?

Log in

No account? Create an account
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



WHY I’M HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH HM GOVERNMENT’S GRA CONSULTATION

That the Gender Recognition Act 2004 [GRA] needs urgently to be reformed is not in dispute. I’d protested before the bill became law that it was a nasty and ultimately highly discriminatory piece of legislation that failed sections of the trans population that the law should have been designed to protect. The legislative system recognised nothing other than male or female. Sex or gender, it did not matter because the law treated those who defined as neither male nor female as though we did not exist. As a trans person of non-gendered identity the GRA compounded my social invisibility. When the GRA became law it felt as though the shutters had come down firmly in a way that annihilated any vague hope that I’d managed to hold onto that my life chances would improve within the foreseeable future.

For those of us who were left behind because we were considered ‘inconvenient’ at a time where trans people were expected to complete their transition and disappear into the mainstream of gendered society, the GRA represented the death knell of hope because there would be no further movement on trans ‘rights’ for years.

Earlier this month the UK Government published its long awaited and indeterminately postponed consultation eliciting the public’s views on proposed GRA reform. Trans people are being urged to respond if only to counter balance the inevitable negative responses from groups and individuals with a different agenda who want to see the government roll back on trans ‘rights’.

I’d welcomed that the recent judicial ruling in my case had placed a requirement upon HM Government to carry out the potentially far reaching ‘review’ belatedly proposed by the Government Equalities Office [GEO] that I heard about during the latter stages of proceedings however I will not be responding to this consultation and I will not encourage others in my position to respond because under the present governing administration I do not believe there is any benefit. Certainly not for trans people of non-gendered identity. I believe the current initiative is a cruel charade. A pretence of doing something in order to disguise the fact that HM Government is intent upon doing nothing.

I should know. I’ve recently sat through two days in court listening to HM Government’s representations as to why its discriminatory passport policy should be retained. I’ve waded through lengthy witness statements prepared by civil servants under the direction of this government arguing that my identity is not recognised in law and therefore it cannot be discriminatory to force me to accept an inappropriate gendered reference on my passport.

HM Government’s position on ‘X’ Passports and the wider issue of the full legal recognition of non-gendered identity has not changed since the sham policy ‘review’ that took place [or rather did not take place] as part of the previous trans equality action plan that I later slammed as being ‘’all plan and no action’’ during an oral evidence session before the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

The UK Government had been under pressure to reform the GRA. Trans people who do meet its narrow criteria and can apply to have their identities legally recognised [ie. trans men and trans women] are forced to complete a burdensome and humiliating process that offers no guarantee of approval and no right to appeal. Trans campaigners have long argued that the UK should adopt the humane model of self-declaration pioneered by Argentina and shown to work in a growing number of countries. HM Government vaguely committed to review the GRA in July 2016 in response to the Women and Equalities Committee’s damning report but the consultation launch was effectively on hold until very recently.

In the meantime I’d adopted a pragmatic piecemeal approach in an effort to legitimize my non-gendered identity. Although full legal recognition for trans people who define in any way other than male or female remains beyond reach I’ve managed, through painstaking processes that have taken years, to get gendered references removed from some of my documentation and files. Every victory in a campaign that now extends to almost three decades went some way towards achieving my goal [eg. I’ve persuaded key organisations to move to gender neutral public/customer announcements and to provide non gender-specific options on forms]. Legitimizing my identity became my life’s work because without legitimate identity I could have no life. Achieving recognition of my identity was something I had to do before I could go back to doing what I’d really wanted to do. It took a visit to my former MP and an impending threat of criminalization [due to noncompliance with an impending mandatory ID card scheme] before anyone took notice of what I was saying:

That non-gendered invisibility was and remains a genuine and serious human rights issue.

That legitimate identity is a fundamental human right.

