In this episode of Family Matters, Simon interviews the lawyer who has recently led a successful and landmark case against Northumbria Police for their participation in Pride Parades. Paul Conrathe is a leading human rights solicitor in the UK and he explains the significance of this case for ensuring impartiality in public institutions and protecting free speech. Paul notes that the more controversial an issue and the more contested the views, Police must be seen to be neutral and impartial. The UK courts agreed with him!
Paul is also challenging the UK’s Football Association and their ‘Rainbow Laces’ campaign for forcing players and supporters to agree with the campaign and not express any alternative opinions.
It is a fascinating discussion as Paul shares his insights from the legal front line and into the challenges posed by political and ideological influences on public bodies. The discussion also raises the broader implications for democratic principles and explores the potential impact of these legal precedents on similar issues in New Zealand, emphasising the importance of strategic litigation in advocating for human rights.
Show script auto-generated by Descript app:
Simon O’Connor: Hi everyone. Welcome to another Family Matters. I’m returning to the United Kingdom. We’re talking laces. We’re talking sport. You heard me right? Like football laces. We’re talking pride parade. We’re talking flags, we’re talking human rights actually. And so I am delighted to have on the show Mr. Paul Conrathe who I would argue is the UK’s leading human rights solicitor into these spaces. So Paul, if I might be so informal, welcome to the show.
Paul Conrathe: Thank you so much, Simon. Great to be here.
Simon O’Connor: Look, you’ve got an amazing reputation for standing up for human rights. You’ve practiced law for many years and represented many clients, but it’s been in, in recent years I’ve picked up on your work.
One has been around a police force attending Pride parades, and I think you’ve just won a court case against them. And then more recently with the Football Association insisting its players wear rainbow laces and so forth and so I just wanted to get you to explain to our audience and viewers and listeners – what on earth is going on? And then how, if I might, you are successfully using the law to, to stand up for people’s rights. If we could start with Northumbria Police, because you’ve just won that case, I believe.
Paul Conrathe: Yes. The background to that case is the issue of pride and of transgender rights is a very contested and controversial issue here in the UK as it is.
Around much of the Western world and there is no issue, of course with debate and there’s no issue with pride per se in the sense that people are able to come together and celebrate what they believe in, but. Yeah, the issue becomes more complicated and potentially much more concerning when the state adopts one side of an argument aligns itself, associates itself with one particular position.
And this is what’s happened here in Northumbria Police, where the police force one of the largest forces in the UK. Essentially marched in pride, wearing the rainbow colours waving the rainbow flags, chanting in support of the pride cause. And so if you do not agree with pride for whatever reason but in particular, if you are what is known as gender critical, in other words, you believe in biological dualism, that a man is born a man, a woman is born a woman.
Then you would find this very difficult and maybe also for religious reasons. If you don’t agree with the pride agenda, you would also find this very difficult. And there may be others that find it difficult for other reasons. And the concern is that the police are the coercive arm of the state.
These are the force that is able to arrest you, set you on the course to a criminal record, detain you. These are very powerful powers entrusted to the police, and yet. They’ve aligned themselves with one side of a contested cause. And we just say that is simply a breach of their duty to be impartial, be above these kind of debates.
Simon O’Connor: And the court found in our favour this week, yesterday as it happens. You must be relieved and excited? You were clearly representing someone, I think on my notes here, is it a Lindsey Smith? Who was she? If I could ask?
Paul Conrathe: Yeah, she’s a Newcastle United supporter. She’s a fanatical football fan.
Simon O’Connor: And aren’t you all meant to be in the United Kingdom?
Paul Conrathe: I’m not, actually, I’ve got drawn into this, but she definitely is. And she got banned from one of our top clubs, Newcastle United, because she posted on Twitter gender critical comments. Really contesting or debating, and objecting to transgender ideology.
And as a result of that, the police called her in under caution, interviewed her with a potential criminal charge for malicious communications. So this was terrifying for her. And actually she’s also a lesbian and she had received homophobic abuse. Had gone to the police saying, please, will you protect me?
This is horrendous stuff that’s being posted against me. And they completely, they did absolutely nothing. So on the one hand, she seeks protection. Being a lesbian, nothing happens. On the other hand she posts gender critical comments and the police come down on her very hard, in a very hard manner.
So that’s Lindsay. Yeah. They picked on the wrong person. She’s got, and she’s not willing to take it lying down. She contacted, actually one of my old clients, Harry Miller, who you may have heard of down under, maybe not. He ran a very important test case against our national police body that issues police guidance.
