School assembly told kids that Maya was fired for transphobic hate speech among other stuff: response…

[CarParkHell]

I am raging atm.

My 13 year old DD (feminist AF: has suffragette coloured braces) has come home and told me they had an assembly today about their new inclusivity policy. As part of the assembly they had headlines flashed up about people fired for hate speech and Maya was up there.

They were told that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act; they were given the accurate quote but told that gender identity is ‘the modern term’ for gender reassignment.

She will write me a list of all the points she can remember when she has finished her homework apparently (!)

Firstly I will get a copy of the presentation from school.

Can someone remind me where Maya is with her case? I know the original ET decision was overturned. Are we waiting for another judgement?

The employment tribunal is currently deciding on the facts of Maya's case. Did CGD discriminate against MF on the basis of belief?

You're correct that an appeal for the first part of the ET found that MF has protected beliefs.

The details are here.

hiyamaya.net/

I’d make a formal complaint about school misleading my child on matters of fact.

No one - NO ONE - is allowed to rewrite an Act of Parliament with the words they prefer. The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament. No, it hasn't been updated (it is still EA 2010). No, the wording hasn't been changed. It's the law, and it cannot be rewritten without the say so of Parliament.

Quite surprising that a school would casually commit defamation. Not a very good example to pupils, is it?

Yes. It's expected soon.

The original ruling was overturned on appeal, so that establishes that her belief is protected under the equality act (philosophical belief). It is illegal to discriminate against someone just because they hold that belief.

Having established that the case went back to the employment tribunal to assess exactly what she did & said, how the employer responded, and also whether her relationship with cgd is covered by the ea at all. So the judgement will make a decision about whether cgd were within their rights to break the relationship with her in order to maintain their 'inclusive' values, or reputation, either because the EA doesn't touch them, or because what she did & said was bad enough. I hope she's successful.

At any rate it's wrong to say she was fired for hate speech at this moment.
There will be threads on here!

Id be interested to hear the other examples they gave.

Surely it is sub judice as the case is ongoing. As well as being incorrect and defamatory.

Not sub judice because it’s a tribunal.

This. And I wouldn't be to fussed about being polite either. It's well past time these "be kind" goons were told to shove it up their arse.

Hi Maya, I know you have read this because I have seen your tweet.
Thank you, my daughter is so excited she high fived me!

Glad Maya has seen this. You also need to raise an official complaint. No point emailing concerns, the only think that makes a difference is to follow the complaints process which should be on their website.

Here us our guide on how to complain. I would also be emailing the Secretary of State for education, Ofsted and your own MP as this is not only a safeguarding concern but a legal one. This is horrendous.

And quite right @dropthevipers - formal complaints are the only way to go.

Definitely request a copy of the presentation your child saw. Then you can decide upon your next step. You may have to demand a second assembly to correct the misinformation.

Yes, good point. Get the presentation first to make your complaint stronger.

‘It's well past time these "be kind" goons were told to shove it up their arse.’

Yes. You teach my kids that people can change sex, we’re going to court.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/04/16/how-to-complain-to-your-childs-school/

Sorry forgot to link complaints guide

This is one of the top state grammars in the country 🤬

"Trans" activism in our schools, especially among teachers, has got to be stopped. This is outrageous, never mind being slanderous about Maya Forstater.

If I recall, the teaching of "creationism" was banned in our schools; I think it is time for a serious discussion about banning the ideology of "gender identity" being taught in schools.

Oh well I'm glad that went down well at least! 😊 If you want to DM the name of the school i will write to them.

One of the top state grammars? I hope its not a girls' grammar in HGS...I am an Old Girl of that one and if it is, I'll write and complain as well!

sex-matters.org/take-action/send-guidance-to-school/

There is a link on the page to the full guidance. It is really helpful in quoting what the law says.

Not only would o write to the school to complain I’d also make sure the above were CC-Ed in.

enough of this woman hating guff!

OP you should let Maya know the name of the school directly so she can raise her own complaint with them.

"You're correct that an appeal for the first part of the ET found that MF has protected beliefs"

I hear this a lot and I think it's misunderstood. This just means MF is able to believe anything she wants. It's like saying it's a protected belief to think planet Earth is flat, it doesn't mean you're correct.

I haven't been following MF's case closely but I understand there's apparently a little more to it then simply her beliefs?

Is the school on twitter ? I would be very vocal on there about it.
A few weeks ago there was a school on Twitter boasting about Peter Tatchell coming to visit - you can guess how that went down.

It's not about whether the belief is correct or not. It's about whether she's entitled to hold it.

Maya Forstater won her case because the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that her belief that biological sex is real, important and immutable met the legal test of a genuine and important philosophical position that is protected under the UK's equality laws.
The test for such a protection was that her belief touched on an important part of human life, would be accepted by others and - this is the important bit - could not be shown to be a direct attempt to harm others.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579