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.

They do, don't they? There probably isn't a better way.

They do, I've been hunting for reasons why the appeal has been allowed. I found this pro-trans academic legal analysis, clearly biased but interesting, which goes into detail about the three cases: Maya, David Mackereth and Kristie Higgs. Worth a read. Suffice it to say that they don't agree with many of the legal points and think Maya's EAT judgement should be overturned for the good of the Equality Act as it makes it too hard to implement.

academic.oup.com/ilj/article-abstract/51/1/1/6536993

It doesn't indicate why the Higgs appeal was allowed though, but I found this mention

https://christiantoday.com/article/tribunal.to.hear.appeal.of.christian.school.worker.who.questioned.sex.ed.and.trans.ideology/138239.htm

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Mrs Higgs will have her case heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London on 1 and 2 March.
Lawyers for Mrs Higgs will argue that the Employment Tribunal erred in law with its original judgment and demonstrated a manifestly incorrect understanding of freedom of speech.

'Some Employment Tribunal claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) involve situations where a person’s protection from discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic—such as sex, sexual orientation or gender reassignment—comes into conflict with the rights of others, such as, for example, the right to freedom of expression or the right to manifest religion or belief under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), or the protection from discrimination on the ground of religious or philosophical belief under the EqA itself.'

I'll read it, but just to begin there, no. MF's case was about MF's employment rights and discrimination against MF because of protected philosophical belief. Nothing to do with a person's protection against discrimination because of sex/sexual orientation or gender reassignment.

Nobody claimed they were discriminated against on those grounds in Forstater, Mackereth or Higgs.

This is the common misconception that the very expression of any of the beliefs in question (be it GC beliefs or being against same-sex marriage etc.) amounts, without the direct involvement of any such person in the situation, to discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of homosexuality, or gender reassignment.

It doesn't.

Why can't they get these things right?

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/christian-school-worker-kristie-higgs-to-appeal-after-being-denied-justice-by-employment-tribunal/

Also the description of the meeting sounds awful.

An investigation into her conduct was launched, which involved Mrs Higgs being questioned on why she had used her school email to receive ‘inspirational’ quotations from the Bible.
The investigation culminated just days before Christmas when Mrs Higgs was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing at a hotel.
‘Pro-Nazi right-wing extremist’
For six hours until 8pm, Mrs Higgs was subjected to intimidating questioning by the panel of three governors, supported by three other members of staff. Her posts were compared to ‘pro-Nazi’ views, and she was accused of intolerance.
When she tried to explain the context of her Christian beliefs she was told: “keep your religion out of it.” Mrs Higgs argued that her aim had been merely to raise awareness among parents of the Government’s education plans and the transgender books being taught in primary schools.

The meeting sounds absolutely dreadful and should raise concerns about unfair treatment, I agree.

I might have to say the phrase 'critically analyses' ipso facto loses the author of that piece the entire argument.

How else would you analyse?

'We argue that although the reasoning of the ETs in Mackereth, Forstater and Higgs could have been clearer and more consistent when applying the Grainger criteria, in attempting to reconcile competing claims, the first instance Tribunals took an approach which was broadly in alignment and furthered the objectives of the EqA to protect those vulnerable to discrimination.'

Except that people with GC beliefs are 'those vulnerable to discrimination'.

I might have to give up.

This is the common misconception that the very expression of any of the beliefs in question (be it GC beliefs or being against same-sex marriage etc.) amounts, without the direct involvement of any such person in the situation, to discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of homosexuality, or gender reassignment.

This is absolutely correct. They seem to think that saying veganism isn't healthy is the same as force feeding someone meat.

@Imnobody4

This is the common misconception that the very expression of any of the beliefs in question (be it GC beliefs or being against same-sex marriage etc.) amounts, without the direct involvement of any such person in the situation, to discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of homosexuality, or gender reassignment.

This is absolutely correct. They seem to think that saying veganism isn't healthy is the same as force feeding someone meat.

Nothing sets out the direct clash of trans ideology with free speech rights like the implicit argument (okay, not very implicit) that it is automatically discriminatory to say you don't agree with them.

This is where the 'most vulnerable' and 'literal violence' rhetoric and that bloody Bench Book and Stonewall/Gendered Intelligence training of judges gets us to - a position where any private statement that fails to support Gender Ideology and which becomes known about is automatically regarded as harming and discriminating against other unnamed people ...

... and that this non-crime is a sackable offence and all means to achieve the sacking are deemed proportionate.

Except that people with GC beliefs are 'those vulnerable to discrimination'.

Exactly.

Except that people with GC beliefs are 'those vulnerable to discrimination'

We really should start putting this out there. Get on the wire, as it were.