I was eventually invited to engage with government civil servants in various departments only to find myself unceremoniously disengaged after it had become clear that what had been presented as a genuine opportunity to raise the issues was no more than lip service. Whenever I pushed for a sign of commitment towards addressing the issues the more negative was the response until I reached the inevitable conclusion that, despite the positive gestures, there had been an underlying intention all along to kick these serious issues further down the road in order they should be buried. It is a pattern that became all too familiar over the course of my engagement where commitments were made only for HM Government to firmly close the door on issues it did not want to address. With the notable exception of the Dept. of Health that took my input on board in terms of defining policy in this area, the ‘engagement’ process proved to be an endless depressing cycle of ‘review’ followed by inaction and having my expectations managed by disdainfully clueless civil servants until they could not be bothered to continue the pretence that non-gendered peoples’ needs would be considered in future government policy. I was cut adrift and all communications from the GEO and the Home Office ceased.

My aim to persuade HM Government to change its passport policy and permit passports to be issued with an ‘X’ character [‘X’ Passports] became a high profile endeavour due to government resistance that led to my initiating a campaign of letter writing to the passport authority, then a petition, then persuading MPs to table what became a series of Early Day Motions [EDMs] over what is currently five consecutive parliamentary sessions. The EDMs raised MPs’ awareness that enabled ‘X’ Passports and the wider issue to gain a platform within the political arena. HM Government’s blanket refusal to change its policy on ‘X’ Passports led to my instigating legal action against the UK Home Secretary in order that HM Government’s discriminatory passport policy should be subject to judicial review.

I must make clear that the ‘X’ character indicates the sex of the passport holder is ‘unspecified’. It is not correct to assume the provision of ‘X’ Passports offers recognition [legal or otherwise] to a third category of people. The ‘X’ Passport does offer an acceptable alternative to inappropriate gendered references for people who do not define as male or female. The provision of ‘X’ Passports is not controversial. A policy change to that effect would have passed relatively unnoticed had HM Government followed those countries that adopted the inclusive policy without fanfare. ‘X’ Passports had proved to be a forerunner to legal reform in some instances [eg. Australia] however passport issuance is governed by an international body [the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO] and therefore policy in respect of ‘X’ is not bound within national legislative systems. The provision of ‘X’ Passports enables people who define as neither male nor female to obtain a gender-neutral identification document without the requirement for legislative reform.

A new precedent was established last month in the ruling of my case. It was determined that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied. This is a significant development in that it was recognised that my non-gendered identity did not preclude an overarching right to respect for private and family life. My case was not successful at this stage despite the engagement of Article 8. HM Government submitted a witness statement very late in proceedings that contradicted earlier statements and muddied the waters.
The statement indicated, you’ve guessed it, that the wider issues raised in my case [the official recognition of a third category of people] will be subject to review.

The Reform of the Gender Recognition Act Consultation Document does not include proposals for the legal recognition of trans people who do not define as either male or female. The exact opposite is indicated [Para. 136]. The Yes/No question further down the document is completely irrelevant because there will be no further movement on this issue for many years in the unlikely event the current government does legislate GRA reform.

There are no indications that HM Government are giving genuine consideration to the issues surrounding non-gendered identity. Only that [yet another] ‘call for evidence’ will follow.

IT IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

One final thing to bear in mind is the parlous state of the current government. If news reports are to be believed there could soon be a new governing administration. It is undoubtedly an interesting if tumultuous period. A governmental or departmental shake-up would affect the progression of GRA consultation and the delivery of proposed reform. It is likely that trans equality will slide even further down HM Government’s list of priorities.

An application for permission to appeal against the ruling in my case has been submitted.


Twitter @ChristieElanCan

CAMPAIGNING UPON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure




X' PASSPORTS JUDICIAL REVIEW UPDATE

We've sought permission to appeal against recent ruling in landmark case against HM Government's discriminatory passport policy.

Full judgment can be found HERE


Twitter @ChristieElanCan


CAMPAIGNING UPON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Jun. 22nd, 2018

CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



'X' PASSPORTS JUDICIAL REVIEW: PRESIDING JUDGE’S RULING

At a hearing delivered at Nottingham Crown Court today Mr Justice Jeremy Baker ruled that HM Government’s refusal to issue non gender-specific ‘X’ Passports to citizens who define as neither male nor female is not unlawful.

