(no subject)

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


‘X’ PASSPORTS IN THE UK: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE

CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE [Appellant] - v - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [Respondent]
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH [Intervener]

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED IN JUNE 2017 WHEN A CLAIM WAS SERVED TO REQUEST PERMISSION FROM THE HIGH COURT THAT THE UK GOVERNMENT’S DISCRIMINATORY PASSPORT POLICY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO JUDICAL REVIEW

THE 'X' PASSPORTS CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE THE UK SUPREME COURT ON 12-13 JULY 2021

THE CASE IS AWAITING JUDGMENT TO BE HANDED DOWN FROM THE SUPREME COURT

THE HEARING WAS LIVESTREAMED - LINKS TO LIVE RECORDINGS CAN BE FOUND HERE

THIS SITE WILL BE UPDATED AS SOON AS FURTHER INFORMATION CAN BE ANNOUNCED HOWEVER I DO RECOMMEND TO ANYONE WITH AN INTEREST IN THE CASE TO FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @ChristieElanCan FOR LATEST UPDATES


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

(no subject)

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



08/07/2021

NEWS RELEASE

'X' PASSPORTS CASE REACHES THE UK SUPREME COURT

CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE [Appellant] - v - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [Respondent] and HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH [Intervener]

HEARING DATE: 12-13 JULY 2021

Non-gendered equality campaigner Christie Elan-Cane appeals against decision handed down by Court of Appeal in March 2020 that HM Passport Office’s [HMPO’s] discriminatory policy on ‘X’ PASSPORTS is not unlawful. The Court of Appeal upheld an earlier landmark High Court ruling that ECHR Article 8 [Right to respect for private and family life] is engaged in this case.

The public will not be permitted to attend the hearing due to pandemic restrictions.
The two-day hearing will be livestreamed HERE.
The recording can be found HERE shortly after proceedings end.

KEY FACTS:

HMPO’s passport policy and its effects:


  • Applicants for a UK passport must indicate whether they are male or female in a signed declaration;

  • A mandatory requirement that UK passport applicants must indicate a gender affords no provision for individuals whose identities are neither male nor female;

  • HMPO refuses to issue passports with a permissible non gender-specific character ‘X’ displayed rather than ‘M’ or ‘F’ [‘X’ Passports];

  • Passport applicants whose identities are neither male nor female are subject to a discriminatory policy that forces them to declare an inappropriate gender otherwise they cannot obtain a passport;

  • HMPO policy forces individuals whose identities are neither male nor female to deny a profound aspect of their identity whilst making a declaration known by the individual to be false;

  • HMPO passport policy determines that individuals in this category must face an unacceptable choice between accepting a document for purposes of travel/personal identification that is a gross misrepresentation [rather than an affirmation] of their identity otherwise forgoing the benefits of a passport including forgoing the freedom to travel;

  • HMPO policy causes distress and humiliation to individuals whose social invisibility is further compounded;

  • HMPO policy effectively forces a section already marginalized within gendered society to collude in their own oppression/invisibility through the coerced self-denial of their identity in return for a passport;

  • Passport data is often used by third party institutions [eg. financial service providers] to confirm a person’s identity with the effect that issued documentation and personal records held by third parties on non-gendered individuals is consequentially inaccurate and misrepresentative.


Christie Elan-Cane has campaigned for almost 30 years to achieve legal and social recognition as a person of non-gendered identity;
Christie has engaged with politicians of all mainstream parties and worked with various government departments to raise awareness of the issues surrounding non-gendered identity;
Christie approached Clifford Chance LLP and subsequently brought legal proceedings against the UK Home Office in order that its passport policy should be subject to judicial review after the political process was exhausted and had failed;
Christie is not seeking special treatment however does seek to be treated fairly;
Christie would not accept an ‘X’ Passport without an overall policy change on their issuance in the UK;
Christie’s pronoun [third person singular] is per/per/perself.

