Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

Suzanne Moore is having none of it today:

Jollyon now puts feminists in quote marks . Owen , him their followers decide what feminism is because they know best. Of course. Jollyon is happy to weaponise the holocaust . I say it again . These "progressives" are actually patriarchal conservatives. You see that or you dont.

twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1335528696065744896?s=21

^The latest tactic is to say that people like me are financed by shadowy right wing lunatics who want to stop womens reproductive rights. What?

My history on this stuff is out there on record. Speak outs on abortion since 80s etc. In the House of Commons etc. Where is theirs?^

twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1335533220419563521?s=21

Many years ago, I was involved in a VAT tribunal and JM was the junior barrister on our side against HMRC. Without wishing to bore (or indeed re-live the tedium myself) it concerned a contract that was silent on some critical matters and involved application of a couple of international amendments as well as uk law. It was mega complex and turned on a lot of verbal evidence of intention rather than written contracts. My main recollection of JM is that he had a brilliant mind and could instantly grasp incredibly technical documents but really struggled with the elements of the case that were not written down. He just couldn’t apply nuance or deal with the implications of verbal testimony of witnesses, he wanted paper (which didn’t exist in either side) to support the case. He was also hugely opinionated and got slapped down several times by both the lead barrister and the VAT expert.

It was also a bit of a strange case because the local VAT inspectors involved weren’t particularly supportive of the HMRC’s decision to pursue. They’d been our inspector for years so witnesses on both sides knew each other well, were fairly friendly and chatted between tribunal sittings. It was a VAT tribunal, not a court so a lot more relaxed. JM got quite agitated and tried to create artificial conflict and angst (again slapped down by the lead barrister).

Ultimately we won the case which was great. Everyone shook hands and it was all perfectly pleasant. In particular I had a good chat with the inspector who felt personally vindicated busy the outcome so it was all quite nice. All except JM who tried to pass it off as a great victory against The State. It really, really wasn’t.

I often ponder over his behaviour in that case when I read some of his pronouncements. I think it tells us a lot about character.

The ruling does not weaken bodily autonomy for girls and women, as she claims. It strengthens it by reinforcing that bodily autonomy requires consent and understanding and these poor kids lacked it.

Indeed. And of course you only have to think about this issue for a couple of minutes to realise that there are reasons we don't allow children to have tattoos or body piercings until they're 18, or indeed to refuse a blood transfusion. There are any number of scenarios where children don't know what's best for their own body.

It's the perennial question, though: are these people genuinely so stupid they don't understand this? Or are they deliberately disingenuous for reasons we can only guess at?

When I'm with Stonewall, Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler; the medical establishment around the liberal world; the World Health Organisation and EU; if I am putting myself on the line to try and shield a voiceless community from ignorance and hatred, I sleep easy in my bed.

Jolyon's still at it.

😂 particularly to a “voiceless community”

I know! - and the tweet right under it is about how much money is coming in from that um most voiceless, disposed, most vilified community the world has ever seen.

Oh and here's Jolyon's reply to another misogynist:

Really shocking to me - in truth a real eye opener - how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard. A really powerful lesson to me.

Oh Jolyon, is there no end to your woman-hate?

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

Oh yes Helmet he's pulled out the big guns this morning, abortion charities are afraid to speak out about the Bell ruling because he says: they fear public criticism from an unholy alliance of the 'Christian' Right and trans exclusive 'feminists'. Now where have we heard that before? There's no evidence of it. He's not acting in good faith.

Surely such abortion charities, are refusing to speak out and claim the ruling will affect abortion rights, as they read the ruling, understood it and KNOW it will not affect abortion rights in the slightest. Not as they are terrified of the christian right Quite sure such charities are used to dealing with anti-abortion radicalists.

It seems TRAs (and Jo) are spending a fair amount of time TRYING to get abortion charities to back their (very twisted, wrong) POV. but hopefully such charities will actually do their homework,. rather than parroting false soundbytes. When such charities do do their homework, it morphs into terror of the right, rather than want/need to tell the truth! Its just such nonsense.

Really shocking to me - in truth a real eye opener - how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard. A really powerful lesson to me.

Oh, don't we know it Jolyon. You'd have realised it a lot sooner if you hadn't blocked every sensible woman who could have pointed it out for you 😂 Indeed women are constantly spoken at, about and over, and never listened to.

He's the gift that keeps on giving, this one.

