Maya back in court tomorrow (20th Oct)

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

hiyamaya.net/2021/10/19/gendered-intelligence-trains-judges-in-secret-i-am-going-to-court-to-try-to-break-the-secrecy/

Training for judges is carried out by the Judicial College, this training is said to be “by judges, for judges”. But in 2018 Judge Sian Davies proudly revealed in an in-house magazine for judges, that the Employment Tribunal and the Immigration Tribunal judges had received training from Gendered Intelligence.

There is no information on this training in the Judicial College’s published Review of Activities.

In March 2020 I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking dates and details of the training including:

– Cost of the training
– Contract/agreement/TORs for commissioning the training
– Copies of any presentation material and/or hand outs used
– Which judges attended the training^

The Ministry of Justice refused the request, saying that it didn’t hold the information. I asked for a review by the Judicial College. The Judicial College said it only holds information on behalf of the judiciary, and in any case is not covered by FOI and is therefore exempt from disclosure. I complained to the Information Commissioner who also agreed that the public had no right to have any information on Gendered Intelligence’s training of judges (or indeed any other lobby group training judges in secret).

Tomorrow the case goes to tribunal. I am represented in this case by barrister Naomi Cunningham.

"and I'd take large bets against it given that the erroneous statistics turned up in J Tayler's ruling against Maya (overturned on appeal)."

It was a particularly outstanding example of policy-based evidence-making.

🤞Maya.

The presentation started with information about the wider context for trans identities, which is much broader than is covered by the EqA. There was an exploration of how sex, gender and sexual orientation interact as well as discussion of key terms and use of language. Additionally, the talk covered the basics of legislation with regard to the rights and responsibilities around trans identities (such as the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

One would have thought that ET Judges would have been well aware of the basics of legislation and how they apply. I would hazard a guess that the rights and responsibilities around trans identities referred to Stonewall Law not the actual law as written and passed in Parliament. What's the betting the use of language was to do with misgendering which isn't recognised on any Statute anywhere.

Following the session, delegates were provided with a comprehensive document signposting links to a wide range of resources and list of relevant organisations.

I bet they were and I bet I know where those resources came from and which organisations were listed as relevant.

Why do Judges require training on Law from a lobby group that has NO legal qualifications, why is the public paying for this and why is what the training entailed being hidden from the public and why is the cost of said training being hidden?

There is a putrid smell about this.

@SpindelWhorl

Re the Chacko piece, I'm reading the foreward by Charles Wide QC former Senior Circuit Judge sitting at the Old Bailey.

He writes,

It is hard to avoid the impression that, in relation to what is ‘acceptable’ terminology, the ETBB has taken its tone from activists.

The judges' Judicial College should be fucking ashamed of this travesty. Wide further notes,

The Judicial College has refused to disclose the identities of the experts and organisations which have contributed to the preparation of the ETBB

This Bench Book affects us all. It affects the justice we're all allowed to have. But we're not allowed to know anything about the shady activists who pushed its contents on to the judiciary.

Maya's definitely mining a rich seam here.

This is appalling. This is not Open Justice, this is back-door, hidden from view, open to corruption Justice.

I've said it before this is an absolute scandal.

This is appalling. This is not Open Justice, this is back-door, hidden from view, open to corruption Justice.

We've had some FWR threads on the ETBB (one posted upthread) and it's long past the point at which this needs to be addressed.

The lack of transparency will undermine the public understanding of the fairness of the judiciary.

I'd put good money on the Judicial College having a cowardly reason why it's reluctant to give up a list of the judges who've 'had the training', knowing it'll be compared against their subsequent rulings.

I think this is why Maya has done this. Win or lose, she wins.

Let's get this scandal talked about.

@HeronLanyon can I just say thank you for taking the time to challenge the judge on the (pointless) use of gender. Would have been easy to let it slide.

I've read mayas live tweets of the case.

