Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

[Whatamesssss]

Thread one, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Thread two, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4505825-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-2?pg=1

Tabby I'll ring in and tell them you are on a very important secret government mission

I think MP's weird insistence the accurate stats on sex offences are "misleading" is a result of a belief that women are too stupid to understand them. He knows that 99% of perpetrators of sex offences are male != 99% of males are sex offenders, but he thinks the audience of the video will be confused.

That minor rage aside, this is so satisfying. It's playing out like the occasional imaginary argument I'd have in the shower, only better. Kudos to Ben Cooper who is doing better against real opponents than I do against pretend ones!

And speaking of showers, I have even more respect for Maya's composure and class now I'm seeing what a complete shower she had to work with.

Back in...

BC: Back to bundle. MF never saw the secret report?

MP: N

BC: p.() - You forward the report to MA etc (senior people).

MP: Y

BC: p() This is the email from QI sending you final version of the vague report. See title.

MP: Y

BC: There's no email or other doc indicating you sent the secret report that was for you and LE?

MP: N

BC: MF response to vague report. Won't take you through all her points but her main point is that QI had judged her guilty but give no specifics. Yes?

MP: Y - true

BC: We know that was deliberate?

MP: Y

BC: That is a legit concern for MF to have if she is trying to move forward?

MP: Y

BC: Second MF concern is she suspects that the issue isn't one of language, it's one of belief. Reflection of pressure to shut down debate. We now know that was correct, don't we?

MP: Not necessarily a broader intent to do that

Did MP really say that the issue with the campaign video was that it presented statistics in black and red?

I mean, pass me the smelling salts and hand me to the fainting couch ... Black and red ... It's almost as bad as seeing them in black and white.

Back to secret QI report.

BC - it was forwarded to senior CGD staff. QI had sent final version to MP. Longer report was only for MP and LE. Maya's response - central concern was that QI judged guilty of offensive language but gave no examples.
MP - yes
BC - not an issue of language but substantive difference of opinion to shut down debate? That is correct, yes?
MP - there was difference but doesn’t agree they intended to shut down debate
[EJ intervenes to repeat reporting restrictions]
BC - claimant agrees with next steps & seeks constructive way forward
MP - yes
BC - not fair to criticise her for making those points
MP - it is not
BC - her central point is that her arguments & beliefs are ones she should be allowed to make
MP - those are her arguments & beliefs
BC - she’s not trying to persuade you of them
MP - she is not

BC - you didn’t specify things you wanted her to change, edit, apologise for?
MP - LE May have done
BC - we haven’t seen examples
MP - he did not
BC - Ms McKenzie is typically straight in 'we should end affiliation'

@InvisibleDragon it went a bit like this:

Ben - these stats on male violence are accurate aren't they? They aren't misleading?

Plant - no. But they were presented in an intimidating way.

Ben - how so?

Plant - well the black and red video was intimidating

Ben - yes but its a campaigning video. It wasn't trying to present a balanced viewpoint. Are you suggesting employees of CGD should only view videos they agree with?

(from memory, so sorry if that's not completely accurate)

Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer should write a book in a few years about being at the forefront of this insanity from a legal perspective. I'd buy several copies and give them out as Christmas presents.

This was discussed the other day InvisibleDragon. "Black and red" is "problematic" because it's a presentation "used by Neo-Nazis".

Obviously if the "Black and red" presentation is used by people who are not Neo-Nazis then it is not is "problematic".

@OvaHere

Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer should write a book in a few years about being at the forefront of this insanity from a legal perspective. I'd buy several copies and give them out as Christmas presents.

I'd suspect it would outsell Secret Barrister 's works.

I'd suspect it would outsell Secret Barrister 's works.

Agree. Hypothetical book should also be given gift wrapped to all law students on their first day.

BC - you met with claimant to have 'constructive discussion'
MP - yes
BC - email refers to this. You acknowledged to claimant that QI report had deficiencies. You agreed to set it to one side. That was her being constructive?
MP - yes
BC - claimant had. WY forward to propose, to create more separation between role at CDG and her tweeting on sex & gender
MP - yes, to be discussed
BC - promised not to discuss in office?
MP - yes
BC - you though she was being constructive and was good way forward
MP - yes
BC - but you didn’t want to continue fellowship & she became upset
MP - yes
BC - and this was because of Ms McKenzie's determination?
MP - ....

BC: We heard earlier answer, we went through QI report. Back to p.(), MF her first point is that she agrees with next steps to discuss situation.

MP: Y

BC: SHe is not being intransigent or difficult?

MP: N

BC: Given her central concern about the QI report were well-founded, it is not fair to criticise her for those points, is it?

MP: N

BC: Fair to say that her central point is that the arguments and beliefs she wishes to make are things she should be allowed to say?

MP: Y

BC: She is not seeking to persuade you at CGD to agree with her beliefs?

MP: N

BC: Where she is suggesting the concern is about belief, she says it could be rectified by editing or deleting tweets and apologising for her specific choices of language? So here is a clear opening for you or someone to say, yes, these are the specific things that cross the line. Would you edit/delete/apologise. That was a clear indication that - if it was about language - she was open to it?

MP: Y

BC: Neither you nor anyone else did this, and specified?

MP: LE did long before this but not after this.

