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

I take it Johnathan Ames is either not read up on the nuances of this case or is not a fan of Maya’s.

Comments on that article are overwhelmingly in support of Maya.

How long will it take before the judgement is made? I would love love love to buy that woman a pint. @MForstater, as my mother would say, more power to your wee elbow.

@AnneofScreamFables

Comments on that article are overwhelmingly in support of Maya.

The vocabulary that triggers the moderation software isn't in play? ("Corruption" seemed to attract moderation even when discussing the topic of Greensill.)

It shouldn't irritate me but the lack of understanding from the author and the absence of any sense that he should be accurate in this sensitive area is predictable, uninformative but par for the course.

Whatever the outcome, if it does go to appeal, would any of these article writers trouble themselves to learn the facts of the case so that they can place it in proper context for those that they seek to inform?

Our papers of record aren't covering themselves in glory in this matter - and they're performing a disservice to their readers.

How long will it take before the judgement is made?

Originally expected to be months, as with the previous hearing.

But judge suggested yesterday that it may be tomorrow:

"Whether or not we give a judgment on the day remains to be seen."

A Twitter commenter said:

I'm a lawyer of 25 years experience and I'd interpret what he said to mean "I've pretty much made up my mind on the basis of what I've heard, so unless the other side come up with something spectacular tomorrow, I'm finding for MF"

But let's not count our chickens...

There was a hint yesterday that he may give judgement today, which would be very unusual. It would be more likely that judgement would be reserved and so may take a few months.

Our papers of record aren't covering themselves in glory in this matter

That's true quite often - coverage often misses or misrepresents stuff.

But in particular subject areas including this, the errors and misrepresentations always go one way. Which means they're not just random sloppiness.

I read the statement and I was blown away. It is just indisputable and they should all be ashamed that anyone has to even write this. Well done getting to this point.

If Maya was willing to keep her personal beliefs to herself, I'm quite confident we wouldn't be here.

Transitioning is a particularly public expression of personal beliefs...

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I found this regarding 'belief' (not deleted after all)

MForstater Thu 14-Nov-19 09:49:13
Hi (and thanks for all the spades!! This is happening)

On the belief vs fact thing - the case law Grainger plc v Nicholson was about a man who had a strong belief and commitment to action on climate change . Nicholson's belief was that mankind is heading towards catastrophic climate change (based on science - i.e. climate change is a fact). The second part of his belief was that it is important - we have moral imperative to act - both parts of his belief were held to be protected.

We are arguing that gender critical position parallels this: sex is a material reality (and the truth of this assertion is actively being denied) AND it is important to recognise sex in order to tackle discrimination against women and girls.

This is in relation to discrimination law (which protects people against discrimination based on belief; it does not try to work out if the belief is true).

from this 2019 thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3743214-maya-forstater-court-case

twitter.com/Independent/status/1387026398271922182

The indies twitter post for that article. Comments are great.

The comments are pretty good. Apart from the "Biologicaly there are more than two sexes" one.

Although it is good to see that nonsense out in the wild

This is a BRILLIANT thread - so informative! Thank you so much for all the details.

Keeping everything crossed for MF today.

@SunsetBeetch

The comments are pretty good. Apart from the "Biologicaly there are more than two sexes" one.

Agree - what are these other sexes?!?!

This thread is very helpful.

Factual, calm stating of the principles and...other approaches....with no-one silenced or prevented from bringing everything that they have to offer to the table.

As it should be.

Interesting commentary from Jane Clare Jones in response to Ash Shakar's misunderstandings:

JCJ: [Tayler - the EJ in the original tribunal hearing] made a judgement based on a manifestation of a belief that didn't happen, not on the belief.

Leya: But also manifesting the belief at work is protected so long as it is relevant. There is a difference, as we all know, between expressing your belief & saying things you know to be distressing to someone in the workplace just for the sake of it. This is really important as TRAs are now trying to pivot by saying well she can express what she wants outside of work but not in work, as though she should still have to self censor & be compelled to make out she believes things she doesn’t. Contact matters & I hope the judgement deals with this area clearly.

JCJ: Yes, it was important that distinction was made, it's less where it happens are much more whether it is in the context of some necessary conversation or expressing a belief or purposefully harassing someone. The TRAs want to claim the the belief itself constitutes harassment, that can't fly, beliefs can't be harassment in and of themselves. I thought the QC used a good example there.

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1387141233097773060

Fingers crossed for this. Maya, if you are reading this, you are an amazing woman, and whatever happens, thank you for your tenacious pursuit of what is right.

whatever happens, thank you for your tenacious pursuit of what is right.

I just hope Maya gets her personal reward.

It may well be that she establishes the ruling and legal precedent that her - our - views are protected. And that would be a fantastic thing I'm sure she's proud of being able to do.

I just hope she can win the second part - that she was let go because of her views in this particular case, so she is properly compensated. She deserves it.

My understanding is that they have got a lot of documentary evidence, but I don't know how easy it is to actually win an unfair dismissal case. How easy is it for employers to wriggle out?

I've seen other suggest that by fighting so hard on this part, CGD have left themselves much less wiggle room for part 2.

It would be hard for them to turn around now and say "no, we weren't concerned at all about her beliefs - they were never discussed - she was just let go because we didn't want to go ahead with her project".

This is spot on from BC -Maya's QC, about her views (that men cannot become women etc):

'“ignoring them or pretending they are not true is detrimental to an honest, just and fair society, particularly upholding the rights of women. These beliefs do not involve any moral judgment and do not deny the rights or status of trans people or their protection from discrimination."

@NecessaryScene1

I've seen other suggest that by fighting so hard on this part, CGD have left themselves much less wiggle room for part 2.

It would be hard for them to turn around now and say "no, we weren't concerned at all about her beliefs - they were never discussed - she was just let go because we didn't want to go ahead with her project".

This makes a lot of sense.

I too would be interested to hear views on how the employer can wriggle out of this one.

I did see some commentary on twitter about a victory for Maya would mean people couldn't be dismissed for stating other biological facts - like being fat. I'm not close enough to the detail of the case or the law to know whether this argument remotely holds water. Anyone got an informed view?

Maya would mean people couldn't be dismissed for stating other biological facts - like being fat.

Well, yes, but depending on context. Going into work every morning and commenting on your co-worker's weight is one thing. That's going to be creating a hostile working environment - there are protections against that.

But if you're the person in charge of the office trampoline or someone working in a medical capacity, you should absolutely be able to point out that person's weight is an issue, if it is.

Still, this was NOT about Maya's conduct towards co-workers anyway. Maya was wanting to discuss the actual consequences of letting male people be treated as female in law, as part of her job. There were no trans co-workers involved. Her views on policy were extrapolated to "oh well, if she thinks sex matters, then she would harrass hypothetical trans co-workers".

Exactly, if you are an air steward and a obese passenger gets on, taking up more than their alloted seat, the steward (and indeed the passenger sitting beside the obese passenger) must be able to acknowledge this and deal with it, for the comfort of all passengers.

It is not fair for the squished passenger to be silenced just to protect the feelings of the obese passenger. They shouldn't have to pretend it's not happening.

Ooo an office trampoline. I need to fight for my right to have an office trampoline

Waiting for this morning's proceedings with bated breath...