it was a proportionate means to a legitimate end and if
it was a men and boys only event. But the one thing that FWS made clear was >>> that if you include girls under 12 you can't claim a single sex exception for
males only.

Well actually the Equality Act was perfectly clear before that, and I'm quite
wrong. The park event would always have been unlawfully discriminatory at
least since 2010, I haven't studied the previous equality legislation. The >> only thing FWS added was that trans people retain their original sex for the >> purpose of single sex organisations. But at least it made me read the EA.

A couple of years ago, my son was doing a half-marathon every month. One month, the only ticket he could get at late notice was from a female
runner who had injured herself. He duly completed the run using her
number and ranked number 2 amongst the ladies. Well, at least he did for
a while, until they disqualified him. Do you think he was illegally discriminated against? :)

Obviously not, because they quite lawfully had a separately-adjudicated
women's competition concurrent with the men's competition, as is allowed. Now if they didn't disqualify a trans-identiying man holding a woman's ticket that would be different.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 16:13, GB wrote:

On 14/10/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 13:28:52 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 14 Oct 2025 at 12:15:48 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

Would this be a contravention of the Equalities Act, or do
religions get
a free pass

I expect this is perfectly legal. There are men only rugger and golf
clubs, for example. Why shouldn't there be men only running races?

Well there could be if it was a proportionate means to a legitimate
end and if
it was a men and boys only event. But the one thing that FWS made
clear was
that if you include girls under 12 you can't claim a single sex
exception for
males only.

Well actually the Equality Act was perfectly clear before that, and
I'm quite
wrong. The park event would always have been unlawfully discriminatory at
least since 2010, I haven't studied the previous equality legislation.
The
only thing FWS added was that trans people retain their original sex
for the
purpose of single sex organisations. But at least it made me read the EA.

A couple of years ago, my son was doing a half-marathon every month. One month, the only ticket he could get at late notice was from a female
runner who had injured herself. He duly completed the run using her
number and ranked number 2 amongst the ladies. Well, at least he did for
a while, until they disqualified him. Do you think he was illegally discriminated against? :)

If they ran the race using someone else's entry number without informing
them of the change of name and/or race category - ie Age and sex, then
of course he would be disqualified. There may also have been race rules
which said places/numbers can not be transferred.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2