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.

BC coming out swinging.

I'm seeing a blank screen, what am I doing wrong?

Am I allowed to do sketches like a courtroom artist?

Are you good at that? Mine would just look like a stick man with a beard

I'm seeing a blank screen, what am I doing wrong?

Try connecting again. Is your camera light on? You have to connect with camera and sound on and then turn them off when you get in.

He's making the point that it is part of MF's set of beliefs that it might upset male people to be told that TW can't use female spaces, but that is not more important than women's right to privacy and the right to decide who touches or sees their bodies.

So he is saying the things CGD are saying went 'over the line' from core beliefs to expressing things over and above her core beliefs (in terms of single sex spaces, for example) are actually covered by the core beliefs, whether or not they offend.

This is all I see, or I can see participants names if I go into that view. But no action!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm seeing a blank screen, what am I doing wrong?

Try connecting again. Is your camera light on? You have to connect with camera and sound on and then turn them off when you get in.

Ahh, OK thanks Eresh

He seems to be turning the tables — GC people the victims of people who misunderstand our views. Not vipers but vulnerable.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Am I allowed to do sketches like a courtroom artist?

Are you good at that? Mine would just look like a stick man with a beard

I can if he'd stop swinging in his chair. But I don't want to be arrested for drawins!

It's been a while since I've come across a "nugatory".

Ahh good, BC is tackling OD's twisting of Lee and Ashers yesterday.

So people with GC beliefs are now one of the most marginalised and vulnerable now. Oh the irony.

The TRA's only have themselves to blame.

BC: "There is no hierarchy of protected characteristics under the Equality Act."

Which is directly at odds with the flavour of identity politics that has won out in the US. As BC says, this leads to people at CGD feeling they can exercise their prejudices.

Nice word. So he's saying if this goes against her, it nullifies the protection, because all the 'concerns' they are raising are based on the idea that she is somehow doing something wrong by holding her beliefs.

'Some people are prejudiced against those with gender critical beliefs and that is all the more reason to enforce the protection, not to pander to the prejudice. Can you imagine a submission being made to you that CGD should have a right not to associate with people whose skin colour they or their funders don't like?'

Boom.

Ooh, he is likening prejudice against gc beliefs to racism.

BC: OD's interpretation of Lee and Ashers means that the concept of tolerance can be put aside.

Is this what happens with closing statements? You have to spend your time rebutting what the submission and closing statement of the notional opponent rather than concentrating on your own summation?

Now BC says OD's submission implies that CGD, by saying they don't have to associate with someone with MF's belief, are admitting they discriminated against her because of her belief.

More boom.

BC: OD's implicit premise (based on Lee and Ashers) is that the reason for dissociation with the claimant is the beliefs themselves and not their expression.

Fake Sonia Sodha just had to turn off his camera and microphone.

That was weird.

Maybe it's her partner or something?

Scrolling down the spectators I make that about 200 people watching.

It probably is. If she has the case on in the background her poor partner trying to put in his meter reading is like, 'Who the F is this??'

Whoever he was he loves The Observer.

It is an extraordinarily broad ranging argument. Seems to reference and include so much relevant stuff. Gay cake argument, compelled speech, Harry Miller ...