CGD is not appealing Maya's judgment! Employment tribunal can proceed

Again, the judgement spelled this out so a five year old could understand.

Except you can't spell out even one comment that is the slightest bit relevant to it.

Does anyone know when the Employment Tribunal is likely to take place? I'm assuming it's a fairly lengthy process?

Blueberry - gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

However, if you believe that Maya expressing those beliefs has been discriminatory you should say how. Otherwise it's just defamatory.

You might want to take a look at Jean hatchets case where she's just won a case to the tune of £115,000 for people lying about her on the Internet. And, apparently, it has set a precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether or not publicly saying that Maya, since she won her case, has been discriminatory, would come under that precedent.

But, personally, I think it's a shitty thing to do, if you're not going to back it up.

So no proof then, what a surprise.

No, a belief can be discriminatory. You are still entitled to hold it. You just can't act on it. Again, the judgement made this explicitly clear.

Not only are you entitled to hold the belief you are allowed to express it. Now show us the proof that Maya has done what you say she has.

Fortunately, however, for CGD, MF has done both - held the belief and acted on it, so legally, they're pretty safe.

The appeal judgement made it absolutely clear that a protected belief can be discriminatory, and that acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of that belief can be illegal.

Show us the evidence of Maya acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of her belief, since you are so sure she has done so, at work, prove it.

And it's not the belief that is discriminatory. It's whether or not you manifest that belief in a discriminatory manner.

The appeal judgement made it absolutely clear that a protected belief can be discriminatory, and that acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of that belief can be illegal.

Course. And everybody knows that. Discrimination is discrimination.

So what has Maya said that is discriminatory? Let's have it.

So still no copying and pasting of what Maya said that is discriminatory and harassing, blueberry?

No, because they're not relying on the word of psychics, they're relying on the evidence of Maya Forstater's own actions and words, which she has shared very loudly and publicly for everyone to see.

Which isn't discriminatory.

Far from it. It's a protected belief.

You can't change sex, transwomen aren't women, sex is real, and furthermore, as mentioned in court, it matters, and in certain situations single sex provision must be upheld.

At least one of the pages cited by my learned friend is a page from the respondent’s submissions. Not from the decision. The other pages cited do not mean what we are led to believe they mean.

So tedious. Intellectually dishonest and/or negligible.

they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Are we in Minority Report?

Or 'inflammatory' come to that. I get pretty inflamed over certain things that transactivists say, so presumably that's grounds for getting them fired?

It says you can’t harass and you cannot misgender with impunity. That does not imply compelled speech and does not mean that you cannot correctly sex another person where relevant.

Indeed. And it doesn't say you can't say something 'negative'. Can you imagine? "You can't say that, it's not positive." 🙄

Maya's social media before, and especially since, the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people, all CGD's legal team have to do is pick a few choice tweets and it will be very easy for them to prove that they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Ok - then why don’t they go for it??!!

See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

It says nothing of the sort.

It says you can’t harass and you cannot misgender with impunity. That does not imply compelled speech and does not mean that you cannot correctly sex another person where relevant.

Sex is relevant to uphold single sex exemptions. I can say that.

There was evidence given in the original tribunal that Maya did all of those things, all CGD has to do is point at it again and say, look we were perfectly justified.

Show me the evidence where Maya did any of those things at work.

Maya's social media before, and especially since, the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people, all CGD's legal team have to do is pick a few choice tweets and it will be very easy for them to prove that they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues and clients and so they were justified in taking action against her - and indeed could have been in breach of the EA2010 if they hadn't. She's scored a massive own goal here, and failed to properly read her own judgement, in which the judge literally spelled out the grounds on which CGD could win a new tribunal.