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.

Bloody frightening. Another attempt to erase the right to free speech and to state scientific fact as far as I can tell but I'm tired, menopausal and my brain isn't working.

Is there anywhere where this unreadable document is broken down for normal women so they can respond in a meaningful way?

It certainly screams AGENDA to me. Surely Allison B and her team must be aware of this?

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised given a senior barrister, formerly on the ethics board, compared lesbian (same sex attracted) women saying 'no' to sex with men to racism. Which has to be the most homophobic thing I've ever heard in recent history.

Seems the legal profession is full of Aunt Lydias.

The legal profession is an interesting case in terms of ideological contagion. You have senior people whose roles have almost a political dimension, many of whom seem to be hopelessly captured, the Allison Bailey hearing provided fascinating insights there, and then you have plenty of legal practioners who want laws and definitions to be based in reality, so that when laws are exercised, the outcomes can be predicted to a reasonable degree rather than being arbitrary, and in some case perverse (see Maya Forstater's first ET decision).

It certainly screams AGENDA to me. Surely Allison B and her team must be aware of this?

Without close study let alone a legal mind that was my thought @blahblahblahspoons

The pattern is repeated all over, polarisation between those in favour of material reality, and those who believe material reality can be disregarded in favour of being kind/being on the right side of history. It's just that the legal profession has a framework where the polarisation, and its consequences, can be examined relatively clearly.

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)

Well if we're going to worry about this ^^ then there's a whole lot of actions to consider from barristers with opposite views aren't there? Goodness knows we're knee deep in evidence on that front.

Surely the point is that personal politics should be kept out of the workplace and not discussed under real names because it's inappropriate behaviour? Rather than 'the behaviour is fine so long as you have a particular political view'? Which is unjustifiable, unworkable and unprofessional.

I agree that misgendering/threatening is professionally inappropriate, but this example seems very trans-partisan. As its taken out of context. without full disclosure of what was said or done by both parties, it means it’s well nigh impossible to make a balanced judgement on the rights and wrongs of either that incident or the wider implications of the ruling , & not just for the profession but for anyones who’s GC.
For what it’s worth I’ve got some experience of dealing with badly worded, typo-ridden and incoherent Bar Standard Board documents but this one’s a doozy.
Posted here in the hope that much wiser and more knowledgeable MNs can take a look at it and respond with guns blazing.

Hang on, is the case study actually implying that knowingly “misgendering” is in fact “threatening”?

I'm happy to respond.

I wonder if Legal Feminist, Sex Matters or similar will produce guidance for us on how to respond.

@HairyKitty that’s just the point I couldn’t get my head around. What’s the difference between knowingly misgendering someone because you’re being deliberately provocative, and refusing to use made up pronouns because you believe in fact, science and common sense?

And yes @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus it’s a public consultation but fairly niche since it’s only on the BSB website. I mean, how many non-barristers people routinely check into that?

Sarah Phillimore has done a response.

sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/response-to-the-bsb-consultation

I'm interested to see if others do formal advice on how to respond. I will probably respond emphasising that they need to keep a clear line between unprofessional behaviour and just judging opinions.

Sarah’s response is brilliantly argued and lucid. I applaud her.

I have been looking at BSB website, and found some interesting paragraphs:

1. 'We are committed to operating openly and will meet all reasonable requests for information in order to maintain a high level of public trust and confidence in our organisation.'

1. 'We are not a 'public authority' and so are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, in the interests of transparency, we aim to answer enquiries in the spirit of the Act. To make this type of request, please contact the Data Protection Officer on the contact details below.'

1. 'The consultation documents and interim Social Media Guidance were both developed with input from a stakeholder reference group consisting of external experts (including practising barristers) and BSB Board members.'

Now, in view of recent the recent ruling by the Information Commissioners's office against Oxford Uni (https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2022/4020822/ic-129040-y4t2.pdf), ( and their undoubted and stated commitment to transparency!) I am enraged enough to start drafting an email (cc'ing my useless Labour MP and the Baroness, for info).

I would really like to know who the members of the 'Stakeholder reference group' were, too angry for a lucid draft today, might have to brew on it till Monday. The absolute fucking nerve of them!

This is an organization with that 'regulates barristers and specialised legal services businesses in England and Wales in the public interest.'

In using this wording in public consultation, in the midst of all the publicity, polls, studies and court cases, they appear incredibly biased, in what is a current, and very much discussed, political issue.

Who advised them to do so and what is their procedure for selecting the stakeholders involved in policy design?

I look forward to hearing that this wording was suggested by Legal Feminists or Sex Matters

I saw the report of this too - and I think that when it is applied to private e-mails and messages it is a direct attack on free speech.

Gender critical views, are legally acceptable.

I agree that no-one should be "harassing or bullying" anyone - but that goes for all of us at all times - claiming that "deliberate misgendering" comes under this category is dodgy, to me. Why is it less "harassing and bullying" to compel someone's speech?

I'd avoid this by using the preferred name all of the time, no matter how clumsy and ridiculous it made the construction of the sentence.

Lol, i might be having a lot of correspondence with that poor data protection officer at BSB, as I'd also like to know exactly which part of their obligations as a regulator they are addressing in collecting data of consultation respondents for 'sex assigned at birth' and 'gender'.

From their data privacy notice:

'We are collecting your information to comply with our obligations as the statutory approved regulator for the Bar of England and Wales and to carry out our representative and regulatory functions.', so I'm sure it'll be clearly explained to me how this data will help BSB to carry out its functions.

What intersects me is that they are so very brazen about their stance and bias, hasn't that ship sailed, or do women need to fight each bloody captured professional regulator one by one?

*interests, not 'intersects'

All of this. Or using the offensive term "cis". I unconnect with people on LinkedIn who use it (or any of the above).

I also don't see why on Twitter you'd reply to anyone with anything other than "you" or the person's name.

Just come across this case, hadn't heard of it before but Tribunal Tweets have asked permission to tweet.
Jon Holbrook apparently won a previous case

Mr Justice Choudhury gave permission today for this case to proceed to a full hearing.

The case raises a key free speech qn: do regulatory bodies that seek to discipline their members’ speech need to do so with disciplinary tribunals that are independent of themselves?

twitter.com/JonHolb/status/1551965652251975685?t=UUNxB7ZbKkTTR-CmprA7ug&s=19

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1550395476020797441?t=50UuHar3KmTl7zRotiuQGQ&s=19

I hope @Motorina comments on this as I feel that I need to know more about regulatory bodies (reasons).

I'd like to add, even 'transwoman' doesn't have a settled definition being that it can mean anything from a change of name and wardrobe only, through to the full social and surgical transition. So could the appropriate response to an accusation of 'misgendering' be to ascert 'correctly sexed'? Where is the legal requirement to recognise the "preferred" pronoun of someone without a GRC? Consider the same for non-binary individuals, none of whom can benefit from a GRC.
Further, to accept GC beliefs are protected is to accept the person with those beliefs doesn't believe in the concept of gender, so can they be deemed to have 'deliberately' misgendered, since they're motivated by their conscience and a honestly held belief
What is a 'threat' in this instance, is the bar as low as disagreement?