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

The implication again is that the new CGD line developed once MF had won in the High Court is that she was perfectly entitled to hold WORIADS belief but GC beliefs are so inherently problematic that really she shouldn't have expressed them at all.

The judge is nicely drawing attention to the disingenuity of "you can state certain beliefs but not discuss them".

I have to go out in a minute. So sorely tempted to cancel all my plans for the day.

Looking forward to catching up later.

BC: And she replies to effect that (and MP is copied in). You saw it at or around that time. You don't refer to this or your reaction to it in your witness statement. It's fair to say she is trying to help senior people to understand.

MP: Yes.

BC: And she's done what has been asked (disclaimer).

MP: Yes.

BC: And she makes clear that at work and socially she will respect identities.

MP: Yes.

BC: You saw nothing objectionable, did you?

MP: Long pause. I certainly was struggling with the distinctions between reality and feelings.

BC: As we agree, it's a complicated argument, but that doesn't make it one that it is inappropriate for her to engage in?

MP: No.

BC: Nor that people take offence?

MP: Yes, but at work we have to treat those sensitivities with respect too.

BC: Treat with respect, but let's see if we can agree... Did you know belief is a PC?

MP: No. I do now.

BC: Protected like race and sex and orientation.

MP: I know now.

BC: Leaving aside belief, looking at discrimination and tolerance... Tolerance means tolerating things you don't agree with, doesn't it?

MP: Yes.

BC: So if you have a Christian person, who holds belief that same sex relationships are wrong, that person is still required to tolerate working with gay people?

MP: yes.

BC: You would tell that person, if they complained, that you understand and respect their offence, but tolerance means there's nothing we can do.

MP: It depends on how the offence was manifested.

BC: You're right. You cant say gay people can't kiss outside work in the morning.

MP: Yes, but how did the gay person come to know they were offending someone? Each person has the right to belief and must be tolerant of each other's belief.

BC: I agree, but I am exploring the principles. You would tell the Christian person that they had to tolerate it, wouldn't you? Tough luck.

MP: Yes.

BC: And again, on principle, the underlying proposition is that you can't single out this particular characteristic for different treatment from everything else?

MP: Doesn't understand.

BC: Sexual orientation. You can't say because SO is offensive, we will discriminate?

MP: Yes.

BC: So in context of belief, you have a choice as an org. You could say no discussion on anything not work-related. Yes?

MP: Yes.

BC: That wasn't CGD's position, was it?

MP: There was discussion of other beliefs, yes.

BC: Once you allow discussion of beliefs, apart from inherently unacceptable beliefs... This was CGD's position?

MP: No. It was about expression of the beliefs.

BC: I am not exploring that. I am exploring expression. CGD took position that people could express their beliefs if they were not extreme beliefs? No beliefs off limits for expression and discussion?

MP: Not off-limits. That said, there are certain beliefs that are going to be hard to work through in the workplace and it has to be sensitive. It's going to take time and effort to get them understood and discussed. Some will be so complex that it takes away from the function of the workplace. Why do we need to duscuss them?

BC: Because belief is a PC. The holding of GC beliefs is a PC. We have agreed on the principle: you didn't have a rule for all beliefs. You were saying you would discriminate.

MP: Holding them is PC...

BC: We can argue that in due course, but you are saying that you will discriminate against some beliefs and not others?

MP: I will discriminate on how they are expressed.

BC: No. What you said is that some beliefs can't be expressed because they are too complicated and sensitive. Why do we need to go down that road? Some beliefs that can't be expressed at all at CGD?

MP: They can be expressed as a statment without discussion.

BC: You are unable to point to any other belief where that was done?

MP: The... atmosphere in the London office, I felt, was too permissive, and I make it clear that complaints had been raised about discomfort in various areas. In some sense there is some limit about the extent to which certain beliefs can be discussed.

EJ: I am not sure I have your answer to whether there were other beliefs which were treated in the same way? You seem to say both.

MP: Not that I know of. Not specifically treated like that, but causing difficulties.

BC: Let's be clear, in neither london nor Washington can you point to any other belief having been ringfenced against discussion?

MP: Correct

BC: Clear from your answers that a central reason for actions taken in respect of MF's beliefs was offence caused to others.

MP: That brought the issue to the fore.

BC: Am I right that you didn't directly speak to complainants?

MP: Correct

BC: Deliberately didn't want to know who?

