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

So no proof then, what a surprise.

Blueberry - gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society.

However, if you believe that Maya expressing those beliefs has been discriminatory you should say how. Otherwise it's just defamatory.

You might want to take a look at Jean hatchets case where she's just won a case to the tune of £115,000 for people lying about her on the Internet. And, apparently, it has set a precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether or not publicly saying that Maya, since she won her case, has been discriminatory, would come under that precedent.

But, personally, I think it's a shitty thing to do, if you're not going to back it up.

@RedDogsBeg

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.

You are, but you're not entitled to express it in a way that is harassing or discriminating, or in a manner that jeopardises your employer's obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Again, the judgement spelled this out so a five year old could understand.

Does anyone know when the Employment Tribunal is likely to take place? I'm assuming it's a fairly lengthy process?

Again, the judgement spelled this out so a five year old could understand.

Except you can't spell out even one comment that is the slightest bit relevant to it.

the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people

''Absolutely full'' No, it briefly mentioned two people, Pip Bunce and Murray, and nothing she said about them comes anywhere close to harassment or discrimination.

@yourhairiswinterfire

the ruling is absolutely full of evidence of her negative and inflammatory opinions of trans people

''Absolutely full'' No, it briefly mentioned two people, Pip Bunce and Murray, and nothing she said about them comes anywhere close to harassment or discrimination.

Perhaps blueberry hasn't read it.

You are, but you're not entitled to express it in a way that is harassing or discriminating, or in a manner that jeopardises your employer's obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

So show us your evidence that Maya has done this, you are absolutely convinced and certain she has so you should have the information to hand, produce it.

Perhaps blueberry hasn't read it.

Either that or the ''negative and inflammatory'' evidence they refer to is Maya saying sex is immutable (as does the law). That gets quite a few mentions throughout the judgement.

Thank you Maya for standing up for the rights of those with XX chromosomes. You go woman!

So show us your evidence that Maya has done this, you are absolutely convinced and certain she has so you should have the information to hand, produce it.

Should be easy considering there's apparently 'bucket loads' of it...

@yourhairiswinterfire

So show us your evidence that Maya has done this, you are absolutely convinced and certain she has so you should have the information to hand, produce it.

Should be easy considering there's apparently 'bucket loads' of it...

Quite, but we can wait and I'll keep asking.

@BlueberryCheesecake9

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

Well come on then, examples please. Should be a quick job for you seeing as there are so many apparently.

Sorry cross posted with others

You are, but you're not entitled to express it in a way that is harassing or discriminating, or in a manner that jeopardises your employer's obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

You don't seem to understand that the EA also gives employers obligations to women.

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.

LOL, no. If you believe in women's rights to single spaces away from all males including MTF trans people, that is an example of a "discriminatory" belief. You are allowed to express it or act on it, because to do so would be necessary for women to campaign for and be given single sex spaces where proportionate and legitimate as laid out in the EA 2010.

Why is being discriminatory just considered bad? We discriminate all the time in order to keep safe or keep others safe. I am not allowed to attend primary school; I wouldn't walk alone in certain areas after dark; I don't want a male doing my smear test; we don't sell alcohol to 12 year olds or send 5 year olds down the mine; groups are given funding to supporting minority ethnic groups; pregnant women are excluded from handling teratogenic chemicals....

The Equality Act requires employers to discriminate in order to ensure women do not suffer detriment in the work place.

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

Wrong.

@Tibtom

The Equality Act requires employers to discriminate in order to ensure women do not suffer detriment in the work place.

Precisely. Discrimination has become a swear word. Its not. It's written into equality - sexual orientation, for instance. I discriminate about an entire sex. All legit.

Yes there is discrimination, unlawful discrimination and discrimination that, while lawful, could be considered unethical.

Take marriage for example: a couple who have had a wedding but not a legal ceremony may consider themselves married but will be 'discriminated against' in law compared to legally married couples. No issues here since legal marriage is available to everyone. Unlawful discrimination would occur where a legal marriage was treated differently e.g. a divorce lawyer refusing to represent a gay person in family court. Legal but arguably unfair would be Churches agreeing to marry only straight couples of their own faith.

Maya did nothing illegal in partaking in political discussion that argued for maintaining the legal status quo in face of proposed reforms. Some people may dislike her views but that does not constitute harassment. Its not even discrimination like in the Church example since there has been no detriment to any person. Even if there was a detriment, we allow discrimination in certain circumstances for very good reasons. It would be an unacceptable violation of right to religious expression to force a religious institution to perform ceremonies contrary to their teachings. It would be an unacceptable violation of right to political expression to prevent people from giving their views on current controversial proposals.

It would be like someone being fired from Wetherspoons for campaigning for Remain.

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.

This statement is correct.

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.

This statement is wrong.

If your second statement was correct, no religious person could manifest their beliefs, and neither could many other people who hold perfectly legal views that discriminate against others in one way or another.

It is perfectly legal for instance for a Nigerian immigrant into the UK to believe that only other Nigerian immigrants can understand their situation. And it is perfectly legal for Nigerian immigrants to found a community enterprise that restricts both its membership and its services to Nigerian immigrants.

This is lawful discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of race.

It is perfectly legal for a fairground to discriminate on the basis of age. It is perfectly legal for a gay club to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. It is perfectly legal for an antenatal course to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy. Etc

UK law differentiates between lawful and unlawful discrimination, so yes, you absolutely can hold a discriminatory belief and you can act on it. Whether that act amounts to lawful or unlawful discrimination is something the Equality Act and its regulator, the EHRC, help us with.

The judge in Maya's case included those paragraphs on harassment to explain that while believing that sex matters is a majority view in line with the laws of the land, you cannot deliberately use sex-based pronouns to describe a colleague or a customer when they have expressed a preference for other pronouns.

There would have to be a judgement as to whether this only applies to the immediate work and service delivery situation, or whether you could accurately describe a colleague or a customer with the corresponding sex-based pronouns outside of work or service-delivery in public, such as on Twitter. I would expect that a judge would hold that you should not do so.

However, it is absolutely allowed for a person to use sex-based pronouns for people in general. Otherwise the appeal judge would not have ruled the way he did.

As Maya did not refuse to use preferred pronouns at work, and there was no evidence she ever did presented by her employer, and as she had no colleagues she was working with who identified as trans, I am surprised that you are so sure lots of evidence exists about Maya doing this at work.

Still can't/won't produce this bucket loads of evidence then @BlueberryCheesecake9, one could rightly assume from your reluctance that there isn't any.

Might be wise for you to be a bit more careful in your assertions in light of the recent case brought by and won by Jean Hatchet.

Might be wise for you to be a bit more careful in your assertions in light of the recent case brought by and won by Jean Hatchet

Will they ever learn I wonder 🤔

I am not legally trained or anything but surely the key issue here is what is actually perceived as being transphobic.

My husband used to work with a trans woman in a retail role and the transphobia he heard on a daily basis from customers was on another level. I have a trans colleague, I challenge transphobia regularly whenever I hear it.

Maya was not insulting, aggressive, threatening, none of the things either myself or my husband have heard.

She did challenge some of the concepts of gender ideology that may conflict with women's rights, though, and it has served some to frame these as being transphobic, insulting, abusive etc.

Well, the law says they are not.

So I guess I will be watching how this plays out with interest.....