Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

8. The Claimant does not seek a ban on gender critical beliefs.

She does not ask the Tribunal to hold that such beliefs are unworthy of respect.

She does not contend that SEEN members may not associate or express views in any context.

Her case is that the Respondents’ conduct in the workplace, including the intranet platform, the delegation and failures of moderation, the rejection of their own grievance appeal recommendations, and the continued exposure of the Claimant to material that the Respondents’ own grievance processes identified as harmful, amounted to unlawful conduct.

This is total censure of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees someone's fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Tempest is a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That is how the EU case law developed. You only get protections by recognising you are a man and wanting to reassign your gender to the other binary sex. A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their [biological] sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex (Equality Act 2010, Section 7 (1)).

Other things that are harassing Tempest

Tempests GRC - it identifies he was once a man
His own body - "Testosterone shaped my body in ways that still make it feel foreign to me."
Him being a father to his son - legally named as father on the birth certificate is harassment.
His divorce certificate - as it appeared to be on the grounds that he sought to re-assign his gender
Referring to himself as a trans woman - as only biological men can become trans women.

This isn't about things that make Tempest realise he is a biological male. This is about shutting up women or people with opinions that don't align with his gender ideological world view.

Since Tinkerbell brought up the 2022 mumsnet thread - Naomi could use it as an example of why SEEN was necessary and just how scared GC women were.

From TT:

AL: Article "why SEEN is important to me". You relied on several parts of this in your second grievance.
AL: p1792 author talks about accepting gender identity ideology being like having to follow grandparent religion; later, that GII forces author to lie; and that it worries author re boundaries of private spaces eg toilets.

ST: Yes those are what I object to.
AL: Do you accept, private thoughts of a lesbian writer talking about herself and own feelings.
ST: Really she's writing about trans ppl, rejecting legitimacy of trans ppl

AL: She say SEEN was like a breath of fresh air - that's about how she feels, not trans ppl
ST: Yes she's writing about that but also about rejecting trans ppl and legitimacy.

AL: Only first name given and that writer is a civil servant. Need not be DEFRA? ST: No
AL: Published on the CS-wide website, not DEFRA?
ST: Published yes

From TT:

J: Can I check, you accept it was the cross-CS SEEN?
ST: Doesn't mean it wasn't promoted within DEFRA

AL: p823
AL: Email from Sarah McNally to someone called Jason, Cabinet Office, and others. Discussing receipt of complaint about that article?
ST: Yes

AL: p822 email from 3/5 from Bal Toor of DEFRA with a bit more info. Quotes are the same ones you are complaining about. Your complaint?
ST: Can't say for certain, but I did complain.
AL: And you raised in grievance. This is your complaint isn't it
ST: Can't say for certain but yes the same points.
J: Someone else might have made same complaint?
ST: Yes
J: But you certainly did complain?
ST: Yes

AL: Now response from Jason G - says, Cabinet Office knew of the blog and had no concerns?
ST: Yes agree

AL: And it was COff responsibility, bcs cross-CS SEEN?
ST: Yes, but that doesn't mean DEFRA has no responsiblity at all - allowing links to that site for example.

From TT:

AL: DEFRA forwarded to C-Off, who had no concerns?
J: That's actually not what it says - says, no concerns re reputational damage.
ST do you understand what that is?
ST: I suppose, if the media picks it up?

J: Can I ask. p821 has a lot of redaction - but it says here, "our press office has the same view" - is that view the redacted part? I can't seen any other 'view'. What is being referred to?

AL: The note here would indicate legal advice, but I have not seen that.
J: Thank you
AL: p828. Email from BT to Nicola B

AL: I think this is a draft of an email to you?
ST: Yes looks like
AL: refers to C-Off Inclusive Practical team and says, doesn't breach CS code or any law. Did you receive this email?
ST: Can't be certain

AL: How certain or uncertain?
ST: It does look the sort of thing they would have said
AL: Do you have any recollection of seeing something like this? We don't have actual email
ST: It's likely I did

From TT:

AL: Moving onto the Matt Walsh posting. p875.
AL: MW is an American right wing commentary
ST: More than just right wing - self describes as kind of fascist
AL: We agree the same person
ST: Yes

AL "What is a woman" is MW's documentary?
ST: Yes
AL: This post just asks if anyone has seen it - no hyperlink
ST: No
AL: And none in responses
ST: Not that I saw.