Christie is represented by Narind Singh, Eraldo d'Atri, Anne Collins, Jemima Roe, Saskia Mondon-Ballantyne and Deon Fang of Clifford Chance LLP and Kate Gallafent QC, Tom Mountford and Gayatri Sarathy of Blackstone Chambers. All legal representation is provided on a pro-bono basis.
Clifford Chance Press Statement HERE

Quotes:
Christie Elan-Cane: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights. The UK Government refuses to acknowledge our existence as its systems and bureaucracy render us socially invisible. The case for ‘X’ Passports will now be heard before the UK Supreme Court where I hope finally to get justice.

Eraldo d’Atri, Senior Associate at Clifford Chance: "This case raises important questions regarding the right to respect for individuals' identity, specifically for those who identify as neither or not exclusively male or female. Access to X passports is crucial for the protection of the human rights of this demographic, who are otherwise forced to use a passport which misrepresents their identity. The significance of this case is further highlighted by the recent announcement in the US by the Secretary of State that a third non gender specific option on US passports would be available. Clifford Chance is proud to be working with Christie and Blackstone Chambers to argue this case before the Supreme Court."

Appeal Court Judgment handed down 10/03/20 full text HERE
Lady Justice King [Para 46]: “Moreover, in my judgment it is obvious and indeed beyond argument that the facts of this case concern the Appellant’s private life and engage Article 8. There can be little more central to a citizen’s private life than gender, whatever that gender may or may not be. No-one has suggested (nor could they) that the Appellant has no right to live as a non-binary, or more particularly as a non-gendered, person. Indeed, a gender identity chosen as it has been here, achieved or realised through successive episodes of major surgery and lived through decades of scepticism, indifference and sometimes hostility must be taken to be absolutely central to the person’s private life. It is the distinguishing feature of this Appellant’s private life.

Court of Appeal hearing 03/12/19-04/12/19 Video HERE
High Court Judgment handed down 22/06/18 full text HERE

--------------------------------------
Notes:
‘X’ Passports comply with UN International Civil Aviation Organisation [ICAO] accepted standards for Machine Readable Travel Documents
‘M’, ‘F’ and ‘X’ are permitted characters for ‘Sex’, a mandatory identification category for Machine Readable Travel Documents as specified in ICAO Document 9303
‘X’ indicates the passport holder’s sex as ‘’Unspecified’’
‘X’ Passports [or passports that display an alternative non gender-specific character] are issued in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, India, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Pakistan and Uruguay
On 30/06/21 it was announced that US President Joe Biden would honour a pre-election pledge that ‘X’ Passports would be issued in the USA without a requirement for medical documentation
The UK recognises ‘X’ Passports issued in another country as a valid travel document at national border control points

--------------------------------------
Christie Elan-Cane
NON-GENDERED – Fighting for Legal Recognition

Info: https://elancane.livejournal.com/
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

(no subject)

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


'X' PASSPORTS

UK SUPREME COURT 12-13 JULY 2021



CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE [Appellant] - v - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [Respondent]
and HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH [Intervener]


JUST TWO MORE WEEKS TO GO BEFORE THIS LANDMARK CASE REACHES THE UK SUPREME COURT

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

(no subject)

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




NEWS RELEASE

'X' PASSPORTS: HEARING DATE SET FOR UK SUPREME COURT


CHRISTIE ELAN-CANE [Appellant] - v - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [Respondent]
and HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH [Intervener]

HEARING DATE: 12-13 JULY 2021

In November 2020 non-gendered equality campaigner Christie Elan-Cane was granted permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court against an earlier ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will now decide on the lawfulness [or otherwise] of HM Passport Office’s [HMPO’s] discriminatory policy on ‘X’ PASSPORTS.

