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.

From TT:

by Forstater.
AL Need to be clear. You don't say Forstater established GC okay in law as a whole
C It established GC beliefs capable of protection under law but Defra took it to mean gc all beliefs given protection, no questions asked.

AL R disagrees with interpretation of Forstater but Xexam not place to deal with that.
AL [to grievance investigation notes by Edd Parry] You were asking Defra to not allow any expression of gc in the workplace.
C I accept may be necessary for policy
J I don't think

J that answers the question
AL Notes say that you are asking Defra to not allow any expression of gc views in workplace.
C Apart from the caveats I've said, don't think GC expression is conductive in the workplace.

AL Of any kind.
C Of any kind.
J That is what you were saying at the time.
C Yes
AL You didn't make a distinction at the time.
C Says there that I am talking about statements and posts.
AL What you seek from tribunal today is what you were asking then. Disbanding of SEEN

AL network etc. Continue to ask that of Defra.
C I acknowledge that that is what is written there. Although I do accept policy decisions have to be taken and it wouldn't be feasible to do that while prohibited from talking about topic. But I am concerned with staff members

Eh? Wasn’t the exact opposite stated by the Supreme Court in FWS? Sex doesn’t change. Even with the possession of a GRC, the pretence/ falsification of the other sex on paper doesn’t actually change anyone’s real biological sex.

It also seems to fly in the face of how pronouns have been approached in previous cases.

I've got an hour free this morning, scampering to catch up with this and prev thread.

Thank you all for the c and p and discussions.

From TT:

talking to staff members.
J What kind of policy
C Discussions re t incl in bathrooms, changing rooms, following FWS. I can see may need to be decisions around that. But sex/gender of individual usually in Defra has no bearing.
AL So can you then see why one can't

say eg SEEN network can't exist, as may be the network to feed into decisions like that.
C We have guidance that says tw can use the women's. Policy that hinges on views of a staff network wouldn't make sense.
AL Not saying policy hinges on SEEN views. But would help

feeding in views.
C Can get viewpoints from other networks. Defra can source info to inform its decision. Network is creating harassment of t employees in work place - to continue negatives that come with it wouldn't make sense.
AL On to cross-government SEEN.

AL Re email c network launch, approved and going live in mid-November 2023.
C Launched formally mid-Nov yes.
AL sorry - correction - was Nov 2022
[all agree]
AL To be established cross - government SEEN needed approval Cabinet Office inclusive practice team
C I don't know what

team do
AL Was decision by Cab office - Defra didn't have role to play in its establishment.
C In its establishment, yes
C I think constitution was established in [ they discuss different months]
AL Section on guiding principles- rooted in these is the EA

C It established GC beliefs capable of protection under law but Defra took it to mean gc all beliefs given protection, no questions asked.

This suggests that Defa allows a free for all in terms of what people can say. DEFRA has a harassment and bullying policy, so any comments that breached this would be dealt with. That is regardless of whether they are GC or any other types of comments.

C I acknowledge that that is what is written there. Although I do accept policy decisions have to be taken and it wouldn't be feasible to do that while prohibited from talking about topic. But I am concerned with staff members

My reading: In the claimant's mind, the likely exception to the rule that it is never acceptable to mention GI at work, is when making policy decisions ... to prevent GI being mentioned at work

One significant finding of the SC judgment was that while the GRA 2004 says "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender", the part "for all purposes" must be construed as for some but not all purposes.

From TT:

C I see it does mention the Equalities Act
AL Reads c PSED, by encouraging diverse views and tolerant open dialogue. Objectives of SEEN presented - clear they didn't seek to eradicate t people from work place

C don't agree Can pick up they wanted Civil Service based around sex-based rights, that sex is binary and immutable. These statement at face value would erase t people.
Various views - opening up t people to problems. Would cause t people ultimately to fade away from workplace.

C If you take SEEN principles - you would lose language, pronouns, gi. Without those t people would no longer exist in workplace. Not true they are looking to encourage good relations and diversity of voices - is all geared towards removing that diversity.

[My note: Tinkerbell!]

I think that mischaracterizes both the law and the decision. The very next clause in the GRA gives a bunch of exceptions to the “for all purposes”, so the law has always been crystal clear that it’s not for all purposes.

The SC decided some extra exceptions exist, that might not have been as obvious. But it has never been for all purposes without exception.

Not biological, legal. That's what the SC clarification meant when they said certifcated sex. The GRA allows people to officially change their sex, so legally he's a she.

It's ST who has hauled this to court - as far as we know so far no one has tried to stop him expressing his beliefs. It's him who is trying to stop others. If Defra had told him he couldn't express his GI beliefs he might have an argument but no one has. It's just another example of wanting women to be banned from meeting up and expression of wrongthink.

Maybe from this tribunal we’ll finally get some clarity on the “using correct pronouns erases trans people” line of thought. I still can’t follow it.

I think the best exposition of this is Kathleen Stock's analysis of it as an immersive fiction, isn't it? It does indeed evaporate if the people around don't participate.

It doesn't make sense to me either. If someone says "trans women are trans women" does that erase them because they are not saying "trans women are women"? Yesterday, ST refer to himself as a transwoman.

R's barrister seems to be doing a good job on Let Them Speak

From TT:

AL Your position is in contrast to what they are stating here. They say they respect open dialogue with people who disagree with them, like you. You say anyone who doesn't agree with you should not express their opinions at all.

