Reports Roz Adams successful in her action against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

[LargeSquareRock]

https://x.com/journalismseen/status/1792305714595012730?s=46&t=f8U9xaap9RM6pcBCdpsFIA

Excellent news and looking forward to seeing the judgement.

You would think in a case of such egregious discrimination there would be some repercussions / saction for those involved. Imagine if any other of the protected characteristics had been treated in this way.

Roddy Dunlop's take:

https://x.com/RoddyQC/status/1792432887083491624

Absolutely scathing judgment in Adams v ERCC. Harassment on multiple fronts; Kafkaesque behaviour; resulting in unlawful constructive dismissal.

"This led to a completely spurious and mishandled disciplinary process."

That couldn't be more damning.

Sounds like the gender ideology rot extends up to Rape Crisis Scotland

A reminder that Rape Crisis Scotland opposed the amendment to the forensic services bill (I think it was called) that entitled rape victims to request the sex of the doctor examining them immediately post-rape, rather than the gender.

It seems that employment tribunals are giving short shrift to this nonsense. Look at the most recent ones - Roz Adams, Rachel Meade, Jo Phoenix - and all the judgements have been damning. It makes me wonder when employers are going to start getting the message. Take the latest case - Eleanor Frances taking the civil service to tribunal after they forced her out because of her gender-critical views. Are the civil service seriously going to attempt to mount a defence given a run of verdicts that have robustly defended staff rights to express gender-critical views?

I always look for who is silent on twixer when judgements like this are published.

I do hope Allison wins her EAT against stonewall.

Does it actually say 'extremist' in the report?

Does this really mean we can report this and other institutions that do the same to PREVENT?

How fucking marvellous if so.

How can they claim to be inclusive after an employment tribunal found that they literally excluded females with GC views? 🙈

That was the point Ben Cooper made recently in the Allison Bailey vs Stonewall appeal tribunal where Kirrin Medcalf from Stonewall had complained to her employers about her supposedly transphobic and hateful posts on Twitter/X. Ben said something along the lines of, if Allison had had another protected characteristic, eg disability, and Garden Court Chambers had had an email from KM complaining about Allison posting about what KM referred to as her disgusting disability on X, we wouldn't be here discussing this point like this.

Haven't RTFT yet, but the judgement is absolutely damning. I have just read the bit where it says one of NC's emails "is unfortunately a classic of its kind, somewhat reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka". 😂

This statement from Rape Crisis Scotland has been.posted on twitter, but I can't find it on their website. Might be just my incompetence though.

https://twitter.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1792478795527577667?t=RHtZVeWw9ycWu7jFSLgy0Q&s=19

It’s absolutely wonderful news! Women up here are now pushing for the sacking of MW , he can fuck off !

It's going to be quite a long battle I think. Initially I thought one or two cases nationally would sort it out but it looks as if every sector / organisation will need to have it's own case to learn it's own lessons. For each case it is a surprise when it actually reaches the court room. Why not settle when it's clear they are not going to win?

Also what happens when organisations reflect on their loss? I can imagine that when ERCC reflect on this they will try and find some way to continue to discriminate against women who hold GC views. Perhaps they will go down the route of the Brighton RCC who (from what I've read) are open about the fact that all their services are mixed-sex and that they prioritise GI over sex. Time will tell on whether or not that's a lawful strategy or whether it is discriminatory against women.

After the result.
None of this before the result.
Fairweather friends.
They should be externally investigated just as much as ERCC.
I hope the cowards at the top lose their jobs.

RCS! It's generous of me to say they've been asleep at the wheel. Oddly, considering what should constitute consent, you could draw the conclusion that they approved considering their longstanding silence.

The tribunal still describes it as extreme.

Which is good, because it potentially is hinting that GI theory IS extreme and what is being taught in schools IS extreme

😂 😂 😂

Well done Roz! 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 Justice has prevailed. I’m sure the BBC and Guardian would have been delighted to report on this if it had gone the other way. 🙄

Yes, but it is not an extreme version of GI; as you say, GI is extreme.

It says:

The Tribunal’s view was that essentially the claimant gradually became aware of the crucial distinction between her generally trans positive but also sex realist philosophical belief and the more extreme gender identity belief which she became aware was prevalent in the organisation and indeed was clearly held by the respondent’s
witnesses who gave evidence to the Tribunal and is evident from some of the written documents in the case.

also see attached (for some reason my c & p stopped working)

That's at least three occasions where they refer to 'extreme' views. (Haven't had time to read the whole thing and go through with a fine tooth comb)

Someone with extreme views is by default an extremist. And it was stated that it was incompatible with law to enforce these views on others because it's fundamentally unlawful and to do so pretty much requires discrimination and harassment...

So yes, there is a problem here.

In theory what the judge is saying is that the extreme nature of these views means they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society because they can are incompatible with the law because they do harm to others. It's not a ruling saying explicitly they GI beliefs are not WORIADS but in essence that is the only conclusion you can really draw.

I don't think we are at the point of saying GI beliefs are NWORIADS but I think we just got pretty damn close with this.

I wonder if a twitter lawyer will make some comment about this. It would be interesting to see expert takes on this aspect of the ruling.

😆

RedToothBrush

That is what Michael Foran was saying in the Critic:

The version of gender identity theory embraced by ERCC (described by the Tribunal as “dogmatic”, “extreme”, and “hardline”) is one that is not compatible with the requirements of tolerance. A central feature of this worldview is that dissent is transphobic and must be quashed. The Tribunal itself found that Mridul Wadhwa believed that all sex realist views were transphobic and that firing employees with those views was important for achieving inclusivity. Those beliefs are not compatible with tolerance and, in this extreme form, may not even be worthy of protection under the Equality Act.

Finally, after way too many interruptions, finished reading the judgement.

Good to see they were absolutely scathing about the conduct of the respondents!

Any other CEO would be unemployed by the end of today. Doubt MW will have the balls to step down though.

It's going to be quite a long battle I think. Initially I thought one or two cases nationally would sort it out but it looks as if every sector / organisation will need to have it's own case to learn it's own lessons. For each case it is a surprise when it actually reaches the court room. Why not settle when it's clear they are not going to win?

i think this is consistent. It seems to me that subscribing to the GI world view requires you to deny facts, science and law and have closed your ears and minds to other voices and experiences. So it is no surprise when organisations with a deep conviction in GI theory will close their minds and stick their fingers in their ears and go “lalala can’t hear you” if they go to credible lawyers who try to give them the best advice based on law and recent cases. After all, their organisation will be special and unique and not like all those other organisations who were victims of terf judges, right?

What the tribunal is saying is that Roz was moderate in believing in gender identity to a point but also held gender critical ideas that sex is still relevant and important (so basically the tribunal is not saying that Roz thinks that trans identity is a pile of bollocks and that all trans people should be 'erased'). So Roz is the model for the lawful position on this rather than an extreme version of being GC where anyone who holds GI beliefs should lose their jobs for example. (I don't think there's many examples of this really. There are GC people calling for people to lose jobs due their GI beliefs meaning that they are failing to safeguard or have otherwise not upheld the law or have failed in their legal responsibilities which is different because there is a legitimate reason for concern rather than purely because they disagree with their beliefs. It is about their conduct not their beliefs).

Or something like that.

There's a certain amount of nuance going on here which is fairly difficult to explain. (Anyone else fancy a go?!)