Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 11

[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 please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), 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, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - 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)

Thread 1 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Thread 9 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553181-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-9

Thread 10 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553754-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-10

Allison Bailey - claimant (4-9, 11-13 May)

Witnesses for the claimant:

Dr Nicola Williams - Fair Play for Women (29 April)
Dr Judith Green - A Woman's Place (29 April)
Kate Barker - LGB Alliance (3 May)
Lisa-Marie Taylor - FiLiA (4 May)

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC (3-4 May)
Zainab Al-Farabi - ex Stonewall (10 May)
Kirrin Medcalf - head of trans inclusion Stonewall (10 May)
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC (13 May)
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall (16 May)
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG (16 May)
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers (16-17 May)
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC (17-18 May)
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC (18 May)
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC (19-20 May)
Charlie Tennent - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Luke Harvey - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Louise Hooper - Barrister at GCC (20 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)

To come?

Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to continue on 25th May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing

The lengths everyone -right now CM, to a ridiculous, to the level of absurdity - is going to to try to deny that the words used by Planned Parenthood Toronto to describe their workshop don't mean what they by definition mean.
"Overcoming"
"the cotton ceiling"
"Breaking down"
"sexual barriers for queer trans women"
"will explore the sexual barriers queer trans women face within the broader queer women's communities"
"will identify barriers"
"strategize ways to overcome them"
"Open to all trans women and MAAB [male assigned at birth] genderqueer folk"

CM claims that PPT's subsequent statements negate everthing said above, even though these two statements below contradict each other - if not "individual women's objections to sexual activity" with male bodies, and "sexual desire" for non-male bodies, what barriers are being broken down? (emphasis added):
"The workshop does not and was never intended to advocate or promote overcoming any individual woman’s objections to sexual activity.
Instead, this workshop explores the ways in which ideologies of transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire."
www.facebook.com/PPToronto/posts/in-january-of-2012-planned-parenthood-toronto-in-partnership-with-other-local-pr/10150615471958021/

At least she's not waffling like most of the other barristers. Refreshing to have more or less clear answers. Even if they're bonkers.

I think the question she is wanting to answer is whether there was actually an action of coercive behaviour. She's saying that there isn't any evidence that this is the case. She also seems to think that the coercion of people into relationships is unlikely. We know that it happens all the time. We also know what the workshop had set out to achieve, because we understand it within the wider context of the situation. But there's limited evidence that she's seen to confirm that the workshop was actively coercing people and that's what she is focused on (erroneously in my opinion).

BC - Lesbian's knickers!

And she didn't see that the workshop mentioned 'shaming', so therefore shaming cannot possibly be a part of the strategy.

‘It was quite specifically about that, right? Nothing about lesbians not accepting trans-identifying females?’

It’s definitely about lesbians and transwomen. Males who want to sleep with females who only want to sleep with females.

BC: now on 1839, AB's overcoming cotton ceiling tweet
BC: page 238, you quote a sentence from ABs response that this is coercive sexual behaviour, [you] describe this as a non sequitor
CM: I agree, the one doesn't follow the other

I am cringing so much! What must the panel be thinking of these explanations from CM!

I'm wondering in what way you could possibly overcome someone not wanting to have sex / relationship with you in a non coercive way?

Big sigh from CM when BC mentions that "glass ceiling/cotton ceiling" implies some sort of discrimination.

Ooh she forgot herself there and just said "lesbians". Naughty Cathryn.

Oh goddess, she's explaining the glass ceiling now. Answer the question.

So now lesbians are in a position of ‘power’?

There is no entitlement to treat sexual relationships as if they are a form of discrimination if you are not accepted into one.

BC now explaining to CM some of the differences between the Cotton Ceiling and the Glass Ceiling.

Yes lets see an example of that scenario.

I'm wondering in what way you could possibly overcome someone not wanting to have sex / relationship with you in a non coercive way?

EXACTLY THIS

CM: Transmisogyny

BC (on the cotton ceiling) 'The difference between them is that nobody reasonably thinks that women should be prevented from rising up the corporate ladder.

And this is exactly what that workshop is doing: treating lesbians as if they are bigots because they don’t want to sleep with males.

CM seems to be implying that lesbianism isn’t a legitimate thing.

But of course she doesn’t understand the question.

Oh fuck off, you don't understand the question.

She's walking into Ben's trap. Go on Ben (re comparisons betw glass ceiling and cotton ceiling.)

BC saying its not a matter of prejudice for a lesbian to be same sex attracted

CmcG doesn't understand the question!

Ben: It is not a matter of prejudice for lesbians to say I am only attracted to women is it?

Cathryn doesn't understand

'It is not a matter of prejudice for a lesbian to be same sex attracted is it?' How is that a difficult question to answer?

BC - it's not prejudice for a lesbian to say 'i am not attracted to men' is it?
CM - i don't understand the question.