Campaigner loses Appeal Court bid to make government include a gender-neutral ‘X’ category on passports
- Christie Elan-Cane believes UK passport application process is discriminatory
- Campaigner fought for more than 25 years for non-gendered legal recognition
- But the case was lost at the Court of Appeal in central London this morning
Christie Elan-Cane wants passports to have a gender-neutral ‘X’ category but has lost the case at the Court of Appeal
Campaigner Christie Elan-Cane has lost a Court of Appeal challenge against the Government over gender-neutral passports.
Elan-Cane believes the UK’s passport application process, which requires individuals to indicate whether they are male or female, is ‘inherently discriminatory’.
But today leading judges ruled against the activist’s bid for passports reading ‘X’ for unspecified gender.
Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Irwin and Lord Justice Henderson are considering the case after a judicial review action was dismissed by the High Court last year.
Elan-Cane, who has fought for more than 25 years to achieve legal and social recognition for non-gendered identity, sees the issue of ‘X’ (for unspecified) passports as a key focal point of the non-gendered campaign.
The Court of Appeal challenge, which was contested by the Home Secretary, centred on the lawfulness of the current policy administered by Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMP0), which is part of the Home Office.
It was argued that the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Elan-Cane believes the UK passport application process is ‘inherently discriminatory’. Lawyers representing the Home Secretary are contesting the case at the Court of Appeal
Ruling on the case in June last year, a High Court judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied that the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.
During the April 2018 proceedings, Elan-Cane’s lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMP0), which is part of the Home Office, arguing that it breaches human rights laws.
He was asked to quash the policy and order that it be ‘reconsidered according to the law’.
Speaking on the case in 2018 on behalf of the Home Secretary, James Eadie QC submitted that the policy does not interfere with rights under the ECHR.
He argued that if the policy constituted an interference with Article 8 – the right to respect for private life – it was justified by the need to maintain an administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender, to maintain security and to combat identity theft and fraud, and to ensure security at national borders.