In a move that has sparked significant controversy, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed a reform to its equality rules, drawing criticism from barristers with gender-critical views.
Renowned barrister Allison Bailey, who previously won a discrimination case against her own chambers for mishandling complaints regarding her gender-critical beliefs, expressed her alarm at the BSB’s move. She described the proposed positive duty to enhance equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) as “regulatory overreach.” Bailey argued this shift replaces the existing duty that prohibits unlawful discrimination, asserting that it could have dangerous implications for the legal profession.
In a 2022 tribunal, Garden Court Chambers were directed to compensate Bailey £22,000 for emotional distress after vindicating her claims of discrimination in two out of five instances. While they were also ordered to pay additional costs, Bailey’s allegation that Stonewall influenced the investigation was dismissed on appeal.
Bailey’s concerns were echoed by her colleague, Sarah Phillimore, who criticised the proposal as “appalling” and too vague to be meaningful. In her comments on X, Phillimore argued that any obligation to cultivate an inclusive culture must balance the myriad beliefs and practices found in broader society. She questioned the enforceability and scope of such a duty, particularly regarding political beliefs and client representation.
Another gender-critical advocate, Colin Wynter KC, highlighted the lack of justification provided for the transition from a focus on anti-discrimination to promoting EDI. Wynter underscored the necessity for substantial reasoning behind such a fundamental change in professional obligations.
Transgender journalist India Willougby countered the barristers’ views, advocating for actions that cultivate equality and inclusion, arguing that these qualities conflict with gender-critical ideologies and hinder discriminatory practices against trans individuals.
The BSB’s suggested reform of its equality protocols continues to provoke heated debate, reflecting broader tensions in society over the balance between promoting diversity and upholding legal obligations.
