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

Keep twisting BlueberryCheescake9.

@StandUpStraight

Cool story bro.

Absolutely true story, it's all there in the judgement, which you can read right here:

www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others-ukeat-slash-0105-slash-20-slash-joj

See page 3 for the judge explaining (for the first of many times) that he ruled Forstater's beliefs as protected because any belief short of Nazism could be held to be protected. See pages 19 and 48 for the comparison between Forstater's beliefs and homophobic beliefs. See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

None of which Maya did, time to stop flogging that falsehood it could cost you.

@RedDogsBeg

people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

None of which Maya did, time to stop flogging that falsehood it could cost you.

There was evidence given in the original tribunal that Maya did all of those things, all CGD has to do is point at it again and say, look we were perfectly justified.

how a court declared her belief was kind of like homophobia but not quite as bad as Nazism, like that's some kind of triumph.

The court said that:

-Maya's beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society
-Her beliefs are widely shared
-Her beliefs are consistent with the law.

''Buckets of evidence''? She accidentally misgendered someone on Twatter, which is an honest mistake even orgs like Mermaids are guilty of, and spoke about Bunce (who as far as I'm aware has never said they're a woman?)

That's not harassment or discrimination, unless those words have also been redefined to suit.

he ruled Forstater's beliefs as protected because any belief short of Nazism could be held to be protected

You conveniently forgot to add that he also said: 111. Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism

Nice try though.

See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

We didn't need a judge to tell us that, people with protected characteristics (and not just the gender reassignment) are protected from discrimination and harassment in law. Also a good job that's not what Maya plans to do then, isn't it? 😊

Maya's social media before, and especially since, the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people, all CGD's legal team have to do is pick a few choice tweets and it will be very easy for them to prove that they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues and clients and so they were justified in taking action against her - and indeed could have been in breach of the EA2010 if they hadn't. She's scored a massive own goal here, and failed to properly read her own judgement, in which the judge literally spelled out the grounds on which CGD could win a new tribunal.

@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.

Haha! Suck hard on that lemon, love

There was evidence given in the original tribunal that Maya did all of those things, all CGD has to do is point at it again and say, look we were perfectly justified.

Show me the evidence where Maya did any of those things at work.

See p56 for the judge explaining people with gender critical beliefs are still not allowed to misgender, harass or discriminate, and can indeed be fired from their jobs if they do.

It says nothing of the sort.

It says you can’t harass and you cannot misgender with impunity. That does not imply compelled speech and does not mean that you cannot correctly sex another person where relevant.

Sex is relevant to uphold single sex exemptions. I can say that.

Maya's social media before, and especially since, the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people, all CGD's legal team have to do is pick a few choice tweets and it will be very easy for them to prove that they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Ok - then why don’t they go for it??!!

It says you can’t harass and you cannot misgender with impunity. That does not imply compelled speech and does not mean that you cannot correctly sex another person where relevant.

Indeed. And it doesn't say you can't say something 'negative'. Can you imagine? "You can't say that, it's not positive." 🙄

Or 'inflammatory' come to that. I get pretty inflamed over certain things that transactivists say, so presumably that's grounds for getting them fired?

they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Are we in Minority Report?

@RedDogsBeg

they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Are we in Minority Report?

No, because they're not relying on the word of psychics, they're relying on the evidence of Maya Forstater's own actions and words, which she has shared very loudly and publicly for everyone to see.

At least one of the pages cited by my learned friend is a page from the respondent’s submissions. Not from the decision. The other pages cited do not mean what we are led to believe they mean.

So tedious. Intellectually dishonest and/or negligible.

No, because they're not relying on the word of psychics, they're relying on the evidence of Maya Forstater's own actions and words, which she has shared very loudly and publicly for everyone to see.

Which isn't discriminatory.

Far from it. It's a protected belief.

You can't change sex, transwomen aren't women, sex is real, and furthermore, as mentioned in court, it matters, and in certain situations single sex provision must be upheld.

@OffYouGoNow

Maya's social media before, and especially since, the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people, all CGD's legal team have to do is pick a few choice tweets and it will be very easy for them to prove that they reasonably believed her behaviour would be discriminatory towards trans colleagues

Ok - then why don’t they go for it??!!

They... are going for it? By not appealing the appeal, they're signalling that they're happy for the second tribunal to proceed. This is the grounds on which they can win it. Or are you expecting them to start sharing their evidence before the tribunal begins?

So still no copying and pasting of what Maya said that is discriminatory and harassing, blueberry?

@Datun

No, because they're not relying on the word of psychics, they're relying on the evidence of Maya Forstater's own actions and words, which she has shared very loudly and publicly for everyone to see.

Which isn't discriminatory.

Far from it. It's a protected belief.

You can't change sex, transwomen aren't women, sex is real, and furthermore, as mentioned in court, it matters, and in certain situations single sex provision must be upheld.

A belief being protected and a belief being discriminatory are not mutually exclusive and you have absolutely misunderstood the ruling and the law if you think they are. The appeal judgement made it absolutely clear that a protected belief can be discriminatory, and that acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of that belief can be illegal.

The appeal judgement made it absolutely clear that a protected belief can be discriminatory, and that acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of that belief can be illegal.

Course. And everybody knows that. Discrimination is discrimination.

So what has Maya said that is discriminatory? Let's have it.

And it's not the belief that is discriminatory. It's whether or not you manifest that belief in a discriminatory manner.

@Datun

And it's not the belief that is discriminatory. It's whether or not you manifest that belief in a discriminatory manner.

No, a belief can be discriminatory. You are still entitled to hold it. You just can't act on it. Again, the judgement made this explicitly clear.

The appeal judgement made it absolutely clear that a protected belief can be discriminatory, and that acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of that belief can be illegal.

Show us the evidence of Maya acting in a discriminatory manner on the basis of her belief, since you are so sure she has done so, at work, prove it.

Fortunately, however, for CGD, MF has done both - held the belief and acted on it, so legally, they're pretty safe.

No, a belief can be discriminatory. You are still entitled to hold it. You just can't act on it. Again, the judgement made this explicitly clear.

Not only are you entitled to hold the belief you are allowed to express it. Now show us the proof that Maya has done what you say she has.