It seems a more considered view of Forstater from some of those who have read the judgment, is that it is a victory, but one based on an error in law which conflates a belief with its manifestation. transsafety.network/posts/dont-ove…
Trying to wrap my head around this underscores that I am NOT a specialist discrimination lawyer. But I have immediate unease in trusting the analysis of anyone who can write this.
No wonder there is confusion about belief versus manifestation of belief when one side is so firmly wedded to the notion that ANY manifestation of a gender critical belief is ‘transphobic’.
It seems to me relatively simple. You are allowed to manifest your belief and cannot be sacked for so doing. If however that manifestation tips into actual harassment of a colleague or refusing to do your job you won’t have a defence.
But the simple expression of views that others find offensive cannot, without more, be a legitimate reason for ending your employment. And that was what I understood to be the crucial finding of the ET.
As a side note, interesting to see how the response is likely to develop. The ‘she lost 60%!’ is unsustainable for even the most enthusiastic TRAs, so we move to ‘ET got law wrong’ to ‘it’s all the fault of the CGD’
Also highlights my growing unease that #LawFare will not prove as swift an end to current madness as hoped. The nuance and complexity of employment law provides fertile ground for continued argument
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I suppose I should be grateful we are inching up the legal ladder from A level to law degree - but when even the solicitor in the actual case explains that claims in the alternative are dismissed once you win the big ones, and they still deny victory… you do begin to wonder.
But as many have commented, if you can devote time and energy to insisting that sex is not binary or can change at will, failing to understand claims in the alternative in a legal action is not so mysterious.
But it goes back to the issue of choosing politicians on a single issue. Scaffolding a lie take serious energy and it infects your entire thought process. A politician who claims ‘TWAW’ will have to misunderstand the Forstater ruling, or they will have to modify their TWAW stance
An interesting reminder of what the family courts sometimes have to deal with, and the lengths to which some parents will go to remove their child’s other parent. bailii.org/cgi-bin/format…
I still wait for an explanation for the assertion that alienation is a ‘concept known only to the family Court’bailii.org/cgi-bin/format…
This, sadly, is a psychological presentation with is evident everywhere
I made a formal complaint about the language used by Simon Cox against Maya Forstater. It was ignored. I assume he now accepts that if they were working together and he used such language, he would be deemed to create a hostile working environment.
And if his employer did not take appropriate steps to curb his behaviour, they would risk action for permitting such discrimination. If Maya is expected to use ‘correct pronouns’ then men like Cox must refrain from calling her a hateful bigot.
And what about the women in his Chambers who hold gender critical views? Do they feel safe to express them? What language does Cox direct against them?
Catching up with @BBCr4today and its interview with @MForstater to compare and contrast the content of this interview with the dismissive and contemptuous treatment of Harry Miller on PM after he had just had Humberside police likened to the Cheka, Stasi and Gestapo.
It starts at 2 hours 43 mins. Opening is factual and clear. MH says 'congratulations! How does it feel'. So already we can see the atmosphere is very different.
MF: Amazing. I have been vindicated and found to be a victim of discrimination which is what I said all along, for having completely ordinary views about sex...
MH: would you like to go back to your old job?
MF: No.
Because almost every time someone’s rights are breached under the Equality Act or ECHR to talk about sex being real and it matters, we can trace it back to you - your bad, unlawful ‘advice’, your carefully constructed protection racket.
The harm you have done to LGB people - and of course trans people - by your attempts to force silence and compel compliance, have been massive. You have turned many would be allies suspicious and fearful.
I do think we need to lay careful attention to the ground that is being laid here. ‘Kids don’t understand it! It’s all FINE’. Drawing no distinction between a nursery rhyme and an adult male penis for example.
While at the same time accusing parents of being ‘uptight homophobic prudes’ or denying their children necessary exposure to ‘diversity’ if you object to a grown man shaking his backside at your child.
What the internet has managed is to provide a stage for industrial gas lighting, as well as permitting effective attacks on those who disagree.