Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

The judge expressed surprise (slight incredulity) that the claimant and colleagues did not discuss GC and GI in the workplace given. The level of debate in wider society.

He did say somewhere people can express opinions and beliefs that are civil, in the workplace.

It's hard because as a teacher I don't express any views but then I do teach all the views in pshe / different feminist views. But wouldn't challenge a child.
Social workers probably also wouldn't directly challenge a child but we do need a way to not just say OK and immediately transition socially. Really only parents have the power and even then they can be challenged as we've seen. 7 yrs in Scotland proposed!

Put another way, it's one thing to express CGBs to a colleague and quite another to someone you have a worker and client relationship with.

The Meade judgement did not test this

Yes I agree, but I think the principles are there.

Yes I agree, but I think the principles are there.

I'm not so sure ...

I do think SWE will be more careful in the future but this has not empowered social workers to practice in GC ways.

I don't think any of this is clear cut. I think the concept of "practicing in a GC way" could potentially be quite broad, and it would depend entirely on the individual circumstances.

I don’t believe SW should behave or discuss their personal views with a client. They should be acting in the best interest of the client.

I agree with that. Belief in mystical gender souls or lack of that belief, shouldn't really be a thing that comes up when you're helping vulnerable people and families in social work cases. If the client brings up something you shouldn't or don't want to discuss, then you have to gloss over that and get on with the case work, I'd think?

Well that’s part of the issue. It’s a child protection concern that children suffering from abuse are turning to gender identity as a solution to their problems and how would a social worker raise concerns about this being an issue for a client if their employer is going to discipline them for holding such views?

Views on gender identity are an integral part of a social worker’s work. Support it and you’ll help transition a child. Oppose it and you’ll help support a child in other ways.

I don’t believe SW should behave or discuss their personal views with a client. They should be acting in the best interest of the client.

Of course.

I don't think any of this is clear cut. I think the concept of "practicing in a GC way" could potentially be quite broad, and it would depend entirely on the individual circumstances.

There are a myriad of issues that might arise when children want to socially transition, seek referrals, and so on. If a worker is in a DV support role and the organisation asks her to check pronouns or refer to women as 'cis', or if she is running a woman only victim-survivor workshop and a transwoman wants to join ...

It's not clear-cut. It's my point that a social worker telling the TW that this is a woman's space or refusing to ask someone their pronouns or use the term 'cis' has not been tested.

An important element to the Tribunal judgment (in my opinion, caveat: IANAL) is the finding that her employer and SWE were pre-disposed in favour of one side of the argument. That seems to me to be a more relevant point than the question of whether she discussed her views in the workplace. The Tribunal doesn’t get into that, other than as a passing remark, for the absolutely fundamental reason that she wasn’t being subjected to a disciplinary for behaviour in the workplace she was being subjected to a disciplinary for private social media activity, following a complaint by someone campaigning on the opposite side who posted very questionable posts in pursuit of their campaign goals. That bias on the part of CoW and SWE - together with poor process - is why they lost.

The Tribunal judgment describes what happened when Rachel was allowed to come back to work…..

“Claimant’s return to work interview with Ms Harris and Ms Barry on 25 July 2022
^^
139. During this meeting there was discussion that boundaries around behaviours would need to be maintained and Ms Harris would be carefully monitoring the Claimant and the situation between her and her team. The Claimant was informed that the expectation was that she would not be discussing her views with team members who may not previously have been aware of this issue but now are. This represented a clear reference to the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs.”

In her defence at the SWE fitness to practise hearing in October 2022, this evidence was presented….

“The Claimant’s response to the Second Respondent in a document dated 12 October 2022
^^
143. At paragraph 5(a) the Claimant referred to the Second Respondent having a pre-existing position that gender critical belief is necessarily bigoted and transphobic. She says that this submission is supported by the July 2022 Statement of Case prepared on behalf the Second Respondent.

