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.

Being a lesbian isn't a belief. Being discriminated against as a lesbian means it has to have a definition.

A male who calls himself a lesbian can't be discriminated against on that basis, because he isn't one.

Let me just repeat again that belief does not matter for the victimisation claim.

In October 2018, Allison complained that Stonewall and the Charter her Chambers had bound itself to were breaking the Equality Act in a letter she sent to all members of her Chamber. This is the protected act. She alleges that was when the victimisation started. It is entirely irrelevant in proving that part of her case whether the majority of lesbians believe what she believes.

It is unlawful to retaliate against someone who alleges that their rights under the Equality Act are being breached. Even if it turns out they are wrong, retaliation is unlawful.

She does have to prove that the respondents retaliated against her.

Just done a bit of gardening. Alison is a very strong woman.

@BuntingEllacott

Perhaps the case will be tried on the facts of the matter, rather than the latest analogy from the handbook of 'lesbians saying no is just like Hitler invading Poland'.

@CharlieParley

Let me just repeat again that belief does not matter for the victimisation claim.

In October 2018, Allison complained that Stonewall and the Charter her Chambers had bound itself to were breaking the Equality Act in a letter she sent to all members of her Chamber. This is the protected act. She alleges that was when the victimisation started. It is entirely irrelevant in proving that part of her case whether the majority of lesbians believe what she believes.

It is unlawful to retaliate against someone who alleges that their rights under the Equality Act are being breached. Even if it turns out they are wrong, retaliation is unlawful.

She does have to prove that the respondents retaliated against her.

Charlie, can you clarify?

Are you saying it doesn't matter on what basis the victimisation occurs, it's still victimisation?

And what, in this specific case, constitutes the 'retaliation'?

If I said I was being discriminated against because I was disabled (I'm not disabled), how would someone be falling foul of the law, if they retaliated to that accusation?

She does have to prove that the respondents retaliated against her.

Which the judge stated in her written judgment as her belief that this had "more than a little prospect of success" in dismissing the application for strike out.

The general idea behind protection for whistleblowers is that people should be protected from retaliation for raising honestly held concerns about breaches of the law etc. The concerns do not need to be correct but if they are raised in good faith then you are protected. If the whistleblower was not acting in good faith then they may lose protection. Similarly, the whistleblower needs to have suffered some detriment / retaliation due to the fact they raised concerns.

@Datun I believe if you aren’t disabled but someone believes you are and discriminated against you because of that belief you are protected by EA2010 as though you were disabled. So in theory you could say you were discriminated against because of a disability you don’t have but were perceived to have.

[quote GemmeFatale]@Datun I believe if you aren’t disabled but someone believes you are and discriminated against you because of that belief you are protected by EA2010 as though you were disabled. So in theory you could say you were discriminated against because of a disability you don’t have but were perceived to have.[/quote]
Yes, and I get that. And agree with it.

I think I've missed a bit in the middle of the thread. I'll re-read.

Charlie and Chasz, thanks for the clarification on victimisation. That is really interesting. So I guess on the allegation of victimisation Allison will want to show that: the email to chambers was a genuine attempt to raise her concerns about a potential breach of the EA, that she suffered a detriment which was in response to the email, and that stonewall encouraged the detriment. I can see why the judge thought there was enough chance of success to send the case to a full hearing, given all that.

It makes me think of one of the anonymous accounts to the new gc academics web site. Someone who was a member of an academic society sent an email about a new diversity policy which didn't have 'sex' as a p/c. The society told them that was unacceptable and returned their membership subscription.

Are you saying it doesn't matter on what basis the victimisation occurs, it's still victimisation?

As long as you are genuinely raising concerns about discrimination, you are protected. It can be on any of the protected characteristics. You don't even have to share this characteristic. So if you're concerned about disabled people being discriminated against, you don't have to be disabled yourself to raise concerns.

Say you notice that the council withholds a certain benefit all other residents enjoy from disabled people, and you're pretty sure this breaches their rights under the Equality Act. You raise this internally. As a result, you get fewer shifts, are passed over for a promotion, minor mistakes are written up as major issues. That's victimisation.

And what, in this specific case, constitutes the 'retaliation'?

For instance, Allison alleges her clerking arrangements were changed and she reported a substantial loss in earnings.

If I said I was being discriminated against because I was disabled (I'm not disabled), how would someone be falling foul of the law, if they retaliated to that accusation?

Whistleblowers are protected under the Equality Act to allow people to raise concerns about discrimination and harassment without having to worry about being punished for this.

