Sara Morrison v BFF Thread 3

[SexRealistic]

For background please read here:

https://genderblog.net/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/

"You can sue someone for slander on social media, as online statements are subject to defamation laws. To successfully sue, you must prove the social media post contained a false statement of fact that caused serious harm to your reputation, a process also known as a defamation claim. The statement is considered "libel" because it is in a permanent, written form, not "slander" (spoken)".

We shall see tomorrow.

I believe that saying that biological males should not be in rape crisis centres, women’s changing rooms and other women’s spaces can’t be and should not be challenged. But the belief that people have or have been absolutely bought into that trans women are women. That is what needs challenged. They have to get their heads out of their arses and think about it.

There's another possible hitch too: the SC judgment doesn't automatically apply to Northern Ireland, because the 2010 Equality Act doesn't apply: So it's not (yet) clear that women in NI are entitled to single sex spaces: It's one of the reasons this tribunal is important (as I understand it anyway- not a lawyer!)

This isn't the same as contempt of court though? So for example something could be non-defamatory as it's true, but still be contempt of court because eg it relates to material the court ordered not to be disclosed.

Is there something you've seen posted on here that you think would be contempt of court?

That will be a matter for the OITFET to consider, surely?

I am not actually sure that these people have actually thought about it in any depth. They reckon they are being kind and not the “right side of history” They’ve just not had a chance to think it through. Or else they are just actually madly mysogynistic and also probably homophobic. Little gay people are actually not gay they are just in wrong body. I say let them be what they are. And they should be happy as that. It is mysogynistic and also homophobic.

doubt its slander / libel if its the truth though and defamation cases are hard to win - just ask Rebecca Vardy.
And we are all anonymous here and many smart women are also anonymous on X.
Are you trying to create trouble where there's none @A24Direction

Well it would be if the issue were raised.

I assume we all agree that contempt of court exists and that the court would have jurisdiction over what constitutes such, but the 'bet your bottom dollar that some of the posts' suggested you had a view on specific material. That's what I was asking about.

DB may be a lovely person, but so far, she's called herself a Dr, a Prof and a Judge - none of which is true.

Words matter and she is judging people in an official capacity.

If she really thinks that being a Visiting Professor years back means that she is actually a Professor, she genuinely does not have the capacity to be judging others.

This is really concerning.

I love that she has called herself an employment judge. Best shade of pig lipstick!

Also NAL but AFAIK this case is about being discriminated against at work for having gender critical views. Single sex spaces at work would be covered by the NI equivalent of the 1992 regs, see 20 and 21:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/1993/37/made

Cannot wait until tomorrow !!!!

cheering NC CE and SM!!!

Yes she has brought the heart of it to the heart of it.

Yup. Section 20 (2):

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—
(a)the rooms containing them are sufficiently ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women, except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.

Apparently these rules have been taken over by rules given by NIPSA etc. that trans women ie men can access these spaces. Apologies if I am wrong (I’m not.).

In fact, it seems that BFF are being accused of manufacturing a reason to dismiss SM, knowing that they couldn’t do it on account of her beliefs. Hence the appearance of the Event that Wasn’t, and a Bigly Screen no one seems to use, nearly as entertaining as Pete, I’d say. So NC and CE were concentrating on casting doubt on MD’s claims that there would have been an Event if SM hadn’t scuppered it. Then all hell broke loose

I didn't understand much of that - but I knew you knew that what you were hearing had a whiff.

If this was a Tribunal we'd be off like a hare confiming the hypothesis.

It was an hour long paid promo in which many false statements were offered. I knew the bits that were legally suspect, you knew the bits that were mechanically suspect. I think that we should hope that "Professor" doesn't get to decide whats true or not in Tribunal again.

Do you think they are going to trawl through every single post on this thread and previous ones and check out all the musings, sources and sharing? What would be the benefit of that for anyone?

When they didn't check that the panel member was who she said she was for several years or even decades?

Seems a weird set of priorities to me.

NIPSA heidyins pretend they don't know what the words man and woman man.

This also think this sort of nonsense is a good use of funds: Nipsa: Tribunal criticises union in 'communist' dispute - BBC News

Well I suppose since she called herself Professor and they believed it, then why not call herself an Employment Judge. Fraud doesn't start big, it starts small.

They may well swallow that hook line and sinker too.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Surely calling yourself a Judge is criminal.

Talk about self aggrandising, I believe her real name is Wilhelmina Mitty.

none of this ends here. There is definitely a mini series for any good writing, reasonably ambitious journalist. There is a few completely different stories i can tell them myself. They’d be madly busy.

But there's a difference between a union's interpretation of the law and the actual law.

If it becomes important I have created local copies of the two videos as .mp4 files. One is 14MB the other 440MB, so not that big