AIBU to think that the BSB (Barrister’s professional standards body ) is shutting down free speech/gender criticism with this proposal?

[RebOrHon]

This just dropped into my inbox

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/news-publications/consultations.html

Sanctions proposed against barristers who ‘frequently tweet gender critical views’
So your profession body will sanction you for stating scientific biological facts. WTAF? .
It’s a public consultation. Please respond and share.

WTF, is this for real, sorry, not my trade nor read the full info, but that looks quite odd for people who're supposed to know what discrimination is?

Have just started to look through. May be akemth in not

Sorry, accidently posted.Where is the quote from in the linked docs? Presumably Sarah Phillimore, Harry etc will need to be on this?

Is the OP meaning this document?:

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/uploads/assets/7579d46b-0fd3-40f4-95f9763a6008e432/Annex-2-Draft-Social-Media-Guidance.pdf

Where it says this?:

"Case Study 3
The BSB receives a report about a barrister who frequently tweets about their gender critical views using their personal Twitter account. A transgender woman (who openly states their transgender status in their Twitter profile) responded to one of the barrister’s tweets, challenging their views. The barrister then sent several tweets directed at the transgender woman, in which the barrister deliberately misgendered and threatened them.
In this case, the barrister’s conduct in specifically targeting the transgender woman, threatening, and intentionally misgendering them are likely to be considered seriously offensive and discriminatory. This conduct could diminish public trust and confidence in the barrister and/or the profession (and thus be a breach of CD5) and/or could reasonably be seen by the public to undermine the barrister’s integrity (and thus be a breach of Rule C8)."

Whether this is what's meant in the OP or not, it's a poor example for guidance.

Overall I don't think anyone who works in a publicly funded position (ie taxpayer funded) or has a public responsibility (such as anything associated with the law) should be saying anything political at all on social media in a personal capacity.

It reads to me that they are suggesting that “misgendering” a trans critic or “threatening” them is what would be inappropriate. It doesn’t seem to comment on whether frequently posting GC tweets is “inappropriate”.

So my question as a total layman on this topic is, is it legally right for them to consider that publicly “misgendering” someone brings the office into disrepute, or are individuals entitled in law to do exactly that?

I think this is what I mean by it being a poor example. What is "misgendering"? What is "threatening"? Where does freedom of speech come into it? What about the truth about biological sex? Presumably barristers help us get to the truth of many disputed situations, so facts are important to them.

From the context, by misgendering they certainly mean referring to someone you know to be a transwoman as he, when you know they want to be referred to as she. They are saying that doing this brings the profession into disrepute. I’m wondering if that is a legally valid view ie that it’s necessary to use preferred pronouns.

It seems to be the weakest case study in the document. The other two seem clearer cut. I also note case study 3 only goes one way and doesn't consider a GC person being "threatened" (in inverted commas given the lack of definition).

It's surprising (ie it's completely unsurprising) that bodies who've found themselves to be rather unsupportive of free speech are now providing guidelines where, for some reason, they've decided to include hypothetical examples which are effectively "Imagine a case where a gender critical person is being abusive to a trans person ...".

If one didn't realise that this is clearly coincidental, one could almost believe there's a systematic prejudice in play.

This example brings the whole organisation into disrepute.

The barrister then sent several tweets directed at the transgender woman, in which the barrister deliberately misgendered and threatened them.
So were these tweets sent to the transwoman if so why would they use pronouns if replying to them, and as for threatening well TRAs are pretty good at that.
If they want to restore confidence they need to give the opposite example a Transwoman tweets an abusive response to a Gender Critical person's tweet, calling them a 'terf', bigot and fascist.

I assume by misgendering they mean tweeting something like "X, you are yourself a man".

But the threatening thing is very unclear. Obviously violent threats against anyone would be potentially criminal and hence against the code. So... threatening what?