The judge observed the Claimant’s rights under ECHR Article 8 [Right to respect for private and family life] were triggered in this case ‘’ ….. I am satisfied that the claimant’s Article 8 rights are engaged in this case so that the claimant’s right to respect for private life will include a right to respect for the claimant’s identification as non-gendered.’’

In conclusion Mr Justice Baker determined the UK’s passport policy administered by HM Passport Office was not unlawful having accepted the Government’s argument that passports could not be treated in isolation from wider legislative change and ‘’ ….. that the Government is currently collecting and collating research material with a view to undertaking a comprehensive review of the issues both surrounding and those raised directly by the claimant in this case.’’ And observed ‘’ ….. in particular in the present case the claimant will be entitled to scrutinise with care the results of the Government’s current review, which will be required to be undertaken without any undue delay.‘’


The case for judicial review between CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT was heard 18-19 APRIL 2018 at the Law Courts in the Strand (Administrative Court)

STATEMENT: CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE

I want to express gratitude to my legal representatives Kate Gallafent QC and Tom Mountford of Blackstone Chambers and to all members of the team at Clifford Chance [past and present].
These highly skilled and dedicated people have worked for me on a pro bono basis over the last five years on what I am sure will be remembered as a landmark case.
I approached Clifford Chance for assistance to launch a legal challenge against HM Government’s passport policy because engagement with the Government had proved futile and the political process had failed.

The significance of ECHR Article 8 as applied to my non-gendered identity cannot be undermined as a new legal precedent has been established however I am bitterly disappointed that my case for the judicial review of the UK Government’s discriminatory passport policy was not upheld. Not just for myself but for everyone who is compromised by this policy.

The ‘review’ being proposed by the Government Equalities Office purports a remit that extends beyond the provision of ‘X’ Passports and towards full legal recognition for UK citizens who define as neither male nor female. The indication of this review came as news to me during the latter stages in the course of proceedings. HM Government has now committed on record its proposal for a comprehensive review therefore I trust there will be no repeat of the false assurances that led to a sham passport policy review just a few years ago. I have justifiable reason to doubt the sincerity and the motivation behind this Government proposal.

HM Government’s position throughout my period of engagement with key policy makers [2010- 2013] was not to treat the issues surrounding non-gendered identity as credible or worthy of respect. That position was maintained throughout the protracted period of legal dispute right up to and including the hearing that took place on 18-19 April 2018.

There is significant history to this case and I am not convinced there is a genuine intention on the part of HM Government to address the issues that I’ve fought to raise for nearly three decades.


The UK’s passport application process requires applicants to declare whether they are male or female. It is inappropriate and wrong that someone who defines as neither should be forced to make that declaration

My identity is non-gendered [neither male nor female]. HM Government refuses to accept that my identity is legitimate, authentic and valid. Notwithstanding comments made earlier in this statement, the Government has expressly and repeatedly indicated that people in my position are not significant in numbers as though a minority status somehow justifies the continuation of discriminatory policies that disregard our existence. The Government uses our disenfranchisement [caused through our social invisibility] as a weapon in its refusal to permit the issuance of gender-neutral ‘X’ Passports that would enable people of neither gender to travel without compromising a fundamental aspect of who we are.


Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are often treated as though we have no rights

HM Government chooses to ignore the need for ‘X’ Passports to be issued in the UK. The wider issue of non-gendered identity has been ignored for too long. Successive governments have ignored the plight of people in my position because we are socially invisible. We are denied legitimate identity and we are denied a legitimate place within a gendered social structure. We are disempowered and we have no voice. Many people believe that we do not exist. Many people believe that we should not exist. Many people believe that we have made a deliberate alternative lifestyle choice for which we must face the negative consequences rather than that our needs should be accommodated. Many people believe that we should have no civil rights.

Our most basic needs are ignored because our existence is perceived by HM Government as ‘inconvenient’. As though an historical failure to meet our needs somehow justifies the continuation of discriminatory exclusionary policies that force us to deny our identities in order to navigate gendered society. Our social invisibility enables public service providers to ignore our needs. Human rights and civil liberties organisations were not interested in the issue for a number of years. Society had chosen to look the other way. Easier for people to turn their backs. Ignore the violation of our rights. Ignore our predicament. Ignore our existence.