On free speech issues and one, and so those two came together and we ended up running this case.
Simon O’Connor: It’ll be interesting to see, and again, I’m no lawyers so excuse me if I get the language wrong, but will this judgment be quite a precedent within the UK or other police forces are going to go?
Look we can’t be part of these parades anymore. We can’t be part of, very highly politicized. Issues Or is this going to be quite localized?
Paul Conrathe: No this is hugely significant. Last year, her Majesty’s inspector of the forces was wrestling with this whole issue of policing and impartiality.
And in their report they stated a real challenge for them. And a problem in setting guidance is the near absence of judicial consideration of this issue. And so this judgment now is really going to set the law and the approach nationally on the issue of issues of impartial policing. So it’s highly significant within the police context, where I think really in the light of the judgment today it will simply be unlawful if a police force participates in pride.
It just simply won’t be possible. But I think it goes beyond that actually. I do think also for public bodies that have a responsibility to be impartial, if they actively associate with controversial contested causes, then they are insignificant risk of acting unlawfully.
Simon O’Connor: And I think that’s the key point, isn’t it? Says me to you, it’s that it’s the contested and controversial issues. There will be times that police and other public bodies will be, if you will, publicly involved in, I don’t know, supporting something, God, that’s all very general, but when it’s contested as is the whole gender critical space, for example they can’t be seen to be taking sides.
They clearly do it. It’s ubiquitous and I use that word quite deliberately Paul, for most of our public bodies march in pride parades – police, our armed services people from our tax department. And it’s quite crazy. And criticism is not allowed by and it’ll be interesting to see whether the judgment there in the UK has any influence down here. because we share quite similar laws.
Paul Conrathe: Yeah, I would, and it is fundamental to policing that the police should undertake their duties without fear or favour. And the consequence of the police associated with one side in a contested cause is that it acts as a chilling effect upon free speech.
And free speech is, as one of our law lords, has said in yesteryear, the lifeblood of democracy. And so it’s very frightening when the arm of the state, the coercive arm of the state, the police begin to side with one side. They can shut you down if you don’t, if you express a different opinion. And so free speech is suppressed and democracy is undermined.
And so these are issues of absolute fundamental importance. And I would expect probably in your part of the world that these forces are may well be acting unlawfully. I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case.
Simon O’Connor: I wouldn’t be surprised after this. And actually it’s partly a hope of drawing this to attention through this podcast channel and our other channels that we have that actually someone down here may well take a case, as I say, you, you’ve set a precedent not only in the UK, but something that would, has implications through the Commonwealth because we have a very similar system. As I say, unfortunately, we are seeing challenges down here to free speech as well. It doesn’t seem as bad if I might put it, that there as what I see in the UK, literally thousands of people having police come to their houses because of perceived mean tweets or wrong views or holding up a pro-life sign in the wrong public square.
We’ve got hints of that here, but it seems much further along in a bad way in the UK.
Paul Conrathe: You want to nip it in the bud. You say that that it’s much worse in the UK and there are challenges. There’s no doubt about it. But if your police force, police forces are marching in pride, participating in pride, then you have a problem.
And I would’ve thought there would be potential grounds of challenge. But obviously that’s a matter for your. Your lawyers to consider?
Simon O’Connor: Look, absolutely. In terms of the judgment then, has it landed, obviously you’ve won, and as I keep saying, I’m no lawyer, but is the judgment quite strong and definitive in the arguments that you want?
Because I know sometimes a judge will give you the case, but it’s on a very minute technical ground. Is this quite a comprehensive win? Yeah. In terms of what the judges said, this is a very.
Paul Conrathe: Yeah, it’s a very thorough judgment. It’s a very fair judgment. The judge just looks at the facts and goes where the evidence takes him.
And critically the Chief Constable has two issues really. Number one, the process of reasoning that the Chief Constable went through to get to the conclusion that it was fine for her to authorise her officers to march in pride to participate, her reasoning and secondly, the outcome.
Yes, they can march in pride. So there were two, two issues there, the reasoning and then the outcome. And in that the judge unpacks both of those and he says essentially on her reasoning, she got the law back to front. She said essentially that her equality duty, as she understood it. To prioritize a marginalized community like the trans community was the primary objective.
