Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 4

[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

Thread three, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater - Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any one of the 3 members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1

CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2

LE = Luke Easley, Vice president for HR and operations at CGD, first witness for CGD
AG = Amanda Glassman, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe), second witness for CGD
MP = Mark Plant, Chief Operating Officer of CGD Europe, third witness for CGD
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3, fourth witness for CGD

EM = Ellen MacKenzie, an off-stage character at CGD, involved in much that went on.

Maya's website has lots of relevant information and is collating the live tweets.
www.hiyamaya.net

twitter.com/tribunaltweets is the account to look at for the live tweets. Plus some live posting and discussion on these threads.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

They will send you pin number and a link to log in to the tribunal.

Tabby - none of my comments applied to Maya because CGD didn't have a policy anyway. It is an interesting question whether these policies would stand up in court and also quite interesting how so many of us are used to shutting up as ordered so as not to risk our jobs. It feels like the status quo!

'They are the ones that behaved as if she was employed!'

A very good point I hadn't considered. I suppose they would say they knew she wasn't employed but were trying to be scrupulous.

Are you sure? (I'm not trusting you today for some unaccountable reason.)

I thought there was something else but I found this, will have more of a look.

www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/17/after-two-weeks-our-transgender-identity-series-comes-to-a-close

Note that the Economist doesn't use bylines on normal articles - it wouldn't have been publicly under name, so it won't just show up on a search - you'd have to catch her talking about writing it in an interview.

@JoodyBlue

The issue that is concerning me is the extent to which ideas are now considered or not WORIADS. My understanding is that until quite recently only truly heinous (unspeakable) beliefs/ideas that are seriously prejudicial to individuals or entire groups fell under this category. Even if GC arguments are now legally accepted as WORIADS, if no-one can own up to holding them and still earn a living, if this case sets any sort of precedent, then we are all silenced henceforth. We are in that place in which we cannot speak.

It will be odd if beliefs are WORIADS in social, civic and political life but effectively NWORIADS in the workplace or Legal But Must Remain Unarticulated In The Workplace LMRUITW? To be fair, already have media reporting that is working against the public understanding of important matters so WORIADS already has substantial limitations and restrictions.

Most of us are aware of the substantial impacts on carrying out meaningful equalities and impact assessments when considering competing rights.

How many people have to have experienced and reported chilling effects around these issues? Even Kate Grimes and Baroness Nicholson encountered problems when applying for a post.

I think I am maybe confusing her Quillette article with her Open Futures curation of gender identity perspectives.

And to what extent is creating a hostile environment for women with regards to articulating their sex based needs and existing legal rights acceptable? Some of this seems to cross the line into making female experiences unspeakable.

'And to what extent is creating a hostile environment for women with regards to articulating their sex based needs and existing legal rights acceptable? Some of this seems to cross the line into making female experiences unspeakable.'

OD was trying to argue women are less likely than men to be gender critical, so it doesn't amount to indirect discrimination. But I would argue it's not entirely about that. It's about how the backlash to GC beliefs affects women more than it affects men. Would MF have received this treatment if she had been a man?

@Pluvia

As I understand it, that's the position that employees of the MoD live under. They can't be members of a political organisation/ party and AFAIK they are not expected to voice political opinions.

I can’t speak for MoD specifically but Civil Servants have very specific rules regarding political involvement.

Most can be a member of a political party but care needs to be taken in relation to holding posts in a political party e.g. chairman, treasurer etc. They can be local councillors but need to resign to stand for election as an MP. Care needs to be taken as to what they say in public, not expected to criticise gmt of the day. The rules are extensive and approval is required for some political activities.

A relatively small group of Civil Servants have tighter rules applied.

See Civil Service Management Code 4.4. www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions

Civil Servants are required to serve the government of the day regardless of whether or not they agree. For example Some Civil Servants were remainers but worked on BREXIT.

Is anyone else having trouble getting a log in? I've requested one twice and still no response

Is it fair to say that CGD's argument amounts to, "MF May believe this legal thing but in our sector that's enough to make us lose business so we have to get rid of people to ensure our continued funding"?

I mean, that's an interesting position in itself.

Whew, just caught up! Thanks everyone.

I'm working tomorrow but really want to see SuperCooper in action! If I can wangle my way out of work, do I need to have requested a log-in by a certain time?