But societal marginalization is my reality. I cannot turn my back and walk away. Where can I go when gendered society perceives my identity as illegitimate? I deserve better. As a minority section within society we deserve better. We exist. We have suffered and we continue to suffer due to governmental and societal indifference to our situation.


The denial of existence is the worst form of discrimination

How can citizens outside the gendered societal structure establish a platform to fight for fundamental rights when the facts surrounding our existence are denied?

Denied legitimate identity. Denied recognition within the legislative framework. Denied civil rights that others can take for granted. Denied the provision to obtain accurate identity documentation.

Our access to appropriate healthcare is often restricted. We are rejected by employers with no means of redress. We are denied access to public facilities due to the imposition of gender-segregated spaces and we are often forced to use unsuitable public bathrooms. Our lives consist of compromise. Compromise, stress and fear that our identities once known will become the issue when all we want is to live our lives.

And we are not discriminated against according to HM Government. The rationale is that our identities are not recognised in accordance with the law. Our identities are compromised and we are rendered socially invisible. Unable to exercise our fundamental human rights. Suffering the most appalling social exclusion and yet not discriminated against according to HM Government. And the vicious circle goes around and around.

I’ve fought for most of my adult life for legitimate identity that most people can take for granted. The need to legitimize my identity in order that I might move on with my life became an ongoing campaign and an ongoing battle. It is not a battle that I’d wanted to fight and it came at an unacceptable personal cost. It is a battle that has often left me physically and psychologically exhausted. My work has led to progressive policy changes in key areas yet has been generally unacknowledged. I’ve rarely received credit for my achievements as my voice was silenced time and again.

It has for the most part been an emotionally draining, unrewarding, long hard slog with no end date in sight.

In the submission of this case for the judicial review of the UK Home Office’s discriminatory passport policy, I was not seeking special treatment. I was seeking to be treated as a human being. I was seeking to not be forced into making a false declaration on my passport application. I was seeking to not be forced to accept an inappropriate gendered reference on my personal identity documentation. I was seeking to not be forced into being an unwilling colluder in my own social invisibility. I was seeking to break the vicious circle that has impaled upon my life and affects the lives of many socially invisible human beings in the UK today.

I am sure that most reasonable people would consider my request to be issued with an identity document that does not contain a grossly misrepresentative gendered reference as entirely logical and reasonable.

HM Government has rejected calls to follow the lead taken by countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Malta and more recently Canada among a growing number of countries that recognise the legitimate and genuine need for ‘X’ Passports.

Despite today’s ruling, the tide of history is turning and for many people the change cannot come soon enough. We cannot wait any longer. The time for change is NOW. The time for ‘X’ Passports is NOW.

I cannot comment on whether we will appeal today’s decision at this moment.

Full written judgment should be available shortly

Twitter @ChristieElanCan


CAMPAIGNING UPON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT


The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



‘X’ PASSPORTS: JUDICIAL REVIEW FULL HEARING

Mr Justice Jeremy Baker, presiding judge, has reserved his decision on the case. I understand this is normal procedure for judicial review cases and that notification of an outcome will most probably be in written form rather than a further hearing. I’ve not been given a date however am advised that decisions in such cases can typically take two months.

I have necessarily not made direct reference to legal arguments due to the fact that proceedings are ongoing as the court weighs up the arguments before reaching a decision.

Wednesday 18 April 2018

The first day saw my legal counsel Kate Gallafent QC [Blackstone Chambers] present evidence on my behalf as the Claimant in this case. With no exaggeration, Kate was truly phenomenal and made a number of compelling points throughout the day. Kate was assisted by Tom Mountford and Clifford Chance solicitors.

My counsel and all past and present members of my legal team have offered their services on a pro bono basis from the time Clifford Chance responded to my approach in June 2013.

