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.

Well that was very interesting and thought provoking.

Really hope it goes your way Maya, we are all rooting for you.

I think i spotted Glinner, Allison Bailey and Julie Bindel in the crowd

@WearyLady

Indeed, it's good to have the debate out in the open. Both counsels did a great job. It's anyone's guess what the outcome will be.

Yes, absolutely. Really interesting to hear it all discussed properly without anyone shouting anyone else down.

I don't think OD was implying anyone misquoted her, just indicating that she knows people are talking about the case and doesn't want to be misquoted.

Many of us have looked up OD's professional profile, been impressed, and commented on that.

Many of us also know the hard slog of being a professional woman with children. I had a bundle of papers couriered to me once by a 'helpful' committee clerk at 8pm to read 'after the children went to bed' for a 9am hearing the next morning. (And I was a lone parent.) I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for working mothers.

Who were some of the more well-known onilne observers?

I caught myself scrolling through the names and trying to guess which one was Joanne Rowling...

I didn't hear exactly what she said about pornography. I'd be interested.

@ScreamingBeans

I'm so glad I didn't find out till Monday, that you could log in and listen, it's been fascinating and I would have had to take time off work if there had been any more days.

I've got it on in the background while I work, my ears pricked up when she said "mumsnet" and "pornography", what exactly did she say?!

I had to go out so completely missed this bit, but was she the only person that said the word 'pornography'? Or did someone else?

Maya.

Yes, I think people have every right to have some boundaries. These cases obviously move in really rapid and detailed ways and deal with huge amounts of information. It can't be easy. I wouldn't have a go at anyone with kids for not being able to turn something round overnight. They shouldn't be asked.

I don't think OD was implying anyone misquoted her, just indicating that she knows people are talking about the case and doesn't want to be misquoted.

well, I've already accused her being an advocate of dismantling women's rights and dissing Mumsnet so maybe she had a point...

Yes, who was at the tribunal? Tried looking, no luck!

I didn't hear exactly what she said about pornography. I'd be interested.

She said that Article 10 HRA extends to being able to share pornography and other similarly unpalatable but legal things, I think. Then clarified that she wasn't implying the claimants belief was like pornography.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I didn't hear exactly what she said about pornography. I'd be interested.

She said that Article 10 HRA extends to being able to share pornography and other similarly unpalatable but legal things, I think. Then clarified that she wasn't implying the claimants belief was like pornography.

I see. So, unfortunately, that is a little bit like implying that.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I didn't hear exactly what she said about pornography. I'd be interested.

She said that Article 10 HRA extends to being able to share pornography and other similarly unpalatable but legal things, I think. Then clarified that she wasn't implying the claimants belief was like pornography.

Oh, so why mention it then?

I mean, if you don't want to be misquoted about pornography in the workplace, don't compare it to a belief in sex in the workplace.

Thank you for clarifying that. I too heard something about pornography but missed the context. How lovely: trying to draw comparison between Maya's pro-women beliefs and pornography. But desperate times, desperate measures and all that.

From the TribunalTweets thread:

OD: Art10 protections very wide - pornography, advertising. That does not mean an employer has to include them in workplace.
OD: Please don't misquote me on mumsnet as comparing MF views to pornograhy.
OD: But, must consider Art 10 within workplace context

Maya 🍷

Tabby 🍷

Managed to get on this morning. Fascinating.

One point has struck me - if Maya loses because they deem she was not employed, surely the implication will be that if she had been, she would have won?

Thus, the line in the sand will still be drawn re freedom of expression regardless?

Maya - thank you. 🍷

BC did very well in his submissions to show that there is actually nothing objectively offensive about what MF believes, and protestations of offence from CGD are based in their own prejudices against her views.

In the Appeal judgment, the wording was very careful about that issue, but it has (obviously) been misquoted by TRAs:

The EAT concluded:

'The Claimant’s belief might well be considered offensive and abhorrent to some... It is a belief that might in some circumstances cause offence to trans persons...'

It certainly did not conclude, as some suggest, that the beliefs are offensive but must nevertheless be tolerated in small doses.

@chilling19

Managed to get on this morning. Fascinating.

One point has struck me - if Maya loses because they deem she was not employed, surely the implication will be that if she had been, she would have won?

Thus, the line in the sand will still be drawn re freedom of expression regardless?

Maya - thank you. 🍷

From listening to the submissions, it seems like they go at it in stages, and if they deem she was not employed, they have no reason to spend time on the rest. I might be wrong.

Thank you Maya. I pray the outcome is a good one for you.

It was your case and JK Rowling's support of it which peaked me because my daughter's school removed JK's name as a house name at that time so I read JK's essay and I wrote to the school with what I thought was the obvious issue for girls who may agree with JK Rowling and now surely the school's approach effectively silenced them and told them to put up or shut up. Surely the better approach would have been to use the situation to open up debate and discussion in school to promote tolerance and understanding. I'd never heard of the no debate approach.

I hadn't read anything about it up to that point and hadn't realised that there were people who genuinely believed you could make out that sex and gender were the same thing and sex has no relevance in any situation. I read a lot and learnt a lot very quickly and also a big thank you to Mumsnet HQ for allowing free speech and freedom of thought to prevail as I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and it was just so blatantly obvious of the issues with Self ID, I was shocked and still am at the lengths people to go to to shut down debate. I'm an ex employee of a large leftwing broadsheet and thankfully have many friends still in journalism who all see this and who are writing and doing podcasts and other great things.

So thank you again Maya and JK Rowling and Allison Bailey and Milli Hill and Jess de Wahls and all the wonderful women in this fight.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

Many of us have looked up OD's professional profile, been impressed, and commented on that.

Many of us also know the hard slog of being a professional woman with children. I had a bundle of papers couriered to me once by a 'helpful' committee clerk at 8pm to read 'after the children went to bed' for a 9am hearing the next morning. (And I was a lone parent.) I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for working mothers.

Quite.

There has been some commentary upthread and elsewhere about OD's impressive range of skills, experience, and her own practice as a judge for employment tribunals.

I would think it's difficult for OD to demonstrate that she's been misquoted (in the absence of an official transcript and she doesn't necessarily wish to rely upon transcripts available here or Twitter). OD might wish to have been interpreted another was but that is a different matter.

I think OD's suggestion that Maya publicly tweeting her views amounted to compelled speech for her employer akin to that in Asher's bakery case was fairly desperate and I think the judge thought so too.

Still, kudos to OD for making the best of a bad job. And if you're reading - as we know you are - we all love your hair.

One point has struck me - if Maya loses because they deem she was not employed, surely the implication will be that if she had been, she would have won?

Thus, the line in the sand will still be drawn re freedom of expression regardless?

Let's not forget what happened last time around- if it's deemed she was not employed in the first place, you can be sure there will be the usual TRA misrepresentation of why she lost, and few will bother to check much less acknowledge the real information. It's so regrettable they didn't make a transcript!