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

Honestly, they're so bloody disingenuous. How can any charity based on sexual orientation do anything, anything at all, without it including protecting the very meaning of the term sexual orientation?

Thinner than a waffer theen meent IdisagreeMrH

It's a long way from "LGBA must be banned from being a charity because they're bigots" IdisagreeMrHochhauser.

To put it crudely, MG seems to be saying that the LBBA aims are to challenge the 'notion' of gender and to challenge what LGBA consider to be unscientific thinking.

I'd forgotten we had John nicholsons evidence for mermaids - that was an insight into his mind

Seems to be based on policing language - the word lesbian is taken, transing the gay away, etc. but if that's the case then what about Mermaids calling feminists feminazis?

Which, when you are actually a charity set up to support LGB people, is rather crucial.

I know these cases get settled on a legal basis, rather than a purely rational one.

But I sincerely hope amongst all this, mermaids are asked to define homosexuality.

Let's bloody have it.

I'm autistic and to my ears, he doesn't even sound convinced by his own argument. His tone of voice seems tentative to me. So I'm not supposed to be able to read people but that's how I read him.

When he says 'very briefly' he doesn't mean it does he 😂

It's because it's nonsense - I don't know how anyone has the nerve to say this out loud, much less with a straight face and in a court of law.

Of course it's nonsense but they could have at least have found a barrister who has swallowed it and believes the dogma.

To be fair he seems to me to be making the best case he can -I just don't know enough about legal precedents to know if it's a good case or complete bobbins

It's best to have a critical thinker rather than a true believer as your counsel. True believers are blinkered and struggle to see the weaknesses in the arguments they're advancing.

Good point nauticant

It's all resting on the dominant purposes of the charity.

No I don't know what the law is. This point seems to be strongest - that it's a campaigning lobby group against gender ideology and ergo that's not a charitable aim.

I think one of the mermaid points was that LGBA would take away funding from them - is that correct? Presumably he will need to explain that - are they more worried about their finances or the stays of LGBA?

The fact that the charity commission was so extraordinarily careful in granting the LGBA it’s charity status surely undermines this argument?

I hope so, anyway

Or indeed, calling boys ‘daughters’.

I agree @IdisagreeMrHochhauser (I just wanted to type that!) - I think the MM argument is that the primary purpose of LGBA is to campaign against Gender Ideology. However the way I see it is as pp pointed out they can't defend LGB rights without defending the language which has been co-opted and meanings changed by Gender Ideological organisations like SW and MM.

I'm not dialled in & only following the tweets & here but it seems to me that they're imploring that those who will make the decision on this should break down what LBGA and see the 'hidden messages/agenda' that they're not willing to actually spell out?

IANAL but that seems a bit like a wing & a prayer sort of argument - 'fingers crossed they get the message without the message being explicitly spelled out 😉' sort of argument.

It's actually a very good illustration of how bad faith interpretation of what people say is used to fuel disingenuous arguments on how 'hateful' & 'bigoted' people are when discussing anything to do with the sex/gender debate.

If my take isn't correct, you can all disregard my musings.

Of course, it's not like you can just use the argument it's campaigning against another charity. It's campaigning to keep the integrity of the very definition of homosexuality. Bloody hell, it doesn't get more fundamental.

But maybe the sticking point is they didn't write it like that as one of their aims?

I'd say IdisagreeMrHochhauser summarised it well:

This point seems to be strongest - that it's a campaigning lobby group against gender ideology and ergo that's not a charitable aim.

this was in response to FriendofJoanne

I'd say Mermaids are on pretty thin ice if that's true.