@CharlieParley

Are you saying it doesn't matter on what basis the victimisation occurs, it's still victimisation?

As long as you are genuinely raising concerns about discrimination, you are protected. It can be on any of the protected characteristics. You don't even have to share this characteristic. So if you're concerned about disabled people being discriminated against, you don't have to be disabled yourself to raise concerns.

Say you notice that the council withholds a certain benefit all other residents enjoy from disabled people, and you're pretty sure this breaches their rights under the Equality Act. You raise this internally. As a result, you get fewer shifts, are passed over for a promotion, minor mistakes are written up as major issues. That's victimisation.

And what, in this specific case, constitutes the 'retaliation'?

For instance, Allison alleges her clerking arrangements were changed and she reported a substantial loss in earnings.

If I said I was being discriminated against because I was disabled (I'm not disabled), how would someone be falling foul of the law, if they retaliated to that accusation?

Whistleblowers are protected under the Equality Act to allow people to raise concerns about discrimination and harassment without having to worry about being punished for this.

Thank you Charlie. Very clear.

Your knowledge (and patience!) is appreciated.

@CharlieParley

Let me just repeat again that belief does not matter for the victimisation claim.

This discussion came from the post below which questioned why the Judge said it may not be straight forward to prove indirect disrimination.

The judgement mentions that it won't be straightforward to show that it's indirect discrimination against her sex & sexual orientation.

I think the direct discrimination is 'enough', as it were.

I’m in no way a legal expert. This is what I see:
A black lesbian woman is the 5th most successful woman in her chambers
The Chambers pay to be Stonewall Champions
The black lesbian woman no longer believes Stonewall represents or supports lesbians.
She and others (including original Stonewall founders) set up LGB Alliance to support same sex attracted people.
Stonewall threatens her Chambers that they will no longer be Stonewall champions if the do not discipline a member of their Chambers for setting up a ‘rival’ organization.
Several of the Chambers employees agree with this and the Black lesbian barrister sees a massive drop in income and the quality of the cases sent to her drops.

That looks like discrimination to me.

5th most successful woman Should be 5th most successful barrister

Just donated again in order to do something positive rather than having a rant on another thread (was intending to donate anyway but reading a comment from a certain poster prompted me into action!)

I'm not a legal expert so I've really appreciated the posters taking their time to carefully (and clearly) explain the case, and the judgement. I'm going to choose to be optimistic that Allison will succeed, and that she will get some compensation for the way she has been treated, as well as shining a light on the very shady antics of Stonewall

Just taking the time to bump this. Allison's crowdfunder is making slow but steady progress, although donations have slowed down a little today. I'll donate again when I'm paid next week.

Indeed, I will too, because I've also made one to the FPFW census appeal.

Allison is nearly on £117k, which is amazing coming from so many small donations.

Article in the newly launched Lesbian and Gay News

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/02/garden-court-barristers-chambers-and-stonewall-fail-to-get-lesbian-barrister-allison-baileys-discrimination-case-thrown-out-briefing-by-legal-commentator-dennis-kavanagh/

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

“Hi Helen8220 and welcome

I’ve got a simpler question for you, seeing as you don’t feel well apprised enough to answer the previous one yet.

Do you think that an exclusively same-sex attracted [black, working class] lesbian who advocates for the rights of others to also be exclusively same-sex attracted should have a reasonable expectation that “LGBT” group Stonewall would represent her interests?

Yes or no?”

Sorry for the slow reply - I think that Stonewall does represent the interests of lesbians, as evidenced by the many lesbians who are happy to be associated with it (and indeed, who work for it)

@OnlyTheLangoftheTitBerg

“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.”

My point is that there are a number of separate issues here (morally rather than legally speaking) - one is whether you think AB’s views are wrong or even offensive or hateful. Another is how far an organisation should be able to sanction employees/associates for publicly expressing views which are offensive. You could think AB’s views were utterly abhorrent but still believe her right to express them should be protected.

Separately, though, I disagree with you that AB’s views are simply ‘pro-women and pro-lesbian’.

@persistentwoman

“Welcome to Mumsnet Helen8220
Intersex organisations have been very clear that they do not want to be appropriated or used by trans or any other groups”

Thanks, and sorry it’s taken me a week to reply (and that this subject is not really on topic for this board) - some intersex people and groups are perfectly happy to enter into the discussion about trans rights, and I was referring to the situation and views of such an intersex person. I can’t see how there can be any objection to that.