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.

DomesticatedZombie those videos are perfect

@tabbycatstripy

Who is RMW?

We're anticipating the dramatis personae of Allison Bailey's case in April.

RMW is one of the co-authors of the Practical Guide.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

'But the rest of the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent.'

Tendentiousness? Weak or absent analysis? Who would have thought it?

'In a small minority of those with certain rare DSDs, sex may be incorrectly observed at birth; but that fact no more undermines the male/female binary than the fact that individuals are occasionally prematurely pronounced dead undermines the alive/dead binary.'

Now I am actually dead. :)

LE also said that sex and gender are the same.

As I recall, LE said that and then BC, showing that he's grasped what's going on, asked specifically if LE thought that sex was the same as gender identity and LE confirmed this as his belief and the position of CGD. Given the context, I took this to mean that someone's sex changes to match their gender identity. The classic gender identity is fixed while sex is fluid* assertion. To be fair, LE is far from being alone in holding that bizarre view, it's not that different from the nonsense that's in the GRA 2004 (see section 9(1)).

I posted at the time:

LE has just said that gender identity = sex, and that's the CGD position.

• sorry about the imagery there

But either way, it's at odds with (in different ways) CGD's claim that they have no institutional position on these questions, (they clearly do) and the reality in terms of the absence of any actual policy, that they had not communicated such a position to MF. And if they had, it might have been in breach of equality law.

What a mess.

If I've been following this right, I think where CGD has a grave weakness in its rebuttal case is the fact that it relied on a report (from QI) that had demonstrated inaccuracies in it (e.g. the 'giving out pamphlets' lie) and that this was prejudicial to Maya.

It is hopefully within Ben Cooper's considerable powers to persuade the tribunal that this reliance was significant.

Additionally, the fact that there were two different reports - and how they were used, again prejudicially against Maya - looks like an unfair process was being employed.

To top that, CGD appears to be unable to suggest any form of words that Maya might have been able to use to express her protected beliefs even in the mildest of forms, on her personal social media, with disclaimer; and then appears to have used its own inability to do so as a reasons to withdraw a previously dangled job opportunity.

Additionally, the fact that there were two different reports - and how they were used, again prejudicially against Maya - looks like an unfair process was being employed.

These were characterised by BC as being "the vague report" which MF was shown and "the secret report" which was for decision-making in CGD and was not to be shown to MF. Describing the reports in this way was not challenged in the proceedings.

The vague report and the secret report made me chuckle. Ben had CGD employees describing them as such. Neither sound like the type of report you should be relying on in court.

I'm hopeful that their secrecy and unwillingness to engage with the line (they say it existed but failed to articulate it) between what MF would or wouldn't be allowed to say at work - whilst respecting her right to articulate her beliefs - will sway the tribunal.

I'm also hoping that the lack of a written or articulated social media policy will be in Maya's favour.

When asked to stop tweeting from her work account she did. She complied with all suggestions made when they were made. But information was withheld about the true nature of the issues and she was not given an opportunity to see and defend herself against all the allegations made. There was no formal policy and no clear disciplinary procedure was followed.

Placemarking

tabbycatstripy I also admire OD’s hair, but hadn’t dared to say it on a feminist board

Purely out of curiosity, what’s your typing wpm? I used to scribe on a tech project many years ago and thoroughly appreciate your efforts. It isn’t easy.

A question for all—other than the odd question here or there, OD doesn’t seem to have done much questioning of witnesses. Is this the nature of appeals, where the claimant’s side must prove, therefore the other side doesn’t have to do as much?

Finally, is it right to think today’s and tomorrow’s oral evidence (why break them up over two days?) is essentially an opportunity for both sides to try to direct the EJ toward the arguments made in their favour, that is, highlight the bits they want the EJ to focus on.

(It’s nuts out there today)

Do we know what time BC is speaking today?

Finally, is it right to think today’s and tomorrow’s oral evidence (why break them up over two days?) is essentially an opportunity for both sides to try to direct the EJ toward the arguments made in their favour, that is, highlight the bits they want the EJ to focus on.

The respective barristers needed time to work on their written closing submissions over the weekend and Monday afternoon. They submitted these submissions along with a couple of additional documents to the tribunal this morning.

