Jo Phoenix vs The OU Employment Tribunal 2nd October (whispers Ben Cooper)

[ickky]

Employment Tribunal starts next Monday, not sure if it is available for remote viewing.

I have sent a request so we will see.

Thank you. So in a section on trans people. So we all potentially trans people now if the judge is asking every single person who appears before them. Is that the only way the judge can avoid giving offence/it being 'misinterpreted' ie by asking everyone? It is, isn't it? We all have to collude in this lie/fiction to not risk offending 0.5% of the population. It really is forced collusion.

Joanna cherry

Yes CriticalCondition, the Judge obviously wants to avoid the accusation of singling anyone out - maybe given the topic of the hearing it makes it especially sensitive, and also we don’t know who the witnesses are yet, there maybe someone who did have preferred pronouns or who would complain if they weren’t asked.

I would be interested to know if the Judge did introduce themselves and give their own preferred pronouns before the online part of the meeting started. I could make an assumption based on their female voice of course. Don’t know if that would be considered rude though.

If the judge isn't recused then I might go to Watford in person now, I think Jo needs some support.

My signs will be

"Asking preferred pronouns = compelled belief / speech"

and (on the other side so I can mix it up)

"18 witnesses = attempt to price women out of justice"

Better suggestions happily received.

It is CHILLING when someone asks your pronouns. I really think what I said upthread applies, it's like asking which denomination of Christianity you belong to i.e. not allowing for the existence of other religions.

I also object to the forced changing of the English language and common usage by the courts.

And, as an aside, if we're really asking pronouns all the time now of everyone economic activity is going to be even worse than it already is. Imagine the waste of time?

I've had meetings with people in 3 different non-Uk countries today. No-one mentioned pronouns.

Next time anyone asks my pronouns I'm going to say 'I leave that to the speaker to decide, as is normal'. And, if feeling particularly pissed off 'I don't believe in compelling others' speech'.

And if Ben Cooper in a case like this has to go along with the pronouns collusion so as not to get off on the wrong foot with the judge in the first 5 minutes, what hope is there for us ordinary mortals in schools, offices, worried about our jobs, dealing with employers, professional bodies, police and officialdom who have all signed up to this. It's terrifying.

Exactly.

I cannot wait to see Ben Cooper in action. He is just brilliant. I am sure the pronoun compulsion will have been duly noted.

I saw that Ben responded to the Judge's questions about both him and Jo, but the sound being what it was I didn't hear what he said. I'm hoping it was along the lines of "My client wishes to be addressed as Professor Phoenix and standard biological based pronouns are fine"

Just for general information, I've phoned the court and been told that so many people applied to watch remotely that the system is at breaking point and that there are at least 50 people, me included, who have not been granted access. I've asked that they get their IT people onto it, because obviously the whole idea of remote access is to enable interested parties to see justice being done. I'm told that increasing capacity is extremely unlikely.

I wish. The sound was bad but BC's response was quite short and I think in the circumstances he decided to keep his powder dry and went for a brief he/him and she/her.

Sound wasn't great but I think he did state pronouns. Was probably blindsided and also it's putting them in a very difficult position from the outset.

Absolutely awful behaviour from the judge.

I looked up the judge. She's been on the bench less than 6 months.

If this issue impacted on the senior court staff, then they'd sort it out.

What do they care if random members of the public want to observe the hearings?
Out of sight. Out of mind.

Yes, it sounds like the judge gave an instruction - 'state your pronouns' - rather than gave permission to those in court to say them if they wished. More imperative than subjunctive.

Hmmm, I wonder if alongside all the EDI courses they no doubt have to do they also have any 'impartiality' courses.

<sighs> I'll get my wallet out again.

That’s a shocking indictment of their IT system then. I think I counted a maximum of 33 people in the meeting at one point, and that included the court room, the judge, Jo’s Covid positive solicitor and a couple of clerks. There were lots more people in Allison Baileys hearing. I regularly attend busier Teams, WebExes and Zoom meetings.

I also noticed that although I turned off my camera in the meeting, the light was still on on my PC and my computer was still sending video, so their meeting software doesn’t really interact properly with my equipment. I wonder if that contributes to the issues at the Watford end.

The judge's behaviour surely gives Jo instant grounds for appeal if the judgment goes against her? Bias clear from the outset.

I'm reminded that Maya's first ET, which she lost, was headed by a new judge.

It was definitely that way. An order not a question. A presumption that everyone believes in gender ideology.

Of course BC and JP could have said 'sex-based' or 'whatever the speaker would normally use' which would be normal usage but a) they had to think on their feet and b) when someone shows you they may be a TRA judging your case you need to tread carefully

Baptism by fire, eh?

But asking in that way was a mis-step. Quite apart from the gender critical side, I teach some young students with for whom that would be a very charged question, who might find it most invasive. Tut.

In Maya’s case it was exceptionally useful that she lost the initial case, allowing her team to go to appeal. As only the appeal court ruling, and not the lower initial court ruling, sets precedent, an initial win would not have been useful to all other terfs.

Sometimes an initial loss is far more useful.

What if everyone had a different pronoun? So Zie/zir, fae/faer etc. The case would become entirely unworkable in the time as everyone would constantly be getting it wrong. Justice would grind to a halt.

Maybe it's just another time wasting tactic? I wonder if we'll have 18 different pronouns from the 18 different witnesses from the OU?

I also noticed that although I turned off my camera in the meeting, the light was still on on my PC and my computer was still sending video, so their meeting software doesn’t really interact properly with my equipment. I wonder if that contributes to the issues at the Watford end

I also noticed that although I switched off both my camera and microphone the 'off icon' didn't appear against my username in the list of observers. Even after I'd logged out and back in again. Probably only about half the observers had the 'off icon' by their name but apart from a few pings and tings there wasn't much intrusive background noise. So I also wonder if the court's software is somehow not working properly and is contributing to capacity issues.

Just to be clear, the general enquiries person I spoke to took my comment about justice needing to be seen to be done seriously and went away to ask the IT department what they could do about it. Nothing, apparently. They've known for a month or two now that one of the biggest and most controversial ET cases in the UK, which will directly affect the lives and futures of thousands of academics, was scheduled for their courtroom. I know the court system is stretched to its limits but even so, this is pretty woeful.