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

Passing the criteria as being a valid philosophical belief and therefore protected in the same way as other such beliefs doesn't mean anyone is required to 'respect that belief' themselves. I don't respect theistic religious beliefs. It does mean you have to respect other people's right to hold those beliefs.

@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.

I think actually you need to read the judgement, you are wrong. Read it and see.

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

I think DoM is a bit sad that no one at the Times comment section pays them much attention these days. Hence having to resort to us providing entertainment and interaction.

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.

I hope they do just settle, for Maya's sake. She's been through a long enough battle, on all our behalf, and I'm sure she could do with this being finished up.

And from CDG's POV, it would be very difficult to now argue in court that Maya wasn't fired (or "didn't have her contract renewed") for her GC beliefs and it was actually because of something else, when their entire case so far has been that her beliefs were so awful that they had to sack her.

Worth so remembering that Maya didn't have any trans colleagues at CGD, so hadn't interacted with any or 'misgendered' any. The trans colleague was hypothetical. The only person she accidentally 'misgendered' was the Twitter TRA, bearded, suit-and-tie-wearing, man-presenting, counsellor Gregor Murray, who likes people to call them "they" in response to him calling women "utter cunts" (which I also think was after she'd already been fired?).

I wonder which judge will hear the substantive case?

Maya said previously that it won't be James Taylor as he's been promoted.

According to CGD they are going to continue with tribunal

www.cgdev.org/article/cgd-announces-path-forward-uk-employment-tribunal-case

Am I confused? Does that also mean that TWAW is a protected belief also?

I am glad that they are continuing with the tribunal, although it will be hard work and stressful for maya. We need some of this to play out in court. I assume only things she did/said while working there will be used as evidence, so Gregor won't come in to it. I will be really interested to see what they argue because its important to known where the courts draw the line with expressing beliefs on your own social media. My personal view is pretty much any lawful speech should be OK if you are not directly representing your employer, but I suspect the courts won't take that view exactly. I want to know what arguments they will weigh up.

@Majorfluff

Am I confused? Does that also mean that TWAW is a protected belief also?

Yes, you can't harass or discriminate against someone for holding such beliefs. Which is entirely reasonable. Lots of people may hold views that we dislike, but they are still entitled to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against in their place of work etc.

@Majorfluff

Am I confused? Does that also mean that TWAW is a protected belief also?

Yes it is. Both beliefs, and lack of belief in both, all protected.

Yes @Majorfluff like being a Christian and being an atheist are both protected. It doesn’t mean you have a right to evangelise to people or pray over them, but you can’t suffer unlawful discrimination simply because you hold those views.

I be,lieve the CGD have been very up front about the fact they didn’t renew her contract because of her belief, in which case she’s got them bang to rights for unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination.

Whoop whoop! Well done Maya

Thanks all, now I am clear.

Thanks DoM for giving so many posters the opportunity to re-post extracts of this important judgment for all the lurkers.

Your contribution to the GC cause is very much appreciated 👏.

Please keep posting 👍.

Great news

Fabulous news. Fingers crossed for the decision that will be coming forth regarding Kiera Bell.

Fantastic news. Well done, Maya.

Brilliant news! Congratulations Maya.

Read the judgments. Read them and understand them.

@ArabellaScott

Read the judgments. Read them and understand them.

😂😂😂

🤣

Everything crossed for Maya 🙏🏻

I'm a bit confused about the "protected belief" notion when it comes to TWAW because in the Equality Act ....

"Legally recognised beliefs seem to parallel the approach frequently taken towards religion in equality law, which tends to follow a quasi-protestant model that understands faith largely as a private, personal matter that rarely affects others" (not my words, found it in a blog about MF)

So if protected beliefs are those that rarely affect others, how the hell can TWAW be protected, when the manifestation of this belief so clearly has a major, negative and disruptive impact on women?

I'd like to see that tested in court.

[quote EndoplasmicReticulum]According to CGD they are going to continue with tribunal

www.cgdev.org/article/cgd-announces-path-forward-uk-employment-tribunal-case[/quote]
I just saw that, plus some employee from CGD tweeting about them taking it back to court as the views she holds are not acceptable. twitter.com/seanbartlettdc/status/1409561103068172290?s=21

I suppose they will be able to argue at Tribunal that MF's beliefs had gone beyond reasonable, so they will have to find out what reasonable is. That is usually what the average person would think reasonable. The average person in the UK would think sex is immutable, or am I misunderstanding?

I just saw that, plus some employee from CGD tweeting about them taking it back to court as the views she holds are not acceptable.

Shouldn't they be being more careful here if they're going to try and argue that they didn't sack Maya for her views/tweets?