Maya Forstater's appeal skeleton

[Mollyollydolly]

Saw this on twitter and thought it deserved a thread to itself.

As Jason Braler (employment lawyer) says on twitter "It's more a thesis than a traditional skeleton, but it certainly drives home the points from every conceivable angle.
It may also be the only ever EAT skeleton to have 4 references to Orwell"

hiyamaya.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/forstater-eat-claimant-skeleton-argument-plus-low-res-pages-1-50.pdf

The effect of findings that C must be required to subordinate her use of language to the opposing view in this debate, and not holding the belief that gender ID determines sex is not even a protected lack of belief has the effect of state-mandated adherence to gender ID theory.

It follows that if an employer requires employees to chant a creed daily that trans women are women, employees must comply and will not be protected by s.10 if subjected to detriment for refusing. That can't be right.

Yes, when it's spelled out like that, it's chillingly 1984.

KMQC: EHRC not taking a position on the underlying matters of controversy. But pointing out where the ET got the law wrong: had it got the law right, it would have been bound to find C's belief protected.

That sounds pretty damning for the original ET decision/Judge.

Imagine if transgenderism was the prohibited belief? Would they really want there to be no protection for freedom of speech and belief?

EHRC submission

Its a bit damning of the original judge

EHRC takes no issue with the points made by BCQC, so can be short

Have the EHRC finally given their collective heads a wobble and come to their senses?

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

BCQC's observations on article 17 are important. It's not for the ET to judge the value of a belief, nor to determine its validity.

The inquiry about the biological foundations of C's belief was entirely inappropriate; should not have been undertaken at all, and especially not without proper expert evidence.

ET confused manifestation and belief.

I don't ask EAT to endorse an inquiry into validity. But extraordinary to do that without expert evidence.

I'm finding it very odd (although good!) that the EHRC are intervening on Maya's behalf. Given their past ethos I'm surprised they are involved, let alone on Maya's side.

Very interesting EHRC submission.

At last EHRC. It's not rocket science. You don't have to agree with Maya, she has the right to say it. That's it. That's what at stake.

So what happens if the judge says it is a protected belief? It returns to tribunal and they look at the specifics and whether the ‘manifestation’ of her belief was appropriate?

Is this the first time the EHRC have actually represented the law rather than the demands of partial lobby groups in their work? If so, that's significant progress.

Final point. You heard from BC that the law treats sex as biologically determined and binary, and gender as a social attribute - so making a distinction between binary sex and gender.

This is good too. It will be interesting to see if this reading of the law is contested.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

Final point. You heard from BC that the law treats sex as biologically determined and binary, and gender as a social attribute - so making a distinction between binary sex and gender.

Many will find that view controversial. But both that belief and the contrary are protected.

The inquiry about the biological foundations of C's belief was entirely inappropriate; should not have been undertaken at all, and especially not without proper expert evidence.

Yes, this. Ideological nonsense being used as evidence.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

So what happens if the judge says it is a protected belief? It returns to tribunal and they look at the specifics and whether the ‘manifestation’ of her belief was appropriate?

I think it has already been argued that the manifestations did not reach the threshold of hate speech, and that speech that offends is fine in the eyes of the law (I am paraphrasing)

This is some really good stuff from the EHRC, good to see them finally doing their job.

Sex Matters
@SexMattersOrg

The EqA itself provides exemptions in relation to public functions in relation to gender reassignment.

It provides that even where a person has a GRC and is deemed to be of the reassigned sex, a person may refuse to solemnise a marriage because some religious communities treat sex as immutable.

There are parallel exemptions in the Marriage Act, along the same lines as the exemptions for same sex marriages.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The inquiry about the biological foundations of C's belief was entirely inappropriate; should not have been undertaken at all, and especially not without proper expert evidence.

Yes, this. Ideological nonsense being used as evidence.

That is very critical of the original Judge, no punches pulled at all.

Reading all of this, is there any way Maya can lose this appeal?

Reading all of this, is there any way Maya can lose this appeal?

I'll be absolutely floored if she does lose. It looks like the original tribunal was a major fuck up!

@yourhairiswinterfire

Reading all of this, is there any way Maya can lose this appeal?

I'll be absolutely floored if she does lose. It looks like the original tribunal was a major fuck up!

🤞🤞🤞

I think it has already been argued that the manifestations did not reach the threshold of hate speech, and that speech that offends is fine in the eyes of the law (I am paraphrasing)

But hate speech/offensive speech might be relevant in terms of the criminal law. Is it relevant to the decision not to rehire her? Honestly asking as I’m not sure where it goes from here.

I think this was a preliminary matter - so if this goes her way, then the main point at issue (which involves more employment law) has a hearing. Happy to be corrected though.

I genuinely think the first judge just bottled it. He was too fearful of agreeing and so had to tick one of the 5 tests as not applying. The other four were so straightforwardly applicable he couldn't cite them, and so was left with this "not worthy" paragraph as the only fudge he could try to get away with to cover up his unwillingness to stick his neck out.

It's quite common for tribunals to hide behind a technicality.

This was a particularly nasty fudge though and has simply escalated the media profile of the case. He has forever got this attached to his name (which I can't remember but you know what I mean).

@Scepticaltank

I genuinely think the first judge just bottled it. He was too fearful of agreeing and so had to tick one of the 5 tests as not applying. The other four were so straightforwardly applicable he couldn't cite them, and so was left with this "not worthy" paragraph as the only fudge he could try to get away with to cover up his unwillingness to stick his neck out.

It's quite common for tribunals to hide behind a technicality.

This was a particularly nasty fudge though and has simply escalated the media profile of the case. He has forever got this attached to his name (which I can't remember but you know what I mean).

Shame on the lily livered fecker, in that case. He's supposed to be better than that.