Maya Forstater hearing starts Monday

[MForstater]

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions .

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

Ahh, it looks like a decision was made not to bring Maya onboard as an employee, and that is something that does relate to employment law and discrimination:

When someone breaks the law on protected characteristics – for example, an employer chooses not to hire someone because of their race – it’s known as direct discrimination.

Huge thank you to Tabbycatstripey for transcribing this morning - you are making it so easy to follow.

Also thank you to SpinningTheSeedsOfLove for the info from Maya's FAQs yesterday about the relevance of being an employee.

I also found this info from the Crowdfunder page:
CGD’s case (as set out in their opening statement) is that:

On employment status - At no time was I an “employee” within the meaning of s.83 of the Equality Act and therefore my claims fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

And if there is jurisdiction to hear the claims, then “The Respondent’s case, in short, is that undertakings are not obliged, on pain of legal liability, to have their mission undermined by an individual’s communications and behaviours, whether internally or on social media, which cause offence and disruption, contradict its policy of inclusion, and which are reasonably regarded as discriminatory.”

My case is that I was both an employee, a past employee and a potential future employee at various times (which are all covered by the Equality Act) and was discriminated against by being investigated without being given a fair opportunity to participate, and then having future work offers revoked.

The respondents are seeking to distinguish between my substantive beliefs (which they say were not a reason for the treatment) and the manner in which I expressed them.

So having future employment (either as a substantive employee or as a contractor) revoked on the basis that a (protected) belief is offensive to other employees would seem to definitely be covered by the EA. Causing offence through the expression of that belief (tone, means of expression etc) would be grounds for choosing not to continue with employment. But that would have to be expression in a manner that presumably met some threshold for disciplinary action (such as violating a CGD policy about harassment?), not just that another employee said they were offended.

Ben Cooper is an absolute women's right hero.

Just nipping in to say that after being unable to log into the court at 9.30am, or later, I did manage to access it half an hour ago. It's riveting.

How, if CGD can be easily captured by gender ideologists, can it be trusted on anything? How can you trust them on tax issues if they — individuals and organisation — can be persuaded to deny material reality?

Ben just laughed. He couldn't help it.

This is an absolute car crash! Ben Cooper is a legend.

It looks like the QI input, yet again, has caused more of a mess for CGD. I wonder whether CGD will learn anything from this or will they just assume that the solution is more DE&I training.

His pulse never got above 85...

it is inherently unacepttable and offensive to take view that TW are not women and that anyone that takes that view should not be allowed to do any work with or for the respondents

Cripes.

So, in this bit...

BC: Why mention misgendering, MF had told you she would not.
LE: Didn't feel sure that was 100% sure
BC: But unless you are claiming she lied, you are saying that the "misgendering" consisted only of her view that TW are not women?
LE: there was risk
BC: I think we have understood as much as we can here

...LE seems to be suggesting that Maya was sacked for something she might do, rather than something she actually did. I'm not an expert on employment law, but that feels decidedly dubious. After all, you can't arrest someone for a crime they might commit in future, can you?

Gosh. I knew it would be good but this is completely unbelieveable.

Well done Maya, you have broken the back of this insanity.

to you and Ben.

Maya's changing the fucking world! If I was an international think tank I'd be snapping you up, Maya. I appreciate that's probably not much comfort ...

Ben Cooper is an absolute women's right hero.

I can't wait to see him take on Stonewall for Allison!

LE: there was risk

Yes, Corgi. This is sacking someone for fear that they might say something you don't agree with. Effectively for what she is (a woman with certain views) rather than what she's done (or not done)

How can you trust them on tax issues if they — individuals and organisation — can be persuaded to deny material reality?

Yes - what would you trust these clowns to advise you on?

The only hope is the actual "thinky" bit of the think-tank is better than the HR department.

Is this a bit like the Guardian mess where all the IT support staff were denouncing the journalists? Do we know if the complainants here were in "support" or "thinky" functions?

BC: Your first step was to email 5 members of staff asking for their views of MF's tweets.
LE: yes
BC: Here is the email. You BCCd so none of the 5 could see names of other 4.
LE: yes
BC: you say you want broad perspective of view
LE: yes
BC: Laudable aim. You need broad range of views across Washington and London offices
LE: Yes
BC: but these 5 people are all known to you as having stated hostility to the claimant.
LE: But those were the people I knew had taken interest

Wow! Can he not hear himself? This is an astonishing exchange.

@yourhairiswinterfire

Ben Cooper is an absolute women's right hero.

I can't wait to see him take on Stonewall for Allison!

I'm really looking forward to that one. It's fairly soon isn't it? April/May?

I don't know. Are you implying men are going to dress up as women? I don't find that credible.

No special dressing required, is there. Just a declaration given that no challenges are possible.

Just because I’m an atheist doesn’t make me uniquely dangerous to religious people being safe from discrimination at work.

Sophocles that’s a really brilliant pithy statement of all this. I will keep it in my back pocket in case needed at work.

Thank you so much tabbycat for your transcript extracts and for everyone’s insight into this case on here. Hope Maya is holding up well.

They broke for lunch. That was fascinating. But it's the inevitable outcome of giving DEI teams so much leverage over the rest of how organisations do business. You hire people who want to 'foster inclusion' and eventually they lead you in front of an ET because 'inclusion' by their definition is inherently flawed.

I'm really looking forward to that one. It's fairly soon isn't it? April/May?

It is! It's going to be 20 days long

From Allison's update:

The main point arising from today is that the Full Merits Hearing (Trial) has now been extended from 8 days to 20 days. The Tribunal (and the lawyers’ diaries) could not accommodate this until April 2022, so the trial has been moved back until then, and is now running from 25 April to 23 May 2022.

@yourhairiswinterfire

I'm really looking forward to that one. It's fairly soon isn't it? April/May?

It is! It's going to be 20 days long

From Allison's update:

The main point arising from today is that the Full Merits Hearing (Trial) has now been extended from 8 days to 20 days. The Tribunal (and the lawyers’ diaries) could not accommodate this until April 2022, so the trial has been moved back until then, and is now running from 25 April to 23 May 2022.

We're going to need a few threads for that one I feel.

Laudable aim is some excellent lawyer snark. I'll keep it in mind for the next time there is a significant gap between stated expectation and outcome at work.