Nothing sets out the direct clash of trans ideology with free speech rights like the implicit argument (okay, not very implicit) that it is automatically discriminatory to say you don't agree with them.

And this is at the heart of Maya's case, and Raquel Rosario Sanchez, and Jo Phoenix, and Allison Bailey.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Nothing sets out the direct clash of trans ideology with free speech rights like the implicit argument (okay, not very implicit) that it is automatically discriminatory to say you don't agree with them.

And this is at the heart of Maya's case, and Raquel Rosario Sanchez, and Jo Phoenix, and Allison Bailey.

And we will win, because people in this country will not tolerate a permanent block on free speech rights of this nature. It will keep going back to court, back in the media, back on Twitter, and eventually people will accept that some people believe you can change sex, and some people just don't.

Thanks for all thinks to Higgs. I'd forgotten about that one. Read about it at the time and found it bizarre that they found her beliefs were woriads but then said 'but you were sacked for posting things that resulted from your beliefs not for your beliefs'. I guess it's the belief/manifestation distinction. It might be that the specific language was not what you would want from someone who works in a school, but it sounds like the investigation was horrible and I hope that comes back to bite the school on the bum.

It sounds like if it had been a different type of claim (unfair dismissal?l) she might have been successful?

Mckereth will be heard later this month too.

Manderley: I think it is that. There is a difference between saying you think teaching gender ideology in schools is wrong or dangerous, and saying it's teaching a perversion. When you work in a school you are subject to some very strict social media conduct rules.

I'm not saying she won't win, but I'm not confident.

Whereas with MF, although I do think her words went beyond the pure manifestation of the belief, I don't think there was anything pejorative about anything she said. Engaging in a policy discussion and saying there is a clash of rights isn't the same as calling people perverts.

in a policy discussion and saying there is a clash of rights isn't the same as calling people perverts.

They can argue that's what "cross dresser" means about Bunce. Anyone can have their words twisted out of context.

'They can argue that's what "cross dresser" means about Bunce. Anyone can have their words twisted out of context.'

That's true, but that analogy is weakened by a number of points in the MF case: PB did not describe PB as trans; PB said PB liked 'dressing up' as a woman, and 'cross-dressing' was a common way of describing a person who expressed themselves as they perceived the opposite dress to dress until so recently that it can't even - in my view - be regarded as commonly offensive. It's only offensive to a small group that has suddenly decided it's offensive.

'Perversity' is more obviously pejorative (cross-dressing isn't actually pejorative at all).

I am waiting for the outcome of the ET, and my first order of business will be asking the "Gender Equality" network how they propose to create a space that allows GC women to express their views, respectfully and lawfully.

'Pervert' (verb) and 'perverted' are interesting words. They have modern pejorative meanings; but they also mean to distort, lead astray, and to be disloyal, wrong, disobedient, impure, corrupted - and they are used repeatedly in this context in the Bible.

That's true, but that analogy is weakened by a number of points in the MF case: PB did not describe PB as trans

I think there are many people who would say that Bunce is trans.

Mark Plant certainly clutched his pearls at the description of Bunce as a cross dresser and felt the need to share that he had helped another male through a similar transition. My point is that there are many things which can be twisted out of context to make it look like the person is expressing "hate" or prejudice for a group of people. Some of the GC writing expressing concern about queer theory in schools could be painted as that.

Yes like "pervert the course of justice"

''Pervert' (verb) and 'perverted' are interesting words. They have modern pejorative meanings; but they also mean to distort, lead astray, and to be disloyal, wrong, disobedient, impure, corrupted - and they are used repeatedly in this context in the Bible.'

Absolutely. That's why I said not in the contrarian sense. So you can say an argument is perverse without implying someone is a pervert. But I think Higgs's FB posts could be read (reasonably) as implying the other meaning.

The appeal might decide differently.

@tabbycatstripy

'They can argue that's what "cross dresser" means about Bunce. Anyone can have their words twisted out of context.'

That's true, but that analogy is weakened by a number of points in the MF case: PB did not describe PB as trans; PB said PB liked 'dressing up' as a woman, and 'cross-dressing' was a common way of describing a person who expressed themselves as they perceived the opposite dress to dress until so recently that it can't even - in my view - be regarded as commonly offensive. It's only offensive to a small group that has suddenly decided it's offensive.

'Perversity' is more obviously pejorative (cross-dressing isn't actually pejorative at all).

Didn't Maya's side also point out that 'cross dresser' is a term that Stonewall, the biggest LGBT+ charity in the UK, use?

So that could make it difficult to argue that it's an unacceptable term?