TRA on tribunal panel for school gender identity cass

[ARoombaOfOnesOwn]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10930909/Trans-rights-activist-judge-case-teaching-assistant-sacked-gender-identity-lessons.html

The Mail is referring to them - Edward Lord - as a trans rights activist. Lawyers for the teacher involved in the case would like them removed. They will be well-known to MNers.

Its a slippery slope to force a trans lay member to recuse themselves on a case for dismissal of a school employee for homophobic and transphobic FB posts to parents of children at the school on the basis that their personal beliefs clash with the claimants personal beliefs.

If such a precedent were set, then surely you could also force a Muslim lay member to recuse themselves on a case for dismissal of a school employee for Islamaphobic FB posts to the parents of children at the school?

Or force a female lay member to recuse herself on a case for dismissal of a school employee for misogynistic FB posts to the parents of children at the school?

Or a disabled lay member to recuse their self on a case for dismissal, of a school employee for ableist FB posts to the parents of the children at the school?

Do we really want to set a precedent that the only people advising the judge to be people who do not come from the community that was discriminated against in the gross misconduct leading to dismissal? Would you be comfortable with only men advising only male judges on whether an employees conduct was misogynistic or not? Because that’s where forcing recusal would lead to.

Lol, you gave it your best shot. But the issue is not that he’s “trans” (I’d actually forgotten he deploys pronouns) it’s the activism and public profile.

Not really. The activism and public profile is being used as evidence of his personal beliefs to show they are counter to the claimants beliefs, to support the fear of bias. But honestly, isn’t this also problematic to set a precedent that no one in the judiciary can hold personal beliefs that are different from the claimants beliefs because of fear of bias?

It's not holding, it's the activism.

But honestly, isn’t this also problematic to set a precedent that no one in the judiciary can hold personal beliefs that are different from the claimants beliefs because of fear of bias?

Judges are discouraged from political activism for exactly this reason. Lord is only a magistrate so had more leeway but he certainly shouldn’t be involved in a case that relates to his area of activism.

Members are paid. Fee scale here:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1020731/judical-fee-schedule-21-22.pdf

I suppose you failed to note that nowhere on the list does it show payment to lay members of EATs? Lovely list of what judges, experts and recorders get though.

Yes, Meg John Barker who, iirc, said there was no difference between a penis and a clitoris, apart from size.

There was also something disparaging about northern women, the exact words of which escape me.

7th page in, Employment Tribunal, member, £194.86.

Sorry, my mistake, I forgot it was EAT. Still 7th page in, £337.76.

Lord's (female) partner Meg-John Barker, as Datun mentioned:

Being a woman in a British cultural context often means adhering to social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance.
However, of course, not all women adhere to all these things. For example some neurodiverse women (on the autistic/aspergic/ADHD spectrums) may struggle to express emotions, or with social situations. In some northern working-class contexts femininity is associated with strength and aggression. As always an intersectional understanding is vital and we need to be mindful that what is culturally regarded as the epitome of femininity is white, middle class, youthful, non-disabled, heterosexual, cisgender, and thin.

You can enjoy the whole MN discussion here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

social norms of femininity, such as being nurturing, caring, social, emotional, vulnerable, and concerned with appearance

man alive, Meg John Barker is basically Jordan Peterson isn’t she? That’s pretty much the definition of woman from his recent Times article

I posted about the application and details of the hearing fixture a couple of days ago.

man alive, Meg John Barker is basically Jordan Peterson isn’t she?

I'm sure she would appreciate that description

MN stop editing my posts.

This is a individual who has a personal beneficial interest in the outcome of the case.

The State has an ethical obligation to ensure that the case is judged on merit not on political activism. Justice must be seen to be done therefore State actors who have a beneficial interest should not have to be removed, they should do this themselves by declaring their public activism may lead to the perception of bias and that this is not what the justice system should be about.

Judges should themselves be able to determine in a social context what is or is not currently acceptable. If the Judge believes that such a fundemental element would be a problem, then the Judge should seriously consider withdrawing from the case themselves

Whether or not the lay members are paid isnt really relevant. The poster wasn't using 'volunteered' in that sense. They meant Lord put themself forward for this case, rather than it being a litter to them. It's notable because as someone who is v involved in political campaigning on this im sure lord would have known about the case. They didn't pass over it then so it's not surprising they're not refusing now. They are very very keen on sitting on this one.

The argument is that there will either be bias, or the appearance of bias which will undermine confidence in the tribunal system. It's a belief discrimination case. Lord campaigns very strongly for the things that higgs was criticising. They have made many public statements that people with similar positions on gender identity/ sex to higgs should not be platformed, are transphobic haters etc.

Its not about Lord id'ing non binary. Its about lord's stated opinions on the beliefs that are the centre on the case.

It's really interesting. I don't have a clue about how much, legally, existing views and the manner in which they are proclaimed are allowed to form part of judgement panel. But as a lay person it feels very off, whoever it is. The history with the consultation responses would indicate that they're unlikely to take on board information that they don't like.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

The history with the consultation responses would indicate that they're unlikely to take on board information that they don't like

Yes exactly. There's a running theme in their activism. The opinions they don't like on this topic are not worth consideration. Which makes me think they are not appropriate to sit in judgement on someone who holds those beliefs. I think they will not be able to stand back and consider the pov of both parties objectively. And I can well understand why higgs thinks that too.

Apologies to OP (and others) for not spotting this thread this morning.

Maya F was doing the Tribunal Tweets this morning (and very helpfully linked to the case law and offending tweets etc.).

Hats off to her prolific transcription and links.

I am sure that if Discoverreads found themselves facing a similar panel which included one or more of us FWR activists, or even mere readers of MN, they would have very strong objections indeed.

Yes to be honest I would recuse myself if I was in a position to judge a TRA in a tribunal, as I have integrity and it isn't fair for me to do so, as I'm unlikely to change my mind on their ideology and I'm not sure I could be impartial. Just like I have doubts that someone like Lord who allegedly calls women "terfs" could be impartial here.

The Edward Lord who asked for consultation responses on single-sex facilities in London, and then essentially dismissed any responses that wanted single-sex facilities on the grounds that they were biased?

Yup, sounds like a fair and even-minded type.

Exactly. I would too. And neither you nor I have ever stooped to calling people not of our way of thinking by terms of abuse. Never mind openly and from a public position.

A strong bias, a pre formed, fixed opinion and a desire to control a situation and force it to go your personal way is anything but impartial justice or even basically ethical in this process. But TRAs tend to be exceptionally low on class at the best of times.