Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R
OU Departments & Networks:
HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far - https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

Thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

Thread 3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

Thread 5
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

@Karensalright Have you ever heard of light relief?

Actually, that's a great idea. I would love to send some support cheese (probably a voucher rather than trying to post actual cheese). Is she still at Reading?

I wasn't able to join the live feed (I have to work!) and haven't seen the written submissions, so I am relying mainly on TT for what BC said. In some places I am unclear whether he is making points about JP's behaviour or the behaviour of the OU. I suspect it would be clearer if I had the written submissions.

The Forstater case made it clear that GC is a protected belief. That doesn't automatically mean that all manifestations of that belief are protected. That depends on context. The example BC uses is homosexuality. The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination (although it only seems to have a problem with male homosexuality - lesbians seem to be fine!). If I were to say that in a religious context, that would be protected. However, if I were to say that one of my workmates is an abomination because he is gay, that would not be protected.

That far I follow what BC is saying. The next bit loses me a bit as I'm unclear whether he is talking about JP or the OU. However, I presume he is saying that JP did not do anything that overstepped the mark. He is definitely saying that, even if they were not themselves prejudiced against GC beliefs, those who discriminated against her and harassed her were influenced by such prejudice. He comes back to this later when he says that the witnesses were influenced by those who were hostile to GC beliefs and bent to their influence.

Most of the rest of it seems to be taking JM's closing submission and shredding it.

It is certainly true that TRAs are attempting to bracket GC beliefs with fascism, racism, etc. The extent to which they have succeeded is shown by the fact that the original Employment Tribunal in Forstater's case decided that GC beliefs are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society" - a judgement that, in my view, was jaw-droppingly bad. She should not have been forced to appeal. However, the fact she did has the benefit that the Tribunal is now bound by the decision that GC beliefs are protected.

In part, the mistake the ET made in the Forstater case is one TRAs (and some proponents of other ideologies) are pushing - that a belief some might find offensive is automatically not worthy of respect in a democratic society, and hence cannot be a protected belief. There is no right not to be offended.

LOL!

😄

In part, the mistake the ET made in the Forstater case is one TRAs (and some proponents of other ideologies) are pushing - that a belief some might find offensive is automatically not worthy of respect in a democratic society, and hence cannot be a protected belief. There is no right not to be offended.

Agree @prh47bridge - if it were that simple we women could as effectively claim that men in frocks claiming to have channged sex was also offensive. But we aren't allowed to.

I'm a Double Gloucester girl, myself.

Edited to add a smug grin

Small cheese diversion (thank your lucky stars you weren't here for the bee sex chat karensalright ) to say I think any strong hard cheese which can give kimchi a run for its money should be good.

I'm sorry it didn't hit the spot for you Vegemite. I tried your combo and it didn't quite do it for me much as I like the constituent ingredients. I think we're both on some weird Venn diagram of unlikely food matches but in different sections.

thank your lucky stars you weren't here for the bee sex

I imagine that Hymenoptera porn is a very niche market . . . 🐝

@CriticalCondition @Vegemiteandhoneyontoast @SidewaysOtter mature cheddar with lime pickle is an awesome combination.

When I was breastfeeding and quite poor, my almost permanent hunger was assuaged by jam and cheese sandwiches made with cheap white bread, so delicious in retrospect. My mouth is watering right now at the thought of them.

We have both and I shall try it.

In my youth, I used to enjoy mayonnaise and brinjal pickle sandwiches. Must try it again some time.

It's not that I didn't enjoy cheddar and kimchi, CriticalCondition, it grew on me as I ate and is a combination I'll try again, but I think a white Lancashire cheese might be a better choice for me.

The Forstater case made it clear that GC is a protected belief. That doesn't automatically mean that all manifestations of that belief are protected. That depends on context. The example BC uses is homosexuality.

I'm also relying on TT and comments here rather than live feed plus submissions. But my interpretation of his point there is very different.

As I understood it the comparison wasn't about Jo's manifestation of her belief, but the OU staff manifestation of their disagreement with it. That is, you are allowed to disagree with homosexuality, but not to bully someone in the workplace because of it; similarly the OU staff are free to disagree with Jo's GC beliefs, but not to call her names or treat her unfavourably in the workplace because of it.

Remember it's not Jo who's on trial here, it's the OU. The OU witnesses didn't always seem to grasp that - but it means Ben didn't need to spend time defending her, his points were about them.

Having looked at TT again, I think you may be right. But it is nonetheless true that GC being protected does not mean that all manifestations of it are protected. Having said that, I don't think the first section of BC's verbal submission is terribly clear in the TT version. I suspect it would have been clearer if I'd been able to listen to it (and even more so if I had his written submission in front of me).

similarly the OU staff are free to disagree with Jo's GC beliefs, but not to call her names or treat her unfavourably in the workplace because of it

i think the points you make are at the root of all of this - it is clear that most of the witnesses viewed just the existence of a GCRN as an affront to their beliefs, and thus they thought it perfectly acceptable to react to that in a way that they see as defending trans rights. Whereas I don’t thing it ever occurred to them, maybe even now even after the BC treatment, that they have an equal obligation to not discriminate, harass or bully. They mostly seemed stuck in the “most vulnerable ever” victim mindset on behalf of other people, not realising that there is no hierarchy of beliefs or discrimination in law.

No disrespect at all. I’ve enjoyed reading the thread.

Glad to hear that Jo i hope you are okay i have been the respondent in an employment tribunal, i know how it can feel when people tell lies and suggest that you are a racist, i won but has left its mark on me. Was a long time ago. well done for your resilience

But it is nonetheless true that GC being protected does not mean that all manifestations of it are protected

Indeed. But that's not what was on trial here.

It kind of was in that it appears to be OU's case that JP's manifestation of her GC beliefs overstepped the mark and therefore allowed them to act as they did. On the evidence I have seen I don't think they are remotely right, but that nonetheless appears to be at least part of the case they tried to make.

That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. A lot of the recent posts about the case are making sense. When I read that bizarre 'Hive' paper with which some them were involved, they seem to be co-opting vocabulary to give themselves a grandiose 'freedom fighter' air.

I may be wildly wrong but I think many of the OU staff think that having 'better beliefs' means they get a free pass to do what they like. Ben Cooper showed that (a) that's not how the law works, (b) they really crossed the line, and (c) the cogency and veracity of their evidence was less than optimal.

If it's unhinged to think male rapists shouldn't be in prison alongside women, that women's sports shouldn't be open to men and that medically experimenting on children having persuaded them their bodies are wrong and need drugs & surgery to fix them is wrong - then most of us are guilty as charged. 😂

Yes... these are all perfect examples of unhinged thinking. Thanks for the examples babe 🙏

Ah, the first TRA post on these threads!

And truly, it is as nuanced, insightful and well thought through as we have come to expect.

It's a TRSOH one - sound the alarm!

Oh a SCOLDING [claps hands excitedly]