What happened to thread on Labour All Women Shortlist update?

[Wanderabout]

More info from Jennifer James here:

mobile.twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/1024612561847771136

mobile.twitter.com/msjenniferjames/status/1024612561847771136

It was removed as a disallowed crowdfunding link.

Ah ok.

Twitter links should be ok then.

Update:

(Please don't link to crowdfunder, or talk specifically about donations or MNHQ will remove thread again)

At long last we have heard back from the Labour party solicitors... see update below.

TLDR: we're taking them to court. You made this fight possible and I can promise you we are not going to back down.

I will publish bank accounts for May, June, July over next couple of days.

On a personal note: I am still suspended from the Labour party who are alleging that I have 'broken Labour party rules'. Nothing more specific than that and I am told I have a hearing coming up.

Very best wishes to all

Jennifer

CROWDFUNDER STATEMENT
--------
We wrote a further pre-action protocol letter to the Labour Party on 7th June 2018 asking that they agree a question to be put before the High Court in order to have a legal determination on whether transwomen without a GRC should be permitted to stand on all-women shortlists in the Labour Party.

We had hoped that the Labour Party, while not agreeing on the substantive issue, would see fit to facilitate a Court determination on the legal issue.

After considerable delay and a request for an extension for a reply to 27th July, we received their Solicitors’ letter late on 27th July. The letter makes it clear that they intend to take every point and will do their utmost to prevent a Court getting to determine the issue.

It is apparent from their letter that they will seek to take every single technical legal point to do their best to avoid a Court decision. We had hoped that the Labour Party would agree to a lower-cost expedited hearing on the legal issue, but they appear determined not to do so.

We are therefore preparing to issue proceedings and I will be having telephone conferences with the Solicitors and Counsel at the end of this week. I will update you further when more information is available.

We continue to instruct Bhogal Partners Solicitors, and via them, Amanda Jones of Counsel.

Very cynical of Labour to make it expensive as possible, and tell JJ she will be personally liable for costs - could it be they don't want it going to court....

Of course they don't want it going to court. The outcome could be shatteringly inconvenient.

If Labour were confident they were right, they'd be off to court tomorrow.

But they really don't want a judge to hear this.

So, NUS trans officer accused of nasty crimes = someone pays for top £££ top notch law firm to try and keep it out of the press.

Women crowdfund legal fees to keep all-women shortlists = Labour try try to bleed them dry in order to avoid the issue being settled fairly in court.

Hmmm

Thank you for the update

I am a labour party member and absolutely support Jennifer James's actions.

Very cynical of Labour to make it expensive as possible

Yes. Compared to Jennifer, the Labour party is a very rich and well back organisation indeed.

By way of contrast. The crowdfunder appear has raised around £27K to date.

Shadow women and equalities minister Dawn Butler went on a £14,000 trip to the GLAAD awards in LA, apparently funded by a prominent Labour donor who is an ambassador for Stonewall.

So a sum equivalent to half the money raised was pissed away showing Ms Butler a good time in LA (I mean I'm sure the trip has had no impact whatsoever on any subsequent decisions she has made, and was an entirely altruistic gesture).

This is very much a case of David and Goliath.

So from the twitter thread

The crux of the disagreement is whether or not self-identifying transwomen have the LEGAL right to stand for public office on an all-women shortlist. We believe they don't, the party believes they do.

So... we asked @UKLabour if they would agree to this question being decided, once and for all, by the High Court, this would make it simple, give everyone clarity and keep costs down.

However, although sex is the only protected category on which a selection procedure for a short list can be based exclusively, it is legal to have a selection process for a short list based on more than one protected characteristics. However, this needs to be a proportionate means to reduce inequality. See ss. 104(3), 104(6), 104(7) Equality Act. Labour's selection process allows people with the characteristic of female sex and people with the characteristic of gender reassignment who identify as female to appear on a AWS.

So I expect that this would be the Labour party's defence. But it would not be a purely legal defence. The Labour party would need to produce evidence of under representation etc.

I would also expect the Labour party to challenge Jenifer James' standing to bring a claim as she is not personally harmed even if the policy was found to be illegal. The claim would be better coming from a male wannabe Labour candidate who was kept of a AWS as he does not identify as female. Unfortunately for her, if she were to produce such a candidate, it would be clear there was not a genuine dispute and the court could throw the case out.

