Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

[OvaHere]

Previous thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950877-Allison-Bailey-to-sue-Stonewall

Allison's website allisonbailey.co.uk

Statement

First and foremost, I hope that my legal action will bring me justice. I also hope that it can stop Stonewall from policing free speech via its Diversity Champions scheme.

Stonewall have signed up many companies, public bodies, voluntary sector organisations and government departments to their manifesto and their value system regarding trans rights. What is called Stonewall Law. Without most of the public realising it, a large swathe of British employers have signed up to the Stonewall value system. It has done this by trying to silence and vilify women like me who have genuine concerns about how its approach to trans inclusivity conflicts with the protections, safety and dignity of women, girls, children and LGB people.

We cannot achieve a just outcome for everyone while Stonewall are free to threaten women like me with the loss of our livelihoods and reputations. Stonewall must be held to account. I intend to do just that.

@Triphazards

They (SW) think they're never wrong and they assumed that judges and everyone would agree with them.

Ha ha! That’s the issue with ‘No Debate.’ They’ve backed themselves into that corner. They weren’t even remotely interested in anyone else’s problems.

They have the all feelings of moral superiority but none of the evidence of moral superiority.

[quote OldCrone]Anyone know the annual membership fee for diversity champions ala stonewall?

We should have that information soon via a few hundred FOI requests.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/%23DontSubmitToStonewall/all

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/02/04/shining-a-light-on-stonewalls-activities/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4158554--DontSubmitToStonewall-suggested-quick-action-by-Legal-Feminist[/quote]
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/stonewall_champion#incoming-1664922

Sorry, I didn’t read the rest of the thread before I posted and can see someone else beat me to it.

I’m excited to see the first reply that comes back. Well the first from now

Put another tenner in last night. I think she could raise a million if she needed too. The support is so heartening to see.

In general terms, I think there is a fine balance for organisations to strike between preventing employees/associates from publicly expressing views that they consider would bring the organisation into disrepute or make other employees feel under threat, and overstepping and oppressing free speech. Setting aside the reasonableness or otherwise of the views we’re talking about, there must be circumstances in which it is justified for an employer to sanction employees for expressing certain views - eg, if someone in a prominent position in a local authority were to openly express blatantly racist views on Twitter under their own name, i think it would likely be reasonable for them to lose their job.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a lesbian taking a pro-lesbian stance is analogous to someone holding racist views?

There is nothing wrong, objectionable or illegal about being pro-woman or pro-lesbian. And anyone who thinks there is, and who tries to make offensive analogies between those views and racism, or homophobia, or anti-Semitism or anything of that ilk, is merely demonstrating a) their own misogyny and b) their lack of critical thinking.

There is nothing wrong, objectionable or illegal about being pro-woman or pro-lesbian. And anyone who thinks there is, and who tries to make offensive analogies between those views and racism, or homophobia, or anti-Semitism or anything of that ilk, is merely demonstrating a) their own misogyny and b) their lack of critical thinking.

Thank you. Yes.

Stonewall must really have been scared of the LGBA to have risked this. Or it was a really, really bad idea that they didn’t think through.

I don't really see they had much choice. If being a member of the diversity scheme means supporting trans inclusion, and a high profile person who works for a company who is part of that scheme starts to publically argue against that then what are Stonewall supposed to do. Say it's okay, we didn't mean it, you can keep your acreditation that is intended to show you are supportive of trans inclusion. That would render the entire scheme meaningless. What if some other Barrister at a Diversity Champion chambers started ranting on abot gays and lesbians, should Stonewall just ignore that too and let them keep a badge that says homophobia is not tolerated in their workplace despite the fact is clearly is?

@jj1968

Stonewall must really have been scared of the LGBA to have risked this. Or it was a really, really bad idea that they didn’t think through.

I don't really see they had much choice. If being a member of the diversity scheme means supporting trans inclusion, and a high profile person who works for a company who is part of that scheme starts to publically argue against that then what are Stonewall supposed to do. Say it's okay, we didn't mean it, you can keep your acreditation that is intended to show you are supportive of trans inclusion. That would render the entire scheme meaningless. What if some other Barrister at a Diversity Champion chambers started ranting on abot gays and lesbians, should Stonewall just ignore that too and let them keep a badge that says homophobia is not tolerated in their workplace despite the fact is clearly is?

