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

Oh many TRAs have flat-out stated she was dismissed for deliberately misgendering her co-workers and/or bullying them.

Funny where they draw the line when it comes to accuracy ("Well actually she wasn't sacked, her contract wasn't renewed: that's not the same thing at all").

If it's found that the original judge was wrong, will Maya get a public apology?

It seems she's been put through hell because of this. So many people think they're entitled to abuse her because of that ridiculous ''not worthy of respect'' quote.

If the original ET was a complete balls up, I think the damage it has done and the abuse Maya has suffered because of it needs to be acknowledged.

The Critic by Joshua Rozenberg
27 April, 2021
What is the case against Maya Forstater?
An employment judge may not believe sex is immutable — but will the appeal tribunal agree?
(extract)
"it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the tribunal regrets that the law has not moved further towards self-identification; and that its approach to this case has been coloured by a view of trans rights based upon acceptance of the proposition advanced by those on the other side of the debate from the claimant — which is that a person’s gender identity is (literally) their sex, regardless of biology, and that therefore to refer to a trans person by their biological sex in any circumstances is tantamount to harassment.

That is, of course, a belief that is as worthy of respect as the claimant’s, but it is emphatically not the law; and the tribunal’s role was to maintain the state’s neutrality in the debate between those with opposing beliefs, not to take sides.

Instead, although in (slightly) more moderate terms than the Twitter trolls who brand the claimant and those who share her beliefs “TERFs”, “bigots” and “transphobes”, the tribunal has engaged in precisely the “calumny” derided by JS Mill. It has aligned itself with one side in the debate. Based on that, has tarred any expression of the claimant’s views as offensive; and whether through a failure of understanding or imagination has failed to appreciate that, taken on their own terms, the claimant’s statements about biological sex are simply expressions of neutral fact.

Although this is not the relevant test, the claimant’s beliefs are actually on all fours with English law. It is all the more remarkable, then, that the tribunal should have found them to be not worthy of respect in a democratic society." (continues)
thecritic.co.uk/what-is-the-case-against-maya-forstater/

Judges get things ‘wrong’ all the time. It is why the higher courts exist. Obviously there are degrees of ‘wrong’ but no, I don’t think ‘the system’ will apologise. But we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves. There is no judgement yet other than the one under appeal.

Exactly, if you are an air steward and a obese passenger gets on, taking up more than their alloted seat

I took a flight over the Grand Canyon a couple of decades ago, in a little plane setting off from Las Vegas.

It was clear at their airfield's passenger lounge (shed) that they were catering primarily to Japanese tourists. Lots of Japanese food available.

And it turned out there were the 2 of us from the UK + 8 or so Japanese getting onto this little plane. (One of these?). We were firmly directed to the front (under the wings) for balance reasons, because the the Japanese passengers were a lot smaller, and they did not want to be tail-heavy... Sometimes weight matters!

I'd be big in Japan.

@SunsetBeetch

Oh many TRAs have flat-out stated she was dismissed for deliberately misgendering her co-workers and/or bullying them.

Funny where they draw the line when it comes to accuracy ("Well actually she wasn't sacked, her contract wasn't renewed: that's not the same thing at all").

In employment law it absolutely is the same thing, but people don't care about the truth. They want to pretend she both wasn't really fired and that she actually harassed someone.

I have to wonder, not for the first time, why people on the other side of this debate have to lie constantly in order to argue their case.

'We never said sex wasn't real'
'We never meant born in the wrong body'

Bullshit.

''not worthy of respect'' quote.

There’s nothing wrong with having gender critical views. It’s how they are applied or manifested and what cosnsequences that has in terms of harassment and contravening the GRA.

Yes Advice

The constant "but we never said...we never said...we didnt....we didnt" every time a case finds against them is so very tedious. It doenst matter how many receipts you produce the answer is always "you cant take the words of one person/4 people/20 people/100 people/actual policy objectives as set out stonewall/statements made by mermaids" as being representative of all trans people. Well no obviously but funny how they never say that at the time it's being said....

I'd be big in Japan.

ISWYDT

E-mail crowdjustice update from Maya:

Whatever happens today (the most likely outcome will be "judgment deferred - they go away to write it), yesterday was a good day.

Ben Cooper QC powerfully set out the argument for why my belief - that sex is real, and immutable, and that sex matters - is not bigotry or harassment.

It still feels crazy to have to say this.

It was a relief to hear the grown up arguments articulated so clearly. Ben read sections from my original witness statement and from Kristina Harrison's, and comprehensively demolished James Tayler's judgment and the "six day inquisition" that lead to it.

As Ben emphasised:

"The role of the law is to ensure mutual respect from those of conflicting beliefs. It doesn't entail eradicating disagreement and contention. In a free society, citizens must tolerate even upsetting & unacceptable views, and they must do so in a workplace setting"

He argued both for protection of my belief and my lack of belief; highlighting that if there is no protection for lack of belief than employers can require that staff recite the creed of transgender ideology.

