Time to #LeaveStonewall - Sex Matters campaign

[Leafstamp]

Just launched:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/leave-stonewall/

Get writing! Useful content for anyone wanting to challenge Stonewall or Stonewall-esque influences.

Just got the email about this. Great idea.

I've just got it too. Better get writing then!

That's a much better letter with a clear call to action than the fairly embarrassing headline of the FPFW open letter.

fairplayforwomen.com/open-letter-to-trustees-and-chief-executives-youre-being-taken-for-a-ride/

It's a well thought out campaign initiative.

This is an excellent idea. I was not surprised to see the University, Police and Health Board nearest to me included as well as the Welsh Government. Heartened to see that my local authority is not amongst them. I'll definitely be writing to the former.

👍

Brilliant letter. thanks OP

@mejon

This is an excellent idea. I was not surprised to see the University, Police and Health Board nearest to me included as well as the Welsh Government. Heartened to see that my local authority is not amongst them. I'll definitely be writing to the former.

Be aware that there are some typos or they've occasionally used the full name rather than acronyms in that list (on first look I couldn't find some organisations that I knew to be champions so found them looking alphabetically and via category).

You had better hope that anyone sent the letter doesnt check the facts set out in it. Were they to read the Reindorf report referenced in the first paragraph, they would see that:

"Reindorf recommended that the university consider breaking from Stonewall" is a misrepresentation of Reccomendation 28.
Many other aspects of the letter overstate the case, But go ahead, send it.

Ahh Robin, you keep trying don't you. I believe you have been trying to represent them legally haven't you... :-) it's not going well for stonewall right now is it.

Don’t worry Robin, as Nancy Kelley would say, it’s just "the difference between natural language and statutory language".

I’m sure the letters will have the desired effect.

What a brilliant letter! This sentence really stood out: "Pledging allegiance to Stonewall no longer signals an employer’s commitment to equality and diversity; rather, it is a serious reputational and legal risk."

I’m sure the letters will have the desired effect.

Yes I'm sure they will 😁 The house of cards tumbles. Now the truth is apparent.

@heathspeedwell

What a brilliant letter! This sentence really stood out: "Pledging allegiance to Stonewall no longer signals an employer’s commitment to equality and diversity; rather, it is a serious reputational and legal risk."

Good

Many other aspects of the letter overstate the case, But go ahead, send it.

I know that others might wonder what the recommendation states:

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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); the potential effect of this on the University’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression; the effect on University members’ understanding of the values of the institution; and the effect on those members of the University who hold gender critical views. If the University considers it appropriate to continue its relationship with Stonewall, it should devise a strategy for countering the drawbacks and potential illegalities described above.

Given the respected legal authority behind that report, that reads like a helpful steer as to appropriate action.

@RobinMoiraWhite, if you are touting for SW business, I would hang in there, I have a feeling there could be lots of work to go round.

So Robin what is the correct representation then?

@RobinMoiraWhite

I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on Nancy Kelly's BBC interview.

Stonewall boss defends new strategy amid criticism www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57281448

Specifically the comparison to anti-semitism:

"With all beliefs including controversial beliefs there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging - whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability - we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that."

And the explanation that in the context of advising many organisations (at significant cost) that the use of "natural" language that actually mis-represented the law was an adequate response:

But Ms Kelley described that as "the difference between natural language and statutory language".

Thank you in advance should you take the time to respond.

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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); the potential effect of this on the University’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression; the effect on University members’ understanding of the values of the institution; and the effect on those members of the University who hold gender critical views. If the University considers it appropriate to continue its relationship with Stonewall, it should devise a strategy for countering the drawbacks and potential illegalities described above.

That definitely sounds like enthusiastic support for the Stonewall Diversity Champion programme.

More orgs leaving, apparently.

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1398701539087224834?s=21

[quote Triphazards]More orgs leaving, apparently.

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1398701539087224834?s=21[/quote]
That's quite the list.

@RobinMoiraWhite

You had better hope that anyone sent the letter doesnt check the facts set out in it. Were they to read the Reindorf report referenced in the first paragraph, they would see that:

"Reindorf recommended that the university consider breaking from Stonewall" is a misrepresentation of Reccomendation 28.
Many other aspects of the letter overstate the case, But go ahead, send it.

Are you posting in an official capacity, or are you just here to play Tom Hagen for free?

I should think a number of us will be interested in the outcome of the CPS' consideration of the matter:

We are reviewing our Stonewall membership and will shortly make a decision on whether to continue this.”

[quote Triphazards]More orgs leaving, apparently.

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1398701539087224834?s=21[/quote]
The telegraph article also references Kelleys bizarre and offensive reference to anti semitism. Glad that is getting more press.

From the Telegraph article:

The House of Commons said it did not renew its membership for 2020. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) said it exited in December, while Acas, the employment dispute service, said it had withdrawn “for cost reasons” last June.
Dorset Police, one of multiple forces previously listed as part of the scheme, said it is now not a member. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government said it left in 2019.

Are you posting in an official capacity, or are you just here to play Tom Hagen for free?

Difficult to say isn't it. I think there seems to be a bit of an issue around professional / personal boundaries.