MP: Correct

BC: So your understanding of their position must be based on written material we can see?

MP: Correct

BC:

BC: "It was the offensive caused to other people [that caused the problem CGD had with MF] wasn't it?"

MP: "That brought it to fore, yes."

BIWI, MP won't get threats of rape or have anyone try to terminate his contract or call him a terf because he's a white man.

MP: McKenzie's opposition [to MF's being appointed] was due to financial implications. She took a dim view of expanding the London office.

Oh dear.

Oooh. Ben's getting cross

After being pushed by BC, MP seems to be backing away from his position over McKenzie that it was all about the money.

BC drawing attention to McKenzie being careful to keep things off the written record. MP confirms this because McKenzie could seem that litigation was coming. This is quite enjoyable to listen to. In my past experience not only would you tell people to keep it off the record but you not put that in writing.

I am dipping in and out of watching the hearing - MP's body language and demeanour is different now than earlier.

I am in awe of BC.

Oh bloody hell I was hoping to get on with some work today.

This is fascinating

ditto. fascinating. like watching a car crash in progress

BC: Following MF response, the thing that kicks off next round of discussion is EM email. Yes?

MP: Yes.

BC: And before we look at how the debate evolved... First, EM was firmly against the claimant's renewal from outset?

MP: Yes. Particularly not happy with expansion or budget for London as well. She took a very dim view of that.

BC: EM was firmly opposed to renewal of VF?

MP: On Oct 4, said there should be robust discussion and there would be some backlash.

BC: Did EM ever say or write anything to you that was not opposed?

MP: It does not oppose it. I don't know what she was thinking.

BC: It wasn't about funding.

MP: True

BC: It's to do with backlash, yes?

MP: Yes, from some.

BC: And you understood that was to do with expression of beliefs?

M{: Yes.

BC: Are you really going to tell us this was about budgets?

MP: No.

BC: So let's talk honestly. In all your interactions with EM, she took a dim view of MF's tweets, didn't she?

MP: EM communicated in a very short and cryptic manner. She was opposed to renewing the VF. She doesn't speak about her view of the claimant's beliefs.

BC: You started to answer something. Let's come back to it. You are right that EM is very careful about what she says in writing.

MP: Yes.

BC: Back to bundle. This is from just after termination of relationship. Some discussion about what to do. How to communicate to staff in view of the farewell email. We see AG communicating on behalf of EM: advises to convey to staff verbally and not take a stand on values.

MP: At this point in time, we have received communication from claimant and her email, and EM states earlier that she thinks we are headed to litigation and best not to write anything down.

BC: Back to bundle - disagreement about what should be said, EM has got the message something will be said, and she suggests CGD never tried to convince MF her opinions were incorrect, it was about respectful dialogie. That's your mantra, isn't it? Unfortunately we were unsuccessful, yes?

MP: Yes.

BC: Your response is to disagree with EM. You say MF did everything we asked of her. There was no negotiation to find a way forward. Only thing MF was intransigent on was her views. You are clear EM is not only cryptic, but when she does (didn't hear...) EM is prepared to be less than transparent, yes?

MP: What... What she says was her view. She doesn't believe... We didn't establish a workable way to take things forward. These are her thoughts.

BC: She hasn't been called, has she? What you say is that her account is not true and less than transparent.

MP: Yes, I disagreed. There... There wasn't... She felt we were unsuccessful. I didn't think we were unsuccessful in negotiations. She felt that any agreement we might have come to wasn't going to work.

BC: You are saying there was no negotiation to find a way forward. You are disagreeing with her factually about what she was trying to send to staff.

MP: I'm saying I disagree with her, yes.

BC: EM's behaviour is also - see if you agree - she very often likes to pull strings and get others to say what she wants them to say.

MP: We can explore that.

BC: Example from bundle.

BC: Next thing to look at. Email from Ellen Mackenzie.
BC: EM was firmly opposed to fellowship for MF from the outset.
MP: EM was unhappy about expansion of London office for financial considerations. Dim view of expanding London

2 min later ...

BC: Nothing to do with finance.
MP: No

Good grief. I can see why they did not call this particular complainant (to remain unnamed, I think) and it's all fallen on the relatively phlegmatic and unflappable MP.

"Perhaps provide a punch bag or crying room where those upset by the views of others at work can go and cry rather than not hire or sack people who have a view some others at work do not like."