Interesting JJ. So any employee of any organisation signed up to the Stonewall champions programme must agree that all their employees will uncritically agree with all Stonewall's beliefs? Are organisations compelled to monitor all words and actions of all employees? Or maybe they source this out to Stonewall? So any employee who states (foe example) that young children shouldn't be prescribed puberty blockers or that 12 year old girls shouldn't be expected to share showers and changing rooms with middle aged men who self identify as women must expect that Stonewall will monitor their speech / actions and report this 'wrongthink' to the employer? (Hope I'm getting this right?) If said employer doesn't leap into action and sanction said employee to Stonewall's satisfaction, they will be 'warned' that reputational damage might happen to the business? Is this what you're describing? Have I understood the model correctly?

What is meaningless is any comparison of Alison Bailey's words or conduct to "ranting on abot gays and lesbians", or any kind of -phobia. It is perfectly possible to support trans-inclusion in the workplace without making the assumption that this should mean biological males occupying lesbians' safe spaces.

I realise that it's pointless to engage with you though, jj1968, so I'll leave it there, and continue to support the legal challenge.

Looks like you can either be 'transphobic' and defy Stonewall, or homophobic and support them. I'll pick option A. And make another donation to Allison's case against the lobby group which tried to punish the lesbian who say no to them. Others can choose as they will, my conscience is clear.

Why should people have Stonewall's views forced upon them through their employment? Why should people who didn't actually chose to sign up to their scheme be forced to play along? Stonewall think TW should be allowed to compete against women in sport-I don't. You think they should be entitled to have me punished for stating that view because it differs from theirs?

let them keep a badge that says homophobia is not tolerated in their workplace despite the fact is clearly is?

Well homophobia is a crime so I'd hope the persons employers would deal with them without needing to be told by a charity, but that is nothing like what happened here. Allison said nothing homophobic, unless of course you weirdly believe that a lesbian being attracted to women is homophobic. I'd love to hear what a judge thinks of that gem...

Interesting JJ. So any employee of any organisation signed up to the Stonewall champions programme must agree that all their employees will uncritically agree with all Stonewall's beliefs? Are organisations compelled to monitor all words and actions of all employees? Or maybe they source this out to Stonewall?

Well that's what this case and to some extent Maya's case may finally establish. I think seniority is probably relevent. If I saw someone who worked in tesco being transphobic on facebook it doesn't mean I'd never go in tesco again. But I've got to be honest, I wouldn't want Allison as my advocate, particularly if it was a case in which my being trans might be a factor, so to that extent her behaviour could be said to be detrimental to a different level based on her seniority and profile.

And it's not necessarily just her views by the way, I'd be quite happy to have Karon Monaghan as a Barrister for example, despite knowing she is gender critical. Now for all I know she could be a full on Sheila Jeffreys advocate who wants transsexuality morally mandated out of existence but from what I've seen of her I would trust her not to let that influence the case. I really don't feel the same way about Allison Bailey, she has tweeted about trans people pretty incessently for the last two years, and not in a nice way and so I would not feel comfortable opening up to her or trusting her.

But I am conflicted, I don't like the thought of people being diciplined at work for things they said out of work, but it does happen, and maybe in some cases ise justified. Imagine being a survivor trying to bring a prosecution and going on twitter to find your male Barrister was tweeting a load of men's rights stuff about false accusations or something. Is that acceptable, or do people in some roles have a duty to moderate their political opinions online? I don't know, I'm interested to see how the two cases develop.

It seems that SW had sewn the seeds of destruction by making the Championship scheme so draconian that there was no give. A less onerous scheme would have worked far better and would have been something everyone could have supported. SW's need for absolutes has caused division which will halt any progress and may have already turned the tide. No one else to blame.

I don't really see they had much choice. If being a member of the diversity scheme means supporting trans inclusion, and a high profile person who works for a company who is part of that scheme starts to publically argue against that then what are Stonewall supposed to do. Say it's okay, we didn't mean it, you can keep your acreditation that is intended to show you are supportive of trans inclusion. That would render the entire scheme meaningless.

Thanks for highlighting exactly what the problem is with the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. This is very similar to something Allison Bailey says on her website (link in the OP):

In December 2018, my chambers had become a member of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme, and I had voiced my concern about this within chambers. I felt troubled by the scheme, because I felt that it allowed Stonewall to police the opinions and views of individuals whose organisations (such as mine) had joined the scheme.

It is exactly this conflict of interests which is the problem with the Stonewall Champions schemes. It allows Stonewall to influence the working of the companies, organisations and government departments which join these schemes. It takes away some of their independence and may stop them from acting in the best interests of their organisation or the people working there.

I do hope JJ's mistaken in the analysis of how this all operates. It's an unusual model to use in a democracy - I've only ever seen these tactics in action in communist states / dictatorships.