Live tweets 1
Live tweets 2
Skeleton argument

The Equality and Human Rights Commission 's intervention (represented by Karon Monaghan QC) was welcome and important. They are the UK's official equality body, and they have been missing in action in doing their job of protecting everybody's rights on this issue.

Karon Monaghan agreed with much of what Ben had said and emphasised that the threshold for excluding a view as "not worthy of respect in a democratic society is very high, the threshold for amounting to a belief is low and the focus is on the belief and not its manifestation (that part comes in the next stage).

- to clear up any confusion about the EHRC's involvement - they applied to intervene at the beginning of April, and were refused on the grounds that this was too late and the time in court was limited (we had 1.5 days allotted). The judge later changed his mind and allowed the intervention. Karon Monaghan's clear argument is all the more impressive for how quickly she turned it around.

Live tweets 3
Skeleton argument

Aileen McColgan QC for Index on Censorship also set out how low the threshold for excluding views from protection is in law. She was representing the freedom of speech NGO Index on Censorship.

Live tweets 4
Skeleton Argument

There has been some good press coverage and there will be more in coming days:

Daily Mail
Times

Huge, huge thanks to everyone who is part of this and who has supported me, but particularly Anya Palmer, Ben Cooper QC, Peter Daly and Aileen McColgan. Appreciation to Index on Censorship for being in from the beginning, and to whoever at the EHRC managed to get them there in the end, and to Karon Monaghan for stepping up for them.

Really helpful comments re the obese analogy, I instinctively knew that but couldn’t articulate it.

We all face restrictions based on our bodies. I’m not tall enough to be a catwalk model and am too blind to be a pilot. I would need to be told these things if I was trying to argue otherwise.

I'd be big in Japan.

Tonight?

@Anovaneway

''not worthy of respect'' quote.

There’s nothing wrong with having gender critical views. It’s how they are applied or manifested and what cosnsequences that has in terms of harassment and contravening the GRA.

But why would the assumption be that someone who holds these views would be more likely than someone who holds any other views to move from holding the views to harassing hypothetical people in hypothetical ways that aren’t covered by the usual workplace regulations on harassment, bullying etc?

By making that statement, you’re suggesting that this is something uniquely awful about holding these views that means the holders of them should be scrutinised particularly carefully. So I wonder if maybe you really do suspect that there is something wrong with the views themselves, as an indicator of bad character.

Hopefully sanity will prevail.

That a belief in biological sex was ever considered controversial in the first place is simply mind boggling.

If the appeal is successful the trans activists will refuse to accept it and will be even more adrift from facts and reality. The myths about what happened, "wasn't dismissed, simply non-renewal", "she abused colleagues" etc, will become articles of faith of their ideology, which will become even more firmly faith-based.

They're undermining their own ideology and turning it into something they don't even understand themselves.

I’m really interested in the idea that by going hard on the portion where they hammered Maya for the unacceptability of her views, they have inadvertently fucked their ability to segue smoothly to “of course, it had nothing to do with why we didn’t renew her contract, which was a complete coincidence” (however you put that into nice smart legalese )

Totally with you Maya. Shocking that we have to fight for the right to refer to men and women as men and women. Nobody is telling me that I can’t and I don’t care who you are. I will not bow down to these people. You can’t wipe out our existence because it upsets you. You’re upsetting me with your woke bs. Keep on going Maya. Rooting for you.

... and ... we're back in the room.

I’m really interested in the idea that by going hard on the portion where they hammered Maya for the unacceptability of her views, they have inadvertently fucked their ability to segue smoothly to “of course, it had nothing to do with why we didn’t renew her contract, which was a complete coincidence”

Seems like another example of the perils of being an avatar of Stonewall (or the US equivalents). The activists are using the organisation to fight the activists' fight. Leaving the organisation potentially high and dry.

I took a flight over the Grand Canyon a couple of decades ago, in a little plane setting off from Las Vegas.

If you take the helicopter flight then they weigh you first.

The QC for CGD says MF believes a trans woman can’t honestly describe herself as a woman.

That is not an agreed element of MF’s belief system. Is that going to be challenged?

That is beyond the pale. That is denying a group of people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Denying them what? Her compelled agreement with their ideology?

Yes.

This is a disgraceful argument.

@NecessaryScene1

I’m really interested in the idea that by going hard on the portion where they hammered Maya for the unacceptability of her views, they have inadvertently fucked their ability to segue smoothly to “of course, it had nothing to do with why we didn’t renew her contract, which was a complete coincidence”

Seems like another example of the perils of being an avatar of Stonewall (or the US equivalents). The activists are using the organisation to fight the activists' fight. Leaving the organisation potentially high and dry.

Unless, of course, the strategy is to destabilise and undermine, in which case...that works.

But I have to check my tinfoil hat for that one. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence etc.

@Fieldoftheclothofgold

The QC for CGD says MF believes a trans woman can’t honestly describe herself as a woman.

That is not an agreed element of MF’s belief system. Is that going to be challenged?

Eh? The whole point is that each can believe what they will.

Has the QC not understood the point?

twitter.com/SexMattersOrg

Livetweeting again