Maya Forstater’s appeal - discussion thread 2

[Sophoclesthefox]

I see the last thread filled up, but there might still be enough to discuss as a round up of the afternoon’s events to keep going into a second thread.

Thread one here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4228233-Maya-Forstaters-appeal-skeleton

I am genuinely concerned at what happens when people of a particular mindset occupy all of these, junior but very key positions and how much influence they have in setting up an Overton Window or adding to the distortion of preference falsification for elected officials

I think in general there is a huge gap in the people making policy - they seem to have no experience of caring or children. In my experience they're either young with no caring responsibilities or much older with either independent wealth or some other buffer behind them.

You can see it in lots of policies, not just when it comes to sex based rights and safeguarding. The fact that they obviously hadn't considered what raising the retirement age would do to the amount of unpaid caring for elderly relatives for example. The fact they hadn't considered that children aged 6 or 7 couldn't 'meet up with one other outside for exercise' without parental supervision in the last lockdown (IIRC the only reason they had an exception for preschoolers and playgrounds was that they were lobbied about it after the first lockdown).

This is a complete tangent so forgive me, but I think it's important. On the first thread there was a discussion of this, from the EHRC statement:

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission is intervening to comment on the law and legal approach taken by the tribunal, following an order made by the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 21 April 2021"

• and several posters understood that to mean the EHRC had been forced to intervene.

That's not so - an "order" in this context just means an instruction that the court has formally issued about something, and here it means, the EHRC applied to intervene and the court issued its "order" agreeing to the intervention.

(I believe the EHRC applied to intervene first time round but were turned down then).

If the EHRC had been called to court against their will that would be a sub poena (and I don't know whether employment tribunals can issue them even).

It may seem minor but I think it's important that we don't create some myth that the EHRC had to be "forced" into court when they were not.

It's a important point, I agree.

It may seem minor but I think it's important that we don't create some myth that the EHRC had to be "forced" into court when they were not.

That's very helpful, thank you.

I've seen that common misapprehension on a number of threads here (and on Twitter) but this is the first time that I've seen this background information about it.

(I believe the EHRC applied to intervene first time round but were turned down then).

That seems bonkers to me. How could the input of the EHRC not be relevant? Though maybe it’s all for the best. Would they have intervened on Maya’s side two years ago?

l believe the EHRC applied to intervene first time round but were turned down then
If that's the case it's a real shame they weren't allowed. But also I wonder why they were turned down. I know the court doesn't have to accept application but when it's the body who are charged with making sure the EA is upheld etc, and they say they have an opinion on this specific case, it seems daft of the judge to decline to hear their input.

Maya also clarified this in an e-mail Wednesday morning:

- 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.

I don't know why they applied late though. Maybe they didn't bother initially if they'd been refused the first time?

Ah then I'm wrong about them asking and being turned down for the first hearing in 2019 then *NecessaryScene1" because that turning-down-because-late that Maya describes is almost certainly what I was (mis) remembering. Thank you.

When I say "I'm wrong" what I mean is, "I could well be wrong" - IYSWIM (!)

Not everyone that wants to intervene in a court case is given permission - even apart from deadlines etc a judge might feel that organisation X had nothing to add, for example. You can't just announce you want to intervene; you have to submit an argument why you want to, and basically give a pre-skeleton of what you'd be saying, for the court to evaluate. And it might be that your arguments are already going to be put by somebody else, so even if they were valid points the court might still rule you couldn't intervene because you'd be superfluous.

Perhaps they weren't going to intervene under their previous management (David Isaac, formerly Stonewall), but then Baroness Falkner recently came in as the new EHRC Chair and gave them a kick up the arse and instructed Karon Monaghan herself? And then it was almost too late by then.

It may seem minor but I think it's important that we don't create some myth that the EHRC had to be "forced" into court when they were not.

Thank you for this clarification.

