Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal
select the video and mic that are not crossed out, this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 1 👇

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

One highlight of yesterday was repeated today. It was AB saying she objected to some of Stonewall's campaigning as going beyond the law. In response IO tried to push her that barristers going beyond the law was something they should aim for. The same happened today.

Is it just me or is a cross-examining barrister in court telling a claimant/witness barrister that there's something off in them objecting to going beyond the law?

For some people (including me) being obligated to use pronouns that reflect a belief in a philosophy you think is untrue and harmful is equally workplace harassment.

I don't think this can be reconciled.

Not to mention people like me who could never get the hang of it. If there was only one person identifying as something different to how I perceived them I might be able to cope but all it would take was if there was more than one person with opposite sex pronouns and then throw a they/them into the mix and I'd be screwed.

IANAL but I'm not sure about an aim - a reasonable one - being to go beyond the law. That seems to clash directly with our separation of powers.

That is to say, the courts will usually (always?) steer clear of making new law. That's why the passports marker JR failed, I thought. They interpret the law but they won't make it because making the law is the job of our MPs.

Going beyond the law undermines Parliament, doesn't it?

'Is it just me or is a cross-examining barrister in court telling a claimant/witness barrister that there's something off in them objecting to going beyond the law?'

It's such a stupid phrase. You can choose not to do things that are not mandated by law, or you can do things that are not prohibited by law. If you intend to do more than you are required to do by law, that's fine, providing you are not, in the process, breaking the law.

I wonder whether it reflects a split in the barrister profession where some believe that you do the best job you can with the law and there are chambers which see themselves as activist-chambers who see their role as overcoming boundaries defined by the law.

Maybe a bit like how there are now activist-journalists, rather than investigative journalists, having a high profile in leading media companies.

Anyone else's reception breaking up? The audio keeps cutting out. It was fine on previous days.

'I wonder whether it reflects a split in the barrister profession where some believe that you do the best job you can with the law and there are chambers which see themselves as activist-chambers who see their role as overcoming boundaries defined by the law.'

They do engage in strategic litigation. That's allowed. As is 'going beyond the law' (doing more than you are obligated to do for a particular group, for example). The problem is that you can't use that as a defence for breaking the law, i.e. disadvantaging another group such that it is discriminatory.

"All of these policies would not be inclusive of me. They would be exclusive of ME."

On fire.

I had two lesbian friends who sat on a regional Stonewall committee in the noughties and were bemused about the presence on that committee of a straight white Queer man and someone who they were pretty sure was a TW. Some discussions as early as 2007-2008 hinted that Stonewall was already exploring the inclusion TQ+ and when my friends challenged this and stated what for them was blindingly obvious — that there was a conflict of interest between sexuality and gender and between women's and lesbian rights and trans rights — they were harassed by the Queer guy, who recorded their objections and later used what they'd said to traduce them in a lecture he gave at Swansea University. The chair of the committee (a lesbian) did nothing to support them and the whole situation became so weird, and my friends so marginalised and uncomfortable, that they resigned. They had no idea at the time what was going on but look back now and realise that this was an early incursion of the TQ+ into Stonewall's midst. Stonewall, even back then, had decided to throw lesbians under the bus.

In terms of "going beyond the law" - I think the issue is that many people (including very worringly barristers) don't understand that this is a balancing of competing rights issue. - Going beyond the law for some things is fine - (e.g. paying above the minimum wage, having maternity pay on full salary for 6 months) but going beyond the law by saying that you are diminishing one groups rights to freedoms and protections in favour of another is not

Is it just me or is a cross-examining barrister in court telling a claimant/witness barrister that there's something off in them objecting to going beyond the law?

It's a really odd argument isn't it? They whole debate is about balancing rights and going beyond the law on one characteristic clearly has the risk of impacting on one of the other characteristics. (in this case sex which that document omitted and replaced with gender).

I don't think this can be reconciled.

Unfortunately not, and the reason for many women I suspect is line in the sand stuff. I have become more militant about my refusal to give an inch on this shit over the last year or so, because I know it is the tip of a very big nasty iceberg.
The reality is that if it wasn't for all the other stuff (men in women's prisons, sports teams etc. children on puberty blockers) then it wouldn't be as big a deal and many women probably wouldn't object to it. But we know well it serves a bigger cause.

I liken it to religious belief, which should be protected, but also crucially non-belief should be protected and not vilified.

For example, if I met a priest in my hometown, I would likely refer to him as 'Father' out of respect. However, that is where the kindness ends - if he then tried to indoctrinate me into Catholic teachings or lecture me on stuff, or spout hatred about non believers my acquiescence would evaporate pretty quickly.

As it is, when I see or hear about pronouns, it's a stark reminder of the infiltration of these lies everywhere (no other belief system seems to get this kind of unquestioning support and propaganda).

So it does rankle, because I know what it represents is more than just be kind, it's be obedient and serve our cause, to your own detriment.

The "going beyond the law" here is, in one respect, clear, and that's the removal of "gender reassignment" and the substitution in its place of "gender identity". This means that some people will be excluded who the law intended to include and other people will be included who the law intended to exclude.

I think "over and above" what is legally required is usually fine. For example, employers are only legally required to pay statutory maternity pay. There are usually no objections if employers choose to pay more than this, develop attractive return to work packages and also provide more than the legal minimum of paternity leave.

The difficulty with "beyond" what is legally required is that superficially it sounds similar to "over and above the legal minimum" but in reality seems to have been used to misrepresent the law. For example by encouraging employers to refer to the protected characteristics of "gender" and "gender identity" rather than "sex" and "gender reassignment". That's not doing extra beyond what the law requires, it's replacing precisely defined legal terms with fluff and obfuscation in a manner that leaves employers at risk of inadvertently illegally discriminating against employees with protected characteristics.

drwitch

A certain lawyer who has an aversion to semi-urban canines was shit-posting on Twitter this morning about the case relating to the single-sex rape crisis counselling. He showed that same misunderstanding, asking in bewildered tones 'who benefits?' from the case, and saying 'certainly not rape victims'. No understanding was shown that for female rape victims, the refusal of an organisation to consider their need for a space in which the only other people present are female, can be a terrible detriment. He seems entirely unwilling to put himself in the woman's shoes and see that a judgment requiring them to do so would benefit the woman, whether he agrees with that or not. It's so odd.

Well given that this person is as quick with the block button as he is with a bat, its not surprising that he is not aware of the full debate

'Nina Caven' Does that name ring any bells?

I read 'semi urban' as 'semi urbane' and had a vision of a fox smoking a Sobrani cigarette. 🦊

Pluvia I remember that SW was pushing the T ideology as far back as 2000/01 and l and g groups were already being told to be inclusive. Some of us objected but were often overruled .

'I read 'semi urban' as 'semi urbane' and had a vision of a fox smoking a Sobrani cigarette.'

I doubt the foxes in his neighbourhood are feeling very urbane!

😄

In Allison's witness statement (available to the public on her website) she says that Stonewall's first response to her SAR was that they held no information about her at all. Their complaint from the Head of Trans Inclusion obviously fits that description, so they wrote back again and they received 90 pages of documents, but they didn't consider that was complete judging by other documents they did have so had to write again. Stonewall also redacted the documents and Allison's legal team were only allowed to see the unredacted documents, not make copies. It's not exactly a stretch to think that it's possible that they may have still omitted information they held on AB.

EJ: It's not clear why it would be needed [for someone to insert their pronouns in their identifier in the chat].

Ha!

I was amused by that too nauticant

Tempted to log in as 'Steve Ze/Zoo'