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.

Break till 11.30 @imokhesbonkers

Break until 11:30 (ish)

thanks!

Just linking to this email from MP to the rest of senior managers giving the honest reasons. It's very revealing.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506590572823330824

Not sure - I left and came back just now and it's all darkness...

I'm back! Hopefully I can up now with the thread during the break.

Thanks again to everyone who is contributing - this thread is so vital.

[quote Manderleyagain]Just linking to this email from MP to the rest of senior managers giving the honest reasons. It's very revealing.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506590572823330824[/quote]
'strong, outspoken and often irritating'

How many times have we heard men say the same thing about women who just won't shut up and toe the line?

If CGD lose do you think they will reach out to GC people to organise internal company training to encourage the staff to shake off their bigoted and prejudiced beliefs?

That's normally the responsible approach when a company realises that there's a Diversity and Inclusion problem among its staff.

No, I don't.

BC: on separability (between beliefs and expression) is a principle that engages articles 9 and 10 of human rights convention; is a principle of expanding scope of EA to ensure it gives protection of those rights. The starting point for the application of this principle is still the reasons why the actions in question were taken - if we get to this point, it will be because you haven't upheld the claim applying ordinary principles [missed a bit] What you can't do is pick out snippets from here and there; you have to start from the reasons for the treatment complained of, and decide if the treatment can be separated from the belief. You have to apply an objective test (of justification under articles 9 and 10).

In other words, the EA is there to protect the claimant's right to expression and NOT to limit her rights.

I’ve been meaning to name change for a while

This is interesting, the woman behind the FPFW campaign video got in touch with Maya.

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506593758770569228?cxt=HHwWmIC5xdLCv-gpAAAA

BC: discussing the difference between inseparability and indissociability... not clear what this means, sorry

Art. 9 definitely protects manifestations and articulations of the belief. At. 10 protects freedom of expression more broadly. There's an unresolved question about how far we can stretch the concept of direct discrimination under the EA in order to give effect to art.9 and 10 rights. It's not straightforward. Tribunals are under an obligation to protect both Art 9 and 10 rights. But in this case, all the expressions are direct articulations of the claimant's belief or very closely connected, so it doesn't need much stretch.

Thank you, catching up with this morning's posts. Much appreciated.

@Manderleyagain It's extraordinary isn't it?

CGD originally employed Maya after she had - in a discussion starting on Twitter - challenged the factual basis of a CGD blogpost so effectively that they took it down. They employed her specifically because she was clever, challenging and willing to call out poorly evidenced b-s... (screenshot from the witness statement)

The argument here is quite detailed about the differences and interactions between the EA, and articles 9 and 10, and trying to analyse what counts as discrimination/protection.

BC: In this case, it's not completely clear what's the belief and what's the protected characteristic, but we need to understand that both holding and manifesting the protected belief are protected.

He's saying that the manifestation of belief is part of the belief, therefore the expression is also protected. If actions are manifestations of belief, then they are part of protected belief. I think!

No, I don't.

I agree. Win or lose, one guaranteed take-away from this is that CGD are never going to accept the EAT decision. For them, there will always be a hierarchy of protected characteristics, and speech will be policed according to that hierarchy, although maybe not as clumsily as before.

They'll maybe have to be more careful with their U.K. employees though. And get independent U.K. legal advice.

[quote yourhairiswinterfire]This is interesting, the woman behind the FPFW campaign video got in touch with Maya.

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506593758770569228?cxt=HHwWmIC5xdLCv-gpAAAA[/quote]
That seemed pretty clear to me - great to hear from the designer herself.

Some people have very limited cultural reference points, I think. It's either pastel or it's 'nazi'.

Have to drag myself back to work. Will check in later for developments! Go, Ben! Good luck Maya!

It would be really interesting to hear a case like this in the US, given their very strongly upheld constitution with enshrined rights to freedom of expression. Obviously a very different context than the UK's legal and cultural landscape.

But with weaker employment rights. I agree it would be interesting.

[quote Manderleyagain]Just linking to this email from MP to the rest of senior managers giving the honest reasons. It's very revealing.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506590572823330824[/quote]
Told you it was a homage to Saul Bass! How is that not obvious to anyone?!

Quoted the wrong post

This, from the bundle, from LE:

'Here’s a draft of an email to Maya. Comments welcome, particularly around what I’ve asked Maya to do next. I think important because what she is saying directly contradicts the DEI work to which we have committed.'

They were very clear that their 'DEI' work required particular vocabulary to be used. They certainly did take an institutional position, they just failed to communicate it, manage her or take account of her legal rights in formulating it.