Police face ban from marching in Pride parades after High Court ruling
The uniform police face was effectively banned from participating in the pride crossings after a “extensive ör decision in the Supreme Court.
The decision on Wednesday decided that civil servants attended the pride parade of Newcastle last year.
The case was introduced by Linzi Smith, who describes himself as a ‘gender critical’ lesbian, who believes that a person’s gender is an unchanging feature.
He argued that the police violated the obligations of impartiality by participating in the event and appearing under a poster supporting the rights of transsexual people.
Judge Mr. Justice Linden agreed with him and decided that the Chief Officer of the Northumbria police Vanessa Jardine was illegal when he allowed uniform officers to participate in the event last year.
The decision is likely to have a comprehensive impact on how the police can participate in community activities throughout the country.
Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, President of the National Police Chiefs Council, said the organization is working on the decision of the decision to “make decisions to participate in events to protect the impartiality” and to create a wider guidance.
“The police officers who know their communities and their staff can be seen in these communities and play an active role in their local regions, and have been shown many times to create confidence and confidence in our service,” he said.
“Every week, as part of their duties, police officers and staff will participate in thousands of events, from community activities in the village halls to large -scale events such as carnivals, parade and festivals.
“However, we know that policing should maintain his neutrality, including the types of events in which he plays and plays an active role.”
In a witness statement, Harry Miller, a former officer and founder of Group Fair Cop, said that the chief officer had walked with “transfers of women” and “trans rights are human rights”, such as “gender ideologists, carrying clearly related flags and emblems”.
He argued that this pointed to a political association.
The judge, who reached his decision, said that the participation of the chief officer is “supporting the reason and march of the chairman of the force and the march that he tries to encourage” and therefore the power shows his position or perspective as an organization ”.
Jo Maugham KC, Executive Director of the Good Legal Project, said that the “incredibly important” decision may have practical effects for all people who are subject to impartiality obligations participating in such events.
“The neutrality duties of the police are not significantly different from the neutrality duties of all kinds of public officials,” he said. “This does not mean that the police can not make these passage ceremonies. But that means that they cannot walk to them.
“But it may also mean that civil servants or BBC journalists cannot walk.”
Since the authority is a legally protected group in accordance with the law of equality, trans people warned that they could spread to passes or protests for other reasons such as anti -racism or incompatibility.
Mr. Maugham added that it was ış lack of clarity in the heart of the judiciary, and that he did not define the phrase “gender ideology”.
“[The judge’s ruling] He thinks that the reality or legitimacy of the trans existence is ready to discuss. ” Independent. “The difficulty of this said the parliament is not ready to argue.
“The law of equality accepts that trans people – like women and people with disabilities – a group that is not ready to discuss existence, and will be protected.”
He said: “This is another decision on the LGBT rights, which a court does not think it is appropriate to hear from this community from this community.”
Northumbria police, who responded to the decision, said that the year is an important role to play in various events, including parade and festivals, ”.
Although their primary goal is to keep people safe, these activities provide the police the opportunity to interact with people, including those who can trust in policing less.
“We are vital for them to feel supported and continue to increase their confidence in us,” he said. “Therefore, we thought it was important to challenge the case against us and with inferences for wider policing.
“While justice, visibility and support for everyone remain loyal to our values, we will work on the decision to understand the results.”
