Stonewall hide organisations signed up as Diversity Champions

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This morning Stonewall have hidden the list of all the organisations signed up to their diversity champions award behind a member's log in. Could this be connected to the Essex University report confirming that they have been offering wrong advice about the law to organisations? Are companies getting cold feet about being openly connected to them?

Recommendation from the Essex Uni report:
The University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall, bearing in mind the issues raised in this report. In particular, it should consider that this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution.

God how I WISH I could be a fly on the real in the Stonewall meetings.

They must know their time is nearly up.

Wall*

From Cleanpress'a link:

and other transphobes still are even currently attempting to ‘sue Stonewall’.’._ This after they told an organisation that if they did not do something about transphobia at their work place then they would be removed from the Diversity Champions list which could have negative repercussions for the business. Which no duh, you’re only allowed on the diversity champions list if you champion diversity? Not sure why that was a surprise to anyone.^

I wouldn't ask TRA blogger NotCursedE to work on your defending arguments against Allison Bailey, Stonewall. I'm not sure the finer points of the case have quite been grasped.

Pleased to see The Times giving their "Stonewall's bad advice" article a prominent position online. Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2bc11fae-b8d6-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=dd917d270984b99337d4aa05d72fc178

Thanks to the times for pouring sunlight over this.

Just reading through the report over breakfast.

A lot of the detail of what happened at UoE is redacted, understandably, but the parts laying out the current state of play are clear and very readable.

This bit made me smile
The police are empowered by law to record a “non-crime hate incident” which is “perceived to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”, even where this entails an interference with the freedom of speech of the person against whom the incident is recorded. By definition these records do not relate to breaches of criminal law. It would therefore be surprising if the University were to be entitled to restrict a person’s freedom of speech on the basis that they are likely to commit a non-crime hate incident.
I love how often things are found to be “surprising” in reports and judgements.

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

It is worth noting that the examples of harassment in the University’s Supporting Trans and Non Binary Staff policy might lend credence to the idea that these newspaper letters could amount to or lead to unlawful harassment. This policy is founded on an erroneous understanding of the law (see §§225–226 above). The policy is reviewed annually by Stonewall, and its incorrect summary of the law does not appear to have been picked up by them. In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is. To that extent the policy is misleading.

Gosh, Stonewall didn’t pick up where trans policy incorrectly stated the law. That is surprising!

This bit caught my eye as well, where Prof Phoenix’s “affiliation” with WPUK is being considered
I am aware that many people consider WPUK to be a “hate group”. For example, very senior Labour politicians have signed a pledge card to this effect written by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, which indicates that those who share WPUK’s position on trans rights and gender identity should be expelled from the Party. On the other hand, gender critical feminists associated with WPUK have been described by the High Court as “respected academics who hold gender-critical views and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons”, and by the Joint Committee for Human Rights as “leading feminists and LGBT activists with a lengthy pedigree in campaigning for LGBT rights” engaging in “critical debate about issues around feminism and trans politics” which form part of “open debates that democracy needs”

Labour Campaign for Trans Rights is a handful of TRAs who took it upon themselves to seize upon the 2020 leadership campaign as an opportunity to promote their misogynistic, homophobic views within the party, they are not an official party group. The fact that this is now being considered as relevant in a completely different situation just shows how badly the MPs who signed that pledge - Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner, Rebecca Long-Bailey - have let women down, and let LGB people down, by supporting TRA extremism.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

It is quite refreshing to see how robust a lot of the responses to that tweet are. The Times comments are fab too. There will be more of this to come.

Interesting. My money would be on a connection to the legalfeminist call to FOI public sector organisations on the Stonewall list re: their engagement with Stonewall, and Stonewall taking the list down to make this harder (feels a bit like closing the door after the horse has bolted, but...), rather than a connection with the Essex report.

I’m interested to see what comes out of that mass FOI process, and also interested to see how Stonewall and their partners move forward.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

Interesting, I wonder if that is why so many of the FOIs weren't answered, using exactly the same wording about commercially sensitive or something....

Sounds as if a lot of the orgs that were FOId went back to Stonewall for help with their response, which is interesting in itself. Why would they feel the need to do that?

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

Indeed.

Interesting, I wonder if that is why so many of the FOIs weren't answered, using exactly the same wording about commercially sensitive or something....

Funny. I was looking at the response from the Nursing and Midwifery Council and they cited commercial sensitivity....

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/informationabouttyourdealingss274?nocache=incoming-1789448#incoming-1789448

Another organisation using members fees to pay substantial sums to Stonewall.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

Nancy Kelley’s been tweeting about how many FOIs Stonewall have to deal with, except that as a non-public organisation they’re not subject to FOIs.

Which begs the question of whose FOIs they’re actually dealing with.

Time for more FOIs to ask if organisations seek stonewall advice before responding to FOIs? 😁

I think we need one of those board they have on detective shows with all the photos and string, and a big Stonewall logo in the middle.

But instead of string, rainbow lanyards.

Can we put this on the board? I went to look for Nancy Kelly’s tweet about FOIs and found this.

mobile.twitter.com/JonathanCoopr/status/1394580835857227781

I won’t say what I think of Crispin Blunt or his motivations. But I will say that it would be bad to see him heading up an initiative to enhance international co-operation on woke authoritarianism.

@Sophoclesthefox

I think we need one of those board they have on detective shows with all the photos and string, and a big Stonewall logo in the middle.

It's a trello board and there are some online ones. It actually would help in this instance because of the sheer number of foi requests that will happen now.

Diversity Champions list which could have negative repercussions for the business. Which no duh, you’re only allowed on the diversity champions list if you champion diversity?

Stonewall do not champion diversity. They champion their particular cause. Have you ever seen a Stonewall campaign in the last few years championing women? lesbians? christians? muslims? mothers? married women? those with limited English?

(Not that there isn’t real and important human rights work to be done! Of course there is. But given Blunt’s track record with respect to women’s rights and his history of shady machinations to push an entirely other agenda in the guise of a human rights agenda, I worry this initiative is possibly not as benign as it seems.)

Trello board! Thank you for my new fact for today, congressdingo

Sorry if this is a repost. Not read the last couple of pages yet.

sheridansinclair.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-stonewall-uk

Exactly Tibtom. Stonewall are not a generic diversity organisation, they exist to promote (lgb) TQ, not the other protected characteristics. The problem is the other protected characteristics require a bit of effort on behalf of the organisation like making physical changes to buildings or remembering not to make a role ‘redundant’ while a woman is on maternity leave. Those things are sooo annoying & boring amirite??
Whereas sign uk to stonewall and all you need to do is eradicate “gendered language” issue everyone with a rainbow lanyard & tweet meaningless platitudes like “kindness costs nothing”. Hell it even gives you the rare opportunity to be legitimately rude ti customers if you suspect them of being (quelle horror) a terfy middle aged woman. Suspect them of that and you can tell them you don’t want their money/custom/votes. I mean it’s a win all round right?

The problem is the other protected characteristics require a bit of effort on behalf of the organisation like making physical changes to buildings or remembering not to make a role ‘redundant’ while a woman is on maternity leave. Those things are sooo annoying & boring amirite??

But according to queer theory, isn’t it boringly materialist to worry about things like ramps and lifts? Using a Stonewall definition of ‘intersectional’, aren’t all oppressed groups the same, so a rainbow flag = accessible loos and proper contracts for employees? (except obvs some are more equal than others).

The appeal becomes more and more obvious.