National Women’s Council entitled to refuse entry to trans policy protester over ‘substantial risk of criminal and disorderly conduct’

An activist who claimed her opposition to a transgender-inclusive policy adopted by the National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) was akin to a legally-protected religious belief has failed in a discrimination claim.

The Workplace Relations Commission has found that the NWCI was entitled to bar her and other protesters from its AGM last year to protect other attendees from a “potentially explosive situation”.

Sarah Holmes and four fellow protesters were refused admission to the event at a Dublin hotel by a member of NWCI staff, ultimately being brought upstairs when the hotel manager intervened offering free tea and coffee, the tribunal heard.

In her complaint to the tribunal, Ms Holmes said: “I do not believe that humans can change sex and I do not subscribe to gender identity theory.”

‘As I opened our bedroom door, there was a neighbour going past. She had blood on her hands’

---

Ayrton Senna: Formula One lost its uncompromising, complex genius 30 years ago today

---

Misadventures in babysitting: ‘We trusted her. Here she was drinking and dancing as our son cried’

---

Ireland’s plan to return asylum seekers to UK raises fresh questions

---

She argued the NWCI had taken a “religious” position on trans rights and had discriminated against her on religious grounds by refusing her admission.

The NWCI’s barrister, Kiwanna Ennis BL, said it had been made aware of a press release from an activist group called ‘The Countess’ which had language “targeting” a transgender member of the organisation’s board and announcing plans to “stage an action” at the event.

An NWCI witness, identified as Ms R2 in the decision, said Ms Holmes had been “very vocal in her opposition” to a transgender-inclusive policy its members had previously voted on and approved – with the complainant emailing her on the matter “again and again”.

Ms R2 said Ms Holmes had been “welcome to attend” up to the point the press release went out and the risk increased.

“[The NWCI] had a short period of time in which to deal with this development and ensure the safety of the named board member, the attendees, the other board members and the speakers,” Ms Ennis submitted.

She said the organisation decided to refuse entry to members of the group, and “persons who aligned themselves with its views”, like Ms Holmes, as a risk containment measure.

Ms Holmes, in her evidence, claimed Ms R2 had called her a “transphobic bigot”, an allegation denied in evidence by the NWCI witness.

The complainant said she “was not hostile” and that Ms R2 had “no evidence” that she was going to disrupt the meeting. She told the WRC she was not part of the activist group.

Cross-examining the complainant, Ms Ennis, for the NWCI, opened an email from January 6th, 2021, sent by Ms Holmes to the non-profit in which she stated: “You have put a man on our board of directors simply because he says he is a woman. Women are not a costume to be worn.”

Ms Holmes said she was “not targeting” the named board member when she wrote the email and was “just commenting”. She accepted that her emails to the NWCI “could be considered hurtful” but that was not her “intention”.

Two activists from the “Countess” group who gave evidence to the WRC said they were at the AGM to ask questions and denied they were intended to cause disruption or target a board member.

Ms Ennis argued Ms Holmes’s claims were “misconceived and should be dismissed”.

In her decision, adjudicator Elizabeth Spelman found that the organisers faced a situation where the level of risk had “escalated significantly” with many unknown factors, as it was now unclear how many people might show up and what they would do.

The NWCI “had to act quickly to deal with a perceived and, I am satisfied, substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour”, she wrote.

The information available to the organisers at the time suggested there was a “potentially explosive situation” and a “substantial risk” from the presence of members of ‘The Countess’ organisation and persons who aligned themselves with its views”.

Ms Spelman found that refusing that group of people was a risk mitigation measure.

“There was no discrimination,” she concluded, rejecting the statutory complaint.