Maya Forstater finally has a date for her appeal!

[yourhairiswinterfire]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1317491923536564226

27-28th April 21.

From the Crowd Justice update too: The free speech organisation Index on Censorship has also been given permission to intervene to highlight the legal issues around freedom of speech.

I've got everything crossed that she'll be vindicated and some sanity will be restored.

Not going to engage with saboteurs here, just wanted to wish Maya luck and a good outcome. You're an inspiration and a tough cookie!

Good luck maya. I shall chip in, and tune in.

Good luck Maya! And THANK YOU

@Shizuku

I'm with the judge - her views are not worthy of respect in democratic society. It'll be interesting to see how the appeal goes.

I don't think you're worthy of much respect, frankly.

But I'm sure you'll be back with some nonsense study to post that supports none of your claims, as per usual.

I'd not noticed that MF needed more support - done.

I can't dig this week, but will come payday. We're behind you Maya!

@OhHolyJesus

A clever friend of mine said at the time that basing it on a belief was a mistake.

It's like arguing that the sky is blue, the grass is green, based in 'believing' what you see with your eyes and how you interpret colours.

It's all that "speaking your truth" nonsense rather than the truth.

All power to you Maya. There will be digging and now we know there's time.

Also, fab news Index on Censorship have been granted permission to intervene. That sounds important.

Yet she was told it was a belief not worthy of respect. Not that it was THE truth.

I Will have a dig today for you Maya.

Sex is a protected characteristic. If it’s now a belief, how does it interact with other beliefs. If a female identifies as a man, could she marry another female in a religious building (church, Mosque, synagogue etc)? I’m guessing no. Why is it ‘acceptable’ and in law that religious organisations can refuse to perform same sex marriage but belief in sex being binary is not worthy of respect?

We respect and support same sex marriage AND we respect and support religious views (even if we don’t agree with them) but we don’t respect or support women.

@Shizuku

I'm with the judge - her views are not worthy of respect in democratic society. It'll be interesting to see how the appeal goes.

What's the relevance of democratic to belief?

It's totalitarian societies that attempt to mandate the beliefs amd control the speech of their citizens, not democratic ones. The democratic ones like to have the debate out in the open and voted for at the ballot box so the will of the people can be clearly known.

Good Luck Maya, donated again

Thank you @MForstater! I shall do some digging today.

For anyone new to this, you can look up maya's case on the crowd funding platform (which we can't link to so won't give details).

There have been some independent legal opinions suggesting she has a good chance in appeal. Karon monoghan qc is a bit if an equality law guru and wrote this:

www.google.com/amp/s/ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/02/27/the-forstater-employment-tribunal-judgment-a-critical-appraisal-in-light-of-miller-karon-monaghan-qc/amp/

There was also an article by a law Prof looking at the poor distinction between action and belief made by the judge (as a pp outlined) but I can never remember the authors. Maybe someone can link it.

But for me - even tho I disagree with maya on some things- it's vital that we retain the right to speak openly about this. We will not be able to articulate a defence of the EA single sex eeceptions, or parts of the GRA, without voicing some maya-ish assumptions about sex. The exceptions must start from the position that a transexual woman's sex is different to that of other women in a rape support group, for her to be excluded from it. If the ruling stands we will not be able to argue for our current rights in law without fearing the sack.

I read maya's twitter threads that led to her contract being dropped. I disagreed with some & actually agreed with bits if her opponent's points. But that's irrelevant. Short of encouraging violence & hate etc, no one should be sacked for engaging in political discussion, especially when the government has asked citizens to engege in a consultation on the issue & they are defending the current law. The best way to defend that in our legal system is to give the beliefs protection from discrimination.

If ioc are intervening, does that mean they will be sending their own barrister?

Their public statements on this issue have been a bit lacklustre since Smeeth took over from Ginsberg, but if they are intervening that suggests they obviously do understand the serious free speech implications well. I will be interested to hear what case they make.

suggests [IoC] obviously do understand the serious free speech implications well.

It was fascinating during Maya Forstater's case to learn that a company's/organisation's policy might compel you to disavow your own perceptions and knowledge if somebody were to identify other than you see or know them to be. Presumably, this would obtain in circumstances where somebody might be seeking to gain material advantage from a self-ID such as reserved grants or shortlists etc.

LE is a senior official at CGD - MF's former employers.

LE — I have the email & recall but not the tweet.
CC — tweet re Rachel Dolezal
MF doesn’t see difference between man believing he can become woman and white persona believing they can become black — neither have basis in material reality
LE — OK
CC — she’s right isn’t she? [sketches Dolezal facts]
LE — I don’t know about Rachel Dolezal
CC — [refers to Dolezal interview in bundle] She’s ethnically white isn’t she
[Picture from the Rachel Dolezal interview]
LE — yes she appears to be white
CC — it’s true while she feels black that feeling has no basis in material reality
LE — No. If Rachel Dolezal recorded herself at CGD as black, she’d be black Professionally for all purposes she’d be black. In the USA anyone can self report ethnicity
CC — backed up with policy? Furore over Doelzal so not unproblematic? The reality is she’s not black?
LE — the reality is she’s black

mforstater.medium.com/live-tweets-from-the-tribunal-5bd28f8e39c1

Good luck Maya. Just done some digging

Is she the one who tried to sue Stonewall?

Good luck Maya

@MargaritaPie

Is she the one who tried to sue Stonewall?

No, that's a separate (on-going) case with Allison Bailey of LGB Alliance. I think they share the same barrister though.

@MargaritaPie

Is she the one who tried to sue Stonewall?

No, that's the barrister Allison Bailey, taking action against her chambers and Stonewall. Allison had a preliminary hearing in Feb (Stonewall were trying to get the case thrown out, but failed).

Allison's case is going ahead, trial starts 1st June.

Best of luck Maya. Just off to do some digging.

I just want to add to what I said above.
The Prof who wrote about the conflation between belief & action in the judgement was Robert wintermute. Interestingly he's the one who has since raised concerns about the yogyakarta principles which he helped to draft.

Article isn't open access any more, but here's part of it quoted by maya.
threader.app/thread/1348738032808185856

Index on Censorship is being represented by Aileen McColgan QC. She has put in written arguments and will have 30 minutes to make remarks

It's helpful to have IoC , and also the articles by Prof Robert Wintemute and Karon Monaghan QC. Hopefully.

🤞🤞🤞

It's helpful to have IoC , and also the articles by Prof Robert Wintemute and Karon Monaghan QC. Hopefully.

So glad the Prof is doing this.