This alls means that the question she wants the court to decide would be purely hypothetical. The courts are not in the business of deciding hypothetical claims so it is perfectly understandable that the Labour Party have not agreed to this.

I suspect that her only chance of winning would be a contractual case if the Labour Party have breached their own internal rules (the Labour Party have said they didn't). If this is how the case ends up, it might not be what her supporters are expecting.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment refers to transsexuals, not self identified women. So even if Labour have shoe horned in gender reassigned women and women, they are still in the wrong.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment refers to transsexuals, not self identified women. So even if Labour have shoe horned in gender reassigned women and women, they are still in the wrong

All that matters is that the short list has more than one protected characteristic (unless it is sex). It is then up to the Labour party to justify it.

And yet I will keep donating money until this is done SarahAr

i want very much to see how this plays out

There is another update about Jess Bradley on the Crowdfunder.

YMMV. Whatever.

I also have donated and want to see this put to a court ruling. Along with a number of other things.

And yet I will keep donating money until this is doneSarahAr

Ditto I said on the deleted thread people and organisations should be held to account, and I question the motives of anyone who would discourage that.

Odd that they don't want a court to go near it, eh?

You think they'd want the win and the great publicity surrounding it.
As well as saving all those union subs that they are currently spending on this. Win/win/win, right?

But no, they don't want to do that.

After considerable delay and a request for an extension for a reply to 27th July, we received their Solicitors’ letter late on 27th July. The letter makes it clear that they intend to take every point and will do their utmost to prevent a Court getting to determine the issue.

Of course they don't want a court to decide it, as its quite obvious the way it will go. They have backed themselves into a corner really, and the only way that they can possibly get out of it, is to stop the legal challenge, by funding issues.

Can I carry over my extra quids from the deleted thread?

LangCleg

I have

I'm feeling irritable because Tesco have driven off with half my order still on the van. So I might make it £2 per incident.

I'm feeling irritable because Labour have decided to make this as expensive as possible despite knowing it's being funded by members of the public. Mainly women and mainly their own voters.

I'm matching my previous plus adding for incidents.

I'm feeling irritable because Labour have decided to make this as expensive as possible despite knowing it's being funded by members of the public. Mainly women and mainly their own voters

Now I feel petty!

How disgusting of Labour to use party funds to try and bully women from of taking this important issue to court for a legal decision.

It's obvious that they know they haven't got a leg to stand on, or as others have already pointed out, they would be rushing to get a legal decision as soon as possible, not wasting cash to postpone it coming to court.

When I was a Labour Party member I donated money to the party expecting it to be used to fight austerity and bring back common decency to UK politics. I trusted them and now feel that I have been deceived.

I'm now donating my Labour Party membership fees to the All Women Shortlists crowdfunder, and will continue to do so until the question is settled.

It's obvious that they know they haven't got a leg to stand on, or as others have already pointed out, they would be rushing to get a legal decision as soon as possible, not wasting cash to postpone it coming to court.

On the contrary, AWS that include trans and non-trans women are clearly legal. The only issue is whether the Labour party implemented their AWS in a way that is legal - i.e. can they justify their selection criteria, did they breach party rules etc.

If the campaign wins, trans inclusive AWS are not going away. All that will happen is the Labour party will correct the procedural deficit and continue.

Litigation is always risky however strong your case. You don't say to your opponent, I will concede you have standing and allow you to go to court. What you do is argue

(1) You have no standing to bring the claim
(2) Trans inclusive short lists are legal as they are proportionate
(3) Alternatively they are legal as for the purpose of AWS, sex includes people's gender identity
(4) Even if we have broken the law, you have suffered no harm - so get no damages.

You hope point (1) wins as it deals with the litigant prior to the full trial. Otherwise you expect to win on (2). Failing that (3), is a back up but you don't expect to win on that point etc.

You also don't concede a legal question on point (3) - as you expect to the win the case on point (1) or (2).

So the campaign is wasting the Labour party's money and time, when Labour should be focussed on bringing down this government.