And she had, in many ways was pure, was very much authorised to put that consideration first. And the impartiality issues really were a secondary consideration. Now the judge said, you’ve got that completely wrong. You start with impartiality, which is your duty to act impartially, and then when you consider how that works out, you take into account equality considerations.
But the primary duty is to act impartially and you can’t get out of that. And it has been a common misconception across our public authorities in different spheres. That a, that equality as understood, promoting a vulnerable community is required by the legislation as an outcome. And so there, and so that has been a common misperception.
This judge reversed and makes it very clear in this context that’s simply not correct. And then in terms of the outcome, could the police march in pride lawfully acting impartially? The judge concluded that it was obvious that no reasonable Chief Constable could come to that conclusion. It was simply obvious that the police would be acting partially by marching in pride.
And that, that’s a comprehensive striking down of the Chief Constable’s reasoning. And a critical and outcome and a critical aspect of it is that the court was saying that by a public body, by the police here associating with a controversial cause, they are entering territory where they will breach impartiality.
And that of course applies beyond the police. As you can see that if all the sectors of society start associating with controversial causes, then there’s a risk of acting unlawfully.
Simon O’Connor: Oh, it I think it would make common sense to most people, including down here in, in New Zealand, if you just took out the pride element for a moment and inserted another controversial issue, I think most people go, oh no, it’d be completely wrong for the police to be turning out that say in full uniform, supporting a particular political party or a particular religious group, we’d be able, hold on, that doesn’t seem right. But there, there’s this funny irony (maybe that’s the right word) when it comes to often trans issues or pride issues, reason gets tossed out the door, which clearly if I’m not defaming her or impugning her as the Chief Constable seems to throw reason out the window and has been caught out.
Paul Conrathe: Yeah. The issue of, in part I think she’s been concerned with reaching out to a marginalized community and one does acknowledge that. But there’s these are highly contested issues and also have been very concerning for women in particular. You know how men, biological men have been able to go into women’s only spaces?
Very concerning about the medicalization of children with gender distress. There’s huge areas of controversy that have very practical outworkings for women and for children in particular.
Simon O’Connor: Again, we share many of the issues, and if I might, because our viewers will be familiar with it. A couple of years ago, it’s become known as the Albert Park protests. A woman from the UK, Posie Parker, or as it Kelly Jay Keen, came down to speak around biological sex rights and long and short huge number of protestors turned up and basically assaulted her and a number of the women in this public park, often older women, so literally punched, knocked to the ground.
The police, by and large did nothing. They were clearly not impartial, I’d have to say. And obviously I’m just telling you this anecdotally, but it’s actually caused a lot of mistrust now with the police because instead of stepping in, they just held back when some of the older women who escaped were saying to the police – “we need your help”.
It was like you chose to be here and fight this issue and we don’t agree with you. It’s oh my God, this is our police. So it’s done them a lot of damage here, unfortunately, the police that is,
Paul Conrathe: Yeah. Policing by consent. Policing requires the trust of the public and when you side with one side, you begin to lose trust.
People don’t trust your judgment and that’s just not good for a stable society.
Simon O’Connor: As you mentioned at the start, the police are the coercive arm of the state. They have enormous powers.
You’re also pursuing another case around is it rainbow laces with the football association.
And again, while I’ve read up on it, it’d be great to hear it directly from you what the cases is all about.
Paul Conrathe: Yes, this is a very significant case and potentially may well go global in terms of its implications and the issue arises out of, again, the same client, Lindsey Smith, the passionate football supporter.
And she, because of her gender called gender critical tweets, got banned from three set from going to the matches at Newcastle United for three seasons. And she observed that the football association authorized and partnered with Stonewall, which is one of the controversial LGBTI+ associations here in the UK in an annual campaign known as Rainbow Laces.
And this campaign and you don’t have to look far to reach this conclusion, has a political dimension to it. Contending for the full inclusion of transgender players within the game, as well as free speech demands. And each year players are encouraged to wear rainbow laces and captains of football teams to wear rainbow armbands to show their support for the LGBT cause now.
This really came to light as a hot issue, if I can put it like that. When the captain of Crystal Palace wrote on his armband over his rainbow armband, I love Jesus, and that stirred up the ire of the Football Association that said, look, you are the rules are clear. Players are not meant to on their equipment, on their clothing, have any religious images or religious statements and that is true, that is a that is within the football association rules and is a subset of FIFA’s rules.
