Edward Lord has been recused from hearing a Gender Critical belief case

[Theblondestoftheblonde]

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/edward-lord-recused/🙂

That's interesting, isn't it? So Edward has inserted Edward-self right at the heart of the disciplinary machinations of one of the leading psychotherapy membership bodies in the UK.

When we discuss how this mess came about I often think people are too quick to see conspiracy instead of well meaning stupidity.

I make an exception in this for Edward Lord and Meg-John Barker. They are incredibly proud of his awful conduct and she writes prolifically about their creepy sexual predilections, under the guise of professional psychology.

I would be hard pressed to think of anyone in this sorry mess who gives me the heebie-jeebies more than those two wrong uns.

I've.just googled zis partner and, in my defence, it's late and I need reading glasses, but when the results came up I was honestly wondering why there was a picture of Glinner.

Apologies to both of them.

Meg-John says "I – or I should say we – also experience ourselves as a plural system, rather than a single individual."

That's a new one on me. Now people are identifying as non-singular as well as non-binary.

Isn't the word for this "personality"?

https://christianconcern.com/news/teaching-assistant-wins-appeal-after-sacking-for-facebook-posts/

Saw this update - the judge (who ended up sitting alone) has called for the Tribunal to be reheard (not sure if that’s the correct terminology). Not quite a win yet.

Thank goodness the appeal was allowed, but sending the case back to the employment tribunal must be absolutely gutting for Kristie Higgs.

And one other thing I hadn’t realised - there had to be ANOTHER recusal after Edward Lord?? This is just madness and deeply worrying.

The other recusal was that of Andrew Morris, former Assistant General Secretary of National Education Union (NEU), would be presiding as a lay magistrate. The NEU's position on the gaslighting of children by this ideology in schools has been shameful.
It's yet another example of how deeply this ideology has embedded itself into the fabric of our institutions and how dangerous this is - especially for women and children.

Thank goodness the appeal was allowed, but sending the case back to the employment tribunal must be absolutely gutting for Kristie Higgs.

I think this is always the case when there’s a successful appeal? Wasn’t Maya’s situation the same?

from the article

The ruling sets a legal precedent which confirms that the Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination not only for their beliefs, but also for expression or manifestation of their beliefs.

that's helpful. I think a lot of the argument has gone 'it's OK for you to have your beliefs but don't you ever actually speak about them or we'll sack you'. aka don't bring your whole self to work

Setting out a “guidance” for reconsideration of this case as well as for similar cases in the future, Mrs Justice Eady says: “First, the foundational nature of the rights must be recognised: “the freedom to manifest belief (religious or otherwise) and to express views relating to that belief are essential rights in any democracy, whether or not the belief in question is popular or mainstream and even if its expression may offend.”

In January 2023, it was revealed in the media that senior members of the Church of England and the judiciary had met at an undisclosed date to discuss Mrs Higgs’ case. The motivations, reasoning and details for such a high-level meeting are not known.

crikey

I wasn’t aware that it was always the case that this happened - that’s interesting. The statement in the link didn’t make it clear.

I’m only assuming. The appeal will decide if there’s been an error in the application of the law by the tribunal, but it can’t substitute its view for that of another court. So back to tribunal it goes to retake the decision without the legal flaws. IANAL and am sure someone will correct me if wrong!

If Baron-Cohen had the balls, he’d take on the ridiculous nature of this issue for his next satirical undercover film, which if done well could be brilliant. The only subject that truly cows comedians (notable exceptions Glinner, Chapelle, Gervais). That says something.

I missed that Bernard. We know that in the recent past, trans lobbyists have gone to extreme lengths to hide the details of their "training" and meetings with the judiciary - presumably because the public would recognise it as an attempt to convert the judiciary to their ideology were the details to be revealed?