Legal action against Eventbrite for unlawful discrimination

I have just been listening to "Law in Action" on R4. In it threre was a brief mention of "inclusive democracy", and how we should be interpreting democracy. One of our previous supreme court judges was quoted. I have to paraphrase here,, using memory, but it argued that "inclusive democracy means that everyone is treated equally under the law, even if the majority doers not support that in some cases".
We are facing situations where everyone is not treated equally, and it isn't the poor little victimised minority which is treated less equally.

Agender means a person who has no gender identity, not someone who denies gender identity exists.

Theist means someone who believes there is a god. Atheist means someone who believes there is no god.

It’s not a stretch to realise that agender is a rejection of gender ideology

There is nothing illegal about the event, and there is nothing illegal about Eventbrite chosing not to sell tickets for it. There terms of service permit it, because they believe it disparages transgender people. You can try to prove in court that it doesn't, of course.

The two situations aren't remotely alike. That's like suggesting that because a "gay people are going to hell" event should not be platformed, a gay pride event should be cancelled. It's asymmetrical. Do you think Eventbite should be forced to sell tickets for a Westboro Baptist or anti-abortion event if they don't want to?

Forgive me if I am wrong but you have made up the 'gay people are going to hell' event so why not actually use the real situations that actually exist.

There is nothing illegal about women having events to discuss legal rights to same sex spaces. So there is no reason to deplatform them.

The two situations aren't remotely alike. That's like suggesting that because a "gay people are going to hell" event should not be platformed, a gay pride event should be cancelled. It's asymmetrical. Do you think Eventbite should be forced to sell tickets for a Westboro Baptist or anti-abortion event if they don't want to?

I've read the Forstater judgement and it does not say what you think it does. There is no right to free speech on social media platforms. They are not common carriers and we are not in the States. Eventbrite can chose to reject events they believe and can demonstrate disparage transgender people.

Discrimination is permitted where there are conflicting rights.You can't refuse to marry people as a civil registrar even if your religion says its wrong.

No, agender is not the word for someone who rejects the idea of gender identity, any more than asexual is someone who rejects the idea of sexuality.

Agender means a person who has no gender identity, not someone who denies gender identity exists.

You haven't answered the question. It was a yes/no question - is the trans guidance that says 'agender is a term for someone who rejects gender identification completely' wrong?

I didn't ask anything to do with sexuality, and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying homosexuality is 'normal' anyway - so confused about what point you are imagining you're making.

@DadJoke Can you show where proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is applied to direct discrimination based on religion or belief. I can't see the carve out? There isn't one in s13

There is a carve out in s19 but that relates to indirect discrimination.

@DadJoke
I'm not going to explain again. I suggest you take your own advice about checking the EA2010. And also the Forstater judgments in the appeal court and at the Employment Tribunal.

You should be supporting this action - genuinely. Imagine if it was the other way around. Imagine if trans allies and activists were being thrown off event platforms for having trans awareness events? If they can do it to us, they can do it to you. I know a lot you will think it would never happen to you. or it would be wrong for it to happen to you because you are in the right (or on the right side of history, as people love to say), but every dictator, tyrant, terrorist, political mass murderer etc has also thought they were in the right, or at least more so than their opponents. The issue here is not whether you agree with the content of these events. It's about free speech and freedom from discrimination. Ordinary citizens need protection from the abuse of power whether wielded by corporations or governments. If Spero and all these brave GC women and men go to court, it's on behalf of us all - trans people, TRAs and trans allies included.

I've detected a nasty habit of the TRAs of trying to get events cancelled at the last minute, presumably hoping that not only will they not go ahead on the original platform or in the original venue, it will be difficult to find a replacement platform or venue.

It will be interesting to see how far eventbrite will go with their purge. Is this being done by a (hu)man or an algorithm?

Many women's groups as service providers use eventbrite and sometimes their sessions are women only.

And a lot of women's groups are advertising their events as part of the 16 Days of Action Against Violence Against Women on eventbrite. Admittedly not all of these are women only, but some are.

Are they going to be targetted too, or is this just the usual suspects trying to get to make problems for women / women's groups whose names are in the news.

