Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 4

[quote NecessaryScene]For those not keeping an eye on her twitter, Maya's done a thank you video.

Right. That's a wrap.

Thank you to everyone involved (and to all who have kept me sane).

Back to work - Sex Matters! @SexMattersOrg

#ForstaterTribunal

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506623757762408451

As per CGD practice, this comes in two versions. Here's the offensive version:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506630763294384135[/quote]
I get it but how ridiculous is it that it took me until the slide with the hands to realise that this is red and black and the effectively offensive semiotics.

I refer people to the very helpful contribution from the video designer that is quoted upthread and the culturally competent MNer who had correctly called the Saul Bass allusion when she commented on it when the matter arose.

Phew all done - and now we wait.
Maya thank you.
Tabby and team thank you.
Wims of MN and beyond, thank you.

For those not keeping an eye on her twitter, Maya's done a thank you video.

Right. That's a wrap.

Thank you to everyone involved (and to all who have kept me sane).

Back to work - Sex Matters! @SexMattersOrg

#ForstaterTribunal

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506623757762408451

As per CGD practice, this comes in two versions. Here's the offensive version:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506630763294384135

I’m glad someone of OD’s standing is involved in the case. We need strong representation on both sides to really hammer this out. We want all the issues, potential arguments and questions set out. The more daylight the better.

Waves to OD.

'Also the point is that it has to be fair. Her point is perfectly tenable but only stands if you say that no beliefs are to be aired in the workplace. CGD's position is more like allowing straight pornography but balking at gay pornography - i.e. any ban, no matter how reasonable, has to apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it's discriminatory.'

Yes, they clearly allowed discussion of sex and gender, and they were clearly promoting (through their DEI programme) one view on the topic.

This has been absolutely compelling (I might need BC myself when my boss realises how little work I've done last week and this...)

Thanks again to Tabby and everyone for such incisive and interesting comments. I wouldn't have followed the line of questioning, or implications of the questions, without the input here.

Such respect and thanks to Maya for your bravery and principles. One aspect that has really stood out for me is how Maya made the case transparent and public using her website and twitter- I think that is quite unusual and extremely powerful. When I had to raise an ET against my work many years ago, you were made to feel that you had to keep everything secret and suffer in silence- and that was before I was legally bound to confidentiality. When you are in that position, you are vulnerable, alone and relying on your lawyer. Whatever the outcome, Maya's approach was exemplary, IMO.

Maybe you are a secret lurker already!

Or who's to say not a prolific long-time poster...?

OD if you're watching Mumsnet, you are welcome here to join the coven anytime you like!

Maybe you are a secret lurker already!

The advertising analogy is odd to me. It’s been a while since I worked in an actual physical office but when I did it was pretty normal for someone to flog Avon out of the kitchen area, and for a noticeboard to display posters for the local sandwich shop/sports clubs/random things for sale and people would often ask you to buy Christmas cards to support their kids school or to sponsor Bob’s bungee jump for charity or whatever. Which is all advertising. And in offices without those things it was usually because of a blanket ban. Not Sandra can sell Juice Plus but Becky can’t sell Aloe Vera Extract.

this has been an absolute education, quite apart from anything else. It's been brilliant to have access to the live tweets, commentary and original court documents to be able to follow what's going on.

I truly hope that we will have the same sort of online access to the Allison Bailey hearings and that everything that we've learned here will be of use to us there. I would like the tribunal members and judge to have some sense of how important these matters are to so many of us and that it is emphatically in the public interest for these to be open to the public.

It is true that some workplaces limit what you can talk about, and they get away with that in the law, but the reality is that CGD didn't.

Also the point is that it has to be fair. Her point is perfectly tenable but only stands if you say that no beliefs are to be aired in the workplace. CGD's position is more like allowing straight pornography but balking at gay pornography - i.e. any ban, no matter how reasonable, has to apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it's discriminatory.

I really hope that's true, Manderley!

From listening to the submissions, it seems like they go at it in stages, and if they deem she was not employed, they have no reason to spend time on the rest. I might be wrong.

I asked the same question on here and someone else said that the judgement should go through each of maya's claims and show whether the burden of proof is met. Though I don't think they were 100% sure either. But I hope it means that they will adress each question and we will get reasoning on whether the detriments were the result of her belief, manifestation of the belief, or were justified by the specific expression etc etc.

'The point she made about pornography (and advertising), is that whilst people are allowed to do them, they probably cant do them in work, because employers have an obligation to make the workplace a reasonably pleasant environment for all their workers. And before Twitter or Mumsnet misquotes me that I'm saying GC beliefs are akin to pornography, i'm not i'm saying it's accepted that some things may be legal but not appropriate for the workplace...'

Pornography isn't just something you can't 'do' in the workplace, though. It's associated directly with criminal offences against public decency. That's why you can't do it in the workplace, not because it's 'offensive to some'.

It is true that some workplaces limit what you can talk about, and they get away with that in the law, but the reality is that CGD didn't.

Placemarking

Ooh yes her hair is fab.

Sorry - erroneous change to 1st person at the end of that!

If you haven't already, I highly recommend accessing the documents, which are all on Maya's website here: hiyamaya.net/ Along with an outstanding 'feminist test case' spotify playlist!

I spent a full evening gripped by the claimant's witness statement and evidence minibundle PDF - honestly, it's really worth your time.

I'm now off to read the closing submissions. I've been lucky enough to have little or no contact with legal processes in my life, and this has been an absolute education, quite apart from anything else. It's been brilliant to have access to the live tweets, commentary and original court documents to be able to follow what's going on.

The point she made about pornography (and advertising), is that whilst people are allowed to do them, they probably cant do them in work, because employers have an obligation to make the workplace a reasonably pleasant environment for all their workers. And before Twitter or Mumsnet misquotes me that I'm saying GC beliefs are akin to pornography, i'm not i'm saying it's accepted that some things may be legal but not appropriate for the workplace

Thank you everyone for your brilliant contributions to this case, you’ve massively helped me out when I haven’t understood something.

200 live witnesses though ...

One point has struck me - if Maya loses because they deem she was not employed, surely the implication will be that if she had been, she would have won?

Thus, the line in the sand will still be drawn re freedom of expression regardless?

Let's not forget what happened last time around- if it's deemed she was not employed in the first place, you can be sure there will be the usual TRA misrepresentation of why she lost, and few will bother to check much less acknowledge the real information. It's so regrettable they didn't make a transcript!

I think OD's suggestion that Maya publicly tweeting her views amounted to compelled speech for her employer akin to that in Asher's bakery case was fairly desperate and I think the judge thought so too.

Still, kudos to OD for making the best of a bad job. And if you're reading - as we know you are - we all love your hair.