Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

999 replies

OvaHere · 12/02/2021 10:25

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
TheLaughingGenome · 16/02/2021 17:13

I was following the live tweeting but nothing prepared me for this. An actual, proper employment judge has adjudicated.

A grown-up is in the room.

Manderleyagain · 16/02/2021 17:19

Im not sure how others are reading para 44, but I don't think the judge is saying it's arguable that stonewall were acting in breach of equality act. I think she is saying that it is arguable that Allison's email makes that claim - ie the email alleged that stonewall broke the law. That's the context for the negative to response from colleagues.

Manderleyagain · 16/02/2021 17:36

Yes para 50!
Do we know if it will be this judge or someone else?
Does anyone know if Allison will have to first prove that her beliefs count as a philosophical belief under the EA, like maya did? The judgement mentions that it won't be straightforward to show that it's indirect discrimination against her sex & sexual orientation.

Tibtom · 16/02/2021 17:52

@Manderleyagain

Im not sure how others are reading para 44, but I don't think the judge is saying it's arguable that stonewall were acting in breach of equality act. I think she is saying that it is arguable that Allison's email makes that claim - ie the email alleged that stonewall broke the law. That's the context for the negative to response from colleagues.
I would say it says it is arguable that it proves that claim that GCC were being discriminatory. But at this stage it didn't need to it just needed to be arguable that it might in order to go to a full hearing.
jj1968 · 16/02/2021 17:55

@Manderleyagain

Yes para 50! Do we know if it will be this judge or someone else? Does anyone know if Allison will have to first prove that her beliefs count as a philosophical belief under the EA, like maya did? The judgement mentions that it won't be straightforward to show that it's indirect discrimination against her sex & sexual orientation.
No, she's not claiming on the grounds of protected belief but on the grounds of sex and sexuality. This means she will have to demonstrate that her views are disproportionality held by women and lesbians, which I imagine is what the Judge thinks won't be straight forward.
CharlieParley · 16/02/2021 20:15

@Manderleyagain

Im not sure how others are reading para 44, but I don't think the judge is saying it's arguable that stonewall were acting in breach of equality act. I think she is saying that it is arguable that Allison's email makes that claim - ie the email alleged that stonewall broke the law. That's the context for the negative to response from colleagues.
This paragraph is important because with the email, Allison did what is called a protected act under the Equality Act 2010 by raising a discrimination claim under the with her Chambers. It is unlawful to retaliate against such a person, even if what they complain about is later found not to amount to discrimination. (This falls under Victimisation.)
Tibtom · 16/02/2021 20:34

jj you mean like her views that lesbians are same sex attracted?

yourhairiswinterfire · 16/02/2021 20:43

@Tibtom

jj you mean like her views that lesbians are same sex attracted?
Right?

Allison's ''crime'' is acknowledging that lesbians are same sex attracted. Is that not what the EA says? Why would she need to prove that the majority of lesbians agree with her, the law is on her side with that statement, is it not?

TheLaughingGenome · 16/02/2021 20:46

@yourhairiswinterfire

Para 50 too!

However, the Stonewall complaint of 31st October 2019 in itself plainly seeks to put pressure on Chambers to take action against the Claimant, indeed to the extent of urging Chambers to remove the Claimant from Chambers, and accompanies that with a threat about the ongoing relationship between Chambers and Stonewall itself if Chambers does not take action.

Snakes.

Just looking at this now.

It's very sobering to see it laid out in black and white by a judge, even as an arguable proposition.

tootyfruitypickle · 16/02/2021 20:51

I work for a charity and someone from Stonewall came to do a talk a few years ago , it was very cult like, she said she would expect to stop someone in the corridor and for them to be able to recite Stonewall's mission immediately to her.

(We've since had a change of leadership and I am hoping our links are a bit looser. We have stonewall 'champions' though and it's all very pronouny)

The court papers are still really shocking to me

NecessaryScene1 · 16/02/2021 20:54

Indeed - the discrimination is arising in that they are trying to punish her for being involved in setting up an organisation to specifically support-same-sex attracted people.

That is the entire raison d'être of LGB Alliance, and it seems it is the entire objection to it - Stonewall think being same-sex attracted is wrong. It seems clear they would react the same way to any organisation campaigning with the same aims. They don't seem to have any actual specific other objections about LGB Alliance in particular that aren't just fabricated - they seem to be working backwards from "they're not denying sex, so they're bad people, so we need to accuse them of stuff".