Claimant’s statement of case for Fitness To Practice hearing dated 17-18 October 2022
^^
145. At paragraph 66 the Claimant complained that the investigator had made no attempt to establish the veracity or otherwise of Mr Woolton’s narrative.
^^
146. At paragraph 67 she complained that the investigator just took Mr Woolton’s word for it that the Claimant’s posts were discriminatory and transphobic.

147. At paragraph 78 she referred to Mr Woolton being very active on social media and at paragraph 82 that he used the word “terf”, which is widely accepted as derogatory and used as a slur against many gender critical women and that he refers to gender critical arguments as “hate” or “terrorism”.”

In the judgment, the Tribunal finds that SWE and CoW did not treat both sides of the argument equally…..

“199. We do not consider that the First or Second Respondent has established that a restriction on the Claimant’s manifestation of her beliefs was required in accordance with the criteria set out by Lord Sumption at paragraph 20 in Bank Mellat. In particular we do not consider that the Respondents struck a fair balance between the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression and the interests of those who they perceived may be offended by her Facebook posts. In reality it was only Mr Woolton, who we have found to have a direct interest in the gender identification/gender critical debate, who was offended and there was no evidence that the Claimant’s views had been expressed in the context of her professional duties.”

The Tribunal found that SWE and CoW were biased against her. And due to that bias, they discriminated against her.

“201. We find that the Respondents’ contemporaneous state of mind was that the beliefs expressed by the Claimant were inherently discriminatory and transphobic and therefore unacceptable. […]
^^
The burden of proof
^^
202. We are satisfied that for both Respondents there are facts from which we can infer that they discriminated against the Claimant on the grounds of her
protected belief. “

Not sure if this has been posted but barrister Sarah Philimore's submission on behalf of Rachel about the case are very clear - and damning about SWE & the complainant:

https://www.ebswa.org/post/submission-in-review-hearing-of-swe-decision-to-sanction-social-worker-for-gender-critical-views

It's not clear-cut. It's my point that a social worker telling the TW that this is a woman's space or refusing to ask someone their pronouns or use the term 'cis' has not been tested.

Lots of potential scenarios haven't been tested, it's always going to come down to individual circumstances and legal interpretation. This doesn't only apply to gender critical beliefs. The basic principle is that the belief that sex is immutable and matters is an acceptable belief and you shouldn't be discriminated or harassed on the basis of it, in the workplace but also in other areas of life.

Sorry I missed a para on the employer being biased and seeking to prevent the expression of GC views.

228. We find that the letter of 15 November 2022 implied ongoing disapproval of the Claimant’s conduct and continued the restraint on her freedom of expression. It is notable that whilst Mr Wrobel withdrew the sanction, he did not reach the decision that her conduct was not a matter of concern. Further, in cross examination he was still unable to confirm that the Claimant had done nothing wrong in the posts she had made. In those circumstances we consider that the Claimant would understandably have formed the view that there was a continuing expectation from the First Respondent that she would desist from any public expression of her gender critical beliefs and that any continuation of such views being publicly expressed could result in further disciplinary proceedings.”

It’d be interesting to know how a SW is expected to talk about gender issues if they arise

It’d be interesting to know how a SW is expected to talk about gender issues if they arise

Yes. And is a Muslim or Christian social worker hypothetically expected to answer questions about whether they are homophobic if people have concerns?

Lots of potential scenarios haven't been tested, it's always going to come down to individual circumstances and legal interpretation. This doesn't only apply to gender critical beliefs. The basic principle is that the belief that sex is immutable and matters is an acceptable belief and you shouldn't be discriminated or harassed on the basis of it, in the workplace but also in other areas of life.

I'll give up because I'm obviously failing to get my point across but the core is that RM and anyone else can hold GC beliefs but this has not been tested in practice with clients.

The ruling is great, but it is limited.

Again, on the back of the ruling and SWE's obvious bias, the Cass report and what we know happened at the Tavi I'd like to see a full-scale inquiry into SWE's appropriateness as a regulator including their guidelines for practice for social workers in practice ... because I bet that these have Stonewall all over them, I know that workers are afraid to speak out and vulnerable people are poorly serviced as a result.