However those same rules also prohibit political images and political statements. And so it’s, this seems very much a case of double dealing that on the one hand and of kind of viewpoint discrimination. On the one hand, the FA are fine with political imaging through the rainbow laces, through their colours and the associative support with Stonewall of a political campaign.
They’re okay to authorise that, but on the other hand, they are not okay to authorise religious language on a player’s kit. And the point very simply is that both shouldn’t be permitted under the rules. Neither should be allowed yet the football association appears to be captured by a particular cause.
Simon O’Connor: I was going to say, the fact that you’re before the court, strikes me right down here from the colonies, that of course the FA is digging into to fight and I expect a whole lot of the mental gymnastics to try and explain why one set of advocacy is acceptable and another is not
Paul Conrathe: Exactly. And we are really at the beginning of this. We wrote to the FA and pointed out the error of their ways. They said, that nothing to see. And in fact, they said that you can’t sue us. We’re a private organization and the court has no jurisdiction. We’re not accountable to the court. And that itself is a very interesting legal question.
But they say that based upon legal cases, some 30 years old, and a lot has changed since then. And we are saying the FA as a monopolistic organization with powers to ban people from games, has to be accountable to someone and the court is the relevant body.
Simon O’Connor: As I keep saying, I’m no lawyer, but I absolutely agree.
The idea that they can just sit completely outside of anyone’s jurisdiction with those enormous powers, I’ve certainly found the argument doesn’t always cut both ways, though there are times when, obviously, an organisation that the famous cases, if you will, in America, where a private business won’t make a cake for a particular couple, a homosexual couple, for example, then all of a sudden the same people would say, oh no, the FA is allowed to do what it wants to do, but oh no, that baker can’t, seems to be just very convenient arguments when it suits them.
Paul Conrathe: Yes. We’ve had our own cake case over here, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and the christian bakers won.
And they said and the Supreme Court saying, look, you can’t be compelled to say that, which you do not believe in a very important free speech case here.
Simon O’Connor: Yeah. Again, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. These are some of the most fundamental parts of our democratic system.
And certainly, New Zealand’s inherited that Westminster system from you guys, and yet we’re seeing challenges to all of those down here – we have the same issues in our rugby game in particular. There is meant to be no slogans, no logos, no politicking. Yet we’ve got situations where if a Christian player – his name was Israel Falau – spoke out on Christian beliefs he basically got kicked out of the game.
But at the same time, for example, some of our Muslim players will refuse to wear banking logos of sponsors, but they’re allowed to have those removed. But a Christian’s not allowed to wear any particular message. And yet on top of that, if some of our indigenous players turn up with pr- indigenous messages, there was one the other day who had a on her hand saying ‘Land back’, which is about returning crown land to our indigenous people. That was just seen as, as perfectly fine. It’s just that immense double standard. And again, I think most people would resonate with what you are doing and go well.
It’s one rule for all surely?
Paul Conrathe: Yeah. And that breeds a healthy society. And it’s concerning when the state takes a particular viewpoint as the fashion for the time and says, we’ll go with that.
But we’ll come down on you if you don’t agree with this. And so it is absolutely vital. And it’s a remarkable aspect, in fact, of the judicial system, that the ordinary citizen can bring landmark cases that will shape the country before the courts. And that’s been our experience here on a whole variety of matters.
And I’m sure I’m sure that’ll be going on if it isn’t already down in New Zealand.
Simon O’Connor: Again, I think what you’ve been doing in both these spaces will actually inspire legal. Changes down here, I think people will pick it up. It is a way forward because, speaking personally and frankly advocacy itself is not bringing about much change.
There’s an unwillingness in our political class, and I say that as a form of politician. There’s an unwillingness to engage these topics, a fear. So the legal route is probably the way to, to actually leverage some change and actually bring us back to that impartiality, on all these topics.
People should be free to choose or there shouldn’t be that choice at all. As in like the FA, we’re not having any slogans, no electioneering, no propaganda. Let’s just play the game.
Paul Conrathe: Yes. Strategic litigation has the, or creates the possibility of a platform to speak to the nation in a way that policy papers and debates and press articles don’t.
It creates the momentum, it creates the platform and the opportunity. And that’s definitely been our experience here. And I represented Keira Bell in her landmark challenge to Tavistock gender clinic here. Yes. And back then, everyone was scared stiff. People weren’t talking about this.