As same-sex-attracted people are a protected class, that's clearly in the same area as if Stonewall were trying to get companies to punish staff for being involved in BLM, or a women's group, or some religious organisation.

Quite why Stonewall thinks they need to be doing this isn't clear - did they have to get companies to ditch Christians to get same-sex marriage through...? And as to why they think they (or anyone else) should be permitted to perform that discrimination - clearly they've gone down a very strange, authoritarian path.

jj1968 · 16/02/2021 21:26

you mean like her views that lesbians are same sex attracted?

Well she's said a bit more than just that. But her claim Stonewall's campaigning is in breach of the Equality Act seems to be relevant. Do most lesbians believe that? Given Stonewall is run by a lesbian and has huge amount of supports from lesbians I think it's going to be difficult to persuade the court that this is a near universal lesbian belief and so being sacked for it amounts to discrimination. I don't think there's ever been a case before that claims that just because you are a woman or a lesbian then you are likely to have certain political beliefs. I worry what precedents that might set if she won.

NiceGerbil · 16/02/2021 21:46

She doesn't need to prove that most lesbians agree with her Hmm

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic.

Stonewall want to rewrite it as same gender attraction. She says no.

The stonewall definition is not in line with the definition in the legislation - same sex attraction.

TheLaughingGenome · 16/02/2021 22:22

That is the entire raison d'être of LGB Alliance, and it seems it is the entire objection to it - Stonewall think being same-sex attracted is wrong.

@NecessaryScene1, that's a very powerful point and one that makes me feel quite emotional. This is such an important issue. Are biological females allowed to be sexually attracted to other biological females?

The law says yes. A clear, unequivocal yes. Without let or hindrance.

jj1968 · 16/02/2021 22:29

@NiceGerbil

She doesn't need to prove that most lesbians agree with her Hmm

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic.

Stonewall want to rewrite it as same gender attraction. She says no.

The stonewall definition is not in line with the definition in the legislation - same sex attraction.

That's not what the case is about though. The case is was she discriminated against on the grounds of being a woman or a lesbian on the basis that the opinions she voiced were more likely to be held by a woman or a lesbian. It doesn't matter what the rights of wrongs of Stonewall's opinions are, or even Allison Bailey's, that's not the matter the court has to decide on..
TheLaughingGenome · 16/02/2021 22:31

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic.

Absolutely, @NiceGerbil. And I hope we don't get derailed away from that fundamental.

jj1968 · 16/02/2021 22:46

@TheLaughingGenome

Homosexuality is a protected characteristic.

Absolutely, @NiceGerbil. And I hope we don't get derailed away from that fundamental.

It's not a derail it's crucial to the case. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic, as is sex, but that doesn't mean every belief that a woman or lesbian or gay man might have is protected. If a gay man went off on twitter about immigrants and got sacked he couldn't say but I'm gay, I'm protected - he wasn't sacked because he was gay but for his publicly held opinions - which is what Garden Chambers will argue happened to Bailey.
Thelnebriati · 16/02/2021 22:47

Its irrelevant how many people say they agree or disagree with the Equality Act definition of a lesbian. Its the law.

''Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions'' are also in breach of the Act.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

jj1968 · 16/02/2021 22:49

To add Bailey will then argue that she is the victim of indirect discrimination because lesbians are more likely to share her views than people of other sexual orientations are. I think that will be difficult to establish, especially when she's coming up against an organsation run and staffed by a lot of lesbians who don't share her views.

jj1968 · 16/02/2021 22:50

[quote Thelnebriati]Its irrelevant how many people say they agree or disagree with the Equality Act definition of a lesbian. Its the law.

''Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions'' are also in breach of the Act.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111[/quote]
No-one's arguing about the definition of a lesbian. It's completely irrelevent to the case. Everyone accepts she's a lesbian, the question is whether she was discriminated against for that.

Thelnebriati · 16/02/2021 22:54

People can read back through this page for the context.

gardenbird48 · 16/02/2021 22:55

running total is at £116,160 - still going up with all that digging :¬))

Keeping this thread bumped as a reminder is helpful thanks all

VioletAlder · 16/02/2021 22:59

Good to see the fund going so well - I had a quick dig a few days ago & will pop back out to the garden come payday.

littlbrowndog · 16/02/2021 22:59

Go Allison

TheLaughingGenome · 16/02/2021 23:00

I've started reading the hearing record from page 1 again. The claim is for 'victimisation and/or indirect discrimination'.

The victimisation seems to be clear, from what the judge herself describes.

What a terrible indictment of a once respected charity.