KEY FACTS:

HMPO’s passport policy and its effects:

Applicants for a UK passport must indicate whether they are male or female in a signed declaration;

  • A mandatory requirement that UK passport applicants must indicate a gender affords no provision for individuals whose identities are neither male nor female;

  • HMPO refuses to issue passports with a permissible non gender-specific character ‘X’ displayed rather than ‘M’ or ‘F’ [‘X’ Passports];

  • Passport applicants whose identities are neither male nor female are subject to a discriminatory policy that forces them to declare an inappropriate gender otherwise they cannot obtain a passport;

  • HMPO policy forces individuals whose identities are neither male nor female to deny a profound aspect of their identity whilst making a declaration known by the individual to be false;

  • HMPO passport policy determines that individuals in this category must face an unacceptable choice between accepting a document for purposes of travel/personal identification that is a gross misrepresentation [rather than an affirmation] of their identity otherwise forgoing a passport and the freedom to travel;

  • HMPO policy causes distress and humiliation to individuals whose social invisibility is further compounded;

  • HMPO policy is effectively forcing a section already marginalized within gendered society to collude in their own oppression/invisibility through a coerced and unwilling self-denial of their identity in return for the issuance of a UK passport;

  • Passport data is often used by third party institutions [eg. financial service providers] to confirm a person’s identity with the effect that issued documentation and personal records held by third parties on non-gendered individuals is consequentially inaccurate and misrepresentative.

Christie Elan-Cane has campaigned for almost 30 years to achieve legal and social recognition as a person of non-gendered identity;
Christie has engaged with politicians of all mainstream parties and worked with various government departments to raise awareness of the issues surrounding non-gendered identity;
Christie approached Clifford Chance LLP and subsequently instigated legal proceedings against the UK Home Office in order that its passport policy should be subject to judicial review after the political process was exhausted and had failed;
Christie is not seeking special treatment however does seek to be treated fairly;
Christie would not accept an ‘X’ Passport without an overall policy change on their issuance in the UK;
Christie’s pronoun [third person singular] is per/per/perself.

Christie is represented, on a pro-bono basis, by Narind Singh, Eraldo D'Atri, Anne Collins and Jemima Roe of Clifford Chance LLP and Kate Gallafent QC, Tom Mountford and Gayatri Sarathy of Blackstone Chambers.
Clifford Chance’s earlier press statement can be found HERE.

Quote:
Christie Elan-Cane:
’Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights. The UK Government refuses to acknowledge our existence as it continues to ignore our disenfranchisement while its systems and bureaucracy render us socially invisible. The case for ‘X’ Passports will now be heard before the UK Supreme Court in July 2021 where I hope finally to get justice on this matter.

Appeal Court Judgment handed down 10/03/20 full text HERE
Lady Justice King [Para 46]: “Moreover, in my judgment it is obvious and indeed beyond argument that the facts of this case concern the Appellant’s private life and engage Article 8. There can be little more central to a citizen’s private life than gender, whatever that gender may or may not be. No-one has suggested (nor could they) that the Appellant has no right to live as a non-binary, or more particularly as a non-gendered, person. Indeed, a gender identity chosen as it has been here, achieved or realised through successive episodes of major surgery and lived through decades of scepticism, indifference and sometimes hostility must be taken to be absolutely central to the person’s private life. It is the distinguishing feature of this Appellant’s private life.

Appeal hearing [two days] 03/12/19-04/12/19 Video HERE
High Court Judgment handed down 22/06/18 full text HERE

--------------------------------------
Notes:
‘X’ Passports comply with UN International Civil Aviation Organisation [ICAO] accepted standards for Machine Readable Travel Documents
‘M’, ‘F’ and ‘X’ are permitted characters for ‘Sex’, a mandatory identification category for Machine Readable Travel Documents as specified in ICAO Document 9303
‘X’ indicates the passport holder’s sex as ‘’Unspecified’’
‘X’ Passports [or passports that display an alternative non gender-specific character] are issued in Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, India, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Pakistan and Uruguay.
The UK recognises ‘X’ Passports where issued in another country as a valid travel document at its border control points

--------------------------------------
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

(no subject)

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




‘X’ PASSPORTS IN THE UK

LEGAL CHALLENGE REACHES THE UK SUPREME COURT


R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

HEARING DATE: 12-13 JULY 2021


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

(no subject)

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



15/01/21: IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE 22ND JANUARY PARLIAMENTARY SITTING HAS BEEN CANCELLED. 2ND READING WILL NOT TAKE PLACE ON THE DAY INDICATED BELOW. NO NEW DATE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED AT PRESENT

Non-gender-specific Passports Bill

The 2nd reading of the Non-gender-specific Passports Bill has been postponed [again] and now scheduled for Friday 22nd Jan 2021.