What about Maya's case? Didn't it establish that being gender critical was WORIADS? Part of that belief is that pronouns describe the person's sex, not their gender identity. Are they denying GC barristers the right to speak according to their protected belief? Would they deny a Muslim barrister the right to say Allah-hu-akbar" to a Sikh?

Remember in Maya's case how the other side were saying "but of course we accept that women can hold gender critical beliefs, it's just that it's so problematic when they voice them that it's best for them not to be voiced at all, or maybe perhaps only once they've been vetted and approved by a committee of right-thinking people".

The decision on that case rejected this approach. Entities like the BSB and the College of Policing seem to be continuing to push this approach by throwing shade on gender critical beliefs. This is a long way from neutral.

These are the questions
Our consultation questions

Question 1: Overall, have we struck the right balance between the public interest in preserving public confidence in the profession and individual barristers and a barrister’ss rights which are guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights?

Question 2: Do you have any observations on the questions we are proposing to ask when considering whether we have a regulatory interest in non-professional conduct?

Question 3: Are the case studies included in our draft guidance helpful?

Question 4: Do you have any general comments or feedback on our draft guidance on the regulation of non-professional conduct?

Question 5: Do you consider our proposed drafting changes to the non-mandatory guidance provisions in the BSB Handbook assist in clarifying our approach to the regulation of non-
professional conduct?

Question 6: Do you have any general comments or feedback on any of the proposed drafting changes to the non-mandatory guidance?

Question 7: Do you have any feedback or comments on the new Social Media Guidance?

Question 8: Are the case studies in our draft Social Media Guidance helpful?

Question 9: Are there any other potential equality impacts that you think we should be aware of?

Thinking about it this is similar to warped, slanted example used in the revised guidance on hate incidents just pubished by the College of Policing. Looks a bit like a straregy has been discussed.

It's tiresome. This is time we are all going to have to take out of our lives in order to put out the sandbags once more. It shouldn't be necessary but here we are. Again.

I haven't read this, just your quote. That example seems very poorly worded. There are gender ideologues who would regard misgendering as threatening behaviour, but to the average person surely it implies that the barrister makes an actual threat, although that could cover a wide range of behaviour.

'I have found out your address and I will be round shortly with a hammer' at one end of the scale.

'I have reported your tweets to Twitter' at the other end.

The former would never be justified in any circumstances and would warrant police attention, never mind a complaint to the BSB.

The latter? You'd need context. If the transwoman has been goady/rude/aggressive, why shouldn't the barrister say this? That's why the reporting system exists (although in my experience it is largely useless, but that's another matter).

One would really hope for better from the body regulating a profession whose bread and butter is using words with laser-like precision.

Is any of this related to Allison Bailey? Whose judgement is still awaited?
It seems a bit suspicious to me.

The barrister then sent several tweets directed at the transgender woman, in which the barrister deliberately misgendered and threatened them.
In this case, the barrister’s conduct in specifically targeting the transgender woman, threatening, and intentionally misgendering them are likely to be considered seriously offensive and discriminatory.

Why is the Bar Standards Board they-ing this hypothetical singular transgender woman throughout the example?

Is this one of those irregular verbs?
I specify preferred pronouns
You embrace gender fluidity
She misgenders

Or is it just that they have no idea what they are talking about?

Why is the Bar Standards Board they-ing this hypothetical singular transgender woman throughout the example?

Because they can't bring themselves to use "she" for a man?

Well-spotted!

Is this a general public consultation? Guess we should all get working on it, if so.

Is it at all possible that some of the drafting of these questions is people hoping that the wider community provide some support on updating these examples for clarity and some more balance? This could be an opportunity.

Are question 3 and question 8 asking the same thing - I’m confused?

One may mean Annex 1 and the other may be Annex 2. But given who devised it (legal people!), it's not a great consultation really. They're meant to be easy enough to follow so you can give a considered response.

Thanks, @ResisterRex .
It appears to be a confused and distinctly partisan document - I do wonder what their end game is… In saying that, I wonder if any submissions in response to this document can be made anonymously or will they be required to be named?