There used to be a body called the Judicial Studies something(sorry dont remember the name). It's purpose was to train judges. It was included by parliament as one of the bodies covered by the freedom of information act. That was parliament's will. It has been superceded by (described as evolving into) the judicial college whose purpose is also to train judges. However, the list of bodies covered by foi wasn't updated. The defunct body is still listed, but not the new one. The judicial college continued answering foi questions like its predecessor. In 2014 the information commissioner (I think it was) issued clarification, saying that the judicial college was not covered by foi. The college therefore stopped answering foi questions, abd that's why it wouldn't answer mamya's foi.

I want to know on what grounds the information commissioner decided that the jc was not a public body for foi purposes, removing our ability to scrutinise training of judges. This seems to me to be thwarting the will of Parliament.

I hope the judges on the case are sensible.

Thank you for your insights, HeronLanyon and for challenging that judge.

Like Hoardasurass I have wondered about being told in court to refer to someone I know is male as a woman. Now I'm hoping never to find myself in that situation, but what do you think might happen if I directly asked the judge "Are you ordering me to lie under oath?" if I got that instruction?

Because if I'm swearing an oath to tell the truth in court, I'm not swearing an oath to tell an abstract, absolute truth. I am promising to tell the truth as I know it to be. I can be genuinely mistaken about the truth, I may have misheard or miss vital information but I tell the truth as I know it.

So in my view an instruction that I refer to someone I know to be a man as a woman, is in conflict with that oath.

Is being held in contempt the worst that might happen?

Jesus. Transgender lobby groups are actually running this country.

No wonder the most outrageous inhumanity is being perpetuated like rapists being given access to women as part of their sentence.

Or as SpindelWhorl so elegantly puts it "When are the EHRC going to get a grip on this festering shit?".

And yes, even if maya loses, she wins.

The curtains are open.

Anyone wanting to support Maya, definitely support the organisation she has co-founded Sex Matters. Subscribe to their weekly emails, do a one-off donation or become a supporter with regular donations. This enables Maya and her colleagues to do their work.

I wonder whether providing training for judges might be something they consider after this

@CharlieParley

Thank you for your insights, HeronLanyon and for challenging that judge.

Like Hoardasurass I have wondered about being told in court to refer to someone I know is male as a woman. Now I'm hoping never to find myself in that situation, but what do you think might happen if I directly asked the judge "Are you ordering me to lie under oath?" if I got that instruction?

Because if I'm swearing an oath to tell the truth in court, I'm not swearing an oath to tell an abstract, absolute truth. I am promising to tell the truth as I know it to be. I can be genuinely mistaken about the truth, I may have misheard or miss vital information but I tell the truth as I know it.

So in my view an instruction that I refer to someone I know to be a man as a woman, is in conflict with that oath.

Is being held in contempt the worst that might happen?

Maria Mc was punished in some way wasn't she? The judge reduced her damages or wouldn't award her damages for assault because she wouldn't call her assailant a woman.

Someone else will remember the exact situation I'm sure.

So basically the Judicial college say that because they changed their name they are no longer covered by the legislation? Seems a rather handy way that other orgs might be able to slip out of their responsibilities.

Maria Mc was punished in some way wasn't she? The judge reduced her damages or wouldn't award her damages for assault because she wouldn't call her assailant a woman

If the outcome is positive in this case, does that open the door to revisit other cases like Maria's?

because they changed their name they are no longer covered by the legislation? Seems a rather handy way that other orgs might be able to slip out of their responsibilities.

quite. no public body should be allowed to do this

Honestly, I'm still reeling. Our entire judiciary is being run by a lobby group.

@Datun

Honestly, I'm still reeling. Our entire judiciary is being run by a lobby group.

The tentacles stretch far and wide, Datun, the more that is uncovered the worse it becomes, oh to be so oppressed that I have the Judiciary in my back pocket.

That doesn't say it is not just a change of name. If the role, people, relationships, statutory underpinnings, etc were the same on 1st April as they had been on 31st March then it is just a name change.

JurassickJay you might want to read Maya's tweets from court. As pointed out the constitutional reform took place before the name change.

Decision reserved.

Does that mean they are going away to think about it?

Yes