CGD is not appealing Maya's judgment! Employment tribunal can proceed

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

CGD are not appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment that gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

The judgment stands and is a legal precedent.

Next step: employment tribunal to hear the rest of the case.

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1409554171821531136

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

This is wonderful news. Huge congratulations to Maya Forstater for standing up for her rights, and is doing this, standing up for all of us!

Maya is amazing, huge thanks to her x

Thank you, Maya.

Hi DisgustedofManchester
2 + 2 = 5... right?

Well done Maya. This judgement really has started the process of the media openly reporting what is happening with this. One of the many positive outcomes.

Brilliant news! Well done and thank you Maya

👏👏👏👏👏

Great news for Maya. She really has made this current dystopia a tiny bit more bearable.

@DisgustedofManchester

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

Are you suggesting that Mr Justice Choudhury agreed with Judge James Tayler's judgment that Maya Forstater's belief failed Grainger V?

You really need to read the actual judgment, all the words.

Wonderful news! So glad the ability to talk about women’s rights is slowly being reclaimed.

I am a little concerned about the Employment Tribunal but it's good that it's going ahead in a reasonable timescale.

I wonder which judge will hear the substantive case?

And this is time to praise the legal commenters who commented on the thoroughness and even-handedness of Justice Choudhury's judgment, told us there was a reason which his judgments had never been appealed, and tip him for a future post with the Supreme Court.

@DisgustedofManchester

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

Oh dear, I think it's you that needs to read the Judgement.

Being a sore loser is never a good look.

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

Lol. Sour grapes? The judgement does mean that being gender critical is a protected belief. Thus worthy of respect. I expect you're very pleased. I certainly am ☺️

DoM??

The appeal was allowed after the appeal tribunal concluded the belief that 'biological sex is real, important and immutable' met the legal test of a 'genuine and important philosophical position', and 'could not be shown to be a direct attempt to harm others.' As such these beliefs were afforded protection under the Equality Act.

The original tribunal's ruling that the belief was ‘not worthy of respect in a democratic society’ was overturned.

Wonderful news 😍

Fantastic news for Maya. And our gratitude to her for securing our rights in law. ❤️

@DisgustedofManchester

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

The original judgment declared that GC beliefs were ‘not worthy of respect’ in society. The appeal overturned that statement and noted that the phrase was, in fact, incorrect in law. Do you not think therefore that if ‘not worthy of respect’ is incorrect, then the opposite, ‘worthy of respect’ must ergo be correct?

That's fantastic news!

@DisgustedofManchester

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

112. In the present case, there are two further factors which, upon analysis, are wholly at odds with the view that the belief is not one worthy of respect in a democratic society.

113. First, there is the evidence that the gender-critical belief is not unique to the Claimant, but is widely shared, including amongst respected academics. The popularity of a belief does not necessarily insulate it from being one that gravely undermines the rights of others; history is replete with instances where large swathes of society have succumbed to philosophies that seek to destroy the rights of others.

However, a widely shared belief demands particular care before it can be condemned as being not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

114. Second, the Claimant’s belief that sex is immutable and binary is, as the Tribunal itself correctly concluded, consistent with the law: see para 83. The leading case is still Corbett v Corbett [1971]

The Judge is saying Maya's views are not unworthy of respect. What's the opposite of unworthy of respect, Disgusted?

Quote from the appeal
The Claimant complained that she was discriminated against because of her belief. There was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Claimant’s belief was a philosophical belief within the meaning of s.10 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The Tribunal held that the belief, being absolutist in nature and whereby the Claimant would “refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment”, was one that was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the belief did not satisfy the fifth criterion in Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 (“Grainger V”). The Claimant appealed. Held, allowing the appeal, that the Tribunal had erred in its application of Grainger V. A philosophical belief would only be excluded for failing to satisfy Grainger V if it was the kind of belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism and thereby liable to be excluded from the protection of rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by virtue of Article 17 thereof. The Claimant’s gender-critical beliefs, which were widely shared, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons, clearly did not fall into that category. The Claimant’s belief, whilst offensive to some, and notwithstanding its potential to result in the harassment of trans persons in some circumstances, fell within the protection under Article 9(1), ECHR and therefore within s.10, EqA

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

I am a little concerned about the Employment Tribunal but it's good that it's going ahead in a reasonable timescale.

I wonder which judge will hear the substantive case?

And this is time to praise the legal commenters who commented on the thoroughness and even-handedness of Justice Choudhury's judgment, told us there was a reason which his judgments had never been appealed, and tip him for a future post with the Supreme Court.

I suspect that as CGD isn’t appealing the tribunal, they may well settle out of court. Why would they go back to court at vast expense in order to argue about something that they’ve already accepted to be true? Ie that Maya expressed philosophical beliefs that are protected under the EA? We all know that’s why they didn’t continue to work with her.

@DisgustedofManchester

No its not. It says nowhere in the judgement that being gender critical beliefs are 'worthy of respect'. In fact it said pretty much the opposite. You really need to read the actual judgement, all the words.

You're always good for a laugh. Did you get bored with haunting the Times comments?

whoop whoop!

Not only Judge Choudhury but of course, you know the chairman of the EHRC too!

She also said that women should not be prevented in discussing their concerns about their rights. That includes trying to make women feel shamed for having these discussions.