Denise Fahmy taking Arts Council England to an Employment Tribunal because she has been harassed for being gender critical.

[ChristinaXYZ]

Denise Fahmy queried why an award to the LGB Alliance was withdrawn and then faced harrassment at work.

From her summary:
" some of my colleagues saw fit to circulate a petition to all staff against me and any other 'gender criticals' working at ACE. The petition was hosted for 26 hours on the ACE staff intranet, gaining the attention of 700 staff and signatures from over 100 of them. People signed it, and made comments, citing gender critical people like me and LGB Alliance as parasites, neo nazis, needing to be stamped out ..."

Denise is gardening in the usual place - see "Fighting bias at the top of the Arts Council"

If you're able to help her out by planting or sharing please do. Thank you.

It seems very unfair and uneven. Denise has had to go public and no doubt has received abuse and threats as all women who take a stand do.

This trial is very much in the public interest, a decision not to allow live reporting seems biased to me, when Denise is publicly known. These are employees spending large sums of public money - surely their actions should be open to scrutiny? What's the rationale for giving them anonymity, it's not middle aged women who make death threats?!

Yes, exactly, dimorphism. This is a body that deals in public funds. And the outcome is very much in the public interest.

'When we return after lunch, we will know whether we will be allowed to have access to the bundles and whether we have permission to live tweet. Telegraph journalist is considering whether to get their barrister involved if the Judge does not allow access'

'We are going to be given the redacted bundle.'

'Claimant's evidence will be tomorrow, respondent's evidence Monday or Tuesday'

'The judge is going to discuss with the panel and has not made any decision re permission to live tweet. We are now done for the day and will reconvene in the morning'
'

allowing live reporting (or not) is a story in itself.

It feels like a strange decision. There are plenty of similar cases where live tweeting / reporting has been allowed. You'd think this one would be more in the public interest than all those other ones since the AC is publicly funded. All the other judges have stressed the importance of open justice haven't they? Why would this one be any different?

Well, they've not made a decision yet. Curious it's taking so long to do so.

It's not very open justice-y to not allow it.

What are the objections?

It is really strange, I'm hoping the Telegraph follows up with consulting their barrister. (this is making me want to go out and buy the Telegraph also - press freedom to report is so important)

I agree, the fact the Arts Council spends public funds makes it all the more important this court case has public scrutiny.

They adjourned for the day an hour ago, so we won't know much until tomorrow morning now.

The objections seem to be about members of staff being named but Denise is named. Surely, since they've not admitted guilt and settled, they think their actions are beyond reproach so what do they have to hide? They are paid for by the public purse!

It suggests the evidence is extremely damning, but if that's the case, even more important it's reported upon.

Well, that's easily remedied by redacting the names, surely??

They go round in bloody circles and waste so much time.

Most of it sorted, but it will reconvene tomorrow now. Still don’t know about Tribunal Tweets yet though.

Oh I see. I misunderstood previous posts. 🤞

There is a very good journalist in attendance who is challenging everything. Very much of the opinion of ‘in the public interest’, gives me a lot of hope. A big shout out to Tribunal Tweets too, never realised before now, how important they are…and are volunteers.

Seems they got permission to tweet…

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1659487634450726912

On what basis are the witnesses anonymous? I presume everyone involved in the case knows who they are?

I’m assuming just to reduce the chances of harassment. They’ve done it in previous cases too haven’t they?

Press coverage Denise giving evidence in the tribunal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/19/ace-employee-faced-hostility-over-gender-views/

Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12104807/amp/Senior-Arts-Council-England-boss-claims-treated-threat-views-gender.html

The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arts-council-worker-compared-lgb-alliance-to-kkk-pqwxf6xb9#

Yes!!! This is great news. Thanks. And good to see it in the papers, too.

Anyone following this?

Seems that Anya Palmer is refusing to use they/them pronouns for a person who has a preference for they/them pronouns. Rock star ⭐️

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1660591421928140802

And in one of those classic moments the judge misgenders him too…

J: can we refer to him as Paul?

Wow good on her

Imagine if it had been a petition against any other group