Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon; this is the afternoon of day 4 of the hearing in Mermaids v Charity Commission & LGB Alliance. The hearing will resume after lunch, at 2pm.

This morning's tweets are at:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569957641773793281

Previous days' hearings can be read on our substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mermaids-vs-…

Abbreviations:

J or Judge - Judge Lynn Griffin, Presiding Judge,
AJ - Judge Joe Neville, Assistant to Judge

MM - Mermaids, the appellant
MG - Michael Gibbon KC, Counsel for Mermaids

CC - Charity Commission, the first respondent
IS - Iain Steele, Charity Commission counsel

LGBA - LGB Alliance, the second respondent
KM - Karon Monaghan KC - Counsel for LGBA
AR - Akua Reindorf, Assistant to KM

The afternoon's hearing will begin by completing the evidence of Bev Jackson [BJ], one of the founders of the LGB Alliance.

[hearing begins]

MG: Only a few Qs left. Turn to disagreement with Mr Nicholson. He gave evidence that LGBA denigrated ppl and orgs that support trans rights.
BJ: yes that was his evidence.

MG: ppl were invited to make donations in JN's name, April 2021. See eg tweets here, by LGBA. Thank a JE for donation, she calls JN a misogynist homophobe.
MG: not a sensible thing to do.

BJ: Agree not sensible, would say mischievous. We were exasperated by his abuse of us. I believe a couple of people donated in his name and we then mentioned this and encouraged. I agree not very sensible. Was light-hearted.

MG: I would say inflammatory.
BJ: DIsagree, because JN had abused us first.
MG: There is a chronology by Mr Hewitt but not put to JN bcs after his evidence.
BJ: Not so; it had been written up long before that.

MG: Not put to JN.
BJ: He had every opportunity to do so, was published openly.

MG: JN was the object of this, his evidence must be preferred?
BJ: No, we were the object of JN's abuse.
MG: I restate, inflammatory - not mischievous or light-hearted.

MG: I say JN is correct, he was bombarded by abuse bcs of LGBA encouragement.
BJ: Completely disagree.

MG: Again re JN - page 1290.
MG: Begins "Dear Boris". Second paragraph - says would u be surprised to hear lesbians are harassed & accused of transphobia if refuse sex with male bodies if "identifies" as a woman

MG: I say, prejudicial language by not saying "trans"
BJ: Not sure what you mean
MG: should have said transwomen
BJ: I think our language is clearer.

BJ: Many ppl think "transwoman" means someone has had surgery, no penis, so our language is clearer.

MG: why quotes round "identifies as"?

BJ: bcs "identifies as" isn't clear, it is jargon.
MG: you are saying TW are men.
BJ: no am saying transwomen are transwomen. It is clearer.

MG: You say LGBA is not a single issue org. I say it is, the single issue is gender-critical, opposing gender identity ideology
BJ: Disagree
MG: only purpose of LGBA.
BJ: Disagree completely.

MG: End of Qs.

KM: Some re-Qs. [sound very poor]

[Clerk intervenes to have mics moved]

KM: "Lesbian ground zero". You recall. Explain?
BJ: Yes, qualitative (not quantitive) survey of lesbian experiences on dating sites re being approached by male people there.

KM: 48% of respondents had used sites, X% had been approached by transwomen, Y% had gone on dates with. [reads doc out, fast]

KM: Now article in LGNews. Says writer was expected just a handful of stories re this, but was inundated. This is the sort of thing you gave evidence about, including examples of excluded from dating sites.

KM: This is the sort of thing you meant?
BJ: Yes - I only gave 1 example but this is what I meant.

KM: And re GRA reforms proposed in Scotland, you mentioned Mermaids submission and Q of age. Would like to take Tribunal to that - [page]

KM: This is MM submission to Scottish consultation, this is what you were referring to?
BJ: Yes
KM: It says 3 months reflecting is unnecessary; and re min age MM say should be lowered, and in fact no minimum age should be in place at all.

KM: What you were referring to?
BJ: Yes

KM: [handing docs to Js]

KM: This is MM submission to WESC enquiry re transgender rights. Context is: you were asked about Kate Barker talking of MM promoting puberty blockers. Want to ask if this is what you had in mind.

KM: we see here MM saying urgent revision needed: physical interventions for children should be fast-tracked
BJ: Yes

KM: And here: MM say puberty blockers are completely reversible and so on. This is what you think KB had in mind?
BJ: Yes

KM: And here tweet by Allison Bailey, you were asked about this, mentions transgenderism being a "solution" to homosexuality. There's a reply "don't create a new generation". Unpack?

BJ: I read that as, there are older gay men who say they wish they had transitioned in their youth and that AB's reading of that is that they wished they were not gay. Think AB rejecting idea that being gay needs curing.

KM: Another thread. AB and then here the full thread. At end says, good time to remind people of an article saying "a lot of men are gay as a consolation prize for not being woman". Quoting s/o called Juno Dawson.

KM: Who is Juno Dawson?
BJ: Well known transgender activist.
KM: Where from do you know
BJ: US I believe

KM: And the quote?
BJ: very homophobic - says that being gay is somehow second rate

Judge: MG put to you lots of political activity, and that front and centre not ancilliary. You said no bcs you needed to secure your position. Can you explain more

BJ: Well, to oppose self-id because of the way it replaces objective reality and erases sexual orientation.
J: You mean gender recognition act reforms?
BJ: Yes, for self declaration.