And similarly here with the police, a police force being captured by a particular cause. One can debate it as much as we want, but actually it’s when you take legal action that you force the issue and you begin to take the debate onto your own. You take charge actually of the issue, which is what we found anyway, to be fairly successful as a, as an approach.
Simon O’Connor: I’m thinking of that other recent case. I’m assuming you weren’t part of it, but in the Scottish High Court around women’s rights, again a phenomenal ruling and change, although it does appear to me down here that it’s been ignored by a number of groups. But phenomenal.
Paul Conrathe: Yeah. That went all the way to the Supreme Court where it took five judges to answer the question, what is a woman? And they managed to come up with an obvious answer. Of course, it is. What is a woman under the terms of the equality Act? It is a little more technical, but for most of us, we think that’s a very obvious answer.
And yet, I think probably because public authorities have been captured in many ways by ideological pressure groups, there has been a deep soaking in a ideological perspective. That really resists that ruling. And so even though the ruling has is very clear, we are finding that there’s quite a pushback and a reluctance to embrace the obvious consequences.
So there will no doubt be more litigation that follows actually, just to embed the consequences of that ruling.
Simon O’Connor: I think when ideology takes a deep root, it takes a lot of effort To pull it. To pull it out. And so that, it doesn’t completely surprise me. And I suppose the other, just quick reflection before we should let you go is just people needing to do the thought experiment, particularly those who might be viewing this go.
No, I think it’s perfectly fine. That police go to Pride parades and now they should be wearing laces in support of a minority community. Just to be able to do the most basic thought experiment as if it was an ideology that, they didn’t agree with, was being foisted onto them through their sport and their police force.
How would they feel? While it’s great we’ve got these judicial avenues and people like yourself are leading the fights I just wish at times people would be able just to sit back and go, what would it be like if the shoe was on the other foot? But a lot of these activists don’t appear to ever want to do that.
Paul Conrathe: Yes, and especially I think in the context of the police. If the shoe is on the other foot and you are pretty steamed up about the issue, it means a lot to you. And so you will just say something about it. Maybe it’s something that affects your children, something that affects you quite deeply and you want to say something, but that the police are on the other side of the fence and the police have the power to arrest you.
And potentially to get you a criminal record, which will affect your employment you will keep quiet. For the most part, it’s just a few brave people that end up standing up and saying, enough is enough. And if the police can be neutral, if the police can be above all of this then we’ll be in a much better place.
And then people that argue for the trans cause of course, are free to argue that they should be. Our democracy would be weaker if they couldn’t. But also those that disagree with that position should be able to express their views clearly without any sense of fear whatsoever.
Simon O’Connor: Oh, precisely. Which is why I’m so excited.
The case has gone the way it has and starts about the particular issue. It’s those much deeper democratic principles. Hey, one last quick question because I’m always fascinated why people get into. This space. And as, as I said at the start, you are one of the leading human rights solicitors in the UK.
Was this something you stumbled upon? How did you get involved in these cases? Did you start at law school going, this is what I’m going to do? So how did Paul Conrad got in, get into this space?
Paul Conrathe: I’ve I returned to legal practice actually eight, eight years ago, seven or eight years ago.
So I was out of it for a long time, running schools as it happens. So doing something totally different. But I think for me personally my, my own faith is a very significant part of why I do what I do and that, that gives the inner resource for strength and conviction to run cases that are sometimes, or maybe often confronting and challenging. So that is a personal motivation and source of strength.
Simon O’Connor: Oh, look, thank you for sharing it. As I say, with the number of guests that I have here in New Zealand, around the world I’m fascinated by what drives people to bring about change. And so look, Paul I’m very grateful for your time.
I’m also conscious of time zones, but can I just say thank you for sharing about those cases? I think actually this will have impact down here. In New Zealand, and again, thanks for all that you’ve done and are going to continue to do, to stand up for our most fundamental of human rights.
Paul Conrathe: Thank you, Simon.
It’s a privilege to be with you. I was in your country in January. What a gorgeous place to live. So there’s a bit of envy coming here from England down to New Zealand.
Simon O’Connor: Around the same time I was actually in England and I ended up in Burford. So in the Cotswolds at one point, I must say that was a beautiful part of your country, even if it were in winter.
Paul Conrathe: Yeah, it’s stunning. A gorgeous part. A good place to visit.
Simon O’Connor: Paula, thanks again and I hope you get another chance to come to New Zealand, but thanks again for being part of the show.
Paul Conrathe: My pleasure.
