Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

From NW

And please note everything I tweet is a summary and characterisation of what is said and happening in court. Nothing is a direct quote unless it is in "direct quotes".

NC has taken LB to an email from 4 July in which MD says: "I will send all the info to HR company now" - which suggests the decision has been taken to start investigation (iv)
LB agrees - not sure of the date it was decided tho

NC are you saying you weren't a party to the decision to instruct Think People LB we discussed it but the decision would not have been mine. NC whose? LB "that would have been Michele's, we would have been there to advise"

..... and Michele goes under the bus 🚍

Finally

So many 'would/would not have been' s.

In my experience of the arts, it's really important to send emails confirming action points discussed in meetings to ensure there was no misunderstanding in the moment.

This is because action points usually cost money in terms of actual spend and labour. No one wants to set a cost in motion based on a 'chat' over the phone, on TEAMS or anything without nailing down what has actually been agreed in writing. If no capacity to minutes or write up notes because BUSY a quick email does the trick.

I think MD did that with her email to the board about THE EMAIL, she was just confirming the action agreed albeit indirectly in that the email doesn't say 'as we all agreed' but she also doesn't want to be out on her own on this so she has done the usual confirmation email this way so no one can claim she was acting on her own and without their knowledge. That's what's tricky about EVIL PLANS.

Because she is sending a confirmation email under cover of normal business it looks odd on the face of it.

But not when you know that's how this sort of organisations makes sure what was agreed in an unrecorded chat is followed up in writing with a confirmation.

From NW

[NC takes her to a text from MC saying "As a board member I think Sara should be removed
from any of our trans and queer projects at once."
Board member Laurence McKeown (LM) weighs in: "I totally agree. As you say Mark, it doesn't affect her
employment rights but it removes her, and the
festival, from the issue. People would be totally
justified in refusing to work With her but we shouldn't
put them in that position. I looked at her comments
on YouTube. - appalling."
Lucy Baxter (LB) another board member says: "Yes I think this is the right way forward. It was a
mistake to include Sara in the plans but this can
easily be remedied now."
NC if that was Lucy's view it really was a mistake for MD to put SM's name in that 3 July email. It was a mistake.
LB I don't nec think so given her job, Lucy is saying it was a mistake, but that was her opinion in that moment.

So they were all in it. They all targetted SM for her GC views and speaking up for women.

From NW

NC SM was anxious about it and didn't want it to happen
SD she said in evidence she was happy about it
J that's my recollection
NC it's perfectly possible to agree to something whilst being anxious about it if your boss wants you to do it
SD SM said in xe the email was sent with her agreement and it was an act of support, this is a fundamentally different case

... and that's not permissible
J NC?
NC okay let's put it this way - was MD reporting honestly about the way this email came about
LB no reason to believe not

But a sideways shove with a 'that would have been' elbow. Not an honest two-handed 'it was' push.

I'm so glad I don't have to work with these people.

From NW

[NC takes her to SM's WS: "I expressed my
discomfort with having my name on that email, noting that we are experts in curating festivals
and can offer a broad perspective on what should be featured... Despite my hesitation,
Michele sent the email to the groups using the contacts from my Inclusion Excel spreadsheet,
cc-ing me in after I had left for the day"]

And added in countless other email addresses that weren't on Sara's list!

From NW

NC "people are often quite suggestible" when in a power imbalance combined with stress, aren't they?
LB "they may be but I can't comment about it in relation to this"
NC it was put to C in xe and she agreed that she wasn't comfortable to send the email
LB and that's why they decided MD should sent the email and the disco was about what was SM's job
NC and if MD couldn't see the "unwisdom" of putting her name at the top of the cc list, SM's concern should have alerted
LB "i think she was maanging the situation as best as she oculd in the moment"
NC it was described as a "mistake" to send that email - truth was, it wasn't a mistake at all this was the implementation of the plan to "accelerate matters" which in obedience to MC, you and MD made on 28 June
LB "no it wasn't and no such plan was made."

Musing...The fact one of the board said 'People would be totally
justified in refusing to work With her' is such a strong illustration of the targetted cruelty and exclusion and harassment of GC women who recognise reality and male abuse of women, seen everywhere/ anywhere Stonewall/ TRAs have had influence in recent years . No wonder it's spread fear of speaking up and government ministers who lie a woman can have a penis.

The women taking Employment tribunals are so brave. We all owe them a massive debt, from maya F onwards....

From NW

[We got to another part of the bundle - the email from Amie Martin re Caleb J Roberts]

[there has been a discussion in court - we are not going to refer to the person above by name going forward]

[there has been a discussion in court - we are not going to refer to the person above by name going forward]

[though there is no reporting restriction or anonymity order. so I will report what's being said in court, but reporters, are atmo able to use their name. SD agrees "the horse has bolted" on that]

My attendance yesterday was on the patchy side so my qualifications have been downgraded. Thanks for the new thread, off to catch up now!