AL: So nobody cd access film via this thread?
ST: No
AL: Poster say, excellent and eye'opening. Andreas M replies - says he wouldn't agree with MW views on women. Ppl are not praising MW?

ST: Disagree, original poster is, and AM seems to know who he is and praising the film, unwanted conduct to trans ppl in workplace - the whole film in bad faith - MW tricked trans ppl into being in film

Claimant is starting straight away with the "This person talks about her own experience as a lesbian and her concerns but in reality they're talking about trans" again.

AL really doesn't have to work to hard here, he's just leading the Claimant through their evidence and allowing them to speak.

God, ST is such a baby. Can you imagine an environment where everyone's language has to be policed in the workplace to the extent that he wants GC's language to be?

She does not contend that SEEN members may not associate or express views in any context.

And yet there doesn't seem to be any circumstances in which association or expression of views are acceptable. Even when it is the "private thoughts of a lesbian writer talking about herself and own feelings" this is twisted round to be interpreted as "Really she's writing about trans ppl, rejecting legitimacy of trans ppl".

From the DEFRA legal skeleton - worth a read - its very good.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r7dRXrLBTyCso6haWDwVtRF98oUDnM4g/view

13. SEEN is a staff network. Such networks can exist on a cross-government basis as well as on a departmental basis. The establishment of cross-government SEEN in October 2022 was not a matter for either Respondent; the approval process was led by the Cabinet Office.

It was likely informed by this case and £116k payout.
https://sex-matters.org/case-briefings/eleanor-frances-v-dcms-and-dsit/

https://www.outertemple.com/barrister/alexander-line/

Yes, and what about the lesbian's "lived experience" to say they are are same-sex attracted.

From TT:

ST: Disagree, original poster is, and AM seems to know who he is and praising the film, unwanted conduct to trans ppl in workplace - the whole film in bad faith - MW tricked trans ppl into being in film

ST: Film is much worse than eye-opening. That was impact on me. It's not about the words, it's about how recieved by trans ppl in the workplace

AL: AM isn't talking about that though - he's talking about how the film made, questions that then just let ppl speak - AM is commenting on the interview style not the content.

ST: The film had a fake website to draw trans ppl in and trick them - so AM must think it's OK to work that way - AM says 'interesting message' but the message was false

AL: It's not inherently offensive to you as s/o with GRC to discuss how the film was made?
ST: Makes out I am mutilitaing myself, some kind of crazy person.

ST: Whole film sets out to attack trans ppl. And that's without all the other MW stuff that ppl might find offensive.
AL: We have agreed there was no link to the film
ST: No no link.

AL: Post here comparing MW film to another one, "Gender Wars".
ST: Yes, more inflammatory comment, creating hostile environment for trans ppl. Nothing to do with DEFRA business, No place for it in workplace.

Nothing to do with DEFRA business, No place for it in workplace.

So people aren't allowed to discuss anything but work? Not last night's Apprentice or the roadworks on the bypass or what's happening in The Archers?

Literal woman penis genocide.

My penis has a female gender idenity and lesbians are transphobic if they are genital discriminating.

But so much irony is lost on Tinkerbell - as its homophobic to police a lesbian who is a woman wanting to talk about having sex with another woman.

From TT:

AL: Looking at the context of comparison with 'Gender Wars". p910 - this is page 1 of letter from EDW, attached to email p908, she is raising concerns about string of incidents attacking SEEN on Yammer.

AL: So on 910, refers to Environment Agency LGBTQ network criticism of Kathleen Stock for appearing; EDW says nobody from SEEN was there, and that KS is an important voice in the discussion.

AL: And on p911 she gives AM post on the Gender Wars film - it's just a five point summary of it?
ST: Yes

AL: p912 EDW then lists some objections to it eg "TERF dogwhistles", "TERF rubbish", "anti-trans dogwhistles".
ST: yes

AL: So we can see that there is an unobjectionable post from a SEEN member re 'Gender wars' and then an unacceptable level of abuse of them?

ST: This example, yes, I don't know this person, this is an extract so I have no context.
J: Can I ask where this is going?
AL: back to p875 -
J: If you are quick about it I won't say more

AL: p875 - comments directed at ppl with GC views. So looking at the MW discussion - there is no offensive language about trans ppl at all is there?