The depressing thought is that should a different online platform be found how long before they are the object of a campaign to censor women's voices.

I have a very warped brain which sometimes comes up with unusual arguments. Is it possible that Eventbrite have formed the idea that the events they have dropped, while not in themselves promoting "violent" and "dangerous" outcomes are, in effect, enabling them, since the organisers must know that people exhibiting such behaviours are going to arrive at the venues and do so? And that Eventbrite, in publishing those events, will be complicit in the violence?
Still need to be sued, of course.

The belief that "gay people go to Hell" is also protected under that assumption.

As is the gender ideological belief that TWAW.

Loads and rising. In fact, I thought I was pretty much at the top but apparently not!

They are a protected belief in the sense they are literally not illegal - see the Forstater judgement. The only beliefs the Forstater judgment mentions that don't meet that bar are Nazism and "a belief that all non-white people should be forcibly deported for the good of the nation" - because those beliefs incite violence. The fact that those views are legal (and thus protected in the sense you mean) is not relevant. The belief that "gay people go to Hell" is also protected under that assumption.

The EA2010 refers to proportionate and legitimate in the context of discrimination, in a separate section to the one you are referring to.

So, I recommend you take a look at the text of the EA2010 and the Forstater appeal - both are available online.

You could also try Ticketsource?

I’ve booked tickets through them for local events.

No, that's hate speech. There are laws against that.

You cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their legally protected belief.

That's why Maya went to court over it. It has to fulfil certain criteria in order to be protected.

And it did.

@DadJoke
Nice that you would be interested in OP's court case, though. The more people hear about this, the better.

@DadJoke
IANAL, but I think you have misunderstood. Gender critical beliefs are protected under the EA2010 therefore you can't discriminate on that basis. GC beliefs meet the test of being "worthy of respect in a democratic society" (WORIADS is the acronym often used.) The fact that you personally believe them to be transphobic is neither here nor there.

Your remark about discrimination being proportionate and legitimate sounds like a garbled version of the wording from the parts of the act dealing with single-sex exemptions and people with GRCs - is that right?

I do agree that the bar for being WORIADS is low - it includes flat earthism, creationism etc and of course gender ideology.

I repeat, IANAL, so I am happy to be corrected by a qualified person!

@Datun Service providers shouldn't be able to withdraw services based on which legally held viewpoints they find acceptable and which they don't.

Yes, they should, and they do. The fact that racist, homophobic and transphobic beliefs don't meet the very low bar of not been literally illegal hate speech doesn't mean that platforms can't ban them. If someone wanted to put on a "Gay people go to Hell" event, Eventbrite could ban them, despite their views being a protected religious belief.

It's not different from the many occasions when gender critical people have been banned from holding events across the country. As to whether it's discrimination, it might well be, but discrimation is permitted if it's legitimate and proportionate.

I don't think this court case will go anywhere, but I do look forward to it happening.

Just donated my Eventbrite refund of original purchase of tickets for Nottingham Women for Change's AHF documentary showing to Spero's crowdfunder. Do they think we're going to run out of outrage or little £20 donations or something?

(P.S. And bought tickets again on Ticket Tailor..)

One of the things that the TRAs who gloat about this behaviour are too stupid to realise is that if Eventbrite, Twitter etc can ban feminists, they can ban anyone.

Exactly. Any of them can ban anyone. All the layer upon layer of tech companies that the whole world relies on for just about everything have unimaginable power.

This isn't just about cancelling a feminist book launch. You'd have to think that the government itself knows just how reliant they are if they don't force regulations and law adherence.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this specific case build up a head of steam.

Clare Fox is right. The power these people have is huge. And they must be subject to the same laws as everybody else. If they have found a loophole to circumvent discrimination law in this country, then that must be closed.

Absolutely, Datun. If these huge, monolithic tech companies are inventing their own rules that allow them to flout the law of this land with impunity, then we need to stop them. One of the things that the TRAs who gloat about this behaviour are too stupid to realise is that if Eventbrite, Twitter etc can ban feminists, they can ban anyone.