The Private Members’ Bill, presented by Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine, calls upon the UK Home Office to change its discriminatory policy on ‘X’ PASSPORTS.

The UK Government’s ongoing refusal to issue ‘X’ PASSPORTS forces people of neither gender to accept an inappropriately gendered identity document that misrepresents rather than affirms their identity.

If you, or someone you care about, are personally affected by this issue then I ask you to contact your local MP and urge their support for the Bill.

And if you don’t know anyone who is affected by this issue but nonetheless care about justice, social equality and the fundamental right of legitimate identity that is being denied by the UK Home Office’s continuance of its discriminatory passport policy then I must ask you to contact your local MP and urge their support for this Bill.

Details of the Bill can be found HERE

You can find the name of your local MP and how to contact them by entering your postcode HERE

This is not a fringe issue. This is a fundamental human rights issue. All MPs should be encouraged to support the introduction of non gender-specific ‘X’ PASSPORTS in the UK.



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

(no subject)

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





BELOW IS MY RESPONSE TO HM GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF HOUSING, COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S OPEN CONSULTATION [ESSENTIALLY, ON CONTINUING TO PROVIDE GENDER-NEUTRAL BATHROOMS IN PUBLIC PLACES]


Toilet Provision: Call For Evidence

The full title of this consultation published on the HM Government website fails to take account of the fact that there are many people in the United Kingdom who do not identify as either male or female. This alone gives cause for concern because it would appear the department has already reached a conclusion prior to any assessment of responses to the public consultation.

I respond to this consultation to present the case for retaining gender neutral bathroom facilities within public areas and that radical improvement is much needed in the provision of these facilities. I would also take the opportunity to correct serious general misunderstandings about the gender-neutral model of public bathrooms.

Neutral bathrooms afford privacy and safety to users and they are essential for people who cannot use gendered bathrooms.

I am one of several thousand residing in the UK that uses gender-neutral bathroom facilities where they are available. I am extremely alarmed that a government public consultation appears to implicitly call for their removal although I did note and welcome the following passage,

As part of this review, the merits of any best practice guidance on the provision of a gender-neutral toilet, as part of a wider balanced mix of gender-specific male and female toilets – where space allows – will be considered, alongside the interaction with the necessary provision of access to disabled toilets.”

I wish to correct a false precept of the gender-neutral bathroom model that appears to have been influential in instances where there have been calls for their removal. In the next paragraph I describe the model proposed by me during a long engagement process with parliamentarians and the government where I had initially suggested uptake of the model moving forward. These discussions pertinent to neutral bathrooms where I was involved took place prior to and around the beginning of the previous decade.

Neutral bathrooms comprise a self-contained single lockable unit with toilet, mirror, wash basin etc. all contained within the cubicle unit. The neutral model affords privacy, safety and can be used by all. The adoption of a neutral model does not remove provision currently afforded to the gendered majority however does make provision for trans people, most notably to non-gendered trans people, who cannot comfortably and safely use gender-specific bathrooms with communal facilities.

A reduced capacity variation of the self-contained model has always presided in places with limited space such as aircraft and these facilities have always been neutral. A larger self-contained variation of the neutral model is commonplace for disabled users and for parents with babies.

Gender-neutral cubicles can operate typically within approximately 50% of the floor space of a standard disabled cubicle. I do not suggest that disabled units should be replaced with standard sized neutral units. Disabled use facilities are separate and should always be retained.

