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
3. Employment Tribunal judge Tayler confused consideration of whether Maya's belief could be an Equality Act protected characteristic with how she might have expressed her beliefs. This was a mistake and the wrong approach.
4. EHRC stressed the importance of the following point.
It is not the State's role to monitor belief.
The Tribunal should not have embarked on an inquiry as to the value of Maya's belief. Value judgments (whether in beliefs about God or sex) are not the function of the ET.
5. EHRC submitted that the law treats sex as biological and binary and gender identity as social.
Many will think Maya's belief controversial and wrong. Nevertheless her belief is entitled to be protected.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
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
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.