Yes, I just couldn't understand what point RMW was making when saying 'it's not an important result because she didn't bring her views to work'.

Is RMW therefore agreeing that the complainer was in the wrong and shouldn't have complained, on that basis?

I think RMW is trying to claim it won't affect anyone who does bring their views to work, but then logically they would seem to agree that the complainer should never have got as far as they did.

It’d be interesting to know how a SW is expected to talk about gender issues if they arise

Yes, exactly!

Indeed. It is relevant that this “surprise” was expressed in the section entitled “overall assessment of the respondents’ witness evidence”.

My observation, fwiw, is that tribunal judgments and similar documents (eg bullying investigation reports) in which lawyers express “surprise” are generally the section of the report which the non-lawyers amongst us might describe as the “pants on fire” section. lol

“Overall assessment of the Respondents’ witness evidence

153. Whilst we accept that at the Respondents’ witnesses would have felt uncomfortable responding to hypotheticals, and expressing their own views regarding the gender identity/gender critical debate, we nevertheless consider that overall they were extremely reluctant to provide answers to hypothetical scenarios put to them by Ms Cunningham or by the Tribunal. The invariable response to such hypotheticals was that it would depend on the context. Even when it was then explained that the context was the exact equivalent of the situation which actually applied to the investigation concerning the Claimant’s use of social media there was a reluctance to engage in the questions postulated.

154. We also consider it surprising that virtually all of the witnesses were reluctant to express any opinions, either personally or in the context of the organisation by which they were employed, regarding the status of gender critical beliefs and whether there was discussion and debate on the issue in their organisation. We consider this surprising given the topicality of the issue and consider that there would be a reasonable expectation that those engaged in social work, or the regulation of social workers, would have a heightened level of awareness on what has been a high profile and ongoing public debate.”

RMW is just “running interference”. Like happened with the supposed leak of legal advice on schools guidance.

But on that point about who was in the wrong. The tribunal shows that:

• Rachel Meade was not in the wrong when she supported feminist campaigns in her private life.
• Rachel’s direct line mangers we’re not in the wrong when they concluded she had done nothing wrong.
• SWE did not do its job properly and was in the wrong.
• Rachel’s more senior colleagues were biased against her views and were in the wrong.
• Rachel was discriminated against and subjected to harassment by her employer.

The trans activist social worker Woolton/ Wotton was not a respondent in the Tribunal as Woolton was not employed by SWE or CoW, so there is no legal finding against Woolton.

However those who read the Tribunal judgment can draw their own conclusions about whether Woolton was in the wrong. Woolton / Wotton tried to damage/destroy Rachel Meade’s career as a social worker because of her support for female humans having single-sex female-only sports.

Yes!!!! This makes me so damn happy. You’re forced to chose a gender identity in order to renew your registration with SWE. Can’t wait to gleefully tell them, to shove it this year.

The ruling is great, but it is limited.

I've never said anything different. Not really sure what point you are trying to make. I think you are looking at it more from a social work perspective than me, perhaps. I'm looking at the principle again being affirmed that gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society. The nuts and bolts of that will have to be worked out, but it will heed to be a consideration among other issues in policy making etc. That's all.

Is RMW therefore agreeing that the complainer was in the wrong and shouldn't have complained, on that basis?

I tried to ask a couple of people on other platforms that, but strangely they didn't want to answer

I think you are looking at it more from a social work perspective than me, perhaps.

Yes, I am, because that was RM's job and I know there are social workers out there who are forced to follow Stonewall inspired idiocy in their practice and this isn't just about their personal beliefs but about the effects on vulnerable people. This is about broader effects and not just individual rights.

Yes!!!! This makes me so damn happy. You’re forced to chose a gender identity in order to renew your registration with SWE. Can’t wait to gleefully tell them, to shove it this year.

Case in point - how deep is the rot in SWE and how far has Stonewall infiltrated?

Yes it’s important I agree. What are the guidelines and who is impacted

It’s probably outside the scope of this decision - idk tbh

But it does raise a question on how much Stonewall is influencing SW guidance