Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1979480101474443398?t=Sg3wz-Pq2S7lpQ2rTpJZ2g&s=19

Court underestimated how devastating it is for organisations to be accused by the Witchfinder General.

But this particular organisation was already full of enthusiastic witchhunters.

This does make me think that the Peggie tribunal needs to be rerun then.

Yes, I fear so. I hope Sandie has ovaries of steel and her backer pockets as bottomless as they appear to be.

I mean... yes? Specially if you're a GP and I'm your receptionist.

Or maybe if you say, "I don't like people with Oriental names. I've got an appointment with one this Friday. I trust you'll do the right thing," and then (moving away from the broken windows) I cancel it. SURELY that is you inducing me to do it?

I see your point, I'm only arguing for argument's sake, so to speak
I understand that the legal definition of things like 'causation' may differ from the everyday understanding, and that judges have to judge on the legal definitions.

But I also expect [perhaps wrongly] judges to have a bit of subtlety and cop-on and awareness of human interaction in how they read situations.

So I would argue that it depends on who the speaker is:
if it is someone with a known dislike of Allison and her ilk, who represents an organisation that thinks the likes of Allison are carrying out literal violence and genocide against them, and who has considerable influence in society and over the owner of the brick, I think
“Allison’s a meanie, I trust you’ll do the right thing”
has clear implications understood by both the speaker and the brick-owner.

It may have been accompanied by tapping the side of the nose

I agree, but those are all questions of fact which it was the ET’s job to rule on. And they held against AB on those points. The CoA couldn’t overlook the ET finding that it was “just a protest”.

The CoA agreed that’s a question of fact for the first tribunal or court to decide on. Not a question of law that’s appealable. AB had her kick of the can on that point and lost it, back in 2024 or whenever.

Yes, I think the most crucial bit is perhaps that saying "I trust you'll do the right thing" didn't suggest that Stonewall actually wanted GCC to do anything (!) was perverse. Now that the CoA didn't make that finding, can that be appealed to the Supreme Court?

Sorry, cross post! So can the appeal on perversity grounds go further?

(My autocarrot wanted that to read "perversion", which is perhaps a whole other thread...)

My guess is - worth what you pay for it - no. Permission to appeal, if sought, will be refused. There is no palpable error of law that is arguable here and no issue of sufficient public interest outside the narrow confines of this case to make the SC want to revisit it.

I'd like to get it established that extreme GI beliefs are not WORIADS, because of the way they attempt to coerce others,

I happened to be out with a lawyer today and we discussed whether GI beliefs are WORIADS.

On the one hand, it can be argued that until such beliefs are established as WORIADS by a court, then they may not be, but they may be - Schrödinger's belief if you like. And the only way to establish WORIADS would be through a case where someone with such beliefs was challenged/discriminated against. As this hasn't happened (and I believe Naomi Cunningham would love to take such a case to court - if only to get a definitive definition), then they can't be said to be WORIADS (yet).

On the other hand (I was talking to a lawyer after all), given that gender-critical/sex-realistic beliefs are WORIADS, then it may follow that alternative beliefs are automatically WORIADS.

So I don't have an answer, but my lawyer friend did say that the point should be legally tested and not allowed to stand as it is.

My friend also.said they were surprised Kemp had not yet resigned because (and I quote) "there is no way in hell I would allow any client to appear in front of him. He would have to be recused. And I don't see any other lawyer allowing him to pass judgment on any of their clients".

Quoting my own post, to add that I posted it BEFORE I read that the message from Stonewall was
I trust that you will do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people.
which sounds anything but face-value innocent!

What was 'the right thing to do, and how were they being exhorted to 'stand in solidarity with trans people' specifically vis-a-vis AB?
There was a context, and that context gave the words weight and meaning, which they judge seems to have ignored.

Has this been posted https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-and-others-Press-Summary-1.pdf

I read it as it supposed to help no legal people understand.

I am none the wiser.

On the other hand (I was talking to a lawyer after all), given that gender-critical/sex-realistic beliefs are WORIADS, then it may follow that alternative beliefs are automatically WORIADS.

On this point, here's a counterexample: the belief that people with red hair are entitled to the same human rights as everyone else is clearly WORIADS. The converse, not so.

@MyrtleLion Kemp has a solicitor advocate career to protect, though I think that flush may be busted too. One does not hire a lawyer in order to be advised on the fruits of his imagination, nor those of an LLM.

This is why it should be tested in court. But it appears the Appeal Court has inadvertently ruled and surely that should be appealed???

I don't think it is particularly controversial to observe that GI belief is protected belief, given that there is actual legislation (following a ECtHR decision) that provides for formal recognition of acquired gender, and protection from discrimination for individuals who aspire to it, whether already formally recognised or not. It would be a bold move to suggest HMG has been up to something not WORIADS!

There's a lot more to explore here. In particular whether the law needs to be interpreted in a particular way to keep it within the bounds of what is Grainger-compliant, and whether there is a corresponding Article 9 issue. (YY IMHO)

I'm quite excited and hopeful that protected belief is edging into view, here and in the Kelly and Peggie cases. Because balancing it against GC belief seems like a better bet than setting the PC of GR against that of sex. And it will enrage TRAs, who think it's true fact not belief at all!

In the ERCC trial the GI belief there was called ‘extreme’ by the judge but in reality reflected what most TRA insist. In order to be WORIADS the belief must not conflict with others fundamental rights - clearly something it does when it demands other deny reality.

I genuinely think that Alison will let it rest now.
Other cases are better uses of crowdfunding than seeking another appeal on this.

Stonewall are not what they were when she started.
The Translucent group photo was a belter.
Other groups need to be dragged into the daylight

It was a throwaway remark, obiter, from the Judge, and not relevant to the judgment, so it doesn't set a precedent. So there's no need to appeal it. But it may be persuasive on a lower court in the future. We'll see.

There is difference between the protection of trans identifying people from harassment in employment and services (you can't be sacked for transitioning or not be hired for being trans, or denied a mortgage, shop/hotel service etc for being trans) and the belief that everyone has an innate gender identity that can be different to one's biological sex.

A belief in gender identity is wholly different to the characteristic of gender reassignment. What's more, gender identity needs to be objectively defined, and it cannot be imposed on the rest of society. It cannot be used to make others use wrong sex pronouns or to force companies/organisations/the general public go along with that belief. In a similar way that Christians can no longer shame the public for not going to church or believing in God.

The definition itself will be a big stumbling block.

I am quite happy that people I know (in real life) believe they have changed sex.
I have made it clear to them that I do not share their belief.
I use their preferred names.
In an A&E I would ALWAYS make sure that they got the right medical treatment for their biology

my pronouns are
give / over

https://x.com/i/status/2014754215164248488

Ovaries of steel!

.