@highame

It seems that SW had sewn the seeds of destruction by making the Championship scheme so draconian that there was no give. A less onerous scheme would have worked far better and would have been something everyone could have supported. SW's need for absolutes has caused division which will halt any progress and may have already turned the tide. No one else to blame.

I think that any scheme which requires organisations to comply with the directives of another organisation, over which they have no control, could cause these conflicts of interest.

No organisation needs to be a member of such a scheme in order to show compliance with equalities legislation or even to declare their own credentials in this area.

What does trans inclusion in the workplace actually mean though? I mean what's the substance?

Not being bullied belittled etc- great
Training for HR and managers and people who interview etc on unconscious bias and so on- yep

That's the same sort of thing that applies to various under represented groups.

What if specific about trans inclusion in the workplace?

I wonder how all this will play out in universities etc in the light of this government decision?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/430a969e-6eea-11eb-811f-f64a7b4cb430?shareToken=ba496f51d9b80db5358590140261f9f5

The other thing I keep coming back to is how interesting it is to be on 'the other side'.

I've been a nicey lefty person all my life. As have many others who are saying and have said, hold on a minute about all this.

When this is raised its never really addressed. It seems to come back to. Funded by right wing orgs, bots, astroturfing etc. That the people who ask these questions are racist, homophobic etc.

Thing is. I know I'm not. And so do others. So when I sit back, as I do often, and think. Am I sure about this. Have I missed something. Well I know the sort of operation I am and I know what's been happening and each time I come up, no I'm not wrong.

The point about radical feminism/ GC feminism. Being interchangable. No they aren't. Loads of people who post on these boards hold views that are not radical feminist. They have come because they don't agree that men can become, literally become women, by saying some words.

Most people in society don't believe that. Most men don't believe that. Society knows what male and female are, what their bodies are like, and what their role in society is.

But strangely no one challenges them. Not like women get clobbered.

I'll believe that most men are onboard with it when the vast majority seeking lesbian porn are happy to see two people with cocks fucking.

@persistentwoman

I do hope JJ's mistaken in the analysis of how this all operates. It's an unusual model to use in a democracy - I've only ever seen these tactics in action in communist states / dictatorships.

Stonewall are a small LGBT charity, not a state, or a dictatorship. Companies are free to sign up or not. The truth is even if Garden Chambers weren't Stinewall Champions they still might have dropped her, the same way Maya got dropped.

It is increasingly common for people to get into trouble at work for things they have said on social media. Nothing happening here is unique, and in fact it is a result of capitalism, not communism. If you are deemed to damage your employer's brand then you can end up getting sacked. That's what happened. Most working class people have known for decades that you can't get away with saying certain things, even down the pub, if your boss might catch wind of it. I once had a company director come into the canteen and tell us that if he find out anyone voted Labour they'd be out on their ear.

I'll believe that most men are onboard with it when the vast majority seeking lesbian porn are happy to see two people with cocks fucking.

Not such a great example when so-called shemale porn is known to be almost as popular as straight porn amongst heterosexual men.

Why the constant, often blatant lying? For one thing, it functioned as a means of fully dominating subordinates, who would have to cast aside all their integrity to repeat outrageous falsehoods and would then be bound to the leader by shame and complicity. “The great analysts of truth and language in politics”—writes McGill University political philosophy professor Jacob T. Levy—including “George Orwell, Hannah Arendt, Vaclav Havel—can help us recognize this kind of lie for what it is…. Saying something obviously untrue, and making your subordinates repeat it with a straight face in their own voice, is a particularly startling display of power over them. It’s something that was endemic to totalitarianism.”

Stonewall teach totalitarianism and to demonstrate the power they have over lesbians. Not increase the power lesbians have themselves.

Why do they seek to smear the LGB Alliance and anyone associated with it?

Because they want to demonstrate they can. And they can crush the LGB Alliance and anyone associated with it.

How are you liberating anyone from oppression when you want to control speech and thought of everyone in order to achieve that goal?

Feel free to post your answers on a postcard jj. Cos the above is what you have attempted to do throughout.

JJ the men watching that porn you mention do not think they are watching two women having sex.

We both know that.

Thanks for the share token, @persistentwoman. It is unfortunate that as with so many Tory cultural initiatives, this is coming across as a retrograde attempt to de-emphasise recent attempts to move away from the 'Britannia Rules The Waves' way of teaching history.

Why can't we have a progressive middle ground which doesn't tip into Stalinism?

Great posts RTB & NiceGerbil.

Arendt also pointed out that the ideal subjects of totalitarian rule are people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.