That statement came from Mark Cousins (witch finder general?). I personally would highly doubt he thinks Muslim women (any more than any other woman) have a right to deny the claims and wishes of men, never mind boundary crossing men. From that statement, I just see another rank misogynistic shilling for the interests of men, all types.

oh, and hiding his misogyny by dressing it up as being progress by a progressive dude. I think he’d be more honest if he just admitted that he wants all those bitches who don’t allow men to trample over women’s rights, to just shut up. Well, it is obvious he wants women to be shut up, and lose their jobs if they won’t embrace this ‘new and improved’ misogyny.

Witch finder general Cousins will let them recant, but I wonder if they would still find themselves in the ducking stool anyway.

The fact that the film makers accusation about Sara is apparently so awful it would constitute gross misconduct and yet BFF did fuck all about it would lead a reasonable person to think either BFF are totally incompetent or the accusation was known to be complete crap.

From NW

NC if the complaint in that email is true it's v serious
LB yes it's v serious
NC we're in gross misconduct (GM) territory
LB can't say
NC you would have a grasp of what constitutes GM
LB it's certainly v serious
NC yet it wasn't followed up with a disc iv
LB we were already...

... investigating.
NC but this came in on 7 July and I would suggest it needed an urgent iv if anyone thought it might be true
LB there was an iv
NC that gives the game away doesn't it - you were already on track to get SM out - you didn't need an iv on an allegation which
... looked on the face of it, untrue.
LB no this would need to be scrutinised before any disc action

[let me see if I can copy and paste the complaint again: "Hi Michele,
I hope that you are keeping well.
My name is [xxxxxx] and my short film Homebird was screened at the 2022 edition of the
Belfast Film Festival. I was also a key crew member on the feature film Ballywalter directed and
written by my good friends Prasanna Puwanarajah and Stacey Gregg.
I want to preface this letter with the fact that I am an openly transgender man, but my work does
not focus on this topic. Nor did the films I was representing at the festival have anything to do with
me beings trans. I also want to preface that until this interaction, I had never met Sara Morrison.
I drafted an email to you in November after having an incident with Sara Morrison during the
festival, and again on the 16th of April after Sara publically spoke at an anti-transgender rally in
Belfast city centre that was circulated online. On both occasions I opted not to send the emails,
feeling powerless and quite worried about the possibility of being exiled from the Belfast Film
Festival for speaking about my experience.
At the Belfast Film Festival in November 2022 - during the after-screening drinks of Ballywalter in
the Cineworld foyer, I was approached by Sara Morrison. I had never met Sara before, and had to
google her after the interaction, shocked that she was listed as the Audience Development and
Inclusion Officer.
Sara initiated a conversation with me by name, knowing who I was. This conversation quickly
became incredibly uncomfortable, turning into what felt like borderline targeted harassment. She
insisted on making it known to me that she was a TERF, standing for 'Trans Exclusionary Radical
Feminist' — repeating this to me multiple times, adding that I "probably hated her, hated her guts,
thought she was a cunt" etc. despite having never met her before. It clicked with me then, that it
was because I was transgenderthat she was telling me this -creating an intentionally antagonistic
conversation.
Several negative comments were made in relation to me being trans and that despite this (me
being transgender) she still enjoyed my short film Homebird and thought that young gay people
should see it. She also alluded to the fact that she had my film removed from competition by alerting
the programmers to a private screening that Homebird had for cast and crew in the QFT a year prior,
with our co-founder Outburst Arts - but I don't know if she had the power to do this or if she was
just saying this to be oddly antagonistic.
I was genuinely quite shocked that someone would approach a stranger and to their face tell them
that they didn't like trans people, and I awkwardly removed myself from the conversation with the
help of my partner and my producer, who witnessed the whole thing - equally angry and completely
baffled at what had just happened. This left me very upset and quite powerless on what should have
been a night of celebrating Ballywalter, causing me to have to excuse myself for a while before rejoining.
When my own short film was screened on the 6th of November, I had to be convinced to
attend by my partner and producer who had my back, because I was scared to be approached again
— feeling like I wasn't welcome or didn't belong at the festival.
I truly think that given the very open and vocal viewpoints that Sara holds about transgender people
(both in person and online) coupled with my experience and potentially the experiences of others — I
don't feel she is fit for the position she holds. I would hope that the Belfast Film Festival be a place to
encourage minority communities across Northern Ireland to contribute, but with an Inclusion Officer
that is loudly anti-trans, I don't feel safe sharing my work or celebrating film at my local festival
anymore. I am really saddened that Sara is someone whose purpose is to create equal opportunity
and engagement for audiences regardless of who they are, but holds contempt for people like me. I
absolutely love the Belfast Film Festival and have been honoured for my work to take part, but I feel
unwelcome.
Thank you for your time as this is quite a lengthy letter, but I hope it can be of use to hear from a
trans person that was directly affected by Sara's behaviour as an audience member, filmmaker, and
lover of film in Belfast.
All the very best,
[xxxxx] (He/Him).]

