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.

200 live witnesses though ...

Thank you everyone for your brilliant contributions to this case, you’ve massively helped me out when I haven’t understood something.

The point she made about pornography (and advertising), is that whilst people are allowed to do them, they probably cant do them in work, because employers have an obligation to make the workplace a reasonably pleasant environment for all their workers. And before Twitter or Mumsnet misquotes me that I'm saying GC beliefs are akin to pornography, i'm not i'm saying it's accepted that some things may be legal but not appropriate for the workplace

If you haven't already, I highly recommend accessing the documents, which are all on Maya's website here: hiyamaya.net/ Along with an outstanding 'feminist test case' spotify playlist!

I spent a full evening gripped by the claimant's witness statement and evidence minibundle PDF - honestly, it's really worth your time.

I'm now off to read the closing submissions. I've been lucky enough to have little or no contact with legal processes in my life, and this has been an absolute education, quite apart from anything else. It's been brilliant to have access to the live tweets, commentary and original court documents to be able to follow what's going on.

Sorry - erroneous change to 1st person at the end of that!

Ooh yes her hair is fab.

Placemarking

'The point she made about pornography (and advertising), is that whilst people are allowed to do them, they probably cant do them in work, because employers have an obligation to make the workplace a reasonably pleasant environment for all their workers. And before Twitter or Mumsnet misquotes me that I'm saying GC beliefs are akin to pornography, i'm not i'm saying it's accepted that some things may be legal but not appropriate for the workplace...'

Pornography isn't just something you can't 'do' in the workplace, though. It's associated directly with criminal offences against public decency. That's why you can't do it in the workplace, not because it's 'offensive to some'.

It is true that some workplaces limit what you can talk about, and they get away with that in the law, but the reality is that CGD didn't.

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.

I asked the same question on here and someone else said that the judgement should go through each of maya's claims and show whether the burden of proof is met. Though I don't think they were 100% sure either. But I hope it means that they will adress each question and we will get reasoning on whether the detriments were the result of her belief, manifestation of the belief, or were justified by the specific expression etc etc.

I really hope that's true, Manderley!

It is true that some workplaces limit what you can talk about, and they get away with that in the law, but the reality is that CGD didn't.

Also the point is that it has to be fair. Her point is perfectly tenable but only stands if you say that no beliefs are to be aired in the workplace. CGD's position is more like allowing straight pornography but balking at gay pornography - i.e. any ban, no matter how reasonable, has to apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it's discriminatory.

this has been an absolute education, quite apart from anything else. It's been brilliant to have access to the live tweets, commentary and original court documents to be able to follow what's going on.

I truly hope that we will have the same sort of online access to the Allison Bailey hearings and that everything that we've learned here will be of use to us there. I would like the tribunal members and judge to have some sense of how important these matters are to so many of us and that it is emphatically in the public interest for these to be open to the public.

The advertising analogy is odd to me. It’s been a while since I worked in an actual physical office but when I did it was pretty normal for someone to flog Avon out of the kitchen area, and for a noticeboard to display posters for the local sandwich shop/sports clubs/random things for sale and people would often ask you to buy Christmas cards to support their kids school or to sponsor Bob’s bungee jump for charity or whatever. Which is all advertising. And in offices without those things it was usually because of a blanket ban. Not Sandra can sell Juice Plus but Becky can’t sell Aloe Vera Extract.

OD if you're watching Mumsnet, you are welcome here to join the coven anytime you like!

Maybe you are a secret lurker already!

Maybe you are a secret lurker already!

Or who's to say not a prolific long-time poster...?

This has been absolutely compelling (I might need BC myself when my boss realises how little work I've done last week and this...)

Thanks again to Tabby and everyone for such incisive and interesting comments. I wouldn't have followed the line of questioning, or implications of the questions, without the input here.

Such respect and thanks to Maya for your bravery and principles. One aspect that has really stood out for me is how Maya made the case transparent and public using her website and twitter- I think that is quite unusual and extremely powerful. When I had to raise an ET against my work many years ago, you were made to feel that you had to keep everything secret and suffer in silence- and that was before I was legally bound to confidentiality. When you are in that position, you are vulnerable, alone and relying on your lawyer. Whatever the outcome, Maya's approach was exemplary, IMO.