BC: Let's not go back over this but LE didn't in fact suggest things for her to edit/delete/apologise?

MP: N

BC: p() - You forward MF response to core group, and EM is typically straight in with suggestion to AG to 'end her affiliation' and 'put an end to this'. Another example of EM asking someone else to convey her messages.

MP: She asked AG to say that to me.

BC: See if you agree with a contrast I draw. If there was intransigence at this point, it was on the part of EM, who was clearly implacably opposed to MF remaining as VF, wasn't it?

MP: EM wanted to end the affiliation.

BC: On 13 Feb, you met with MF to have the constructive discussion?

MP: Y

BC: p() - This is email referring to that and another discussion. You describe first discussion on 13 Feb. You acknowledge to MF that QI had deficiencies.

MP: Y

BC: She began by saying it was inadequate and you agreed?

MP: Y

BC: She was being constructive? Not debating the issues?

MP: Y

BC: She proposed a way forward. She thought it would create separation between role at CGD and writing on sex and gender?

MP: Y

BC: Said she would tweet less about it on main twitter and focus on tax there. It was clear to you that it was open to discussion about what extent she would tweet about s/g?

MP: Y

BC: No hard and fast parameters?

MP: It was to be discussed.

BC: She agreed not to raise in office and accepted she shouldn't have left the leaflet because it was a hot desk?

MP: Y

BC: You thought she was being helpful and it sounded like a way forward?

MP: Y

BC: So you agreed?

MP: Y

BC: But you said you didn't wish to take renewal of VF to SPG and she should consult on Gates?

MP: Y

BC: She became v upset?

MP: Y

BC: Reason was, you knew position of EM and others was intransigent?

MP: Y

BC: Because EM was intransigent and would not agree regardless of what MF did?

MP: I thought it would encounter substantial resistance.

BC: In that discussion MF asked for some indication apart from LE's very first conversation, of the particular tweets that were over the line?

MP: Y

BC: You gave teo examples?

MP: Y

BC: Video and her reference to 'material reality'?

MP: Y

BC:

Thank you Maya for being so clear in all your communication with your employer, it certainly makes it easy to pick apart the arguments in the tribunal.
Thank you also to Tabby and Ben for making the points easy to understand.
as a woman who is new to this and not a lawyer the transcripts are making the problem very clear.

@tabbycatstripy

So underneath it all, it seems that MP himself is offended by MF's reliance in her argument on the fact that males commit 99% of sex offences. That offends him.

So it's just misogyny.

I think someone being 'allowed' to correctly voice this statistic is what he is objecting to. IMO.

"Black and red" is "problematic" because it's a presentation "used by Neo-Nazis".

So, any propaganda style statistic presented by Stonewall in their old colours fits that description too? I can really see how Stonewall would be cringing at that very US centric take on that colouring.

@allmywhat

I think MP's weird insistence the accurate stats on sex offences are "misleading" is a result of a belief that women are too stupid to understand them. He knows that 99% of perpetrators of sex offences are male != 99% of males are sex offenders, but he thinks the audience of the video will be confused.

That minor rage aside, this is so satisfying. It's playing out like the occasional imaginary argument I'd have in the shower, only better. Kudos to Ben Cooper who is doing better against real opponents than I do against pretend ones!

And speaking of showers, I have even more respect for Maya's composure and class now I'm seeing what a complete shower she had to work with.

Ha! The imaginary shower argument but BETTER. Yes! Love this.

And yes, so very deeply satisfying to follow. All hail Maya.

Anyone finding the colour combination of black and red intimidating would have shit themselves upon entering the average bachelor pad in the 1980s.

That's not right Helleofabore. As I wrote, "if the "Black and red" presentation is used by people who are not Neo-Nazis then it is not is "problematic"." Because Stonewall are not Neo-Nazis then they're off the hook.

On the black and red point better hope that CGD do not do any work with Angola.

Germany, Belgium and Australian Aboriginals may also present problems. But maybe the gold neutralises things.

I don't think anyone could get very far legally with claiming that black and red colour schemes are intimidating or an indicastion of Nazism, or even inherently intimidating,

Pity poor Yemen too.

And Jesus College Cambridge!

Yes Yemen, well known as the home of Hitler's favourite people. Not.

BC - your first account of that convo with the claimant - she seems to understand the sensitivities & it should be kept out of workplace - so claimant was prepared to limit what she said?
MP - she did
BC - Ms McKenzie's response was to disbelieve this, yes?
MP - that’s correct
BC - says the same standards apply to contractors, staff & visitors
MP - don’t quite understand
BC - presumably re being transphobic?
MP - yes
BC - you met claimant for 2nd time....then wrote email to core group afterwards re visiting fellowship. Told claimant that if she wished to seek renewal, she should write a document setting out why she wanted it. MP would support renewal for 1 year. CDG had no corporate line on policy issues - nothing had changed your view that claimant had said or done anything out of line?
MP - yes

.....

BC - QI had not sought to get to grips with culture in London office, though Ms Szabo had recommended they do?
MP - yes
BC - it remained your position despite both reports & discussions that you could not articulate the line she had crossed? 'The report found she did not violate our bullying and harassment policies'
'The claimant had inadvertently offended some people.....she could not have known in advance was going to cause some offence'

[Sorry, I can’t touch-type so this isn't verbatim]