Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 3

[nauticant]

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

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.

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

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

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: 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 (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

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)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request

Argh, reading in more detail, I think the objections are about counsel misrepresenting the actual law in cross-examination, which seems more reasonable. Should've known better than to disagree with Allison Bailey 😳

I thought the Guardian piece was excellent and conveyed accurately key excerpts from an important speech about the distress being caused to and outrage felt by (at least some) lesbians over the trampling on their boundaries and identity. Amelia Gentleman is a former journalist of the year I think and I can only assume it’s costing her some capital in terms of her reputation to write this in the Guardian. Good for her.

I think Ms Gentleman's reporting of the case in the Guardian has been excellent. (Recently learned that she is married to BoJo's brother, JoJo.)

The 'gender reassignment' thing though, this is where most people don't realise it is an umbrella term now that can even simply mean just the intention of 'living as a woman', (whatever living as a woman means) with no external change at all.

I think because we've used the term sex change for so long, people think that gender reassignment is a modern term for surgery.

I could be wrong but I think Amelia Gentleman has always been quietly on the side of reality on this issue.

Maybe even the Guardian can see that this blatant attack on homosexuality is not something they can ignore.

If what is being said at this tribunal gets reported, then the entire issue of what constitutes a homosexual is going to be in MSM.

There's no way people will accept that it does not rely on biological sex.

And (of course this in only a hunch), if activists try to persuade them otherwise, I think they're going get Right Fucking Annoyed.

I think because we've used the term sex change for so long, people think that gender reassignment is a modern term for surgery.

That is what it did/does mean though. When I was nursing in the 1990s gender reassignment was what that surgery was called and is still called.

It is classic TRAs that a well used (medical) term has now been misappropriated to mean jack shit 🙄😒

MG definitely misrepresented the issue by indicating that it is 'transitioned' men that he is referring to - when in reality it's any bog-standard man, penis and all, who simply claims to 'identify' as a lesbian.
Yes MG I'm using the word MAN, and I'm using quote marks on 'identify', just try to stop me!

Yes. While the more vociferous TRAs and genderists are going to be unhappy about the Guardian reporting this straight-up factually, I think many of the more moderate and thoughtful readers might have a penny drop when they read that article.

Males insinuating themselves into lesbian spaces is pretty bloody obvious, really.

This is The Guardian's tweet publicising the article:

twitter.com/guardian/status/1570498609581330434

Unfortunately, they've chosen to misrepresent what happened in the hearing. The Guardian's tweet says "LGB Alliance co-founder breaks down in court when asked to define ‘lesbian’" when anyone watching the hearing could see she broke down when it was put to her on behalf of Mermaids that it was awful for lesbians not to see male-bodied people with penises as lesbians.

Just finished reading Kate's witness statement - powerful stuff (as was Bev's), but some weird stuff in the appendix. Not sure why her entire undergraduate thesis (badly reproduced, with a smudge from the photocopier on every page) was included and the various online articles are followed by screeds of unrelated material from the websites.

Fascinating to see the correspondence with Stonewall though. I hadn't seen the Reindorf report before - although the version submitted to the tribunal is so heavily redacted in places as to be unreadable verging on meaningless.

Jo Maugham has tweeted about the case and I have no idea what he’s on about. Can anyone translate for me?

I don't know. Presumably an editor will have asked her to cover the case. When you've agreed to report on a court case, you have to attempt to be as neutral as possible, so in theory there shouldn't be any comeback for her.

I notice that earlier in the day it was the most-read story on the site. Perhaps the Guardian is waking up to the fact that a lot of people are interested in this topic.

Have read and...not a clue WeeBisom.

I think he’s saying ‘stop criticising me for speech policing’ (to a general audience, who are starting to get sick
of being AI tone policed and are waking up to the issues)

followed by ‘It doesn’t matter if we look like clowns, as long as the judge rules in our favour’ (to a pro trans audience)

followed by ‘right wingers are making trans people act out on purpose for political gain - so maybe some of these terrible TRA types are actually Christian fundies in disguise, and actually trans people are sweet and lovely and would definitely never cover themselves in piss’ (to make himself feel better about his own doubts about which side he chose to fight for).

just my personal interpretation, obvs!

So Foxy’s bad actors are fake TRAs? But people are who they say they are, especially trans people!

(I can’t make any sense of it though.)

JM:

'First, whatever you may read this is not a case about 'free speech'. The organisation I run hasn't sought charitable status in large part because you can either have it or you can have free speech but you can't have both. We're gone for the latter - it was a choice we made.'

He's saying you can't have free speech if you're a charity?

'Second, litigation isn't like the Eurovision song contest where everyone gets a vote, or an election where sentiment matters. It's about whether you pass certain defined legal thresholds and the only audience that matters is the judge(s).'

Well, obviously. If you're focussed purely on the litigation and don't give a hoot about your image in the wider world.

'Third, imo, enemies of progressive causes are interested in trans issues because they see in them a way to benefit from triggering trauma. A vain hope, perhaps, but it would be good to interrogate more why the issues are so hard to discuss - and to be more mindful of bad actors.'

Benefit from triggering trauma? Is this the 'weaponising your trauma' thing again?

Foxy has clearly lost the plot. There is nothing in charity law that says you cant speak plainly or even controversially. As long as it is in line with your charitable objectives and is lawful, charities can say what they want.

He's saying you can't have free speech if you're a charity?

He's saying that if you want to lobby, particularly in a political way, then not being a charity gives you much more leeway in how you can do it and what you can say. I actually think this is a reasonable point.

Yes, it does seem a rather extreme thing to say. Not to say bollocks.

'you can either have it or you can have free speech but you can't have both'

Seems pretty categorical to me. Your point makes sense, maybe you've just expressed it better, nauticant.

It's a shame that all of his training in the skillful use of language hasn't equipped him with an ability to communicate effectively.

Unless he isn’t trying to communicate with us normies and this is one of those ‘dogwhistle’ things the other side are always wanging on about?

I did think, when reading, of 'dogwhistle', but I hate that word, it's really wriggly.

I hate it too but I can’t think of any other plausible reason for LOLyon’s text to be so… befuddling?

I notice it has a fraction of the interaction of his other recent tweets? Perhaps he’s blocked everyone likely to respond to his trans stuff?