Home Office representatives were in attendance and sitting along from me, my partner and other members of the Clifford Chance team. The Defendant was represented by James Eadie QC [also from Blackstone] and government lawyers.

We were informed early in proceedings that the Defendant had dropped its earlier objection to intervention by global organisation Human Rights Watch [HRW]. I can now report that HRW had applied to intervene in support of my Claim.

I was positive at the end of the day that no one could have done more than my legal team to present a case for the issuance of ‘X’ Passports that surely appears to non-judgemental observers as logical and entirely reasonable.

Thursday 19 April 2018

The second day began with Kate continuing to present evidence on my behalf.

Then came the moment I had dreaded when counsel for the Defendant [the Secretary of State for the Home Department] stood up. It was not easy, thoroughly degrading in fact, to have to listen to arguments being made by my own Government that I, and others in my position, should not be subject to fair and equal treatment. What I can say is that the UK Government’s determined opposition to ‘X’ Passports remains unchanged.

The day was rescued in the afternoon when Kate presented our response to the Defence argument.

The site will be further updated in due course.

There was much interest in the case from the media with news coverage from around the world. The coverage, I am pleased to report, was generally good. And coverage was more balanced in cases where news outlets were judgemental about ‘X’ Passports and the surrounding issue in the past.

Here are some of the articles published last week. Click on the text to open the article.

THOMSON REUTERS FOUNDATION
THE WASHINGTON POST
THE GUARDIAN
THE INDEPENDENT
THE DAILY MAIL
THE DAILY EXPRESS [TRAVEL SECTION]

PS. I would strongly advise anyone affected by this issue and of a sensitive disposition not to read comments where comments are permitted on these articles. And I’d like it known that I am not affected in the slightest by the opinionated, overtly unpleasant and ultimately pointless rantings of ignorant and pathetic individuals with nothing better to do.

I do expect the case to be more widely reported when the decision is announced.

Twitter @ChristieElanCan


CAMPAIGNING UPON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT


The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



‘X’ PASSPORTS: JUDICIAL REVIEW FULL HEARING

HEARING SCHEDULED 18-19 APRIL 2018
THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE ON THE STRAND

HM Government’s discriminatory policy is subject to judicial review in the latest stage of my ongoing fight for ‘X’ PASSPORTS in the UK

THE ARCHIVE SECTION OF THIS SITE DOCUMENTS THE LONG JOURNEY TO GET THIS FAR AS THE GOVERNMENT HAD DETERMINED THAT, AS A NON-GENDERED PERSON, I SHOULD BE TREATED AS A NON-PERSON WITHOUT ACCESS TO CIVIL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN TAKE FOR GRANTED


MY CAMPAIGN CALLS FOR THE LEGAL AND SOCIAL RECOGNITION OF MY NON-GENDERED IDENTITY – DEMANDING EQUALITY AND SOCIAL LEGITIMACY FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS WHO DO NOT AND CANNOT DEFINE WITHIN A GENDERED PERIMETER OF MALE/FEMALE


CAMPAIGNING UPON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT

The site will be further updated ASAP after the judicial review hearing with implications moving forward and links to relevant media coverage …………..

THE STORY SO FAR …………
GAY STAR NEWS [10/04/18]
THOMSON REUTERS [17/04/18]

FOLLOW ME FOR UPDATES OVER THE HEARING PERIOD …………
Twitter @ChristieElanCan


Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure




'X' PASSPORTS IN THE UK

HM GOVERNMENT’S DISCRIMINATORY PASSPORT POLICY IS – FOR THE FIRST TIME – TO BE CHALLENGED IN A COURT OF LAW

MY JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM AGAINST THE UK HOME OFFICE IS SCHEDULED FOR FULL HEARING ON 18-19 APRIL AT LONDON’S ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

THE ARCHIVE SECTION OF THIS SITE DOCUMENTS A LONG AND ARDUOUS JOURNEY TO GET THIS FAR AS THE GOVERNMENT HAD DETERMINED THAT, AS A NON-GENDERED PERSON, I SHOULD BE TREATED AS A NON-PERSON WITHOUT ACCESS TO CIVIL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN TAKE FOR GRANTED

The case was given permission to go ahead in a short hearing at the RCJ last October. The fight for ‘X’ Passports had overcome what could have been a significant legal hurdle and reported around the world ………….

