Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

[Sophoclesthefox]

Forgive the presumption, @Mforstater, but you’re probably busy in the pub right now, or passing on all of the fan mail to you legal team so I’ve made a new thread to carry on the fascinating discussion.

Round up your cats, rabbits and weasels, and let’s go!

——————————————————————————————

From thread one, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

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 hmm.

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

BC asking about political engagement - demonstrations, literature, an informal library.

MP says yes but he doesn't remember what was in it and it was work related.

BC says it was political but MP doesn't recall.

It's a bit rich them calling themselves a Global think tank when it's starting to look like the hegemony of the Washington DC culture was not allowed to be challenged.

We've just gone past halfway through the thread!

MP only recalls things related to work topics.

BC back to banter. In the banter, people expressed view candidly?'

MP: sometimes.

BC: This is a think tank so your employees don't tend to be shy of a debate?

MP: Depends what the debate is. They will speak when they have something to say.

BC: When those topics were discussed, it was in the nature of debate that people make arguments?

MP: Yes.

BC: Part of the point of that is testing the other person's side?

MP: Yes.

BC: It might be to persuade?

MP: I think so, with respect and good-naturedly.

BC:

MP says it was never ad hom. Always based on evidence and reason.

BC goes to the bundle.

(I'm going to stop for a bit as I'm losing track a bit with his very quick answers!).

But overall this is quite interesting. Covers some good-natured intellectual debate on this topic between MF and (I think) Owen Barder.

So far I'm getting the impression that MP is playing this straight. Direct answers, not trying to finesse. Let's see how it develops.

Confirms CGD didn't have an institutional position. MP says CGD has never had one.

Is MP British or an American who worked in the London office?

BC confirms CGD had no institutional position on what an employee could say on those topics and MP confirms this. It needed to be respectful, MP says, and where possible based on evidence.

Yes, American.

@tabbycatstripy

Yes, American.

Thanks

MP challenges the idea that nothing was done because of MF's poor evidence base. MP says it was because of people's reactions (I think), but he seems to conflate this with the evidence base.

MP says he is not saying people couldn't discuss issues unless they had an evidence base.

A bit of background to see where MP is coming from:

www.cgdev.org/expert/mark-plant

Going to the bundle.

Email MP wrote in Feb 2019. This is written after the main events. Final decision was to be taken at this point. BC suggests MP's email reflects the overall or fundamental questions senior management had been debating.

MP says the email reflects the fact that we are in an area where the claimant was expressing a belief, and in doing that she used language some people found offensive, that could impede the work in the office, and that it would be appropriate that, because that belief was not central to work, that we could ask that that belief not come into the workplace.

BC says thank you. Repeats question. Does it reflect the overall questions that you and your colleague had been debating?

MP: Sure.

Just placemarking.
Tabby you are a remarkable woman.

The email basically confirms that there was no corporate line, but then refers to some positions as 'abhorrent', e.g. extreme racial extermination or apartheid. Is MF's position so extreme that it merits dissociation? MP would argue it was not.

MP: that's my summary of the reports.

BC asks about positions CGD would find abhorrent (extreme positions). BC says this reflects the sort of comparisons people had been making.

MP denies this.

MP says there is a question about what beliefs can be constructively expressed so work can be accomplished. There are some beliefs that wouldn't be tolerated. But there are beliefs in the middle that excite great passion, and the question is which of those beliefs should be allowed in order to ensure a functioning office and respect?

It's interesting to reflect on the tone of the evidence we've had so far:
LE: It was offensive!
AG: Maya is entitled to hold those belief but expression of them should be suppressed.
MP: Maya's beliefs were a problem when they interrupted the smooth running of the workplace.

Thanks very much, Tabbycatstripy, for transcribing what is being said.
Much appreciated.

MP seems to be distinguishing between extremist positions and MF's position.

BC says there were senior people on the other side of that, who did find her beliefs to be that extreme.

MP: The beliefs might be expressed but we would have to be very careful about how, and beliefs on both sides would have to be tolerated. But if it was interrupting the workplace, we would have to put them aside.

BC doesn't think that answered the question. He says MP supported MF because her work was good. MP thought her beliefs were in the middle category and they could find a route through.

MP says yes.

BC says my question was about the people on the other side of that debate, and their views. That there were people who thought those beliefs shouldn't be tolerated at all.

MP: No, they thought the expression was often disrespectful and thereby had the potential to alienate people and they didn't feel that could be managed.

BC: Moves to beginning of MP's involvement with MF. MP was involved on fundraising for tax and illicit flows with Gates.

MP: Yes.

This discussion with Mark Plant has clarified Owen Barder's stance for me: I'm not surprised.

I note that MP says that OB and MF had lunchtime discussion about sex and gender issues and that it was good-natured and of an appropriate intellectual standard.

Given MP's summary of QI, I have to wonder how we're going to have clarity here. He assigned MF's beliefs to a middle ground but others considered it extremist and not susceptible to constructive management?

OB can talk about Christianity, discuss his atheism, his vasectomy and circumcision as CSA, but those weren't disruptive? Why is MF's set of beliefs so uniquely disruptive that it couldn't be expressed in a workplace and hope to have mutual respect and smooth running.

BC asks whether MP understood MF was a paid VF.

MP: Yes.

BC: Did you know that work had been found for her pending securing long-term funding?

MP: (Didn't hear).

(My dog is barking.)

because that belief was not central to work

So the material reality of men and women and if they even exist at all in a legal, biological or categorical sense has zero bearing on any of their work?

Oh please.