@Chrysanthemum5

Is anyone else having trouble getting a log in? I've requested one twice and still no response

I asked for one yesterday and none came. Hoping it will come in time to watch Ben's summing up.

@RayonSunrise

Is it fair to say that CGD's argument amounts to, "MF May believe this legal thing but in our sector that's enough to make us lose business so we have to get rid of people to ensure our continued funding"?

I mean, that's an interesting position in itself.

Yes. They will try to complicate that with 'It wasn't about the belief, it was the manifestation of the belief' but the evidence is quite strong that this isn't true, or that MA didn't make any legitimate efforts to make a distinction and explain it to her.

But I still think he was quite cunning in his evidence. He distanced himself as far as he could from all the goings on in the management team, and just said he made up his mind when he saw the leaflet. And the leaflet is a manifestation of MF's belief that he can credibly argue didn't need to be in the office.

So then it comes down to whether she could have known it, given there was no policy in place, and whether MA should have taken her commitment to not bringing in a leaflet again on face value. Since MF was not shown to be in any way deceptive (and she seems to place a high value on truth), I would argue he should have given her the benefit of the doubt.

@tabbycatstripy
Thank you for all your hard work it’s be so interesting to follow.

Personally I think MA came over as I can’t be arsed dealing with this squabble so easiest to get rid of Maya. Oh shit I’m at a tribunal what do I say to cover my arse. BC was great at strongly suggesting MA had not seen the leaflet when he made his decision, he only saw it when preparing his witness statement. The same with the more detailed QI report as he kept using the CR evidence as a justification for his decision when other evidence is he hadn’t seen it at that point.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus - LMRUITW much needed levity

In the BC-MA interaction, right from the very off BC was accusing MA of spinning the evidence and then continued with that accusation all of the way through. I assume he read MA's witness statement, compared it with others and with the witness in person evidence, and decided that there would be a considerable amount of spin coming.

I think there is just a single login - am I right? And that we could share it here? I don't see any reason in principle why not.

Fascinating watching OD in action today. PPs have made some excellent points about the contradictions in her argument, but I was struck that every time she mentioned one of Maya's tweets or Slack comments, she did Maya a service, because everything Maya wrote sounded completely reasonable. She accused Maya of "catastrophising" about David Challenor's decision to join the Green Party so he could promote trans ideology as a way of facilitating his sexual interest in young girls, and I thought, well, anyone who didn't know about that would be pretty horrified.

But I still think he was quite cunning in his evidence. He distanced himself as far as he could from all the goings on in the management team, and just said he made up his mind when he saw the leaflet. And the leaflet is a manifestation of MF's belief that he can credibly argue didn't need to be in the office. - tabbycatstripy

BC made a lot of the leaflet, not just the timing, but the fact it was a campaigning leaflet in his questioning yesterday. I kept thinking he was going in for the kill (like proving evidence of other campaigning leaflets in the office for eg) but then he pulled back. Is there a "gotcha" he can do in his summing up which he wouldn't first put to MA in cross-examination?

I've just applied for a link and PIN No.

I've got to stay in tomorrow so I may as well do something useful in the morning. If it comes in time of course.

'The same with the more detailed QI report as he kept using the CR evidence as a justification for his decision when other evidence is he hadn’t seen it at that point.'

That's true.

@NecessaryScene

Note that the Economist doesn't use bylines on normal articles - it wouldn't have been publicly under name, so it won't just show up on a search - you'd have to catch her talking about writing it in an interview.

I'm sure I saw an interview in which Helen Joyce said she'd known nothing about the subject of gender ideology when she was asked to research a piece for the Economist and that when she started reading and getting to grips with it she couldn't believe what she found — pretty much like the rest of us.

'Is there a "gotcha" he can do in his summing up which he wouldn't first put to MA in cross-examination?'

I don't think so. I think he did well in showing MA's lack of personal familiarity with the arguments in the leaflet.

I can't stop reading that Innocent Bystander twitter thread. It is genius.

One thing that (obviously) OD did not address is that CGD did not understand her point. - A key part of the argument is that legal changes and reforms can have unintended consequences. - So self-if can disadvantage women. Discussion of unintended consequences (e.g on child labour laws or debt relief) is quite big in economics and in development and it is quite possible that discussion of any of these has quite a big push back from their followers and funders (including args on twitter) so the bar for them to prove reputational damage is quite high