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

Maybe she will spend 2 hours 55 minutes telling us that trans people are the most oppressed group of other people to have ever walked the Earth, like everyone else does.

@mateysmum

My flabber is gasted once again! MA seriously thinks that believing the presence of transwomen in women's spaces increases the risk of discomfort and harm to women is so offensive that it cannot be read or discussed. But he has never actually thought to you know research why they might think that, just dismissing any evidence as offensive and transphobic. I despair, but at least win or lose this has shown up the thought patterns of these believers.

That is pretty much the reason why "thought terminating cliche" was applied to the mantra TWAW. It's not the belief itself being criticised, it's the way it seems to shut down the ability to think through the consequences of what that might mean and who all it might impact in the long run.

I think MA made a reasonable effort to suggest a) he took the final decision on his own and b) he made it based on reputational risk and not just the internal lack of consensus (read - extreme prejudice towards MF).

But it's my view that, if he wasn't personally of the view that her protected beliefs are offensive, he would have been able to look at the situation objectively and see that his staff were bullying someone with a protected characteristic. If the pamphlet etc were causing disruption, that was mitigated by the fact that Maya was perfectly accepting of that fact and agreed not to bring anything else in to the office, and only state her protected beliefs where pertinent.

So it will come down (in my view) to whether the Tribunal members are prepared to stand by the fact that she had a protected characteristic, which means they were bullying her, based on their subjective notions of offence.

I don't think they will regard her as having been technically employed, but I think they will see that there were deliberate efforts made not to hire her.

Senior Policy Group

Thank you Hadrosaurus. And, Doh!

It’s been a long time since I worked in corporate. The business I run has a Senior Policy Group of one.

Right, now that’s sorted, I’m heading back to being outraged that corporations are allowed to have rules and policies about risk to their reputations and “gelling” of management teams, but women and girls are not allowed to have rules and policies about risk to their dignity, privacy, or—god forbid—physical safety.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

I can't see how Olivia Dobbie can fill 3 hours with convincing arguments on behalf of her client. I think she'll keep it short.

Of course she can. She's a very skilled and experienced advocate and as an ET judge herself is well versed in what the tribunal would find convincing and how to direct their attention.

It will be interesting to see how different the various points of focus will be in the two submissions and how they relate to employment law. Ultimately, it may all come down to employment law, MF's status, and the argument that we saw upthread about whether MF is protected from discrimination. Or, if OD is instructed to avoid the issue of discrimination, it might be the attempt to revisit MF's suitability to be a member of staff, core areas of interest, and available funding.

I find this fascinating. In my early career, several times I've been in the position that I was the first woman to be recruited by that organisation. I had some poor workplace experiences because so many staff were implacably opposed to the employment of a woman even if I did have this unbelievably niche skill that the role required and none of the other candidates (all male) did and it wasn't a skill that could readily be acquired without extensive study and practice.

They happily ostracised me, refused to talk to me, and would have had me removed and my contracts terminated if they could. I have no doubt that my appointment caused a lot of friction that the organisation could have relieved by getting rid of me. And I shall leave it there as to the correspondences that women are still going through this nonsense decades later.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but do we know when a verdict might be expected?

The strongest argument of CGD seems to be that although the hiring of Maya was being considered, they decided not to because it would carry the risk of disrupting the workplace based on the way in which her expressions of belief, particularly the way in which that had been done, had previously caused disruption.

he's saying it's offensive for women to think there's risks involved in giving up same-sex spaces

So it's offensive for women to risk assess and talk about risk assessments regarding single sex spaces and anything else related to Gender Ideology, but if a woman walks alone in the dark down a dark alleyway and gets attacked then the first thing that is said and levelled against her is why did you do that, why did you take that risk. MA really is a sexist MRA.

'The strongest argument of CGD seems to be that although the hiring of Maya was being considered, they decided not to because it would carry the risk of disrupting the workplace based on the way in which her expressions of belief, particularly the way in which that had been done, had previously caused disruption.'

Agree. But there is also evidence that the opposition to her (AG/EM/LE) was based on her fundamental beliefs. Also evidence that they gave her no guidance at all, or chance to defend herself based on these allegations of improper behaviour, and that they ignored (or chose to disbelieve) her commitments to not talking about the issue at work. There is also evidence that the decision-maker found her beliefs fundamentally offensive (there is no reason to say talking about women's safety in single sex spaces when TW are included is offensive unless you believe you cannot legitimately distinguish between TW and other males, and this is covered under her protected belief).

