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.

[quote JoanOgden]Has anyone posted this? It is hilarious

twitter.com/supertolerant/status/1506211611975069697?t=ApYVlxDboBNZaXjRmp98-g&s=09[/quote]
Funniest ever. Love it.

You can join now. Hopefully we won't have any more crutch fiddlers or dressing gowns of doom today.

For Tabby and the other scribes. A bit of light relief. Look out for the stenographer...

That's very funny!

If you just turn off your camera, that does it, doesn't it?

[quote JoanOgden]Has anyone posted this? It is hilarious

twitter.com/supertolerant/status/1506211611975069697?t=ApYVlxDboBNZaXjRmp98-g&s=09[/quote]
That's brilliant!

Has everyone been bounced out of the hearing's room? (I was in but am now 'waiting for the conference host to join' again)

Yes same for me @Teachersaurus

Me too.

I'm in the holding pattern

[quote JoanOgden]Has anyone posted this? It is hilarious

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

OD going first.

I doubt I can get every word in! I'll try to summarise, though.

Good luck with those fingers @tabbycatstripy

Now let's see how both sides pull together days of evidence with many different points discussed.

Here we go!

OD emphasing the conflict of MF's manifestation of her protected beliefs and the impact on CGD staff.

Pulling up my chair. Hi all.

KF: Did you ever see evidence of him being a coward?
GU: No. No, I didn’t.
KF: How did he feel about being dismembered?
GU: I wouldn’t agree he was dismembered but as for his attitude to it I would say he wasn’t totally on board with it.
KF: Done without formal consultation then?

That is a work of genius.

And good luck to @MForstater too - rooting for you

That's an interesting angle she's going for.

Start with reminding that mission of corporate respondents is - and this is important because MF's message in association with their name. Neither respondent ever been concerned with definition of a woman.

Brief overview from CGD:

• claimant never an employee or met status of applicant
• because of conflict between MF manifestation of her belief and impact on employees
• CGD case is that they are not obliged to have their mission undermined by internal or social media comms, that are contradictory to their policy of inclusion
• no obligation to tolerate these behaviours, even when some comms are protected
• CGD do not accept those comms were necessarily a manifestation of protected belief

• reads out some laws I don't know by heart (articles) that show interference with manifestation of belief can be justified
• even if tribunal finds MF behaviours were inseparable from belief, CGD submit tribunal has to follow case of Lee and Ashers, that to require employer to maintain association with someone expressing beliefs they don't want to express would be compelled speech - org has Article 10 rights
• individuals standing behind those corporations who do not hold GC belief, a continued public association could have led to their protected rights being undermined
• important to note CGD did not seek to limit claimant's expression of belief. Attempts made to ensure it was expressed respectfully and encourage her to do it separately from CGD

[quote JoanOgden]Has anyone posted this? It is hilarious

twitter.com/supertolerant/status/1506211611975069697?t=ApYVlxDboBNZaXjRmp98-g&s=09[/quote]
that's brilliant !

Ok. rolling up chair for tribunal tweets........

Lee and Ashers case to be relied on. OD is interestingly arguing on a free speech basis that CGD continuing to be associated with MF means their reputation is at risk and they're free to sever that association. "Association with respondents" is key here.

Long ish train journey today so might not be able to check in as regularly as I'd like...