Tribunal Tweets - Maya is tweeting from the Kirstie Higgs' recusal hearing

[Madcats]

I really shouldn't have looked at Twitter about an hour ago, but got sucked in.

The background to the recusal (seeking to get Edward Lord OBE as one of the lay panel members) is outlined here:
christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/kristie-higgs-employment-tribunal-to-scrutinise-role-of-anti-free-speech-lgbt-activist-in-appeal-case/

The judge is a female, Edward is non-binary

Lifting directly from 3 of the recent tweets:

"Counsel for the Attorney General interjects - discomfort at Richard o'Dair's use of he and him, when Mx Lord's pronouns are they and them.

JE - Advocates have to treat parties with respect. Advocates sometimes slip on pronouns used. As a female judge you get used to it"

"JE - I hear what is said. No difficulty in saying the "Laymember" - perhaps you could be a bit more careful with the language.

ROD - I will, but my intellectual energy should go into stating the case for my client"

"JE - yes that is why i said, i have sat here for years being referred to by male pronouns and not said a word about it. But it is a fair point."

I like to think that Maya's enjoying herself.

His misogyny is off the fucking charts.

Did you see his pleading in response to the recusal, citing misogyny as an example? The fucking cheek.

What troubles me about this repectful request for recusal is whether it would even be considered if the case related to different protected characteristics?

If the case related to an accusation of racist conduct leading to dismissal and one of the lay members was a black Trades Union official with a history of anti-racist campaigning, would we expect them to recuse themself?

If the conduct leading to dismissal was misogyny and one of the lay members was a woman HR director who was an active member of, say, the Fawcett Society campaigning for women's equality, would she need to recuse herself?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is no, then is it right that I as a bi/queer non-binary person who has from time to time spoken up, in a personal capacity, in favour of the rights of LGBT people should recuse myself in this case?

Interesting how this person is a member of multiple masonic lodges which only allow male members. Lodges which have a bar on women.

Yet, the smelling salts come out being referred according to their correct sex. Is Shakespeare's Globe Theatre auditioning?

who has from time to time spoken up, in a personal capacity, in favour of the rights of LGBT people

That is such a down-playing of lord's activities & the tone he takes, that it's pretty much dishonest. I hope the judge compares that characterisation with the evidence supplied.

& to add, it's further evidence of how unsuitable they is. They interpret absolute seething hostility to people with similar positions to higgs as 'occasionally speaking up for lgbt ppl', but they interpret people speaking up for women's rights as absolute hostility to trans people.

In reality there can be hostility or genuine 'speaking up for' going both ways, (tho in my experience there is more hostility travelling in one direction). But lord's past actions and this evidence suggests they can only interpret it one way. Any criticism of gender identity theory is hostility against someone, any denigration of 'terfs' etc is speaking up for someone.

Interestingly, From the Youtube video referred to in the opening post; 5 minutes and 10 seconds in, Edward Lord has described how he refused to go to a function where Liz Truss and Mike Pence were in attendance because their ‘views simply do not accord with my values.’

So from that, Lord will not attend something that is not in accordance with Lord's view. Yet, bear in mind that Lord is a happy to be a member of multiple fraternity Lodges that discriminate against women. That bar women members because of their sex. Are we to take it that this discrimination against women is not contrary to Lord's views, then?

The barrister highlighted Lord's closed-mindedness in the first Twitter screenshot in evidence.

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1539548681787129856

1st tweet - Mx Lord opposing Naomi Cunningham, well known barrister, speaking at the Middle Temple.

He does not want to hear what she has to say.

"As a member of [at]middletemple's [at]lgbtqforum and one of the Inn's [at]cityoflondon local councillors, I am sad to see the Inn offer a platform to a well-known 'gender critical' barrister who champions transphobic causes at what should have been a celebration of [hash]LGBTQ solidarity"

[Pinned Tweet] My Twitter blocking policy: I will block anyone who tweets (or likes/retweets) abuse to or about me, my friends, my colleagues, or marginalised communities. This includes those who claim to be feminists but exlcude or deny trans people or who are otherwise not intersectional.

If the case related to an accusation of racist conduct leading to dismissal and one of the lay members was a black Trades Union official with a history of anti-racist campaigning, would we expect them to recuse themself?

Muddled thinking. A better comparison would be if an employment tribunal was dealing with a case where the claimant was from an ethnic minority and one of the lay members was white with a record of trying to remove legal protections for minority groups. In that case, yes, I certainly would expect that lay member to recuse himself and in fact I would hope that the powers that be would be looking long and hard at whether the lay member should be sacked.

Not only are the situations not analogous, it directly illustrates how he's already mentally sorted the world into "Good People" and "Bad People", with the defendant being one of those Bad People, and the lay member being one of the Good People. That's how he sees this case too.

(And FWIW, it seems like it would be appropriate to recuse in the situations he concocts too).

If Lord genuinely believes that Lord is a member of an oppressed minority and the claimant in this case is from the oppressor class because she is not trans, Lord needs help.

I note in passing that Wikipedia tells me that at one point Lord acted as election agent to Mark Oaten. Hmm.

Mark Oaten. Hmm.

Yikes - I'd forgotten all about that sorry episode!

Not only are the situations not analogous, it directly illustrates how he's already mentally sorted the world into "Good People" and "Bad People", with the defendant being one of those Bad People, and the lay member being one of the Good People. That's how he sees this case too.

I agree, it's loaded from the start. If Lord wanted to be a little less obviously biased, Lord could have chosen less pointed analogies.

I agree, it's loaded from the start. If Lord wanted to be a little less obviously biased, Lord could have chosen less pointed analogies.

Yep. He chose to use two examples, which would have been the obvious path to illustrate a lack of bias. Certainly what I would have done if I felt the need to plead similarly.

But he couldn't even bring himself to do that. He just had to put both on the same side of the scale.

Still no decision about recusal?

Judge ordered his recusal.
twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1544286513483087875?t=h9NDEtIm8SygnGaJk171iw&s=19

Duh!

Well done judge. Unbelievable he didn't recuse himself.

🥳
That man should never have been involved in this or any case that involves women's rights

that is good news -thanks for sharing

Yes! Blindingly obvious bias.

Although I suspect she’ll still lose.

Good news. Is this likely to keep him off any future tribunals?

No, but he would be wise to avoid any involving gender critical/identity aspects in future.

A fantastic decision - I got the impression from her remarks in the hearing on the recusal that the judge was a very sensible, no-nonsense person.

I read the conclusion. Really good analysis. I think the judge understands the whole context and I wonder if this little to-do created by Lird has been a useful primer for the judge .

The conclusion shows how important the successes so far in miller and forstater are. Money well spent.

The tweets by lord were unearthed by the intervenor but it doesn't say who that is. Does that mean Sex Matters successfully applied to intervene? I thought they'd been turned down.

Good news, time for people like Lord to be held accountable.

Excellent news

Excellent news indeed