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.

@MaudTheInvincible

Brilliant work OvaHere, thanks for doing this

Thanks. Really credit should go to the live tweeters who are doing a sterling job amidst some annoying tech issues.

I've cherry picked tweets so to get a full picture those able to should check out the twitter threads from LGBA and SSA.

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
17s
#AllisonBailey

Mr Cooper: tight timetable if we have to get disclosures from third parties, especially if they are still redacted

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Cooper: We are assuming that everyone will cooperate. There may be third parties from whom disclosure is needed. Particularisation impossible if redactions are maintained in third-party disclosures. If other parties dont cooperate then June wont work.

Judge says there is a service relationship-the champion scheme!

Not a legal eagle but this seems important. Can anyone explain the significance of this?

Is this legal recognition that SW Champ Scheme is effectively a protection racket? Mumsnet FWR should be renamed Cassandra FWR

Judge: individuals both from SW and GCCwho are said to have victimized claimant and operated PCPs through collusion will need to be named.

The use of the term collusion- is emotive - surely that is significant too?

Can’t bloody wait. Utter hubris.

Well done Allison!

Thank you Ova.

Allisons legal team are worth the money, may need to throw some more in

Sounds like a lot of disagreement going on about dates and timescales

1m
Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Dates keep changing. Lost

My heart was in my mouth reading this! Sounds like a good result though - thankfully!!

Trending Now on Mumsnet - sunlight!

• My DP planning to buy his DB a car, I don't want him to, Who is BU?
• Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2
• What to say to the childminder
• We cannot cancel life, to preserve every life
• Refused Antenatal Scans - Help

Thank you Ova, and all the live tweeters - brilliant work ❤️

First time I've heard this name mentioned. Not clear who they are?

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Johnston: who are the appropriate representatives of GC to be named. Khan should be replaced by Menon.

Cooper definitely earned his fee.

RMW for Stonewall seems very against a June date. I think by parties they perhaps mean the people they are the QC on behalf of?

Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

RMW: June won’t work if other parties won’t co-operate

Rajiv Menon is joint Head of GCC apparently.

Looks like this guy

www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/rajiv-menon-qc/sao

Thanks for the explanation TheLaughingGenome

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Cost application. White: timetable based on cooperation. Two days, bundle of 500 pages. Didn’t work with 1900 pages sent. “Do you need all that?” Bundle too big. White thinks it’s not very cooperative. Unreasonable. £6,000 costs incurred.

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
·
44s
In other words White says claimant (AB) sent too many files and docs. Cooper says claim for costs completely unfounded.

Is this legal recognition that SW Champ Scheme is effectively a protection racket?

I was just about to post something similar.

Companies give SW money and must do as SW says, otherwise SW threaten to ruin them.

Rajiv must be thrilled

Thank you Ova. Well done Allison, donation made.

@DisgustedofManchester

Its an interesting dilema. If, for example, someone in GCC expressed homophobic views publicly about lesbians and Stonewall said that either GCC deal with that person or they would not be able to reference Stonewall recognition of their diversity and inclusion, would AB support her colleague's right to attack her sexuality in the workplace or expect her company to protect her?

Equally, isn't it up to GCC to decide whether that person has broken any terms of their employment enough to deserve disciplinary action or whether they would rather lose the Stonewall accreditation and leave the homophobe in place?

I can see why the case has gone to trial but now the onus is to prove damages by the claimant. Their reference to losing over 50% of earnings last year is irrelevant when most QCs lost income as court cases were delayed due to Covid. Reputational damage will be difficult when she is a founder of a group that HM opposition has labelled a hate group.

I hope no one settles.

Homophobic speech is against the law, so you’ve used the wrong analogy. If Ms. Bailey’s speech were transphobic, she would have been charged. She hasn’t been.

A proper analogy would be if someone in GCC said there should be a trans-only group because specific trans issues weren’t being adequately addressed in LGBTQ groups.
Stonewall would be unlikely to object that on grounds of values.

Thank you Ova, for copying tweets here.

End of session now.

Think the word unreadable here is a typo and should be unreasonable.

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Cooper claims it’s completely unreadable to suggest claimant should have been more selective. They are continuing to discuss costs but we are signing off. Hope everyone found this illuminating./end

Thank you to everyone providing updates. I’m glad to hear Allison will get her day in court.

