allison bailey judgement

[thelonelyones]

expected tomorrow

(can't share how I know, and sorry don't know if there's already a thread)

Certain aspects of the judgment and its reasoning are surprising and very concerning.

That will be the capture.

fucking hell, how long is this gonna take.

OMG

Here we go...

Can she appeal? If she has the energy and money to do so.

Oh, wait. A MNer was hallucinating that, not AI 😆

Got all excited there for a moment

The basic problem is the finding of fact by the ET that the email from Kirrin Medcalf of Stonewall to GCC did not amount to an inducement to sack Allison. Personally I think the closing phrases of the email do amount to an inducement to sanction Allison for her GC views in breach of Section 111 but what do I know I'm not a judge or a lawyer.

I trust that you will do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people.

I think that's it. The appeal is not about whether the ET made a wrong finding of fact, but about whether the ET misapplied the law in reaching its finding of fact, and Whipple LJ is not convinced.

I'm sorry for Allison, but the Stonewall bit was always the weakest part of her case and difficult to prove. Though I know why she wanted to push that as far as possible. Stonewall really need to be told by someone in authority that they can't go around sending emails like that. This one might be read as a "them and us" appeal to allies, but if they make a habit of it, the next tribunal could easily read a similar email as inducement to discriminate.

If it makes Stonewall and its ilk wind their necks in it will be worth it.

Hopefully Stonewall's loss of reputation, and employers pulling out of their schemes, make that sort of intervention less likely.

We've got enough cases going to tribunal without Stonewall sticking their oar in.

I get the impression this may have taught Stonewall something, but it's hard to separate that out from their general fall from grace. There isn't a Stonewall cloak anymore.

@PrettyDamnCosmic “but what do I know I'm not a judge or a lawyer.”

Goodness, don’t even think you are less than able than some judges knocking about considering the judgements to which we have all been privy. Looking at the recent judgements (say by Alexander Kemp), I’d say you are doing better if you don’t make up and attribute quotes to other cases. The reasoning (lack of), correct references (truthful even) and comprehension (of simple studies) have all been absent.

You’re certainly ahead of the calibre of some judges if you can read, and understand, a study that compares men (who are trans identified) with other men. Rather than stating (or pretending) it is comparing men (who are trans identified) to women.

I don’t think I’ll ever feel inadequate again. Nor should you, more than able ‘Judge Pretty Damn Cosmic’.

She can appeal to the Supreme Court, but first she will need permission from the SC to do so.

Being honest, I'm not sure what she sees in this judgement that is surprising or concerning. Until someone elaborates on this, I can't comment directly. However, this is the outcome I was expecting. GCC may have a case against Stonewall, but I am not convinced Allison does.

IANAL but it occurred to me that the issue is one of compulsion. I will attempt an explanation.

Let's say for argument's sake, Stonewall was a fascist organisation that said to GCC, you must fire Bailey because she's black and if you don't, we will cancel you.
GCC then fired Bailey for being black.

Under the "but for" clause, it cannot be argued that GCC fired Bailey because Stonewall told them to. Because firing someone for being black is inherently wrong and all the blame is on GCC. GCC could have said, but we're not allowed/we're not racist/we don't want to/we don't care if you cancel us. But also GCC agreeing that firing Bailey because she's black, is an agreement not a response to.the cancellation threat.

What Ben Cooper KC was trying to argue was that GCC wouldn't have acted as it did if Stonewall hadn't threatened them/told them what to do.

But the judges interpreted that as something that couldn't have happened because GCC are responsible for their own actions and implied in that, is that GCC are at fault because they should not have fired Bailey for being gender-critical/sex-realist.

I would argue that the trans ideology is so pernicious and the cancellation threat so real, that there was a legitimate threat by Stonewall which caused GCC to fire her.

It's as if a strongly religious organisation said to another organisation, your employee doesn't believe in our religion and you must fire her or we will excommunicate your organisation from our religion/stop you receiving benefits/services from us. This is not realistic in the UK but might be in Iran or Afghanistan.

Arguably because GCC were reliant on Stonewall for advice, it could be argued that Stonewall's threat carried more weight. Except GCC is a barristers' chambers and so it could be argued that they should be in a better position to know the law than Stonewall. Thus their dismissal of Bailey was entirely their responsibility.

I do think gender ideology is more pernicious because it's so new and so few people and organisations are objecting publicly. But that means proving that cancellation is a legitimate threat and that GCC were in thrall to Stonewall and gender ideology.

I'm sure there are flaws in this post, but it's as close as I can get to what the judgment means.

I think one key element here is that GCC is a very odd chambers, it sets great store on being left wing and championing social justice causes, and it will form a consensus around issues that are fashionable on the left. I can't think of another chambers that works that way. Maybe some organisations in the charitable sector are similar.

So maybe the trans working group was only 10% of the barristers in GCC, but I see no reason to doubt that most of the others would have bought into gender ideology, or if they didn't, been prepared to go along with it.

Allison, by going strongly against the dominant view in a highly political chambers, was already out on a limb. If there should happen to be a strongly pro-Israel barrister at GCC at the moment, I imagine they would be keeping their head down and discreetly looking for another chambers.

I think this is a big problem when it comes to convincing a tribunal that Stonewall's intervention caused GCC to take a course of action that they wouldn't otherwise have taken. If GCC was very big on trans causes, and the alliance with Stonewall was part of that, the email from Stonewall can quite plausibly be seen as pushing at an open door, and encouraging them in a course of action that was already very likely. Given what we know about how GCC handled Allison, it's a stretch to prove that they would have treated her fairly if not for Stonewall.

I need to take time to read the judgment properly, and I'd be interested to know what Allison finds surprising about it, but my instinct is that sometimes you just have to take the win that's on offer and let go of the additional win that would have been ideal.

I think that the arguments were far more complex than the previous posters have stated and there were a number of in the alternative arguments as well

one of them was that the mere act of lobbying a persons employer about their protected beliefs was in of itself a detriment, and no consequence needs to have arisen.

i think the reason that Alison is not letting this issue go is because she is not out for herself. She is seeking to prevent the activity of causing GC people to lose their jobs for expressing matters of fact.

i think she is likely to have succeeded somewhat in this endeavour anyway, but she wants it pinned down in law.

I'd hoped that she'd win, but am disappointed that she lost, but not entirely surprised. Sorry, Alison, if you see this thread.

Appeal coming...

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

Excellent 👍