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.

I’m catching up on today’s shenanigans over lunch and chuckling at some of your updates. It sounds like Ben is knocking it out of the park. For those of you watching, do you get any sense of whether the judge is swayed?

OD was the one who could have called EM as a witness? JG commented on it was ironic OD was relying on EM but didn't call her.

Ellen McKenzie's absence is very important. The fact she knows not to put anything in writing is very telling. She clearly had objections due to Maya's GC beliefs, she just didn't put it in writing.

Yes they could have picked EM to testify but didn't.

I agree EM is very obviously deeply involved and deliberately left out of the witness list.

That is the real nub of this issue

"public opinion can't be the measure of whether a belief has practical protection or not."

For employers they can be caught between a rock and a hard place. If most people in the UK believe XYZ is fine and your employee has an opposite view when will they be so toxic in the views of others, even unreasonable beliefs of others, you can sack them?

People are probably even this week terminating contracts which ultimately end up financially supporting Putin, even if the legislation does not require that simply because of the PR issue. Same with eco stuff.

These things are a can of worms.

However the belief (indeed I would call it a fact) that women by their sex have xx chromosomes is probably the least difficult issue as it based on facts rather than an invented God you cannot prove which requires you do XYZ at work.

'For those of you watching, do you get any sense of whether the judge is swayed?'

No, he's very fair and neutral.

Yes I wouldn't like to speculate, and I don't want to tempt fate.

do you get any sense of whether the judge is swayed

I'd say that BC has been more persuasive on the fact that there was discrimination but MF's case could still be sunk on a finding by the judge that MF wasn't employed or that an intention to employ her wasn't changed as a result of her beliefs.

To be fair they were only submitted a few minutes before her own closing statements. She had no opportunity to read it.

Not before her closing yesterday, but surely she had overnight to read through and know what he’d be submitting today, and therefore pick out rebuttals to points of law, as BC said this response time is traditionally used for.

'If most people in the UK believe XYZ is fine and your employee has an opposite view when will they be so toxic in the views of others, even unreasonable beliefs of others, you can sack them?'

Exactly. If I were the only pro-choice person in the UK, or the only pro-life person in the UK, would that give my employer a basis to sack or refuse to hire me, or am I allowed to think what I think, and say I think it, even in the face of every single person in the country disagreeing?

I think I am. I think that's the whole point of the law.

@tabbycatstripy

'For those of you watching, do you get any sense of whether the judge is swayed?'

No, he's very fair and neutral.

My take too. He seems very impartial.

Yes I would agree with nauticant

I believe that OD has previously pointed out that she has childcare responsibilities, limiting the time she can put in 'out of hours'.

HS wrote OMG! At Maya's tweets. And was involved with "organising opposition" to Maya's fellowship renewal according to the bundle

I am listening but not watching and I'm picking up a touch of panic in OD's voice. One might wonder whether she's been caught on the hop. She's now picking up some minor things which aren't related to the law — their failure to call HS, for example.

OD seems like an excellent barrister, well-prepared and in command of her material. It's just that her material is a bloody mess.

who is HS?

Holly Shulman, Comms Director in Washington

We've just been referred to by OD!

Shout out to mumsnet!

thanks

ooh OD mentions MN

OD: 'So I don't get misquoted on Mumsnet... I am not comparing the claimant's protected beliefs to pornography.'

Dying.

'so i don't get misquoted on Mumsnet' -

OD shout out to Mumsnet