Guardian article dated 11 October 2017

MY CAMPAIGN, AN ONGOING FIGHT FOR THE LEGAL AND SOCIAL RECOGNITION OF MY IDENTITY – WITH LEGITIMACY AND SOCIAL EQUALITY FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS WHO DO NOT AND CANNOT DEFINE WITHIN A GENDERED PERIMETER OF MALE OR FEMALE – IS FOUNDED ON A PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE IDENTITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT

Twitter @ChristieElanCan - for latest updates


Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Feb. 27th, 2018

CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



‘X’ PASSPORTS IN THE UK

In just under two months’ time the UK Government’s discriminatory passport policy will be the subject of a judicial review at the Royal Courts of Justice in London during a two-day hearing that is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, 18 April 2018.

The legal case I am bringing against the UK Home Office represents a significant milestone in my ongoing fight to have my NON-GENDERED IDENTITY recognised on my personal identity documentation and that my identity is acknowledged and respected in all aspects of my life.

I aspire to achieve legitimate identity that most people can take for granted as I aspire to regain privileged civil rights that society reserves for the gendered majority.

My overriding need to not compromise on the validation of my identity meant that I was forced to relinquish many basic civil rights that I’d not regarded as privileges prior to my disclosure but which I now recognise as privileged rights that are both precious and elusive.

The right to legitimate identity is however the most fundamental of all human rights.

The fundamental right to legitimate identity is no less significant than the right to life itself.

I’ve been engaged in this battle for more than 25 years and what began as a desperate bid for survival within the gendered societal structure metamorphosed into a personal campaign that involved interaction with politicians and the UK Government whilst I was reaching out to agencies and individuals in other parts of the world.

I’ve witnessed a great deal of change over the years as a number of countries have changed their national policies and slowly edged towards recognition and essential provision for citizens whose identities are neither male nor female.

The UK Government has, by contrast, steadfastly refused to address the issue despite that measures to advance LGB and [to a much lesser extent] T equality were delivered over the last decade.

The symbolism of the passport as a key identity document, the provision afforded by the ICAO worldwide governing body and the recognition of non gender-specific ‘X’ by other countries’ national governing administrations propelled ‘X’ Passports as a key focal issue within the wider NON-GENDERED campaign.

The commencement of legal action against the UK Government was the only option that remained open for me after engagement through the political process was exhausted and had ultimately failed. It was evident there was no intention on the Government’s part to do anything to address the extraordinary plight of citizens who are denied legitimate identity and condemned to a life of social invisibility, compromise and fear.

I am ably represented by Kate Gallafent QC and Tom Mountford of Blackstone Chambers and my legal team at Clifford Chance. All are working in a pro bono capacity.



EDM 175, tabled by Norman Lamb MP [Liberal Democrat: North Norfolk] is the sixth motion tabled by MPs in five consecutive parliamentary sessions that call upon the UK Government to change its discriminatory policy on the issuance of non gender-specific ‘X’ Passports.

MPs across the entire political spectrum had their consciousness raised in regard to the need for ‘X’ Passports within the context of the wider issue through the tabling of Early Day Motions [EDMs] that MPs were strongly encouraged to sign.

Therefore, despite that EDMs have no executive powers, it is important to register as many signatures as possible [no definitive number but generally assumed to be not less than 100] in order that the issue can be selected for parliamentary debate.

The EDMs continue to gather a great deal of support from within the parliamentary arena.

All MPs are urged to add their signatures to EDM 175 in support of ‘X’ Passports in the UK.

I must add that I find it distasteful that my fundamental human right to have my identity recognised by others should be the subject of debate – and I do not hold that there has to be a ‘’conversation’’ as is so often reported – however there was a time not so long ago when I was grateful to see the issue acknowledged by anyone in public life. Anyone at all.

