Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chameber) Thread 2

[nauticant]

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony started on 12 September.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets.

To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

Abbreviations:

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

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (?? September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (?? September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - Not yet available
Dr Belinda Bell: Not yet available
Beverley Jackson: Not yet available
Kate Harris: Not yet available
Eileen Gallagher: Not yet available

Submissions:

lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

I'm more than happy to stick around to help with questions about legal procedure (time allowing) 😁.

Rather like Rebekah Vardy's lawyer, I think the Mermaids barrister has been dealt a duff hand. I wonder if he ever advised his client to withdraw the case.

It is extraordinary watching all this unfold.

I can answer a question about bundles which was raised on one of the tribunal threads.

Where solicitors have been engaged (as opposed to where a barrister is acting through direct access), it is the general rule that the solicitors acting for the claimant or applicant will put the bundle together. What goes into the bundle is usually agreed between the parties. Where there is a dispute, the matter will be determined by a judge during a preliminary hearing as part of their case management duties.

Sometimes, a judge may order that the defendant or respondent should put the bundle together e.g. where the financial resources of the parties are unbalanced/the respondent does not have access to printing facilities.

It will usually be someone fairly junior in the solicitor's firm who puts the bundle together, but one would hope that it would be checked by someone more senior before it goes before the court!

As @nauticant said earlier today, it seems BB has referred to Paediatrics journal. But this is surely a medical journal and BB isn't, as she made certain we knew, a medical person. So why's she interested in it if it's outside her remit?

Technically, barristers are bound by the "cab rank rule", which means that if they are approached through their clerks and have the appropriate knowledge, experience and availability, they should act in that case. I'm not sure how much this rule is complied with in practice though.

I can't see any way it works with her quoted "only 9% straight" stat unless she's mashing together two opposing definitions.

I know the discussion has moved on, but I have been thing about this while (unsuccessfully) trying to work. I think this fundamentally comes down to the fact that the GC position and the GI position are completely opposite.

From the "sex is immutable and sexuality is based on sex" perspective, 9% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Therefore, there is something homophobic going on here.

From the "gender identity is the basis of sexuality and the body is irrelevant / can be altered" perspective, 91% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Not only is there no need to worry about homophobia driving transition, if you're trying to prevent transition you are homophobic.

Because we see homosexuality from completely opposite stand points, each side genuinely sees the other as homophobic. That scientific fact and the law are on our side re "sex matters" is irrelevant to them , because the law used to ban homosexuality and doctors/science genuinely tried to "cure" gay men.

Thanks @LipbalmOrKnickers i managed to do something similar just in time for the end! Will know what to do tomorrow though

Thanks for your input LeadingQuestion it's good to hear from someone who understands the process.

Another lawyer here, and I agree with m'learned friend LeadingQuestion that whatever else he may be (and I don't know him), Michael Gibbon KC is not an idiot.

In terms of 'suggesting' or 'insinuating' everyone will have their own cross examination style. Personally I prefer a conversational style: it puts the witness at ease and they are more likely to let their guard down, it doesn't get the judge's back up if they're not instinctively on side already, and it can be absolutely devastating when done well. A conversational style of cross examination doesn't mean the barrister has given up.

I think Mermaids have an appallingly poor case but don't underestimate their counsel.

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/mermaids-appeal-against-the-lgb-alliances-charity-status-day-3/

And Twitter reply to Mermaids reveals where some people's thinking is on the matter:

'When will the idea that biological sex is binary & immutable be challenged? Any court that accepts this shows how out of touch with science & reality it is. Why don't you get experts to talk to this complex issue. A belief should only be protected if it has truth to it. Surely?'

'These are not biological facts, and haven't been for decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance and should get some up-to-date reading on the topic.'

It does reveal the reason that beliefs are protected, I think, and that we don't describe anything as 'fact'. Because most people here will find that tweet absurd; presumably the writer also finds the idea that sex is immutable and dichotomous absurd. His 'facts' are not our 'facts'.

What I was getting at was that MG was doing a scattergun approach of shooting down positions of LGBA without providing much in support. For example, bundled in with a whole load of these was his attempt to cast doubt on the "fact" that "sex is immutable", he gave it a go and quickly discarded it. He'd just thrown thiis one into a bucket with the rest, another quick rebuttal, then move on to the next.

I've done legal argument, years of it. You need something more structured than that.

Wow, I really didn't like mermaids checking my ip especially for that length of time. Chilling.

I can't believe BB used the term "deeply problematic". So LOL. Just yesterday I listened to a brilliant rap song, Problematic by Aaron Francis. Its so very very apt.

Yep, I bottled it and didn't follow the link in the end because it freaked me out!

Someone posted this on RoF.
Not sure if this contradicts claims of not acting with any medical expertise?
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19540.html

Sorry about that. I was so annoyed at his suggestion that LGBA engaging in political activity was in any way equivalent to the police engaging in political activity. I had been mentally shouting 'without fear or favour' (re policing) and I was shocked at what I interpreted as his disingenuity.

"Older children (16 and 17 year olds) are frequently (incorrectly) told they will not benefit from blocking medication due to already advanced puberty. However, Natal males’ pubertal development continues into the early 20’s"

Doesn't this (from MM own submission above) contradict what BB said today?

Please do! We can handle corrections without sulking and enjoy robust two way (or more) debate - unusual for these times I know!

Speak for yourself. I reserve the right to a truly MAGNIFICENT sulk at a time of my choosing.

"Wow, I really didn't like mermaids checking my ip especially for that length of time. Chilling."

What do you mean by this?

«A lot of this stuff we pick up because we’re submerged in their dogwhistles.»

can someone please explain what it means to be submerged in dogwhistles?

it was on one of the Twitter links posted upthread.

wishing mermaids a lot of submersion with this courtcase! Not necessarily by dogwhistles though 😁

"Wow, I really didn't like mermaids checking my ip especially for that length of time. Chilling."

What do you mean by this?

I suspect it's this:

community.cloudflare.com/t/what-is-the-checking-if-the-site-connection-is-secure/415718/3

JFC.

A belief should only be protected if it has truth to it. Surely?'

And not content with attempting to redefine the words ‘woman’ ‘man’ ‘male’ ‘female’ ‘child’ and ‘law’…

just like that, the trans activists went for ‘belief’, seemingly completely unaware that their assertion, that human males can become human females simply by changing the name on the gas bill is the belief with no truth to it.

How do the transactivists feel about Catholicism, I wonder?
if wine can be blood and bread can be the body of Christ then surely a penis can be a vagina? Just takes a few magic words, amirite?

The Pope says no, obvs.

Perhaps Jolly-On can sue the Vatican?