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?

They are still on about whether LGBA are charitable ....

'Having given full and detailed consideration to the application, the Commission concluded that LGBA meets the legal test for being a charity as it is established for exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit. Its purposes are, in summary, to promote equality and diversity and human rights.'

from 2021 decision.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance

I was wondering about the difference in tone in the room between the Allison Bailey case and this one, particularly the sense that the judge is far more strict here. I think that it's because the AB case was at an employment tribunal, and those kinds of cases need to have some indulgence towards upset claimants in the form of employees. This though is a much more legalistic tribunal which is more about clashing interpretations of the law.

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?

Seems so. If Mermaids were run, just say for instance, by a straight person who - oh, I don't know, persecuted a trans person, for example? Maybe by taking said transperson to court? Then it would suggest to me it was running more on the lines of specific belief than sexuality/gender identity.

Not sure I'd call it a purely 'political' belief, mind you.

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?

Indeed.

Thank you, @Ereshkigalangcleg .

Having given full and detailed consideration to the application, the Commission concluded that LGBA meets the legal test for being a charity as it is established for exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit.

Yeah, so this is really Mermaids versus the Charity Commission. They're taking their own regulator to court for making what they think is the wrong decision about someone else under that regulation.

Pretty ballsy.

What happens when they lose? Can the Charity Commission then declare them to have been acting improperly by initiating such a case, outside their charitable remit? Presumably the Charity Commission has to step aside during the case, but they're back to regulating Mermaids afterwards...

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.

Does this mean that the RNIB could be challenged for only being about people with sight impairments? Or Cats Protection for not caring for dogs? That’s ridiculous.

I would hazard a guess that maybe it would require someone else if anyone could be arsed to to take them to court to question whether all those Starbucks cookies and fundraisers were best spent dragging another charity to court to argue their existence.

I honestly can't see another charity being that vindictive and manipulative. Because most charities are set up to try and address problems, not to tear down other people.

Not to mention the case where the head of Mermaids took a T person to court for sharing views that did not align with Mermaids' TQ+ politics.

They could hardly be said to be for LGBT+ people themselves who do not agree with them - they emphatically are not!

Full decision of the CC is here, fwiw:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision

Looks pretty thorough to me.

In case it proves useful:
Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin: J or Judge
Assisted by Judge Joe Neville: AJ, J or Judge
Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC - MG
LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC - KM
Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf - AR
Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele - IS

From the mermaids crowd funder

so-called “LGB Alliance”

they do make themselves sound like foaming lunatics

I’ll bet they use finger quotes IRL

Are they going to call them that in court? They'll look a bit daft if they keep prefacing a charity's name with 'so-called'. When that's their name. Written down on papers, and everything.

Isn't that rather like intentional misgendering? <muses> Perhaps strongly held personal beliefs are a valid reason for choosing your own language.

they do make themselves sound like foaming lunatics

Why break the habit of a lifetime Bernard

Initial work for case they said done by barrister Alice de Coverley. Same solicitors too as for Allison and Maya. Strong team!

Does anyone know if the court will rule on standing and then proceed with the rest if M are found to have standing? Or will the whole case be heard regardless?

Seems like such a waste of time if Mermaids are found not to have standing if the whole case is heard.

I can totally believe the shite is even happening. This is what happens when people who are deranged all hang out with each other.

Are mermaids even able to stand? They have fish tails instead of legs, don't they?

Oh right, the "so-called" "Mermaids".

The hearing resumes at 10am on Monday.

Would be rather wonderful if there was a basis to call Miranda Yardley as a witness… especially with Miranda’s acceptance of bog standard issue pronouns (ie sex based) yet Miranda never having sustained any physical injury despite all the terrible ‘literal violence)…

…just plenty of mental, professional and financial injury at the hands of a certain Mermaids champion/former staff member.

Will be following for updates next week, thanks.

I've muddled that, it was Helen Islan who worked for Mermaids that took Miranda Yardley to court, not their CEO.