I'm copying 2cats extraordinary post from the previous thread. I have a question.
The respondent's lawyer says you can only use the Forstater protected belief if you can express it properly, or back it up in an academic way.
My initial thought is no judge would buy that, but it appears that, yes they bloody do.
Does anyone have an opinion about whether this judge would?
---
2cats post:
"Yes, it reminds me somewhat of Miller v College of Policing back in 2021 (a case about 'non-crime hate incidents') in the Court of Appeal.
Mr Miller's beliefs were described as:
[31] Mr Miller holds what are sometimes described as gender critical beliefs which are encapsulated in his belief that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. Mr Miller considers that conflating sex (which he considers to be a purely biological classification) with gender, poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights
In the original case, his tweets had been described as "profane" and "unsophisticated" but he managed to obtain Professor Kathleen Stock as an expert witness and it seems like her evidence played a big part in helping him win. In the Court of Appeal case the judgment quoted part of the original judgment at [116]:
He went on to say at [252]:
“[Mr Miller’s] tweets were, for the most part, either opaque, profane, or unsophisticated. That does not rob them of the protection of Article 10(1). I am quite clear that they were expressions of opinion on a topic of current controversy, namely gender recognition. Unsubtle though they were, [Mr Miller]
expressed views which are congruent with the views of a number of respected academics who hold gender-critical views and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons"
[emphasis added]
"...and do so for profound socio-philosophical reasons"
and not just working class reasons that aren't approved of
Without that appeal to authority of "respected academics" things might have been quite different
End of 2cats post