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

So she wanted to talk to them about the ideology that men can be women and women can be men, in terms of global poverty and the schooling of girls?

Of course. How the fuck were they ever going to square that circle?

It's the same issue of dual processes going on simultaneously, isn't it? That everyone knows that sexism exists and females are the victims, but laid over the top of that is an ideology that means when you're talking about the ideology of what men want, you have to stop believing in sexism.

The same way that two men can be lesbians, or a man and a woman can be a gay couple, which means you have to stop believing in homophobia based on sex, for the duration of that thought. But the same people can still talk about homophobia as if it is based on sex!

Will the fact that EM was clearly the leading trans ally at CGD, and orchestrated complaints and amplification, but has not been put forward as a witness be noted by the judge? Is there any weight give to who does and who does not appear?

Back, but I'm still having a break because my fingers hurt!

Did Maya have Ben Clarke in her original tribunal.

@nauticant

Each day I've chosing the setting to be muted and then that status took a minute or so to get updated as such on the screen Triotriotrio.

Ah, that will be it... I've been clicking to be muted but it wasn't appearing to work.

I think using Ben Clarke would have been a bit confrontational: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Clarke

Did Maya have Ben Clarke in her original tribunal.

In the first hearing she was represented by Anya Palmer.
In its appeal she was represented by Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer.

Cooper!

@PoshPyjamas no she had Anya Palmer (who was excellent, also made mincemeat of LE), the issue in the first one was that the judge had been benchbooked

Back to discussing MF's employment status October 2018, I think. Discussing fundraising for the project.

MP still saying processes had to be gone through, etc. next steps somewhat unclear and it wasn't 'full steam ahead.'

BC challenging this and saying they were making a big push for fundraising in Oct 2018.

MP has agreed that CGD were going to proceed with fundraising effort actively.

[quote drwitch]@PoshPyjamas no she had Anya Palmer (who was excellent, also made mincemeat of LE), the issue in the first one was that the judge had been benchbooked[/quote]
What does benchbooked mean?

It relates to guidance for judges which in recent times has been turned in some ways into a political document WWRGD:

www.judiciary.uk/announcements/equal-treatment-bench-book-new-edition/

This looks fascinating

How do you join?

@WWRGD It was the earlier version of The Equal Treatment Benchbook which has TWAW running through it - it was also responsible for the judge in the Maria Mc?? case (the one where she was told off for misgendering her attacker)

If anyone wants to learn more, have a look here:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/01/03/the-new-interim-version-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book/

"benchbooked"

Been trained on trans issues by pro trans lobby groups. Maya/Legal Feminist are currently engaged in a 'battle' over disclosure on what the training constituted, the content etc. There's a technical 'get out clause' they're challenging via the court. Basically there's a lot of finger pointing & saying 'it's not me' when asked for details & a claim that they're under no obligation to disclose any details.

Thank you @nauticant and @drwitch

[quote nauticant]If anyone wants to learn more, have a look here:

legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/01/03/the-new-interim-version-of-the-equal-treatment-bench-book/[/quote]
See also this thread and the linked article about the ETBB

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4291072-Policy-Exchange-Why-the-Equal-Treatment-Bench-Books-needs-urgent-revision

Email from EM to MA.

BC asks if it's clear to MP that this is EM asking someone else to convey a message.

MP: Yes. MA should give MP a heads up.

BC: infers that there was some discussion about the claimant's position between EM and MA because she is referring to an understanding about the claimant's future.

MP: Don't know.

BC: She's careful about what she writes down.

MP: I don't know about when she's talking to MA.

BC: You agreed with me before.

MP: Yes.

BC: So it must follow that her discussions are oral?

EJ: Not sure. I don't think MP can answer that.

BC: MP, were you party to any discussions at this time that were not written down?

MP: Not that I recall.

Email is about funding at DfID but I don't fully get that.

BC: Were you given heads up from MA that because of tweets, the funding push should be halted?

MP: No.

BC: Back to bundle. Asking you about emails you were deliberately copied out of. Exchange about whether to bring on someone else as SF. Then at top of page, EM takes MP out of the thread. MA mentions using some of this money for another project: if we take MF off the grant we can redirect. Were you party to the discussion on this?

MP: No.

BC: Were you told around this time that EM wished to remove MF from the Gates grant?

MP: No.

BC: Back to bundle. LE email. Were you party to discussions in which MA said he was leaning towards not renewing VF?

MP: I don't believe so.

BC: Email from MP. Have had conversation with MA in November. We see from email that MA is hesitant to push for funding for MF as he doesn't see it as central to work CGD should be doing. Could MP convey to complainants so they don't push for funding?

MP: Yes.

BC: So taking in stages. You were certainly told at this point after the discussions we see in other emails we have just gone through, that push for funding with DfID should be stopped?

MP: Yes. Conversation with MA. He had realised that MF was figuring in the Gates grant and he informed me that that line of work wasn't something he wanted to invest heavily in (work with DfID)

BC:

This is very interesting!

Is BC's line going to be that MP was reasonable, saw no big issue with Maya's tweets, and engaged constructively her, but then the decisions about Maya were (deliberately) taken without MP's involvement?

The emails referred to are being posted on the Tribunal Tweets thread, here's an example for anyone not following there:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1504426516339437569?s=20&t=cRXJ5_o1xAg-8aCPfUWJzw

"Taking Mark off the thread."

BC: The reason MA gave you (repeats it).

MP: Yes, he expressed scepticism about whether it had legs. Didn't see it as a line he wanted to spend resources on.

BC: The whole thrust of the proposal that was to be funded by Gates was to move into work in that line (basically).

MP: That is correct. (some discussion of the work that I don't understand).

BC: You just said MA didn't want to spend resources, but you had the resources for it from Gates.

MP: Yes, that was all but a done deal, but he didn't want to invest more.

BC: I don't understand. DfID wasn't going to come to be used for something else was it?

MP: It was more open, could have been used for something else.

BC: You were being directed not to push for money. Being told not to get money in, in order to block MF's work.

MP: No. It was that there would be a limit to the amount we could get from DfID.

BC: No, look at the email. You were being told to not push for money, not to redirect it.

MP: No but there was an ongoing process with DfID of exploring what they would finance. Gates proposal had different areas and we were looking for complimentary finance. MA did not want to fund MF work further.

BC: Back to bundle. Essay about building a think and do tank (?). 2014. Says policy areas CGD is involved in. Last four lines: been convinced that CGD can make contributions in (lists)... illicit financial flows.

MP: Yes, it is an area where we can make contributions but not core. '

BC: Important?

MP: We can make meaningful contributions.

BC: Do you agree that in 2014 IFF were important to CGD?

MP: No.

BC: Back to bundle. CGDE trustees' annual report says it focused its policies in... (includes transparency and IFF).

[This part is BC trying to show CGDE did focus on illicit financial flows.]

BC: Papers from board meeting in 2017. Says CGD will focus on... (includes IFF).

MP: That's what it says.

BC: Is it true?

MP: I wasn't there and can't tell you.

BC: For a number of weeks you were.

MP: I wasn't closely involved with the strategy.

BC: Papers for a 2018 board meeting: CGD current research and policy work = illicit financial flows and tax. Was it important in 2018?

MP: It was an area in 2018.

[BC continuing in same vein here.]