Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 7

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551375-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-6

TT substack: 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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.

Please 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

Sometimes I can’t tell if it’s the same question being asked six times or six people quoting the same question on this this thread. Mostly the former I think.

Do you know, I can't even wholeheartedly say yes? But, I think so. 🤐

From TT:

CA no . Seeking to explain her own belief. I wasn't directly involved but my understanding was she had invited people to speak to her to find out more - seen as provoking debate - so sentence was removed before reposting.
HH You have conversation with Carly at DDTS.

HH Your reply - you indicate that basis was Carly's initial view of EW post was fair and valid, then conversations getting heated, decide to take down. You note EW going to report and can't reasonably ask her not to. You were threatened by EW by discrimination claim

CA She mentioned that but it didn't affect our decision. EW within rights to do so. Didn't change cos we were holding to our legal position.
HH You write here saying there is a possibility of EW discrimination claim.

CA If I am briefing senior leaders I need to give them the

Tinkerbell is setting himself up to have a little cry, I think.

You were threatened by EW by discrimination claim

Would he have allowed NC use the word 'threatened', which implies that the discrim claim was weaponised?

HH Can't misgender with impunity

The TAs love bringing up this quote from Forstater but what does it actually mean legally?
Is 'misgendering with impunity' any form of consistent 'misgendering' aka using correct pronouns?
Or does does it mean to go out of one's way, like jumping into a conversation one is not part of to correct other people's pronoun usage?
Is it actually part of the ruling or just one of those judge side remarks that have no legal significance?
Does anyone know for sure, @MyAmpleSheep perhaps?

The judge allowed HH to use toxic in her question to CA because that was CA's own word used to describe the debate in her statement. Well, that was HH's argument and he allowed it.

From TT:

facts. Also a way of getting attention from senior leaders - in EDI you don't always get the attention you would like straight away. It didn't intimidate/ scare me, but was a fact senior leaders needed to be aware of.

HH [to doc] Draft text here implies people who have expressed concern had been engaged in personal attacks..
NC Did I hear correctly - was that concern and disgust
J Strong views certainly
NC Strong view
CA Not sure if personal attacks on EW
J You can't recall if there have been

CA [assume no - silent]
HH But it's clear your anticipating further expression of concern and distress
CA Expression not a concern, only if it is hostile or unprofessional. That is what we repeatedly tried to say.
J This email was after EW initial post taken down. She protested.

FFS, HH saying that the comments from.TRAs weren't hostile, but were distressed.

Can you imagine what the cry bullies would get away with (in fact, what they have been getting away with), when every time they behave in an appalling manner, it's framed as distress. You're at work! Grow up!

Hey Judge, FuckFace!

Oh sorry, that wasn't me being hostile, I'm just expressing my concern.

And distress

NC Did I hear correctly - was that concern and disgust
J Strong views certainly
NC Strong view

People in the room, what happened here? Let us know in next break if you can please.

CA Not sure if personal attacks on EW
J You can't recall if there have been
CA [assume no - silent]

I look forward to Elspeth's version!

Don't know legally but here's a fuller quote - doesn't sound to me as though all misgendering is disallowed!

b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.

I think there was a slight difference in that one instance was reported speech/writing/feelings and the other direct address. But I could be wrong.

Why is HH allowed to ask the same question in different words over and over again?

From TT:

J The issue was not c post but likely comments it would engender
CA Yes.
J We don't have copies of comments made after initial post
CA No
J Do you remember anything about them. Who made, what was said.

CA No I really can't. But if they were expressing disgust that wasn't acceptable either.
HH 20 July, you are drafting suggested text. Saying can't stop EW reposting. Y guidance on offensive posts only in draft form.
CA> Yes, but codes in place c acceptable behaviour as NB said

HH Platform unmoderated..
J No. Says early 2022 some moderation had been introduced
HH Inadequate mod via DDTS
CA Became clear we needed to do more now. But process in place had been adequate for many years.

HH Read c exploration of different views to be welcome
CA Yes
HH But exchanging views of TWAW/TWAM is a person questioning lived reality of another

My note: Drink!

"I was aware of the issues around gender critical beliefs for many years, and of the debate (sometimes referred to as ‘toxic’) in wider society."

Kind of true, but also kind of a dirty trick. It's the only time the term comes up in CA's WS, too.

From TT:

CA DOn't think it does. Issues where there is conflict in practice is round SSS in workplace, issues round language. Never seen SEEN saying t people don't exist or that their lived experience is not valid.
HH Inviting discussion not going to foster good relations

CA Think can discuss c eg women only spaces - though that's resolved by FWS - in a way that is professional and respectful on both side.
HH Your invitation to explore different views wasn't going to promote good relations some more compromise.

CA Exploring different views is always a healthy thing to do. If more exploration of SEEn were saying had been done, rather than what was implied they had been saying, we might have been able to reach more of a compromise

Good to see NC picking the judge up on HH's use of the emotive word -' toxic'.

Don't we all know it is only EVIL CIS WOMEN that weaponise their trauma/discrimination claims?

If I remember it right, it was not part of the ratio decidendi - the reason for the decision and is therefore obiter, and not precedential. If you cut those remarks out of the judgment, the legal reasoning is unimpaired. But it was a fairly obvious point, wasn’t it? You could use correct pronouns in a way that was designed to, and did, give offence. Imagine leaning into a trans-identifying person and calling them “sir” in an exaggerated, stressed, heightened way. In a way that nobody would address a man not identifying as a woman. Just because it would be grammatically correct didn’t excuse the offence you could cause that way if that was intended. That’s how I interpreted it, anyway.

That's v useful thank you. 'Toxic' is not just in inverted commas, but between brackets, how much more would she have to do to indicate that 'toxic' is not a word that she would use🙄

And bigot was used in another witness statement, I think. I'm pretty certain the judge is being inconsistent in his treatment of the barristers.

HH Inviting discussion not going to foster good relations

Seriously? How the fuck does society progress if no one is willing to talk about things that may make some people uncomfortable? She is representing a grown adult not a fucking toddler.