When the parliamentary debate is called I can foresee the recognition of human identity outside the gendered societal structure being rightly perceived as a legitimate human rights issue whose passage into law is long overdue.


GAY STAR NEWS VIDEO FEATURE

Gay Star News recently featured the campaign as my legal team and I prepare for the full judicial review hearing. Feature and accompanying video can be viewed HERE


Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

THE FIGHT GOES ON


The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Twitter @ChristieElanCan - for latest updates

Jan. 5th, 2018

CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure




GAY STAR NEWS VIDEO FEATURE

Gay Star News video feature on my campaign and my ongoing legal case can be found HERE



‘X’ PASSPORTS: JUDICIAL REVIEW

My legal case against the UK Home Office will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand on 18 and 19 April 2018. Further details can be found HERE

I am represented by Kate Gallafent QC and Tom Mountford of Blackstone Chambers and my legal team at Clifford Chance. All are working in a pro bono capacity.



All MPs are urged to add their signatures to EDM 175 in support of ‘X’ PASSPORTS in the UK.


THE FIGHT GOES ON

Twitter @ChristieElanCan - for latest updates


Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure




‘X’ PASSPORTS: JUDICIAL REVIEW FULL HEARING DATES

On 18 and 19 April 2018 there will be a full hearing in London for the judicial review of the UK Government’s policy in regard to the issuance of non gender-specific ‘X’ Passports.

The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Stand.

A High Court judge granted permission to take the case forward at an earlier hearing on 11 October 2017.

More information will follow in due course ……………………………………


The provision of ‘X’ Passports became a pivotal focal point for my campaign due to the importance of the passport as a recognised identity document in addition to its function as a travel document. That ‘X’ Passports already existed, are fully compliant in accordance with international standards, are issued in an ever increasing number of countries and must be recognised at other countries’ national borders had given me reason to believe that my Government would accept the need for their issuance in the UK. The UK Government resisted the need for ‘X’ Passports all the way and had left me with no option other than to bring a case for the judicial review of its discriminatory policy.

Anyone who is interested in the background to the case can find a chronological record of events and further information in the archive section of this site.

Twitter @ChristieElanCan - for latest updates

Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE
NON-GENDERED
Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure



‘X’ PASSPORTS: PERMISSION GRANTED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF UK GOVERNMENT POLICY

As everyone must now be aware, on Wednesday 11 October 2017 permission was given by the High Court to take forward my case against the UK Government’s discriminatory passport policy.

The judicial review of the UK’s passport policy as applied to the exclusion of non gender-specific ‘X’ character [denotes the passport holder’s sex as ‘’unspecified’’] can now enter the substantive stage.

Wednesday’s ruling was significant because judicial review applications cannot be proceeded without permission.  While retaining a note of caution that the final outcome cannot be foreseen and that a successful outcome does not automatically lead to policy change I cannot describe how relieved I am that the legal challenge of current discriminatory policy can now finally move forward.

I was taken aback by the level of media interest in the case on the day.

There are too many news reports to list them all but here are some that appeared soon after the decision was announced. Click individual title for article ………………

The Guardian                                  
BBC News
The Evening Standard                  
Metro
PinkNews                                         
Gay Star News
Thomson Reuters                          
The Huffington Post

The decision and reporting on what had led to the legal challenge of the UK Government’s discriminatory passport policy was covered by news outlets from around the world.

Two days after the decision being announced I am still trawling through a mountain of messages [and have almost lost my voice] but I will respond to all journalist enquiries over the coming days. If you are a journalist and want to be alerted as the case progresses towards the next hearing then please send your name, email address and the name of the organisation you represent if applicable. I will add you to my media distribution list.

Finally, once more I want to thank Kate Gallafent QC and Tom Mountford of Blackstone Chambers and my legal team at Clifford Chance for enabling me to launch the case.

And thanks to everyone who’s sent encouraging messages of support over the last few days.

Twitter @ChristieElanCan - for latest updates

Legitimate Identity is a Fundamental Human Right

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered
 

Profile

elancane
Christie Elan-Cane
Website

Latest Month

July 2018
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow