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?

Exactly.

Although I will be gutted if Allison doesn't win, I will still consider all the money I have donated very well spent if it exposes the misogyny and homophobia promoted by Stonewall.

All this blistering sunlight, and the negative publicity will be well worth it. Let's see how many organisations rush to sign up to their dodgy schemes after this, win or lose.

'It makes no sense to claim this was just some random offended person.'

Quite. One of the other issues here is the direction things take when personal campaigning interests are given too much priority in the workplace. The STAG members, for example, are basically unpaid activists. Of course they would regard their own complaints about AB as part of their personal activism, not their work. But actually they are operating in other people's workplaces, and workplace law applies. Michelle Brewer is another one. There are unprofessional emails from her (she's a bloody judge!) all over the evidence bundle, showing she was unable to separate her interest in the law from her interest in trans rights activism. But I suspect she would regard her work on transgender law as rightly inseparable from her activism, when really it should be the other way around.

Workplace activism is a disaster for everyone.

I think today has been very valuable in exposing the weak areas of SW and GCC's cases (their 'defences' so to speak).

I think Ben Cooper knows where to probe around in that underbelly region.

I don't see how they can argue that a SW employee (SW Head of Trans Inclusion no less), in contact with a contracted SWDC member, making a complaint about a member of that client's organisation, wasn't speaking for SW.

Also GCC separated that complaint off from the several others in the investigation because Stonewall and they felt it was crucial to address it. It was Annex B while all others were lumped together as Annex A.

'Also GCC separated that complaint off from the several others in the investigation because Stonewall and they felt it was crucial to address it. It was Annex B while all others were lumped together as Annex A.'

This is true. It shows they cared what Stonewall thought. I still don't believe it's enough to demonstrate that they were taking directions from Stonewall.

'Also GCC separated that complaint off from the several others in the investigation because Stonewall and they felt it was crucial to address it. It was Annex B while all others were lumped together as Annex A.'

This is true. It shows they cared what Stonewall thought. I still don't believe it's enough to demonstrate that they were taking directions from Stonewall.

I have just been reading some of Allison's witness statement. What an extraordinary, but heartbreaking at times, life she has had - it honestly makes those idiots, whose greatest achievement is furiously bashing out tweets in their parents basement, look absolutely pathetic.

IO really doesn't have much to go on does she? I mean she's just got such a difficult job because we all know stonewalls behaviour has been appalling. We all know gender ideology is appalling and based on shifting sands. And IO is having to work on a very very slippery slope with not a lot go on.

I think IO is trying to cast doubt on connections between GGC & Stonewall best she can.

Stonewalls main defence seems to be "what? Little old me? I'm powerless".

This is true. It shows they cared what Stonewall thought. I still don't believe it's enough to demonstrate that they were taking directions from Stonewall.

No, but I think it shows that GCC didn't think of Medcalf as just a random member of the public as IO implies he was, they saw it as a "Stonewall complaint" that they needed to deal with as a matter of importance.

Some people might think sex is immutable and binary, and that there is no such thing as an innate gender, but not give a monkey's about Stonewall's position one way or the other.

@tabbycatstripy I don't see how that's possible because a gender critical position isn't only a position on whether sex is immutable and binary and gender is not innate. Surely(?) it's also a position on the implications and the actions and the policies that Stonewall (and others) have drawn from believing the opposite.

Being gender critical includes a position on whether lesbians are supposed to fancy transwomen, or whether transwomen must be allowed into women-only spaces, and so on. I don't see how anyone could hold a gender-critical position on any of those things and then look at Stonewall's statements and actions and policies and training materials and still think "ok guys, you do you".

Yes, that's the one I meant, Chuckles. I think IO was talking about that email, because Allison responded to her:

AB: 'I was raising concern that we were entering into relationship with org in danger of breaching-'

IO: I must interrupt - I am not talking about your objections, I am talking about knowledge of your email

Knowledge of the email objecting to entering into a relationship with Stonewall.

The email may not have been sent to Stonewall, and they might not have seen it until disclosure, but it looks like the chair of Stonewall was told about it.

Covered in the Telegraph with a time stamp of 10:43 am

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/stonewall-lecturing-firms-transgender-issues-tribunal-told/

"Giving evidence for the first time at the Central London Employment Tribunal on Wednesday, Ms Bailey accused Stonewall of “prosthelytising”, as part of a concerted effort to convert and change people’s views on transgender issues.

According to court documents read before the hearing, Ms Bailey had raised concerns about Stonewall’s diversity programme claiming that "it involves lecturing and training... this includes gender theory"

Ijeoma Omambala QC, Stonewall's barrister, told the tribunal: “It's not right that the program is about gender theory” to which Ms Bailey responded: “I disagree.”

She added: “They were spreading a particular view of gender theory that was telling people what to think and do. That's what I meant by lecturing.”

Ms Omambala responded: “I don't want to waste time here. When you use ‘lecturing’ in pleading, are you using it the same as 'proselytising'?” to which Ms Bailey responded: “yes.”"

And the Mail. Time stamp 4:41pm

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10786161/JK-Rowlings-friend-tells-tribunal-Stonewall-operates-like-criminal-protection-racket.html

'No, but I think it shows that GCC didn't think of Medcalf as just a random member of the public as IO implies he was, they saw it as a "Stonewall complaint" that they needed to deal with as a matter of importance.'

It shows that they thought of it this way, yes. It doesn't show that it was that way (Medcalf could have been acting as a Lone Ranger). But that's pedantry - the email speaks for itself in my view.

'@tabbycatstripy I don't see how that's possible because a gender critical position isn't only a position on whether sex is immutable and binary and gender is not innate. Surely(?) it's also a position on the implications and the actions and the policies that Stonewall (and others) have drawn from believing the opposite.'

I'm not sure of that actually. I think 'gender critical' is just the position that sex is binary, immutable, and matters. You could be gender critical without having ever heard of Stonewall.

'Being gender critical includes a position on whether lesbians are supposed to fancy transwomen, or whether transwomen must be allowed into women-only spaces, and so on. I don't see how anyone could hold a gender-critical position on any of those things and then look at Stonewall's statements and actions and policies and training materials and still think "ok guys, you do you".'

I think being gender critical is about the core belief that sex is real, immutable and important. My own gender critical core belief leads me to concern about Stonewall's statements and actions, but they wouldn't necessarily lead every single person there.

I don't see how anyone could hold a gender-critical position on any of those things and then look at Stonewall's statements and actions and policies and training materials and still think "ok guys, you do you".
I know what you mean, but someone could take the view(in fact I do), that SW are entitled to their beliefs and aims, to campaign to change the law and policies and even to evangelise their beliefs. Because ultimately I'm a pluralist. But it should be honest and up front. I completely object to the method - behind the scenes, quietly in hr policies, changing language without explaining the implications, one sided legal advice, & especially preventing other people from speaking openly the opposing view. That's Allison's main criticism, but in my mind the method is more separate than the message and aim than the way it came out in court.

I think being gender critical is about the core belief that sex is real, immutable and important. My own gender critical core belief leads me to concern about Stonewall's statements and actions, but they wouldn't necessarily lead every single person there.

I see your point... but a lot of people (including myself) went the other way, we were happy enough to accept the non-GC position and not really worried about sex vs. gender until we saw the unacceptable implications.

Of course IANAL and I'm not following live so I don't know if the court is using just that core belief as the meaning for "gender critical" or my rather bigger set of attitudes and ideas.

David de Menezes was the Director of Marketing at GCC and he was one of the people involved in the 'investigation'.

His reaction to the incident (or one of them) was to email the other senior people, including this interesting statement: 'In other developments, Amnesty and Stonewall (two organisations we work closely with) have both put out statements on Twitter.'

So it can't be too credible that there was no sense of a close relationship between GCC and Stonewall.

De Menezes also pre-empted the investigation by talking about GCC's commitment to equality/anti-discrimination, strongly implying that AB's involvement with the LGBA and her tweets were evidence that she did not share such a commitment.

Judy Khan, the Head of Chambers, took the more thoughtful position in the email chains, insisting that GCC were actually not taking a position and were considering AB's views impartially. However, she also called her very difficult, and when AB told Khan that she had received death and rape threats, Khan told the rest of the management team in an email that she told AB she had not seen these and therefore (essentially) could not comment. That is not support and it is not (to my mind) impartiality.

It's useful to understand what was happening today in terms of the proving or disproving of the legal case brought by AB rather than confirming that we think Stonewall, in terms of some of the things that it does, can be harmful.

These are some of the relevants parts of AB's case as it applies to Stonewall taken from AB's FURTHER REVISED AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

2. The Claimant advances the following claims:

(d) The instructing, causing or inducement of the Second and Third Respondents' [GCC and barristers there] unlawful conduct by the First Respondent [Stonewall] ...

17. The Claimant's case is that:

a. Individuals for whose actions the Second and/or Third Respondents are liable colluded with the First Respondent in the submission of the complaint against her and/or invited the submission of the complaint;
...
c. The Third Respondent (acting through members of chambers including its Heads of Chambers) initiated the investigation into the Claimant and upheld the complaint against her at the explicit or implied inducement or instruction of the First Respondent.

25.(b) The PCPs cause substantial disadvantage to women, and to lesbians, because women, and lesbians in particularly, are more likely to have gender critical beliefs, and are therefore more likely to be treated as being bigoted or otherwise to have complaints upheld against them.

What IO wanted to undermine is AB's claim that Stonewall instructed, caused or induced GCC to cause a detriment to AB, that Stonewall colluded with GCC in this happening, and that GCC initiated the investigation into AB at the explicit or implied inducement or instruction of Stonewall.

Yesterday was an attempt to undermine AB's assertion that women, and lesbians in particularly, are more likely to have gender critical beliefs. The approach taken by IO and AH was that the evidence provided might have related to a subset of women associated with the relevant campaigning groups but did not prove the relevant belief being held by women and lesbians as a whole.

'I see your point... but a lot of people (including myself) went the other way, we were happy enough to accept the non-GC position and not really worried about sex vs. gender until we saw the unacceptable implications.'

I was always very happy to accept people as 'honorary' members of the sex with which they identified. I still am. But I've never believed it was literally true. That way madness lies.

I’ve always assumed Honorary member through reassignment too, what with being physically different to females.

Workplace activism is a disaster for everyone.

Mis-read that as Wokeplace activism, but that works too

I was always very happy to accept people as 'honorary' members of the sex with which they identified.

I can see how people were OK with other persons believing themselves to be honorary members of the sex with which they identified.

I've never been "happy to accept" them as such because I'm not OK with being expected/compelled to collude in someone else's immersive fiction in this (and several other areas).

I think it's fine for other people to hold beliefs, and for there to be a plurality of beliefs, as long as I'm not compelled to accept or adopt any of them.

'I've never been "happy to accept" them as such because I'm not OK with being expected/compelled to collude in someone else's immersive fiction in this (and several other areas).'

For me, I never had to do anything or say anything that made me uncomfortable before people started saying (variously) sex was a spectrum, sex was a construct, women were chestfeeders and cervix-havers, single-sex spaces weren't a thing, choke on their lady dick, terfs etc. I don't really care if someone wants to wear 'female' clothes and call themselves by a typically female name. I'd use their preferred pronouns as a matter of habit once I heard their name in most cases.

But trying to force me to do that is a very different matter.