“273. In view of this situation it is apparent that the views expressed by the Claimant were not extreme but rather represented her expressing her opinion in an ongoing public debate. The fact that the debate can often be vociferous, and on occasion toxic, does not mean that the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society should be restricted. An analogy was given during the hearing was to the divisive position of Brexit in the period up to and beyond the 2016 referendum, to which the Respondents both acknowledged that an employee/social worker would have been entitled to post their opinions, and we consider that the same entitlement should have existed to another contentious area of debate.”
mic drop from the Tribunal:
“274. We consider it wholly inappropriate that an individual such as the Claimant espousing one side of the debate should be labelled discriminatory, transphobic and to pose a potential risk to vulnerable service users. That in effect equates her views as being equivalent to an employee/social worker espousing racially discriminatory or homophobic views. The opinions expressed by the Claimant could not sensibly be viewed as being transphobic when properly considered in their full context from an objective perspective, but rather her expressing an opinion contrary to the interpretation of legislation, or perhaps more accurately the amendment to existing legislation, advocated for by trans lobbying groups to include, but not limited to, Stonewall.”
“Remedy
275. The parties are invited to consider whether the issue of remedy can be resolved between them but if not the Tribunal has provisionally listed, subject to the parties’ availability, a 2 day hearing on 12 and 13 February 2024. The parties are asked to advise as to whether this hearing is required, whether it is convenient and if so whether they wish it to be in person.”
I hope she takes them to the cleaners.