Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

"I wouldn't describe it as a benefit, though."

She walked into that one.

Omambala isn't very impressive.

Nice comment from the judge on the use of pronouns in observer names that whilst it seems to be common these days she can't see why it is necessary.

Ah, I saw a few sub tweets & didn't realise who had prompted them. Makes sense now.

Tempted to log in as 'Steve Ze/Zoo'

I was amused by that too nauticant

EJ: It's not clear why it would be needed [for someone to insert their pronouns in their identifier in the chat].

Ha!

In Allison's witness statement (available to the public on her website) she says that Stonewall's first response to her SAR was that they held no information about her at all. Their complaint from the Head of Trans Inclusion obviously fits that description, so they wrote back again and they received 90 pages of documents, but they didn't consider that was complete judging by other documents they did have so had to write again. Stonewall also redacted the documents and Allison's legal team were only allowed to see the unredacted documents, not make copies. It's not exactly a stretch to think that it's possible that they may have still omitted information they held on AB.

😄

'I read 'semi urban' as 'semi urbane' and had a vision of a fox smoking a Sobrani cigarette.'

I doubt the foxes in his neighbourhood are feeling very urbane!

Pluvia I remember that SW was pushing the T ideology as far back as 2000/01 and l and g groups were already being told to be inclusive. Some of us objected but were often overruled .

I read 'semi urban' as 'semi urbane' and had a vision of a fox smoking a Sobrani cigarette. 🦊

'Nina Caven' Does that name ring any bells?

Well given that this person is as quick with the block button as he is with a bat, its not surprising that he is not aware of the full debate

drwitch

A certain lawyer who has an aversion to semi-urban canines was shit-posting on Twitter this morning about the case relating to the single-sex rape crisis counselling. He showed that same misunderstanding, asking in bewildered tones 'who benefits?' from the case, and saying 'certainly not rape victims'. No understanding was shown that for female rape victims, the refusal of an organisation to consider their need for a space in which the only other people present are female, can be a terrible detriment. He seems entirely unwilling to put himself in the woman's shoes and see that a judgment requiring them to do so would benefit the woman, whether he agrees with that or not. It's so odd.

I think "over and above" what is legally required is usually fine. For example, employers are only legally required to pay statutory maternity pay. There are usually no objections if employers choose to pay more than this, develop attractive return to work packages and also provide more than the legal minimum of paternity leave.

The difficulty with "beyond" what is legally required is that superficially it sounds similar to "over and above the legal minimum" but in reality seems to have been used to misrepresent the law. For example by encouraging employers to refer to the protected characteristics of "gender" and "gender identity" rather than "sex" and "gender reassignment". That's not doing extra beyond what the law requires, it's replacing precisely defined legal terms with fluff and obfuscation in a manner that leaves employers at risk of inadvertently illegally discriminating against employees with protected characteristics.

The "going beyond the law" here is, in one respect, clear, and that's the removal of "gender reassignment" and the substitution in its place of "gender identity". This means that some people will be excluded who the law intended to include and other people will be included who the law intended to exclude.

I don't think this can be reconciled.

Unfortunately not, and the reason for many women I suspect is line in the sand stuff. I have become more militant about my refusal to give an inch on this shit over the last year or so, because I know it is the tip of a very big nasty iceberg.
The reality is that if it wasn't for all the other stuff (men in women's prisons, sports teams etc. children on puberty blockers) then it wouldn't be as big a deal and many women probably wouldn't object to it. But we know well it serves a bigger cause.

I liken it to religious belief, which should be protected, but also crucially non-belief should be protected and not vilified.

For example, if I met a priest in my hometown, I would likely refer to him as 'Father' out of respect. However, that is where the kindness ends - if he then tried to indoctrinate me into Catholic teachings or lecture me on stuff, or spout hatred about non believers my acquiescence would evaporate pretty quickly.

As it is, when I see or hear about pronouns, it's a stark reminder of the infiltration of these lies everywhere (no other belief system seems to get this kind of unquestioning support and propaganda).

So it does rankle, because I know what it represents is more than just be kind, it's be obedient and serve our cause, to your own detriment.

Is it just me or is a cross-examining barrister in court telling a claimant/witness barrister that there's something off in them objecting to going beyond the law?

It's a really odd argument isn't it? They whole debate is about balancing rights and going beyond the law on one characteristic clearly has the risk of impacting on one of the other characteristics. (in this case sex which that document omitted and replaced with gender).

In terms of "going beyond the law" - I think the issue is that many people (including very worringly barristers) don't understand that this is a balancing of competing rights issue. - Going beyond the law for some things is fine - (e.g. paying above the minimum wage, having maternity pay on full salary for 6 months) but going beyond the law by saying that you are diminishing one groups rights to freedoms and protections in favour of another is not

I had two lesbian friends who sat on a regional Stonewall committee in the noughties and were bemused about the presence on that committee of a straight white Queer man and someone who they were pretty sure was a TW. Some discussions as early as 2007-2008 hinted that Stonewall was already exploring the inclusion TQ+ and when my friends challenged this and stated what for them was blindingly obvious — that there was a conflict of interest between sexuality and gender and between women's and lesbian rights and trans rights — they were harassed by the Queer guy, who recorded their objections and later used what they'd said to traduce them in a lecture he gave at Swansea University. The chair of the committee (a lesbian) did nothing to support them and the whole situation became so weird, and my friends so marginalised and uncomfortable, that they resigned. They had no idea at the time what was going on but look back now and realise that this was an early incursion of the TQ+ into Stonewall's midst. Stonewall, even back then, had decided to throw lesbians under the bus.

"All of these policies would not be inclusive of me. They would be exclusive of ME."

On fire.

'I wonder whether it reflects a split in the barrister profession where some believe that you do the best job you can with the law and there are chambers which see themselves as activist-chambers who see their role as overcoming boundaries defined by the law.'

They do engage in strategic litigation. That's allowed. As is 'going beyond the law' (doing more than you are obligated to do for a particular group, for example). The problem is that you can't use that as a defence for breaking the law, i.e. disadvantaging another group such that it is discriminatory.

Anyone else's reception breaking up? The audio keeps cutting out. It was fine on previous days.

I wonder whether it reflects a split in the barrister profession where some believe that you do the best job you can with the law and there are chambers which see themselves as activist-chambers who see their role as overcoming boundaries defined by the law.

Maybe a bit like how there are now activist-journalists, rather than investigative journalists, having a high profile in leading media companies.