Closing statements this afternoon. I think from upthread it's OD and then BC but I'm not in a position to state that with any degree of confidence.

The statements are approx 3hrs each which is why it's today and tomorrow morning. There was some kerfuffle about the fact that with a break, the afternoon session is really only 2.5hrs whereas a morning one is 3hrs.

Yes, in the light of the various examinations of the witnesses, this is the opportunity for both barristers to direct the ET towards the best bits of their own case and draw attention to deficits in the other case.

I may be very wrong.

@PenguindreamsofDraco

Looking forward to BC's closing, he's been stupendous. OD is very good given her call but the difference has been stark. Amd next time around am I right in thinking RMW is against him?

Just did a BB-worthy gasp.

Nooooooooooooo!

I have to get some billable hours in soon, this sort of distraction is not helping.

@nauticant

Additionally, the fact that there were two different reports - and how they were used, again prejudicially against Maya - looks like an unfair process was being employed.

These were characterised by BC as being "the vague report" which MF was shown and "the secret report" which was for decision-making in CGD and was not to be shown to MF. Describing the reports in this way was not challenged in the proceedings.

QI themselves described the version of the report to be shared with Maya as "vague". That's their own characterisation of it. (1718 in the bundle - another one worth a look at the detail. )

"It's really vague - I did it very deliberately because I recommend against getting into a discussion with Maya on topics such as "is saying that trans women aren't women offensive" because she knows the whole context of the discussion really, really well."

They call the other one the 'honest' version. "an internal report for you and Luke (and I recommend reading it first) that is my honest assessment..."

It would be hard to challenge 'secret report' for a report which is kept secret from the person it's about, to the extent that the authors wrote a whole other special vague report in order to hide its existence.

As a process, it absolutely stinks.

@ShagMeRiggins

tabbycatstripy I also admire OD’s hair, but hadn’t dared to say it on a feminist board

Purely out of curiosity, what’s your typing wpm? I used to scribe on a tech project many years ago and thoroughly appreciate your efforts. It isn’t easy.

A question for all—other than the odd question here or there, OD doesn’t seem to have done much questioning of witnesses. Is this the nature of appeals, where the claimant’s side must prove, therefore the other side doesn’t have to do as much?

Finally, is it right to think today’s and tomorrow’s oral evidence (why break them up over two days?) is essentially an opportunity for both sides to try to direct the EJ toward the arguments made in their favour, that is, highlight the bits they want the EJ to focus on.

I don't know, ShagMe (that is a great username!). I've never counted it or anything.

The fact they deliberately hid things from Maya and misled her won't look good, surely?

Is it 2pm for the summing up today?

I'm wondering why I can't get in but I'm an hour early aren't I?

@nauticant

LE also said that sex and gender are the same.

As I recall, LE said that and then BC, showing that he's grasped what's going on, asked specifically if LE thought that sex was the same as gender identity and LE confirmed this as his belief and the position of CGD. Given the context, I took this to mean that someone's sex changes to match their gender identity. The classic gender identity is fixed while sex is fluid* assertion. To be fair, LE is far from being alone in holding that bizarre view, it's not that different from the nonsense that's in the GRA 2004 (see section 9(1)).

I posted at the time:

LE has just said that gender identity = sex, and that's the CGD position.

• sorry about the imagery there

And of course the rules keep changing, like every minute it seems and it's very very easy to get it wrong because it was different last week. The born in the wrong body thing was the legend for a very long time then mermaids? Put up a tweet and all change again.

Unless you are in the right crowd you probably wont get to hear the latest iteration and could easily be woefully out of date with current thinking.

LE was using an old definition.
All of this means too that companies cannot ever get it right or not for long. The next new rules are on the way as soon as you adopted current rules. Many companies dont work that fast.

Has anyone posted this? It is hilarious

twitter.com/supertolerant/status/1506211611975069697?t=ApYVlxDboBNZaXjRmp98-g&s=09

@MayaWasSackedForGCBeliefs

I'm wondering why I can't get in but I'm an hour early aren't I?

Me too, @MayaWasSackedForGCBeliefs. It's ok, means we'll get the really good seats.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Is it 2pm for the summing up today?

Maya says 2pm on Twitter.

We should all join 20mins early or so.