This is a great idea! I love the idea of a "crying room" for the terminally offended/upset.

because an argument may be nuanced and require care and thought, and some people may not understand it and wrongly take offence

This has made me think about how other people react to us for having the opinions we do. So for me this is something I have always thought instinctively, becoming a mother just confirmed it, and as soon as I started reading the boards on here many years ago everything just seemed absolutely obvious. The dangers of conflating sex and gender in law are evident. So, many of us have been considering this issue for years, thinking through the nuances of the argument with care and thought, accompanied by this board full of well-informed, well thought-out, witty comment. We are passionate about it. We remember all the statistics and know all the safeguarding risks. We have read the 'it never happens' threads. We sometimes annoy our family and friends with the latest 'bee in our bonnet'.

We understand what's going on, and the importance of it, and we forget that many (most?) men and many, many women, have just never even thought about it. So our position, which is actually mature and considered, just sounds crazy to them, and they do take offence.
I find it crazy that most people haven't thought about it, but I'm pretty sure they haven't.

And this is also why we have all the threads asking about the best way to broach this with others. We are in a completely different place to most of the rest of the country, and because it is an issue we are really passionate about, it's hard to 'just drop in one fact'.
Sorry, longer than I thought it would be!

Huge thanks for the live reporting!

I want to see Ellen MacKenzie being cross-examined by BC! She sounds like a real operator.

I've been getting her name wrong, it's MacKenzie:

www.cgdev.org/staff/ellen-mackenzie

I’m not watching, only following the live tweeting, but MP sounds like he’s on the ropes a bit, and BC isn’t allowing any wriggle room. It’s amazing stuff.

MP:. There wasn't. She felt. We hadn't. EM felt that we hadn't found way forward - I thought we had.

BC: Not so. You say "there was no negotiation to find a way forward". You are saying to EM: what you are proposing to send to staff is not transparent

BOOM

MP: "it's an inherently controversial set of views that get people going"

BC: Ahead of SPG meeting to discuss renewal, organising opposition, osn't she?

MP: That's what she says.

BC: We know from other docs that Holly and Cindy had taken a view that MF's tweets etc were unacceptable?

MP: We would have to look at that in detail.

BC: Do you understand amplification technique involves coordinating responses to make harder to ignore?

MP: Yes.

BC: Back to bundle. QI report. She had two sources of info. One email briefing from you with attachments, the other a verbal briefing from you on 3 Jan 2019?

MP: Yes

BC: She says she understands (from briefing?) that a few members of senior staff in Washington have expressed concerns about her tweets? So it's that a few senior staff had expressed objections and offence at the claimant's tweets?

MP: Yes

BC: EM was one of them

MP: I don't know

BC: When you met MF Nov/Dec to explain why things were happening, you told her she had antagonised key people in Washington?

MP: I don't recall that, no.

BC: Did you tell her strong voices from Washington were opposed to her?

MP: No.

BC: Back to bundle. Written briefing to QI.

MP: This is initial email I sent to QI

BC: You say it's a policy issue in the UK, where MF takes what appears to be a minority view, that raises a visceral reaction in many people. You know you didn't deal with the complainants.

MP: Correct

BC: So the visceral reaction must be that of senior colleagues?

MP: No, I am recounting LE's reports and had read sufficient tweets to see that MF's views do get juices flowing.

BC: Your direct experience of visceral reaction is not from the tweets, because you said you didn't look at them all. Your experience is from discussions with senior colleagues?

MP: No.

BC: Back to bundle. You refer to a meeting of the SPG. You proposed to renew VF and that met resistance. That was the visceral reaction?

MP: Yes there was.

BC: Visceral?

MP: yes.

BC: This wasn't about some carefully nuanced debate about expressoin. This was EM and others emotionally saying the claimant's beliefs are things you can't say?

MP: I don't remember EM saying that. I remember one colleague saying something like that. This was why I wanted the QI report to reason through the situation.

BC:

@nauticant

MP: "it's an inherently controversial set of views that get people going"

Clearly people who work in woke think tanks have no idea just how uncontroversial the idea that women don't have penises is for most of society.

The danger of echo chambers. They think Twitter is an accurate reflection of real life.

@nauticant

MP: "it's an inherently controversial set of views that get people going"

Aagh, inherently controversial to believe that men aren't women ffs.