C Not fair characterisation. Don't want my existence to be debated in the workplace and not to be removed from the workplace.
It's a fair position to take and I would take it on numerous topics if I felt someone's position and who they are is being systemically erased.

AL [reads c how C found out about network.]
C Found out via Sarah Homer
AL No date, but posting of doc 8/11/22
C no reason to disagree
AL Comment function had been turned off
C think that's correct
AL Not an invitation for comments - just an announcement

C Comments were turned off - didn't read any more into it than that.
AL [reads c C posting as response to EW's notice]
NC Could we clarify which doc is being referred to.
J No criticism but we have being taken to paragraphs/sentences but don't know what doc is. Would help.

AL Doc 18/11 - is as much as I can assist.
J An email?
AL I was just taking C to this...small point, p440 - the C's post had been seen by 18,000+ people and received 600+ likes.
J What post
AL We're about to look at it
J / AL [altercation]
J I'm telling you, please tell us

which post it is.
AL p 284. A number of likes to the post - seen by all these people and all the likes is your post.
C Yes
AL And this is your response to EW's post on p401
C Prompted by that and previous posts. But was response to the business and not to Elspeth.

That is why I think it will be appealed. If they find for DEFRA/RPA then ST will appeal because of their ideological belief.

If, in the event they find for ST, then DEFRA/RPA are likely to appeal unless the finding is DEFRA/RPA didn’t follow their own procedures or were to slow to review posts. If the finding is EW shouldn’t have been allowed to post her article then we had better hope DEFRA/RPA appeal.

Remember DCMS settled a case with Eleanor Frances for discriminating against her due to her GC views. Knowing the CS all Depts will have received guidance on how to avoid similar situations.

From TT:

AL Yesterday you said wouldn't see need for you personally to talk c your t status in workplace. But you are doing that here.
C Yes. Didn't have choice. Was submitting complaints by being told that senior managers were allowing all this. Was v upset and posted.

AL In this post you call on others to get involved
C Wanting people to show their strength of feeling to Defra. Clear Defra wasn't listening to t people and were ignoring our concerns. SEEN was reaching out to senior leaders.

I couldn't do that - massive power imbalance here. In heat of moment I thought if Defra saw the depth of feeling among colleagues they might give consideration to the wiseness of their actions.

AL You could have written private letter to someone senior.
C These were the actions I took at the time. May not do so today in more level-headed time.
AL Do you accept our message caused a vitriolic response
C Vitriolic in what way.
AL Take you to a few egs.

AL Comment by Emma Appleby: I stand by you ST
Caroline - surely network creates atmosphere of hate isn't this illegal
Someone else - network shouldn't be allowed to exist
Someone - denying existence and punching down.

AL Did your post cause vitriolic response
C They are responsible for what they wrote. I was calling out Defra. Not asking them to be nasty to EW
AL Accept they were nasty
C Further than I would have gone

AL And responses to your post
C Yes. But to Defra. I'm not referring to EW in this post.
AL This was response you wanted to the post
C You can't draw that conclusion. I wanted pressure on Defra. My only post - I don't go around doing things like this.

I seem to remember that this is where the appeal court got to; a GRC was a magical piece of paper that changed your sex and, if you didn't have one you remained as your birth sex (no matter what surgery and hormones, if any, you had taken).

The Supreme Court said that was ridiculous and unworkable (but in more polite language)

In heat of moment I thought if Defra saw the depth of feeling among colleagues they might give consideration to the wiseness of their actions.

Once you accept that DEFRA should be swayed by the popularity of an opinion as a guide to its acceptability it’s appropriate to start looking at how many people joined and supported the SEEN network.

I think that statement was an error by the claimant.

From TT:

C I was submitting complaints but nothing was happening - I was being told this was acceptable.
AL To AM doc - referring scary t person, referring to yourself?
C Yes
AL AM Says supports everyone's right to come to work without harassment /having existence in question

AL [asks tribunal/C to read docs]
AL Do you accept this email is a defensive response to your post and the posts in response to it.
C He's posting a defence of his views, agree in that respect.
J Time for a break?
AL Five mins please
AL there was a strong response to AM

Also, please note the asymmetry: when ST posts it’s in the heat of the moment and doesn’t reflect his sober calmer thoughts: it’s an excusable aberration. When other people post they are irredeemable transphobic bigots revealing their ugly true selves.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

From TT:

C That's not me, that's my wife.
AL Sorry - saw surname. She shares similar view
C She obviously wants to protect me, yes
AL [to doc] This is a long post where you see AM makes a comment: Internet doesn't forget, neither do I

AL to email from CA 15/11. Same words here as in AM's post. That post was removed though mod and AM's line manager contacted about it. Rs took appropriate action re that post.
C Interesting points to be made about this.
AL/J Can we find the place
C Agreed post was moderated

C but that's cos of strong words at end - straw man etc.
I had a post taken down for using those words but they are not mentioned in this. Without end words this post would have been left up but my post with similar words was taken down. Mod not even.This post is not in mod log.

AL We can see email was moderated and removed
C Yes but reasons not even
AL You may feel other things in post were objectionable, but fact is post was removed in its entirety.
C Yes
AL You objected to AM using term straw man and misinformation
C Yes, same words I used

AL [to 510] Your post re making straw man arguments.
C Yes, my post deleted purely on that basis. Without threat at end AM post would have stayed up. Simply being disrespectful is not meeting threshold.
J Fifteen-minute break to 11.45. [Usual guidance to C]