TRA on tribunal panel for school gender identity cass

Hmm she was criticising her son's church of england primary school. She said in March:

"I am disappointed that the Church of England has failed to come out and support me and instead appear to be endorsing gender confusion in their primary schools. I am encouraged that the tribunal will hear my appeal and pray for justice this week.”

I am a it confused because it looks like the appeal was heard in March. What was heard then as what's still to come if he is recused?

Exactly this. As an active campaigner against this woman’s position, there’s no way he can pretend to be impartial.

@Artichokeleaves

.... with that man's record, I would be very interested in an explanation of why he is an appropriate person to be involved in a case regarding a child

This ^
Why is this man allowed near a case involving a child or any vulnerable person (NHS etc) . Are Eunuchs normal now?

NOTE the C of E is intervening. The plot thickens.
Presumably there's no indication of what they are intervening to say?
I am really interested to know what's going on here.
They have gone wokester on the gender identity stuff so I wouldn't put it past them to be intervening to say that it's not a Christian belief to think people can't change sex. Unless they are going to say there's a range of Christian opinion on that (which would be true).

But they hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and don't perform same sex marriages. (To be fair they would need an act if parliament to change that). I don't think they will change on that because to do so would risk the African church's membership of the angican communion. So they wont want people to be sacked for stating that belief for example.

And all you do by insisting that you are the right person to advise on a particular case is reveal your bias.

Yes, it's important to note that recusal is not a judgment on a person's ability to be non-biased, it is about maintaining the appearance of non-bias.

I just don’t get why he wouldn’t recuse himself. If he’s completely impartial and unbiased against the complainant, why does he care? There are other cases.

But he’s not ever campaigned against the Christian religion? That’s the teachers case is it not? That teaching you can change gender is against her Christian religious beliefs?

I don't know the details of her argument (and I don't know enough of her situation to speculate about the strength of her case) but he's certainly campaigned and acted against all religions right to single sex spaces. I know there was quite a lot of push back from the local Jewish community. You are right that his main focus is opposition to women's rights but these things intersect.

You seem determined to say he shouldn't recuse himself- to me it seems the absolutely prototypical case for recusal and it feels like you are splitting hairs when the reasons for the conflict of interest are explained.

Thanks. Just over a year ago so yes, maybe he is no longer there. I'll have a dig....

If the tables were turned, I would want an openly GC voice in the room.

Absolutely he should recuse himself - or they should appoint a counter-advisor - Maya Forstrater perhaps? I cannot imagine Lord being impartial or even fair on this issue.

@ColdTowel
I got the information from the SexMatters link up thread. Maybe he is no longer a trustee?

The application re Mr Lord will be heard by Mrs Justice Eady (President of the EAT) this week.

NOTE the C of E is intervening. The plot thickens.

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
CAUSE LIST
WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE 2022
Court 31
Before: THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE (PRESIDENT)
At 10:30 am
EA-2020-000896-JOJ Mrs K Higgs v 1) Farmor's School
2) Archbishops' Council of the Church of England (Intervenor)
(RECUSAL APPLICATION - IN PERSON

It's an interesting dilemma - IF Lord is capable of doing his job fairly and impartially despite his record of outspoken lobbying then surely he'll be forced to recognise someone with views completely opposite to him should be able to do their job fairly and impartially.
Seems me he is obliged to find in her favour.

Does anyone know who the other lay member is?

I make no comment at all on whether the woman in question is right or wrong or whether her dismissal was right or wrong; I have no knowing of the evidence of the case.

But yes, Lord has on multiple occasions actively campaigned for a very partisan political position that is against the rights and equality of women as a sex class, and particularly against their rights to express beliefs in reality, biology and their own sex based words and needs, or simply to express anything at all that is not exactly in keeping with and compliant with his personal and quite extreme TQ+ views. It's as about as inappropriate as asking Posie Parker to take a leading role in deciding a TQ+ access to women's spaces case, or Boris Johnson to lead an ethics committee. It's just plain unhelpful.

He is absolutely not impartial or appropriate to be participating in this, and I would think if the tribunal finds against her she will have legal recourse to overturn the ruling on his background alone.

Sorry - their name.

Plenty of info on Lord here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3512126-Update-on-City-of-London-Gender-Consultation or AS his name.

campaigned in such a high profile and sustained way against a plaintif's protected characteristic
? But he’s not ever campaigned against the Christian religion? That’s the teachers case is it not? That teaching you can change gender is against her Christian religious beliefs?

Not really because Anne Widdecombe doesn’t have any judicial training or qualifications like Edward Lord does.

Yes, obviously I meant if she was in that position.

He’s been working as a justice of the peace since 2002 specialising in civil liberties cases. His personal beliefs shouldn’t come into it. Every member of the judiciary has personal beliefs, but they are trained and professionally bound to adhere to the actual law.

Of course they shouldn't but it is still unheard of to have a judge or magistrate sit on a case where they have campaigned in such a high profile and sustained way against a plaintif's protected characteristic. It's why recusal exists: to protect the appearence of impartiality.

For anyone wondering, as I am, what this is about, the headline on the Daily Mail article sums it up :

"Trans rights activist is named on judging panel that will hear case of a Christian teaching assistant sacked for speaking out against gender identity lessons at primary schools"

The pastoral assistant was sacked after she made private facebook posts (one a petition), believing her son (9) to be too young for sex education and gender identity at his C of E primary school.

What is the 'judging panel'?
It's the employment tribunal system - not, as I thought, professional teaching disciplinary bodies.
She lost her case of unfair dismissal on grounds of religious belief at the employment tribunal and is appealing against that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on a point of law.

The EAT comprises a High Court judge assisted by two lay members with experience of the employer's and employee's side of the workplace. Mr Lord apparently has become one of the lay members in the employment tribunal system and the Christian Legal Centre has asked for him to be removed from the hearing of this appeal.

The Christian Legal Centre website has some information about the employment tribunal decision:
[In part: ]
"... the Tribunal has concluded that Mrs Higgs’s dismissal... was not related to the Christian beliefs she expressed on social media, such as her opposition to sex education in primary schools or to the idea of gender fluidity.
Rather, her dismissal “was the result of a genuine belief on the part of the School that she had committed gross misconduct”...

“Although not stated as clearly or simply as this, the act of which we concluded Mrs Higgs was accused and eventually found guilty was posting items on Facebook that might reasonably lead people who read her posts to conclude that she was homophobic and transphobic...”

The Tribunal has acknowledged that Mrs Higgs’s Christian beliefs on sexual ethics do not equate to homophobia or transphobia. "...she told us she “loved everyone” and there was no reason to believe she would behave towards any person in a way such as to deliberately and gratuitously upset or offend them.”

However, the Tribunal agreed with the School’s position that it was concerned that readers of her Facebook posts would see them as homophobic and transphobic rather than merely an expression of Christian beliefs “in a temperate and rational way.”

Hopefully his refusal to recuse himself will cast overall doubt on his fitness to be a magistrate.

Not really because Anne Widdecombe doesn’t have any judicial training or qualifications like Edward Lord does. He’s been working as a justice of the peace since 2002 specialising in civil liberties cases. His personal beliefs shouldn’t come into it. Every member of the judiciary has personal beliefs, but they are trained and professionally bound to adhere to the actual law.

Jesus Christ, that man shouldn't be involved in this case or any other employment law case involving a woman. He has no respect for women's privacy or dignity or personhood.

I can't see him on the list of trustees; do you have a link?

lgbt.foundation/trustees