ST: Not at me or trans ppl directly no, but it's all about trying to debate us, our place in the world, our legitimatacy, are we deluded. Disguise of reasonableness, but underneath it's an attack on trans ppls

I don't understand why employers want to devote resources to an official channel for employees to discuss The Archers, either.

Not at me or trans ppl directly no, but it's all about trying to debate us, our place in the world, our legitimatacy, are we deluded.

Well well dear Tinkerbell. You are not doing much for your own reputation here - you are coming across as completely deluded.

Hi all, just checking in - I'll be away from my laptop for a few hours. What's your thoughts on whether you want me to set up a new thread ready for when this one is full, or does someone else want to do it at the time?

From TT:

AL: So is it OK for offensive discussion to be had re Kathleen Stock, but not for a neutral one re MW?
ST: [missed some] Am not saying 1 side can say what they want and other not, absolutely not.

AL: Do you accept that talking in a demeaning way about s/o appearance eg KS's and s/o interviewing style eg MW?
ST: You're asking me to speculate, don't know what said re KS.

AL: You complain of uneven moderation
ST: Yes
AL: p1169 Message from Caroline Airs to EDW [I think Oct 23]

AL: CA says poster doesn't mention any network, it's a personal comment by AM; goes on to say re a couple of others too from SEEN, does not accept any of the complaints from either side?

ST: Not saying they never accepted complaint from trans ppl, but if you look at the mod logs you can see they mark things as 'sarcasm' or 'belittling a colleauge' and they didn't do anything except send AM an email not to do it again

ST: Mod log - it says they are not even bothering to moderate GC comments - and, trans ppl overwhelmingly getting emails from HR warning them off, saying close to wire.

ST: Log shows overwhelmingly, re trans ppl and allies.
J: Which posts 'close to the line'?
ST: In the mod log
J: About whom?
ST: They don't say but they do have the comments in

It's really important to foster an environment of critical engagement with the world around us, in work that is directly related in many aspects to the world around us and also in work that is not explicitly related. Work and nothing but will make everyone go mad. Even more so where people work increasingly from home. It's really not very good for anyone to feel they are working in isolation. Even if you are working in a factory making wingnuts you need a break to chit chat with colleagues. And chit-chat shouldn't be over-policed or we end up with Stasi like worlds which is where ST wants to take us, with him doing the policing.

Humans need to be allowed to be humans, not just work units. It is far more productive in general terms to create communities for a wide range of discourse, but when it comes to the civil service it is vital that folk are exposed to ideas and ways of being that don't exactly mirror their own, whilst it is also nice to find folk who do align at the same time.

Pronouns decision. Haven't read it yet.
x.com/JRLevinsLaw/status/2071529931280900565/photo/1

Have read it now. I do hope MC will kick his arse. 'Not too onerous' doing the devil's work. Women be kind, suck it up etc etc

Clearly J did no further thinking or reading about it over weekend.

From TT:

J: We have not been taken to the moderation log - hard to discuss. AL: HH and I have discussed and did want to raise but felt earlier, er, ... J: Yes I see. But there is much about the mod-log - I assume we will be looking at it?

AL: There is a large Excel spreadsheet - not in bundle because too large to present that way - it hasn't maybe been uploaded to you yet but has been requested, will check at lunch.

AL: Will need to have a laptop on witness table so that other witnesses can be asked about it.
J: Thing is that ST is relying on that log re uneven moderation

HH: Yes court will be taken to it and witnesses will be asked about it. We had more or less agreed that it would be introduced before intervenor cross-X but we can do it sooner if you like since ST referring to it. It's so very large spreadsheet.

J: Yes I recall seeing that it was not in bundle, but trouble is that witness is speaking to it as evidence and we don't have it. Large and unwieldy spreadsheet does not fill me with joy, but we need to deal with this.

AL: I've referred to it in terms of numbers of complaints and number upheld etc.
J: What document is it?
AL: I think it's the actual moderation log they use - not a doc specially prepared for us.

J: It's very large, and we don't know what we'll need to look at ...
AL: We have not had specifics from C about it in WS, only broad descriptions.
J: We shall still need to refer to it I think?

The post EDW made has been available to read on her crowd justice page for ages though

Just re-read it but he offers no 'reasons' which is what was asked for does he? He just re-asserts the decision and claims it is fine with Bench Book guidance?