University of Essex apologises to Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman for infringing their freedom of speech

[RoyalCorgi]

Both Rosa Freedman and Jo Phoenix had invitations to speak at the University of Essex rescinded because of their "transphobic" views.

The university's vice-chancellor has now conducted a review and concluded that the cancellations were wrong.

twitter.com/jophoenix1/status/1394604603300253696

Stonewall again...

On a day when I was dismayed to discover my DC's school bragging about its shiny Stonewall Champion status I am glad to see this lobby group's current lack of integrity being held to account elsewhere.

The wheels can't come off this particular bandwagon soon enough. Stonewall is no longer fit for purpose.

@Cleanandpress

This is very useful. Worth raising with uni HR departments if you can. I will.

It's useful for anyone who wants to raise concerns or urge caution to any employer, government department, school or college who are part of stonewalls champion schemes.

The shiny Stonewall brand is rapidly tarnishing, Baroness Nicholson's work on lobbying groups and their reach and influence within Government will further blemish it, pretty soon it won't be at all shiny and people and places will be scrabbling to distance themselves from it.

Any sign of this having been picked up in the MSM?

As noted here, the University are resisting the Stonewall bit of the report:

The University intends to implement all of the recommendations save for the recommendation that it give consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities identified in the report as having arisen from that relationship.

Although that reading is possibly a bit strong. The university's own list of actions are equivocal:

Stonewall has been a valued University partner and we have been working with Stonewall across a wide range of issues.

We will review how we address the specific issues raised in the report. We want to work with Stonewall and others, as the University takes steps, within the context of Action 10, to repair relationships amongst University members.

If I recall correctly stonewall were quite threatening towards Allison Baileys chambers, citing 'reputational' damage if they were no longer part of stonewalls schemes. It makes me wonder how many organisations members just to avoid the grief stonewall could cause.

In any case the University have been told clearly that stonewall can not be trusted when it comes to the law. They would be wise not to ignore that.

local press

www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19312069.essex-university-trans-rights-row-university-acted-unlawfully/

To be absolutely fair to the University leadership I think not dropping Stonewall, but adding additional partners may be a sensible tactical move in terms of internal politics. Dropping Stonewall completely would cause a huge outcry internally and the pro-Stonewall voices within the University would complain loudly and publicly. Pink News and its ilk would take up the cause and there would need to be a great deal of time and energy expended on managing the situation.

I also think it's far better to let Stonewall keep exposing themselves. Better, really, in terms of exposing Stonewall's falsehoods, to keep them in the room, and challenge them. Freedom of expression in action

@NecessaryScene1

As noted here, the University are resisting the Stonewall bit of the report:

The University intends to implement all of the recommendations save for the recommendation that it give consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall in light of the drawbacks and potential illegalities identified in the report as having arisen from that relationship.

Although that reading is possibly a bit strong. The university's own list of actions are equivocal:

Stonewall has been a valued University partner and we have been working with Stonewall across a wide range of issues.

We will review how we address the specific issues raised in the report. We want to work with Stonewall and others, as the University takes steps, within the context of Action 10, to repair relationships amongst University members.

I don't get it. Why would they want to remain in partnership with a group who have deliberately misled them about the law, allowing them to be publicly ridiculed and forced to offer public apologies?

@Fernlake

Fear of the backlash if they do the right thing. Terrifying isn't it?

Even when we know who is in the wrong, even when it's written in black and white by an esteemed, independent third party, it's still not enough for people to prioritise women and their safety / right to have an opinion. That's how big the fear of being phobic is. Chilling.

Recommendation 22 | The University should set up a Working Group to devise and implement a strategy for repairing relationships between trans and nonbinary University members and those with gender critical views, in particular women. In doing so it should bear in mind its duty to pay due regard to the need to foster good relations between people with particular protected characteristics and others. The Working Group should consult as widely as possible with individual members of the University, staff and student groups, the Inclusion Champions, Human Resources, Student Wellbeing and Inclusion Services and the Students’ Union. It should enable University members to contribute to the development of this strategy in a strictly confidential environment or anonymously.

This is a very important statement really, no debate is off the table no matter what Stonewall say. This statement puts fostering good relationships ahead of stonewall's policy badging scheme. It's about time.

I'm so very pleased I read this thread. A while ago my dc's school announced plans to train a stonewall champion. I wrote to them with some concerns and my email was acknowledged but my points were not addressed. The school seem to have gone quiet on the topic so I'm hoping the plans get shelved, but if I get any indication they are going ahead then I'll be sure to direct the school to this report.

I am surprised we haven’t had any perspective from some of our regular legal posters on this like we have had with some of the cases recently.

Thing is in this case it's Stonewall who have wrought reputational damage on the university. If they try the threat of that again I hope the next organisation just laughs at them.

Now would be a great time for the LGB Alliance to start a tick-box scheme...

@justicewomen

This wasn't written by anyone at Essex Uni though they commissioned it. It was written by specialist discrimination barrister Akua Reindorf of Cloisters Chambers instructed by solicitors Eversheds.

Yes, the Uni appear to be not too happy with the report from my reading of the plans and such going forward. As expected though, once people who know the law look at said situations, its obvious Stonewall are 'misadvising' MANY companies/unis/workplaces/whatever. I do not expect them to be happy at all right now. Their lies are coming falling down around them, and I hope to fuck it happens quickly now, rather than the drips there have been. This report is as damning as it could possibly be about the 'misunderstanding'. It basically says that they have purposely misunderstood as the law says the opposite of what they WANT the law to say! Which is truth, and has been obvious for a long time now.

In the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a7e1e34c-b819-11eb-98e3-d1306649ebf7?shareToken=5e3cfba3cff73410eff901fbc740224d

What I've never understood about any of this is that the Equality Act is online for anyone to Google. All those organisations that changed policy on advice from Stonewall et al to put gender identity in as a protected characteristic and leave sex out - didn't it ever once occur to any of them to check the wording of the law? Not even the lawyers and people hired for their expertise on Equality and Diversity?

The situation that Jo Phoenix went through has some similarities to what Shereen Benjamin has endured at her own university - Edinburgh Uni. She wasn't an invited academic, she's employed by Edinburgh Uni but was prevented from hosting an event on education (due to threats to her and the event) and the event was postponed indefinitely. She's another academic who has needed personal security on campus due to the threats she's had.

I hope she is able to use this report in some way. Or that her situation/complaint warrants a similarly robust review & clarity of outcome.

Placemarking to read the report.

I hope this report will make the senior management teams of universities around the UK sit up and pay attention. They have forgotten that they have a legal duty to consider the needs of ALL of their staff and students, not just the ones who share their views.

Good news. Slowly we’re starting to see progress out of this mess. Well done all those who stand up for free speech and women’s rights.

Now in the Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9592715/University-Essex-apologises-cancelling-lecture-professor-transgender-views.html

Haven't seen anything in the Telegraph yet or (surprise, surprise), the Guardian.

Hmm. Its odd to me that the mail seem to have picked up on the stonewall thing. Mind, none of them seem to have. Unless there is some reason they cannot report certain parts of the report or smething, which I doubt. Or its not 'big enough'..but its a potential can of worms I am (desperately) hoping is about to pop wide open tbh. The clicks from 'Stonewall confirmed to be lying about the law' or whatever would surely be..decent.

I mean this being publicized at all is great, especially for the women involved in it don't get me wrong, I just expected, more focus on the fact that Stonewall have been so blatantly caught out here, and the potential of them having given similar illegal advice or whatever to so so many other public bodies is likely. I mean, CPS are stonewall champs too IIRC?!