Mermaids versus LGB alliance in court today??

[GrabbyGabby]

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/09/trans-charity-mermaids-appeal-lgb-alliance-status

Not sure if it is today or next week. Do we know if this is open like the tribunals?

Mermaids seem to be trying to set an incredibly high bar:

MG: Qs are re LGBA in context of the Charities act
MG: Esp re political activities, are they within charitable purposes.
MG: And are there disbenefits that outweigh any benefits

So you couldn't have a charity representing a particular group, if it was felt that overall what they wanted would do more harm than good?

And Mermaids are ready to be judged by that metric???

Stonewall obviously wouldn't want to be - no wonder they're not here.

We're back to nauticant's:

What's that? Mermaids are engaged in a process where they don't have an idea of the long term consequences?

What has LGBA specifically done that pisses off Mermaids?

• stepped out of rank and wanted to go off message in a way that buggers about with their power and agenda
• Makes others particularly govt question whether Mermaids speaks for all LGBT+ people or possibly whether there are LGB people who don't agree with TQ+ politics and are not represented by it which threatens exclusive monopoly by TQ+ led groups
• Insisted sex exists
• Stands for the right of homosexual people to say no to Mermaids and the TQ+ political lobby and to 'homogenderal' redefinition of themselves and their sexuality

That's pretty much it.

So yup, if no lobby group should have charitable status then buhbye Mermaids and Stonewall. Shouldn't have govt funding either incidentally. And if we want to talk about 'seeking to remove the rights of TQ+ people' (by insisting female/homosexual people have an equality of right to services and stuff too and TQ+ does not have privilege over others or the right to deprive others of services for their own satisfaction) then lets get out the whole 'seeking to remove the rights of females, children and homosexuals'.

This should get reallllllly interesting.

These bundles are a joy...perhaps someone more qualified was instructed to put them together.

Oh dear...

Mermaids case seems to be arguing that LGBA means "non-trans" while Karon Monaghan KC is pointing out that the LGBA represent trans people so long as they're gay or bisexual.

Note that Mermaids approach is that LGBT must be a monolithic block, suggesting that gender identity is a species of sexuality, which seems to be something that can be readily unravelled in a court.

Is Foxy Kimono still involved in this case?

I believe so, there was mention of the involvement of the Good Law Project earlier.

I'm not sure if anyone anticipated this kind of attempt to quash those who have different goals.

But I suppose there is a sense where it is the logical extension of political lobbying. Once you see a valid goal of your charity as lobbying for certain political ideas, it's also logical to lobby against other ones you disagree with. And then all of a sudden groups with different political goals who are also pushing for what they want are the enemy, so you have to seek to de-ligitimize them.

And that's how lobbies have been working for a while, you point out where their money comes from, you call them racist or homophobic, and hope people no longer consider their ideas legitimate on that basis.

Yes, GLP were fundraising for this.

Had no idea this was today. Thanks in advance for those providing updates. And yes, "King's Counsel" took me a second to adjust to!

Hope it's publicised well to their general funders who supported them because of other things, that this is what they are spending their money on.

I couldn't remember who was still in and who pulled out. I know Stonewall did.

Do you know why Stonewall pulled out, Eresh?

What was their official response, or was it just the usual wishy-washy nonsense from them (ie - something was transphobic)?

Waiting with interest to see if this is where it is finally pulled out into open air that the TQ+ led groups have quietly taken over and redefined LGBT+ to mean 'holders of TQ+ political beliefs' and so object to actually homosexual/TQ people of other ideological/political beliefs using the term?

And is being homosexual 'anti trans'?

Do you know why Stonewall pulled out, Eresh?

They were barely ever in. I think their name was attached to the first press release about the case, but they'd fallen off by the time the first real paperwork was filed. Presumably they got some legal advice about what was good for them.

"So Mermaids, supported by LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation, TransActual, and Good Law Project, are appealing the Charity Commission’s decisionn^ to award the so-called “LGB Alliance” charity status. "

Here's the list from their crowdfund (which hasn't yet reached its target)

Changed on 2 June 2021. Original version archived:

web.archive.org/web/20210602075310/www.crowdjustice.com/case/lgba-charity-status/

Ah linking to archive. I'll link the tweet

twitter.com/tlitb/status/1400061876604637187?s=46&t=fXNg1UuOzRFSBKUGW6iYVg

So where does this lead? Does a wildlife charity which seeks to support and encourage the fish population in UK rivers go to court to cancel the wildlife charity seeking to support and encourage otters?

The tweet links to the archived crowdfund page which lists SW, they were removed very early.

Waiting with interest to see if this is where it is finally pulled out into open air that the TQ+ led groups have quietly taken over and redefined LGBT+ to mean 'holders of TQ+ political beliefs'

Mermaids seem to have introduced the theme by accusing LGB Alliance of it in reverse (Iron Law of Woke Projection again), meaning Karon Monaghan has to take it up:

KM: One thing to say. MG said tribunal would not have to consider issues of equality law, but I think that is not the case. Looking at Mermaids Grounds Of Appeal. Paragraph 12.
KM: Says "do not satisfy public benefit, only about LGB people who are not transgender and who agree with LGB Alliance, this is not adequate".
KM: We dispute this, but in any case LGB people are a discrete group and able to organise on that basis.

If Stonewall are distancing themselves I wonder whether it's to do with the fact that very early in the submission of Mermaids' case, it seemed to look like an asserted "ownership of The Gays". That's a bad route to go down.

Especially for Mermaids who aren't an LGB charity at all, they are a trans charity.

Does a wildlife charity which seeks to support and encourage the fish population in UK rivers go to court to cancel the wildlife charity seeking to support and encourage otters?

Or are they both taken to court by someone that holds that we'd be better off having more hydroelectric power, and all that aquatic wildlife is counterproductive?

Place holding