Best wishes the Helen Pluckrose's new venture. But her analysis of my case is simplistic and wrong
(And it's rude to block people and then talk about them)
(And it's rude to block people and then talk about them)
My case is not about the "right to believe"
Your right to hold beliefs (Art 9 of HRA) is an absolute right which can’t be interfered with by the state.
You don't need to assert this right specifically for different "allowed" beliefs (that would be authoritarian)
Your right to hold beliefs (Art 9 of HRA) is an absolute right which can’t be interfered with by the state.
You don't need to assert this right specifically for different "allowed" beliefs (that would be authoritarian)
My case is about being discriminated against at work because of my belief.
I didn't lose my case "because my views were gender critical". We will argue in the appeal that I lost because the law was not applied correctly.
I didn't lose my case "because my views were gender critical". We will argue in the appeal that I lost because the law was not applied correctly.
What's the other case she is talking about that's 'not in the public domain' 🤷♀️(eh??)
Possibly Kristie Higgs? whose belief was found to be covered by EqA (but she still lost on the facts)
Possibly Kristie Higgs? whose belief was found to be covered by EqA (but she still lost on the facts)
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1313944029999104000?s=19
Anyway good luck to @Counter_Weight_ but if you are going to advise people based on my case at least understand it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