@nauticant

That's because for some reason you don't see believing that people can't change sex is pretty much the same thing as hating gay people Ereshkigalangcleg. You people and your so-called facts!

Surely it's more that if an organisation signs up to a scheme which supports the idea that trans women are women, or that gay people should be able to get married or whatever, and gets the benefits of that scheme on terms or PR, increased LGBT clients etc then they should abide by it's principle? Which might means diciplining a high profile person in the organisation who has very publically spoken out against those values? And if they don't then they might not longer be considered eligible for the scheme?

That seems to me what Stonewall are likely to argue at a full hearing. Of course there's a lot else that hasn't yet come up - Maya's case will be relevent, as will whether she can claim sex discimination on the grounds her views are mostly held by women/lesbians. That would first need to be established, and polling suggests otherwise. And I suspect that will require quite a high bar. If some bloke said something dickish about men's rights and was able to show 51% of men agreed with him would it really be sex discrimination if he was challenged about it? It strikes me as a bit of a dangerous step if the courts were to presume certain political positions were held by people on the basis of their physical sex.

There's a long way to go in this case, not least how much should people be accountable to their employers for views they express in public. Imagine a male board member of a women's charity went all men's rights activisty on twitter, would they be stuck with him? It will be an interesting case and cover a lot of ground.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.
Probably time to check the garden.

@UppityPuppity

Judge says there is a service relationship-the champion scheme!

Not a legal eagle but this seems important. Can anyone explain the significance of this?

Is this legal recognition that SW Champ Scheme is effectively a protection racket? Mumsnet FWR should be renamed Cassandra FWR

Judge: individuals both from SW and GCCwho are said to have victimized claimant and operated PCPs through collusion will need to be named.

The use of the term collusion- is emotive - surely that is significant too?

Can’t bloody wait. Utter hubris.

Well done Allison!

Thank you Ova.

This is really long, but Allison explains it on her site.

The key aspect of the hearing is that Stonewall has applied for the Tribunal to determine whether there was a relationship (which they say didn’t exist) between them and Garden Court Chambers in order for s.111 Equality Act 2010 to have effect. If Stonewall are successful in this, they will seek to have my claim against them struck out.

Section 111 is the aspect of the Equality Act 2010 on which I am relying to say that Stonewall acted unlawfully in causing me to be investigated. Section 111 says the following (and it is easier to read if you substitute “Stonewall” in place of Person “A” and “Garden Court” in place of Person “B”; I am Person “C”):

111 Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions

(1) A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).

(2) A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(3) A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

(5) Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—

(a) by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(b) by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(c) by the Commission.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—

(a) the basic contravention occurs;

(b) any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A’s conduct.

(7) This section does not apply unless the relationship between A and B is such that A is in a position to commit a basic contravention in relation to B.

(8) A reference in this section to causing or inducing a person to do something includes a reference to attempting to cause or induce the person to do it.

(9) For the purposes of Part 9 (enforcement), a contravention of this section is to be treated as relating—

(a) in a case within subsection (5)(a), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between A and B, A is in a position to contravene in relation to B;

(b) in a case within subsection (5)(b), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between B and C, B is in a position to contravene in relation to C.

Our position is that there is a “relationship” according to ss.111(7) and (9) between Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers that is necessary for section 111 to have effect. Primarily, this relationship was through the Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme, of which Garden Court was a member and through which Stonewall provided them goods and services. My case is that Stonewall unlawfully applied pressure which instructed, caused and induced me to be investigated by my chambers because I had campaigned against Stonewall specifically, and in favour of gender critical feminism more broadly; further that this pressure was applied by Stonewall onto Garden Court via the Diversity Champions Scheme, which gave Stonewall the relationship they needed to impose a threat that detriment would follow to Garden Court if they did not so yield to the pressure that Stonewall was applying. As a result of this, my claim alleges, the unlawful discrimination and victimisation by Garden Court Chambers was instructed, caused and induced by Stonewall, and therefore that Stonewall’s actions were unlawful by reason of section 111.

So SW were denying they have a relationship with GCC. But the judge seems to think they do-the champion scheme.

(Sorry for pasting the wall of text, I tried linking to the part of the site where this is explained, but it kept going to the main page.)