'Also the point is that it has to be fair. Her point is perfectly tenable but only stands if you say that no beliefs are to be aired in the workplace. CGD's position is more like allowing straight pornography but balking at gay pornography - i.e. any ban, no matter how reasonable, has to apply to everyone or no one, otherwise it's discriminatory.'

Yes, they clearly allowed discussion of sex and gender, and they were clearly promoting (through their DEI programme) one view on the topic.

@Zeugma

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

Oh dear. I just did what she told us not to do.

I’m glad someone of OD’s standing is involved in the case. We need strong representation on both sides to really hammer this out. We want all the issues, potential arguments and questions set out. The more daylight the better.

Waves to OD.

For those not keeping an eye on her twitter, Maya's done a thank you video.

Right. That's a wrap.

Thank you to everyone involved (and to all who have kept me sane).

Back to work - Sex Matters! @SexMattersOrg

#ForstaterTribunal

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506623757762408451

As per CGD practice, this comes in two versions. Here's the offensive version:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506630763294384135

Phew all done - and now we wait.
Maya thank you.
Tabby and team thank you.
Wims of MN and beyond, thank you.

@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. 🍷

An Employment Tribunal (unlike her Appeal) isn't much of a line in the sand - it's not binding on any other court. It's also quite possible to decide that MF's actions weren't appropriate and could legitimately have led to action against her but MF win the appeal as CGD jumped the gun and acted based on their prejudice against her viewpoint rather than doing a proper investigation into actions. There's a more important (binding) Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling due out imminently on a similar issue which I don't know which way it is likely to go.

[quote NecessaryScene]For those not keeping an eye on her twitter, Maya's done a thank you video.

Right. That's a wrap.

Thank you to everyone involved (and to all who have kept me sane).

Back to work - Sex Matters! @SexMattersOrg

#ForstaterTribunal

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506623757762408451

As per CGD practice, this comes in two versions. Here's the offensive version:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1506630763294384135[/quote]
I get it but how ridiculous is it that it took me until the slide with the hands to realise that this is red and black and the effectively offensive semiotics.

I refer people to the very helpful contribution from the video designer that is quoted upthread and the culturally competent MNer who had correctly called the Saul Bass allusion when she commented on it when the matter arose.

It’s the first time I’ve followed a tribunal and I have to say it’s been fascinating. Thank you Tabby and all the other wonderful contributors on the various threads. Tribunal Tweets have also been brilliant and obviously Peter, Anya and Ben have built a brilliant case. As for Maya what a .

I think OD has done a solid job with the material she had. And at the two versions of the thank you video.

The case is interesting of course for many reasons, but reading through the documents, it's fascinating to see how carefully Maya approached the issue at every step and the clear case she made in her blog and twitter about how important it was for the international development sector to engage. And all the more shocking then, how badly she was treated throughout. Their process would have been shoddy even if she'd been far more outspoken, on an issue far less relevant to their work, but here we have an organisation with supposed expertise in international development policy, which recruited her on the basis of her track record of challenging poorly evidenced trendy positions, trying to argue that the definition of woman, and the implications of changing what we mean by that word isn't relevant to their work and cannot even be discussed and that challenging 'right-think' in this way was so disruptive to the work place that she had to be removed.

Whatever the final outcome of the case, I really hope the international NGO sector is watching this.

I wrote to Oxfam (as a long-time donor) last year about whether their research and programmes with women define women by sex or gender identity. After several back and forths pressing the point, I got an answer basically saying ' We know the right thing to do would be to use gender identity, but it's not safe to ask about that in many places, so our data and programmes are organised by sex.' (I paraphrase, but close enough)

So they're funding women's groups, women's health programmes, and girls' education, and building separate toilets for women and girls in refugee camps for their dignity and safety, but saying they think there are males who also ought to benefit from those provisions if only they felt safe to express their true selves?

I really think organisations with big programmes of work supposedly tackling the systematic oppression and disadvantage faced by women need a better analysis than this.

My next project (once I've finished reading the closing statements!) will be to watch Vaishnavi Sundar's documentary Dysphoric, which I think looks at the impact of these ideas outside of the West.

www.feministcurrent.com/2021/03/26/interview-vaishnavi-sundar-is-fighting-the-transitioning-of-kids-in-her-film-dysphoric/