Ironically, the mass email may have backfired on them. Three responses from an email-all approach to contacts are insignificant compared to three from a list of core stakeholders.

Thank you for your time as this is quite a lengthy letter, but I hope it can be of use to hear from a
trans person that was directly affected by Sara's behaviour as an audience member, filmmaker, and
lover of film in Belfast.
All the very best,
[xxxxx] (He/Him).]

But of an odd ending if this was just sent as a normal complaint. That reads more like "Is that what you need to hang the witch?"

From NW

[We move on to LB's bossing of the iv into SM and the email which explains what the iv is all about]
NC no mention here of the email above
LB the terms do mention other matters which may come to light
NC but this had already come to light

NC your letter talks about the LWS event, but doesn't mention the email complaint of 7 July. Can you help the tribunal to understand why you had this really serious complaint from a seemingly vulnerable behaviour who complained about seriously bad behaviour towards them by SM...

... and yet it's not mentioned in the terms of the iv
LB Bethany put this together and the terms and the section there is the oppo to put matters which may come to our attn - "that's all I can say"
NC in hindsight isn't it incomprehensible that wasn't put "onto the charge sheet"
for iv on 25 July

From NW

LB I wouldn't call it a charge sheet
NC matters to be investigated - let's not get hung up on that
LB it does seem incomprehensible - Bethany put it together and it wasn't included
NC put it to you it's not incomp - it happened for 2 reasons - the iv you wanted was already...

... in train on grounds of transphobia and the complaint didn't look viable
LB I don't accept either of those points
NC that ind. was employed by Outburst Arts who you'd already had 2 complaints from since 4 July and Amie Martin who forwarded it to you, had worked for BFF
LB I have no idea
NC "if that's true, it's all looking pretty incestuous isn't it"
LB "no I wouldn't describe it as that"

Agree of use - of use to what ?

Surely a complaint would end 'yours disgusted' or similar?

Now that we are getting to the end of testimony I am reflecting on how possible it might be for the panel to reject the argument NC has very successfully built.

The case for and the case against.

If you take the witnesses for BFF at face value:

They were made aware by MC and others that SM speech at LWS was an issue because just appearing at that event is enough to believe she is a right wing fascist who the BFF should be very careful not to associate with and who should definitely not be employed as Inclusion Officer.

MC absolutely believes that unless SM repents, and even if she does repent, she is to be believed to be a right-fascist who is all things fascist. One board member also believes this the others are more circumspect but agree that it looks bad and they are worried.

They don't really know what to do but external experts say they can't really do much without complaints, or an outright refusal to do the job in question, and certainly not without due process.

They set up the process for investigation, albeit in a very clunky fashion but can't follow that process as they'd planned to because SM goes off sick, won't be interviewed and then sets grievance process in play before going to tribunal.

The processes and exchanges with external companies are flawed cos circs are unusual.

No EVIL PLAN and nobody was horrible to SM.

On the evidence:

The chronology as presented in the WSs doesn't add up.

The Bigly Event is not plausible.

Given what the Board members said about keeping MD's dirtied hands off all LGBTQ stuff the email with her cc'd can only be understood as to be inciting a response.

The reponses seem too similar in the circs and in their claims of actual transphobia to be anything other than orchestrated.

The investigation and grievance procedures were heavily manipulated by BFF board and staff so it can't be seen as objective or fair in anyway.

MC's emails clearly set them all in a panic and they know they have to accelerate because MC is more worried about damage to his reputation and his acknowledged status in the TRA camp than he is about the reputation for the BFF in general.

If the concern had actually been reputational damage to the festival itself rather than to MC it would have recognised that they need to do more to stand up for a staff member finding herself in an unexpected place.

As this ET has proved, they have damaged their rep much more by trying to stitch SM up based on MC's concern for his own rep.

From NW

NC takes LB to a text message she sends to MC and LM (among others): "Hi all, MT and Michele are on holiday this week so I wanted to give you a quick update. Michele has gathered further formal complaints relating to Sara. And refusal to do certain aspects of her job involving these issues and groups in itself constitutes gross misconduct. So pending further legal discussion
things are moving toward a clear destination - again
it's just about doing everything in the correct way."

NC that language is a giveaway "clear destination" - you've already decided.
LB disagrees
NC takes her to her WS "It is correct
that pending further legal discussions, things were moving toward a clear destination-
the clear destination being the fact-finding investigation."

NC an investigation is not a destination, is it?
LB suggests it is
NC that is a deliberate attempt to mislead the tribunal isn't
LB not at all
NC and a "fairly desperate" attempt to rewrite the meaning of what you put "candidly" in your chat
LB not at all