Aileen McColgan QC for IoC. #MayaAppeal
Not only did ET get it wrong; but necessarily, if they had got it right, they would have found that C's belief was protected.
Like KMQC, I agree with the law as set out by BCQC.
BC gave a no. of examples of how high the threshold is for article 17; we would say how low the barrier for s.10. We have some additional examples.
Properly understood the purpose of Art 17 is only to exclude the most extreme cases.
BCQC stressed the very limited restrictions that Art 10(2) imposes on speech. At ¶11 of our submissions there are additional examples of that.
I want to focus on the approach the T took to Article 10 and the relevance of that to the Grainger test.
Little if any weight was given by the EJ to Article 10 rights, and that's particularly evident at ¶91 of the ET's reasons.
"The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts."
That balancing exercise had no place at the stage of the analysis the ET was at.
The passage from Williamson that assists with article 17 is at ¶28.
Campbell v Cousans made reference to Article 17. The Article 2 right on its face gives effect to parental philosophical convictions without restriction. Unsurprising that the court imposed a threshold.
Campbell v Cousans needs to be read a little carefully before one reads it as imposing restrictions in the context of belief.
IoC agrees with C that art 17 is the only acceptable restriction on the acceptability of beliefs to be protected by s.10.
Even if that were wrong, the beliefs in question could not be excluded under article 10(1), even if capable of restriction under 10(2).
J: There hasn't been discussion of whether ECHR rights are engaged?
BCQC: I don't think there's any dispute that we're in the field covered by articles 9 and 10.
The question that then arises is whether C's belief meets threshold criteria in order to be protected at all. One could talk about whether we were within scope but it may be more precise to speak of the threshold.
KMQC: the language of engagement may encourage one to go down the path of manifestation.
J: Adjourning until 10.30 tomorrow morning. "Whether or not we give a judgment on the day remains to be seen."
The suggestion that an extempore judgment tomorrow afternoon is even conceivable is unexpected, given the importance of the issues and the weight of submissions and authorities the court has to consider. #Comment

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Sex Matters

Sex Matters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SexMattersOrg

28 Apr
Thank you for all the kind appreciation of our live tweeting of #MayaAppeal today (including offers of Veuve Cliquot). What we'd like best of all is if you'd head over to our website and sign up to the campaign.
And please talk to your friends, relatives and colleagues. Here's our 'elevator pitch' in thread form.
Sex matters to everyone. Girls and women need privacy from boys and men - in school and public toilets; in changing rooms at swimming pools, gyms and clothes shops.
Read 19 tweets
28 Apr
Ben Cooper QC will be replying when the hearing resumes at 1.30. #MayaAppeal Image
With Anya Palmer (the inestimable @anyabike), who won't speak but has been working furiously behind the scenes.
Read 91 tweets
28 Apr
Good morning to our followers, new and old.

The Sex Matters team will be live tweeting proceedings from day 2 of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Central London.

We will be using the hashtag #MayaAppeal

Proceedings should start at 10.30 am
Yesterday we heard from Appellant's counsel, Ben Cooper QC. We also heard from Karon Monaghan QC for the Equalities & Human Rights Commission, in support of the appellant; and from Aileen McColgan QC for civil liberties watchdog Index on Censorship, in support of the appellant.
Today we will hear from Jane Russell, appearing on behalf of the Respondent employer CGD Europe. Ben Cooper QC should have time to respond towards the end of the day to any issues raised by the respondent's submissions. That's the plan, anyway.
Read 181 tweets
28 Apr
We've been reflecting further on the judge's tantalising indication that there could be an extempore judgment this afternoon. #MayaAppeal #Comment
The natural expectation, in a case that's had so much scholarship brought to bear on it, and attracted so much public attention, is a long heavyweight judgment in 3 or 4 months' time. #MayaAppeal #Comment
The argument for Maya is detailed, thorough and scholarly - as well as persuasive. It had to be: this case is a big deal. #MayaAppeal #Comment
Read 6 tweets
27 Apr
Reflecting on today's #MayaAppeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, we have selected some highlights from Karon Monaghan QC's submissions on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Intervenor in the Appeal.
The EHRC submitted

1. Maya's philosophical belief is that sex is a material reality not to be conflated with gender identity and that sex matters.
2. Employment Tribunal Judge Tayler should have concluded that Maya's philosophical belief (that Sex Matters) falls under the protection of the Equality Act 2010
Read 6 tweets
27 Apr
KMQC: EHRC not taking a position on the underlying matters of controversy. But pointing out where the ET got the law wrong: had it got the law right, it would have been bound to find C's belief protected.
EHRC takes no issue with the points made by BCQC, so can be short. #MayaAppeal
There is some lack of clarity in what the ET finally concluded C's belief was.
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!