In recent years, as part of a far reaching and concerted attack on trans people by the mainstream media, I have seen a handful of reports that indicate women’s public bathrooms are being converted into mixed sex use with shared space for communal facilities. I am dubious as to the accuracy of these reports however reiterate that this scenario is neither the objective nor the desired outcome of those who call upon the government and local authorities for better gender-neutral provision.

Users such as myself who need access to neutral facilities are not to blame if there are instances where facilities are badly implemented if indeed there is any truth behind reports of men and women sharing mixed communal areas. I am disturbed by the suggestion, due to such misinterpretation or misreporting, that the government might conclude the provision of neutral facilities are not necessary and should be either reduced or phased out completely. The removal of gender-neutral bathrooms would leave people who define as neither male nor female unable to leave their homes for an extended period. A lack of appropriate bathroom provision would prevent people who define as neither male nor female from being able to work or study anywhere other than at home. I am sure the department would agree that to place persons in this position would be a fundamental breach of their civil and human rights.

The vision behind gender-neutral facilities was not – and never has been – that men and women should share communal facilities and spaces that were previously restricted to one gender.

My proposal is that neutral facilities comprising single self-contained units as previously described should lead to an overall phasing out of communal areas within public bathrooms. Communal areas lack privacy and they can be extremely intimidating places for people of no gender and trans people.

Today I find that, despite their publicised roll out within certain sectors, most commercial premises where public bathrooms are located still have no designated neutral facilities. I am often forced to use the disabled cubicle because it is the only alternative to gendered facilities which I am extremely reluctant to use and often cannot use. Sometimes the disabled facility is locked when not in use. In these instances I do not want to search for an official or staff member and then explain to them the reason why, as someone who is not disabled, I need to use the disabled facility.

The consultation description asserts that women suffer due to inadequate bathroom provision followed up with the strong implication in the next paragraph that the introduction of gender-neutral facilities have impeded on the provision of women’s spaces.

I ask that consideration is also given to those in my position who are often forced to use gendered facilities that feel inappropriate and can feel unsafe due to a complete lack of alternative provision.

Far from the phasing out of neutral bathrooms, I argue that there should be many more of them and that their introduction must be viewed as the provision of an essential public facility that affords total privacy and safety to sections of society who would otherwise be vulnerable in gendered spaces however neutral bathrooms have the additional benefit in that they can be used by all.

The long-term objective must therefore be to replace the intimidating and outdated gender-specific communal model with the roll out of a progressive neutral model that affords both privacy and safety to users within a single standalone cubicle unit.

Christie Elan-Cane
NON-GENDERED – Fighting for Legal Recognition


05 January 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

(no subject)

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




'X' PASSPORTS LEGAL CASE

THE UK SUPREME COURT HAS GRANTED PERMISSION FOR THE CASE AGAINST THE UK GOVERNMENT'S DISCRIMINATORY PASSPORT POLICY TO PROCEED.

ONCE MORE I THANK MY LEGAL TEAM AT CLIFFORD CHANCE AND BLACKSTONE CHAMBERS FOR WORKING SO DILIGENTLY ON THIS CASE DURING THESE STRANGE TIMES.

MORE DETAILS TO FOLLOW IN DUE COURSE ...........


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

(no subject)

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




Non-gender-specific Passports Bill

The 2nd reading of this Private Members’ Bill is now postponed until Friday 15th Jan 2021


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

(no subject)

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




NON-GENDER-SPECIFIC PASSPORTS BILL

This Private Members’ Bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday 13 November 2020.

The Bill, introduced by Liberal Democrat Christine Jardine MP, requires the UK Government to make ‘X’ PASSPORTS available in line with a growing list of countries that offer this necessary provision.

Details of the Bill can be found HERE

All MPs should be encouraged to support this Bill!

Once again, it is time to contact your MP and explain why it is ESSENTIAL that they support the Bill at second reading.



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