That sounds like it nauticant.

@FromOurHatsToOurFeet

It's not a large step from he's saying it's offensive for women to think there's risks involved in giving up same-sex spaces to he's saying it's offensive for women to think really, is it?

I think it's exactly what he's saying. We know there are risks, there are several cases that have demonstrated & proven the risks very clearly (Karen White, Katie Dolezal, Wi Spa, rape in hospital, to name some of the better known).

So women must not think there are risks, even though the risks are clear and exist.

The problem he has is with women thinking. Absolutely.

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered but will either side have right to appeal? And what would the implications be - ie higher court?

Or is this as far as it can go?

Let me put it to you

People I know who have been during the course of their work facing Barristers in Court always said this line brought out a cold sweat as it was always followed by a tricky scenario designed to trap you.

'So women must not think there are risks, even though the risks are clear and exist.'

And here we see is that his problem is with the core belief. It is the fact that GC women do not distinguish between trans-identifying males and other males that he finds personally offensive. But we are allowed not to do so by law under the EA, and we are allowed to say so by law under the HRA (freedom of expression).

It is the fact that GC women do not distinguish between trans-identifying males and other males that he finds personally offensive.

Yes. Women who refuse to play pretend or make believe to appease males are 'offensive'.

Well, be offended.

The strongest argument of CGD seems to be that although the hiring of Maya was being considered, they decided not to because it would carry the risk of disrupting the workplace based on the way in which her expressions of belief, particularly the way in which that had been done, had previously caused disruption.

That really doesn't seem fair. One set of beliefs is allowed in the workplace and anyone who expresses different beliefs is accused of causing disruption. I can't see how a company would be allowed to refuse to hire a Muslim person just because hiring them would upset the Christians.

The decision will be appealable to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which, as I understand things, broadly corresponds to the High Court level Rodedooda.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/courts-structure-0715.pdf

'I can't see how a company would be allowed to refuse to hire a Muslim person just because hiring them would upset the Christians.'

Well, indeed.

'But she talked about the Prophet.'

'Yeah...'

'But she wanted a safe place to pray...'

'Yeah...'

'But she said she doesn't see Jesus as the Son of God...'

'Yeah...'

'In the end it might have bothered the clients. So I got rid of her.'

@Rodedooda

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered but will either side have right to appeal? And what would the implications be - ie higher court?

Or is this as far as it can go?

There is a right of appeal but only on points of law. You may recall Maya successfully appealed on a point of law.

There are several levels of appeal which I think are:
Employment Appeals Tribunal
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

Is 'points of law' basically saying she can't appeal if they misinterpret the facts, only if they misinterpret the law?

Ahh, of course, thanks for that clarification GinPalace2.

The decision is appealable but only on a point of law.

When will we get the decision - the judge may give an indication but there is no hard deadline.

Yes. Women who refuse to play pretend or make believe to appease males are 'offensive'.

Yes - because this isn't even about a different belief, as with Christians and Muslims (though to be clear I support their rights to mention their beliefs too). It's actually just someone simply not sharing a faith-based belief that isn't based on evidence, but choosing to form their view on the basis of evidence instead. So like being an atheist, or not believing in astrology. Such a view would not be controversial if the person wasn't being asked to share the unevidenced belief of someone else, and so was being in a position where they have to either object or pretend they share a belief that they don't.

It is like being told you have to agree that a person's star sign means something significant about them and you have to treat them in line with that - when there's no evidence for that and so you don't believe it.

It is like being told you have to agree that a person's star sign means something significant about them and you have to treat them in line with that - when there's no evidence for that and so you don't believe it

I like that analogy, @MoonOnASpoon

@WinterTrees

Sorry if this has been asked before, but do we know when a verdict might be expected?

I think I heard it would be about eight weeks.

On the question of OD's summing up, I'm as curious as anyone else. CGD's witnesses have repeatedly undermined their own argument that the problem was Maya's expression of her belief, rather than her holding of the belief, because they couldn't come up with any examples of her expressing her belief in an aggressive or offensive way. The worst thing they cited was that she brought in a single copy of a leaflet coloured red and black, and left it on her desk.

So I think perhaps OD will focus on the "Maya wasn't really an employee" angle. Again, this will be difficult because CGD referred to her as an employee in an important document. I dare say OD is a very good lawyer, but I don't envy her.