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

BC again finds a bullet point where MA repeatedly refers to 'we'.

BC once more suggests MA was essentially repeating what MP had said to him in previous meetings, it wasn’t a decision he took alone.

Perhaps MA could have wiggled out of that just now by announcing that his pronouns are actually they/them, so when he says ''we'', he really is just talking about himself.

[Apologies, keep getting dragged into work stuff!]

MA: I wanted to take responsibility as it was my responsibility. No idea at the time this would be an issue in terms of exact words. When I said 'we' often - ultimately in this case it was my decision

BC: but no evidence of any independent thought on your part at all? You have stuck to MP lines

MA: which is a reflection of the conversation we have had

BC: claimant makes response on her understanding of UK law, citing protected characteristics of sex, and saying perverse for her not to be able to say something consistent with UK law.

MA: yes

BC: claimant says decision not justifiable in line with UK law

MA: I read it more as not being contrary to UK law

BC: she goes on to say that she feels that decision is in interests of expediency
You reply that the 'core point' is we are trying to make a hiring decision. You used that term - 'hiring' - meaning engage for work

MA: engage for a year of being a visiting fellow

BC: the decision is about whether we want to take someone on board, you do need a degree of consensus among senior fellows as to whether to bring someone in . This was in your talking points

MA: yes, was consistent

BC: you say need to do this consistent with legal framework, and say you will check

MA: I had not expected to discuss legal issues. I'd been led to believe what we were doing was consistent with UK law.

BC: claimant makes further points on lack of consensus, reiterates point on UK law, and makes it clear that the whole process is very un-transparent to her.

MA :that is what she is saying

BC: you say 'I don't want to make generalised propositions from it. It was as a result of the views you've expressed.....that's why I decided that while I am happy for you to contribute to the project, loathe to continue to associate with you as visiting fellow.
We can take a couple of points from this:
1_ your points still consistent with talking points from MP
2 this decision wasn't a result based on general principle, but on particulars of this case

MA: yes, I didn't want to extrapolate general principles, just focussed on this case

BC: so not because CGD has some general policy on what is or isn't acceptable, but because in this particular instance in reaction to views expressed by the complainant

MA: and the reactions and stresses of others

So is this an appeal on the original decision?

Sorry haven't been paying attention much.

However, a cursory look through twitter feed would suggest that one side is clearly not prepared. - spoiler- it's not MF's team.

MA is stitching himself up now! He admitted he has a problem with Maya's views.

BC : again, that tells us what you mean - it was the views the claimant expressed that were the problem.

MA: I think that is what i said, but my focus was the expression and the way it had been happening, and not clear on the phone about separating out the views and the expressions of them

BC: you weren't separating the views and the expressions of them at all?

@placemats

So is this an appeal on the original decision?

Sorry haven't been paying attention much.

However, a cursory look through twitter feed would suggest that one side is clearly not prepared. - spoiler- it's not MF's team.

No, the original decision about whether Maya's beliefs were protected under the Equality Act was appealled and Maya won on appeal.

This is a continuation of the case, it's the next step in the Employment Tribunal where they must establish - was Maya discrminated against because of thsoe beliefs?

@placemats

So is this an appeal on the original decision?

Sorry haven't been paying attention much.

However, a cursory look through twitter feed would suggest that one side is clearly not prepared. - spoiler- it's not MF's team.

The summary on MF's site is as follows:

n 2019 I lost the first stage of the tribunal which was to establish whether my belief that sex is real, immutable and important is protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

In 2020 I won in the Employment Appeal Tribunal when this judgment was overturned and belief was found to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society”

The next stage is to go back to the Employment Tribunal for the facts of the case to be heard. This starts on 7 March 2022.

It's not enough to establish that Maya's views are protected by the Equality Act in general. Her team must now prove that she was discriminated against because of those views.

They also need to prove that she was employed by CGD and therefore her role was covered by emploment rights.

BC: You weren't distinguishing between views and expression. That is your ex post facto rationale

MA: in answering your first set of questions, at that stage, I didn't really have a clear understanding of core beliefs v expressions on social media. So I used the term views in a large sense.

BC: exactly. The distinction you now seek to draw, is one based entirely and seeking to draw the distinction in where we have ended up and how you might wriggle out of liability

MA: just explaining how it was

BC: you have just told us that at the time you werne't distinguishing between core beliefs and expressions

MA: it was the set of things she was saying, much of which subsequently aren't core beliefs but a manifestation of them

BC: the views expressed include the statement that a trans woman is not a woman. Includes the statement that a trans person's gender identiy has no basis in material reality. Included that sex is immutable. Included statements that women's spaces should be protected based on need for protections based on sex?

MA: [agrees]

BC: you were not drawing any distinction between what we now know are core beliefs, which QI had told you were fundamentally transphobic and offensive, and anyting else?

MA: you listed a set of things. But also included calling people part-time cross dressers, saying people who though TWAW are delusional. So distinction between core beliefs and other beliefs not at all clear.

BC: the difficulty is that you do, in your evidence now, seek to draw that distinction. But that is not a truthful account of your thoughts at the time

MA: when I said 'views' I included the bits you listed and others. At the time I didn't have a distinction what subsequently were written up as core beliefs and the other things she said

I thought this was interesting (from @tribunaltweets)

BC: MF talks about how she wouldn't be able to publish blogs on website as a consultant.
MA: She could if working with a VF...
BC: But EM says she wouldn't be able to blog as a consultant. She was wrong about that?
MA: A consultant could do a blog if approved by a senior fellow involved in relevant project.
BC: Policy is clear that its only staff that can write for the blog. Rare for less experienced staff to post under own name, generally a fellow or a senior would publish it under their name

So Maya had been able to blog, and only staff are able to blog per CGD policy. - was she staff or not then?