Unfortunately Abortion Rights were sucked in Vulva and posted a tweet in line with JM's views which they later deleted. Seems they're not bothering to put the record straight and reassure people that this won't impact abortion rights.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

Unfortunately Abortion Rights were sucked in Vulva and posted a tweet in line with JM's views which they later deleted. Seems they're not bothering to put the record straight and reassure people that this won't impact abortion rights.

Of course not. Acknowledging they were wrong and this does not impact abortion/contraception would be transphobic, or killing transkids, or something. Presumably. Truth is evil AND BIGOTED.

No idea about random caps there, but seems to fit!

I’m loving Moore’s spelling there, ‘Jollyon’.

I propose we make ‘getting a Jolly-on’ a new FWR saying.

Haha, now he’s proud about being on the same side as Judith butler? That’s nothing to be proud of, mate. I also don’t buy for one second that Jo has settled down in his dressing gown to read gender trouble or any of her major works...

@Helmetbymidnight

When I'm with Stonewall, Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler; the medical establishment around the liberal world; the World Health Organisation and EU; if I am putting myself on the line to try and shield a voiceless community from ignorance and hatred, I sleep easy in my bed.

Jolyon's still at it.

So is he admitting that he's too dim to think for himself, and therefore relies on an appeal to authority to justify his poorly thought out views?

He'd do better to think about why he believes what he does, and set out a coherent argument for his point of view.

And really, suggesting that a lobby group, a writer of fiction and a queer theorist are people who we should trust as authorities on anything is just nuts.

So is he admitting that he's too dim to think for himself, and therefore relies on an appeal to authority to justify his poorly thought out views?

It’s not even a very good appeal to authority. The High Court of England and Wales who looked at all of the evidence and heard all of the witnesses vs...Margaret Atwood.

Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949

Interesting and insightful post @Ratonastick

The sense I get and I may be wrong. With the abortion thing. Is that they almost want it to impact so they can say see what you have done now. As a sort of punishment.

I don't believe they actually care about girls at all.

Seeing as JM and Co are now so interested in the issue of abortion and contraception, if they would be able to name which class of human actually need access to these things? Which class of 13 year human would need access to an abortion or contraception? Is there a way of telling this, ya know, if biological sex doesn't really exist?

Judith Butler and Margaret Atwood weren’t in court and have no particular expertise on this matter.

It’s very odd to hear a barrister talk like this. Presumably his arguments carry more weight when he does the day job in tax law.

how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard

The Tavistock don’t treat a community, they treat individuals.

[quote nauticant]Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949[/quote]
Funny, isn't it, how it's always creatures like clownfish, seahorses and slugs that are used as examples to support the argument that biological sex is very complicated.

No one ever pulls up examples of chimpanzees or bonobos, primates that are considerably closer to humans than slugs to try to illustrate their point. In fact, mammals in general are decidedly unhelpful to the "it's complicated" line of argument.

We don't use the fact that lizards can lose and re-grow their tails as a way of arguing that humans can re-grow lost limbs.

The idea that slugs have any relevance to humans in this area is just silly.

That’s very interesting, ratonastick. Not surprised at all!

This dragging in of abortion and contraception is no accident. It comes over like “You naughty mouthy women just won’t shut up, will you? Well, you can’t have your abortion and contraception any more then. There! That’ll learn you! Do what you’re told like a good girl”.

He’s a tax lawyer and has no expertise in human rights law or family law but feels the need to wade in and give everyone his totally uninformed opinion.

I suspect that he will run as an MP before long. He’s trying to win popular appeal through all this.

As others will remember, he was initially against transwomen standing on Labour all women shortlists and made that clear in a tweet. His current extreme TRA stance was a direct response to some pushback he got. He has absolutely zero integrity and will do whatever makes him appear popular. He got a lot of stick from fellow senior lawyers for his tweets about the Bell case. It’s an extremely low blow to attack a fellow lawyer just because you don’t like the result in a case. Yes, Keira’s lawyer has brought some questionable cases in the past but that a) he is a legal professional and acts on instructions from clients and b) his other cases do not in any way diminish the validity of the Bell case. Also, as a lawyer, a foundational duty is that you should never let your own personal beliefs interfere with your duties to a client. Jolyon doesn’t seem able to grasp this, which is very odd for someone who is a QC.

Also, as a lawyer, a foundational duty is that you should never let your own personal beliefs interfere with your duties to a client. Jolyon doesn’t seem able to grasp this, which is very odd for someone who is a QC

Particularly odd because at the moment the rest of barrister twitter seems to be defending the profession against government attacks on “activist lawyers”. Either you believe in the principle of legal representation for all or you don’t.