Ann Sinnot (AEA)'s case against ECHR starts its process next week with a 1-day oral Permissions Hearing. This hearing will decide whether or not AEA can proceed to Judicial Review of EHRC.

(background)
"For nearly 10 years, unlawful guidance on the 2010 Equality Act (EA2010) has been displayed on the website of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and on the Government Equalities Office (GEO) website for 5 years.

Over these ten years, the guidance has been widely accessed and further disseminated by countless organisations of all types. As a result, the unlawful guidance is reflected in the equality policies of organisations and institutions throughout the UK.

EHRC and GEO guidance is in breach of EA2010, Schedule 3, Sections 26, 27 and 28

This is a legal case to ensure that EA2010 guidance accurately reflects the Act.

The Complainant is Authentic Equity Alliance (AEA), a Community Interest Company established to promote and further the interests of women and girls. The first Defendant is EHRC. The second Defendant is the Minister for Women and Equalities, who has responsibility for GEO."
twitter.com/AnnMSinnott/status/1386232796079853568

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4231531-Ann-Sinnott

to clear up any confusion about the EHRC's involvement - they applied to intervene at the beginning of April, and were refused…The judge later changed his mind and allowed the intervention.

I don't seem to get the helpful emails that I'd like - just the spammy ones from CJ itself about items in which I have no interest. I must have my settings wrong.

@Anovaneway

SEX is a protected characteristic - and sex and gender are two different things.

Not in law, they’re not. And the gender recognition act changes a person’s legal sex.

Nothing changes their biological sex - or can.

Perhaps they weren't going to intervene under their previous management (David Isaac, formerly Stonewall), b

This is beginning to look like a conspiracy. They got their people into all the important places, didn't they?

@Shedbuilder

Perhaps they weren't going to intervene under their previous management (David Isaac, formerly Stonewall), b

This is beginning to look like a conspiracy. They got their people into all the important places, didn't they?

Oh yes, there's a veritable roundabout of anti-women activists all circulating round each others boards and backing each other up on the destruction of women's rights, and diverting the funding for women's issues away from women to men.

It's even more ridiculous in Scotland, believe it or not.

I think I might self identify as 67 and retire and claim my pension .

I really can not get my head round how the law has got itself in such a mess.

I really can not get my head round how the law has got itself in such a mess.

ECHR Goodwin 2002
A divorced father who 'transitioned' in middle age and secured a finding that government id documents which indicated male to his employer were an invasion of privacy/ right to family life.

"The applicant alleged violations of Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention in respect of the legal status of transsexuals in the United Kingdom and particularly their treatment in the sphere of employment, social security, pensions and marriage."
www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/588.html

Just had an email from Kellie-Jay Keen (Posie Parker) Maya is doing a live chat on her channel this evening at 7, and taking questions.

I can't link it for some reason but it's easy to find on YouTube!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Just had an email from Kellie-Jay Keen (Posie Parker) Maya is doing a live chat on her channel this evening at 7, and taking questions.

I can't link it for some reason but it's easy to find on YouTube!

Hi, do you know if this has been recorded?

Kellie-Jay Keen YouTube:
'Maya joins me for a chat'

Hi - Love this thread

Yes EHRC didn't apply earlier. They applied at the beginning of April, were turned down and then judge changed his mind after he had seen the other submissions.

Totally up for Hampstead Ponds or Parliament Square

Thank you R0!

And Maya!

@MForstater

Hi - Love this thread

Yes EHRC didn't apply earlier. They applied at the beginning of April, were turned down and then judge changed his mind after he had seen the other submissions.

Totally up for Hampstead Ponds or Parliament Square

There is another huge thread on the case, Maya, which you may already have seen: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4228233-Maya-Forstaters-appeal-skeleton

It does feature a few people who are determined to misunderstand the case and the legal arguments, but it also has a much larger number of people who can understand the points being made, and why they’re so important

Hope you have a fab bank holiday weekend, and get the chance to decompress after what must have been a hectic and stressful time