MA: at that point in time I couldn't distinguish what was core belief and what just an expression

BC: let's stick with what was in your mind at the time
Any expression of the claimants beliefs on this subject was offensive and should not be talked about?

MA: that was not my position. She could have expressed herself in ways and using examples that would not have been as offensive.

BC: you didn't draw that distinction. You told her that the views she had expressed had caused offence, and because they had done so, you were not renewing the visiting fellowship, yes?

MA: yes

BC: she asked you about what has happened and you reiterate 'the thing is Maya, at the end of it, I still have the same lack of consensus that was there before the process'. You are clear that the lack of consensus is essential factor?

MA: Yes

BC: she says senior fellows haven't met to discuss

MA: you said had had sufficient informal conversations to form that view, yes?

MA: Yes. If I had been convinced otherwise, lack of consensus wouldnt' be reason not to move forward

BC: that's another elaboration we find for the first time today.

@longlines

It's not enough to establish that Maya's views are protected by the Equality Act in general. Her team must now prove that she was discriminated against because of those views.

They also need to prove that she was employed by CGD and therefore her role was covered by emploment rights.

That feels accurate on all points.

IANAL and all that.

MA: I didn't say consensus didn't matter, but not the only reason

BC: the difficulty is that when you are explaining it to the claimant at the time, you focus on the lack of consensus. Let me suggest that the implication is that if at the end of the process you had had consensus of renewal, you'd have renewed?

MA: As I said earlier, by this point in the process I had come to the view that the risks were greater than the benefits. If I had had consensus 2 months earlier, I might have moved forward, but by this time had the view it wasn't going to work

BC: you have never said that before this afternoon?

MA: noone asked me before this afternoon

BC: one more point on transcript. A discussion between you and claimant about her accepting work on Gates contract as a consultant. Tell me if this is a fair summary: claimant expressed strong doubt as to whether that would be viable. You said, you could see she was upset and may want time to think. She agreed.

MA: correct

BC: at that point there had been an informal indication of offer of work on Gates contract as a consultant and she said she'd think about it

@longlines

It's not enough to establish that Maya's views are protected by the Equality Act in general. Her team must now prove that she was discriminated against because of those views.

They also need to prove that she was employed by CGD and therefore her role was covered by emploment rights.

The COA decision on protected beliefs is so important, because it protects all of us. The ET cases, at heart, is only about the specific facts of what happened to Maya and the victory, should it some, will be hers alone, it won't set a precedent for the rest of us. Maya is a winner either way for the COA decision alone.

MA isn't allowed to discuss the case with anyone until Monday - its going to be a very long weekend..

BC: you have a tendancy for spin, untruthfulness and obfuscation. Take your time. You're a respondent in this claim.

Ouch. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

when did gender ideology become the high priest of thinking? a scared caste indeed.

Seems to me GDP might have had a duty to protect Maya from the unreasonable beliefs of the Washington twerps who's beliefs are based on a mountain of lies and truth twisting and who set out to destroy her professionally.

I wonder if they had the opportunity to do it again, would they tackle it differently…. 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Finally caught up and huge thanks to everyone who is writing this up. And yes, placemarking!

CGD that is, not Maya!!!

Can anyone explain how the team (Peter Daly solicitor, Anya Palmer barrister, Ben Cooper QC) would work on this.

1|) Do they all do research and contribute to the bundle or is it just the solicitor or the barristers?

2. Who decides tactical approach?

3. Are Peter and Anya watching live so that they can give BC pointers during the break or is BC in charge of everything?

4. Would the team consider how the judge/tribunal members might respond to points based on who is making them? Eg. Like another poster above I also think that BC can get away with saying stuff like "male bodies" because he is a man whereas AP would get less leeway to say this kind of thing because she is a woman - we see this socially all the time - that women are punished for expressing views that men can get away with.

I know court is supposed to be rational and logical but do lawyers give consideration to social prejudice when they are planning who will argue the points or would that have no bearing?

They also need to prove that she was employed by CGD and therefore her role was covered by emploment rights.

Or prove that they refused to employ her because of her protected belief, I think?

@EsmaCannonball

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

Or upon entering my kitchen (hint—black, red, white colour scheme).

I was surprised BC didn’t challenge MP more on the “neo-Nazi” message of black & red being intimidating etc. In graphic design and style and advertising terms, it’s a classic combination that has been used for many decades. See also art & film. Point is that the colour scheme isn’t inherently Nazi and I believe this was suggested by someone as being so, a suggestion that gained traction.

FTR (half American here), most places and people I’ve known in various states, urban v suburban v rural that I’ve lived, don’t look at black and red then think “Nazi”. It’s very much an elites in a city POV, most likely exacerbated by culture wars and so-called think tanks.

BC probably didn’t want to waste time on these “feelings” and “opinions” about what reaction the red&black colour combo elicits, because BC knows his shit and has bigger fish to fry. He also has facts, not feelings.

Still, for pure drama, it would be wonderful to hear MP’s response as to whether the Stonewall ‘get over it’ black&red campaign was also neo-Nazi.

Scorchedterf absolutely brilliant username.

I’m sharing this thread and the tweets with everyone I know who might possibly be about to peak. Sunlight, etc.

BC has been brilliant at setting out facts, on public record.