KM: Draw court attention to a social media post please.
KM: Good Law Project tweeted. You recall were involved earlier in case.
KM: Video by CEO of MM, tweeted by GLP.

KM: Susie Green speaks directly of these proceedings. Says charity threshold not met. Says also: LGBA only exists to denigrate. Same word as John Nicholson.

KM: Don't know when video made, but it was posted soon after our first witness. We say, inflammatory and inappropriate. Court has given directions re social media use.

KM: Invite court to re-state the need for fair reporting and respectful reporting.

KM: References to "hate groups". Again, inflammatory. LGB Alliance have said nothing at all during proceedings other than to post links to the court documents as they are released.

J: This is new to us, and to MG and IS; we will break to consider this for 20 minutes, and to allow you all to take instructions.
[BREAK]

KM: Need to say: after we wrote to MM solicitors about this, MM re-posted the video on their website.
[gives figs for twitter followers of MM and GLP & video view stats - 60000+ for the last]

J: Doc we have does not have the tweet? Can we clarify?
J: Also that this is video transcript?
KM: yes

J: We have been asked to look at tweets on other side too.
KM: Not made by LGBA, and remind that Malcolm Clark is not part of LBGA now.

MG: Important that we in court insulate ourselves from what is going on outside. I know that something was also referred to tribunal earlier in the week. I suggest we simply proceed, unless tribunal thinks something does need directly addressing by you.

J: There is no application indeed, but it was your solicitors sent this to us?
MG: Re this matter of video. Have taken instructions. Am told was made about a week ago, before case started so before directions.

MG: Putting video out was delayed bcs of queen's death. The timing is an accident of process and we apologise for that.

MG: As for content of it, can only say there is much emotion on all sides about this. While there are perhaps elements of language that are regrettable but I would say nothing that is extreme.
MG: Cannot say more without taking further instructions.

J: Thank you.
J: We have only been asked to re-state that reporting and comment should be truthful and accurate.
J: Which we do.

KM: It was appropriate to bring to court attention?
J: There is an issue of time also.
J: Timings. Can we complete next witness this pm?
MG: I would hope so but it does depend on witness asnwers.

MG: Will certainly not get to Ms Gallagher today so we counsel should probably discuss among ourselves time for rest of the week
J: Please do.

[Kate Harris KH takes stand].
[document bundles are being tidied up so KH can use them]
KM: This is your witness statement, your signature?
KH: Yes

KM: True statement?
KH: Yes, but one correction. It says p29 that Stonewall's position at the time is at - that's a stray sentence that needs deleting.

KM: I have one initial question. [hands round a doc]
KM: You were asked, I mean Mr Nicholson asserted that LGBA supporters largely not L or G or B. Can you talk us thru this chart?

KH: Yes. that assertion is often made and in Aug we sent out quite a complicated survey. Still processing, but one Q we asked was re orientation. Nearly 80% are L or G or B.

KH: Same is true of our trustees. So it's very frustrating to have this constant misrepresenation.

MG: Only just seen this document. You said you had asked also re trans, but not on this chart.
KH: No, perhaps not asked.

MG: JN evidence was about what he had heard in another case, do you know what he meant.

KH: Yes he referred to Allison Bailey trial. Several groups asked to say about their demographics. It was not AB that said anything, JN wrong about that.

KH: We had a brief post-conference survey, and JN has somehow come up with a 7% figure - we don't know where from bcs evidence we gave said 20%, so that's also incorrect.

MG: So when JN gave evidence he inflated?
KH: Yes
MG: Can't blame him for mistake?
KH: No we don't. We say we do "cup of tea" politics, so if an MP notices us we suggest cup of tea, talk about things.

KH: Not correct this only happened after charity status.

MG: You are saying JN correct that a figure was given?
KH: Yes

MG: He gave a figure and in fact too high?
KH: Yes
MG: And you have since done survey?
KH: Yes
MG: and this doc is an early release, JN had not seen?
KH correct.

KH: But: we like facts at LGBA. So if JN says AB gave figure and she did not, if figure is wrong, that matters. Unreliable witness.
MG: It was his recollection.
KH: It matters if an MP has wrong recollection. In DCMS, HoC.

MG: Suggest that if you want to allege JN is lying that's a serious matter.

MG: Will try not to overlap too much with what I asked BJ but there will be some of course.

MG: Your WS. You say in July 2019 BJ phoned you, said was going to London and there cd be meeting 22/10.
KH: yes
MG: you contacted >70 people you thought wd be interested.
KH: Yes

MG: You gave a speech in Jan 2020, please turn to transcript of it.
MG: You say "less than 3 months since Bev & I got together and contacted everyone really stroppy we knew on twitter". Expand?

KH: Back then it was quite scary to say out loud that biological sex is real. Scary to object to the positions being taken by Stonewall and others. Bev and I were looking for courage. We had to be able to stand up knowing we would be subjected to huge hatred on daily basis.

MG: You say contacted people all across the gender critical spectrum
KH: Yes - were clear that right/left politics not important, feminist / separatist whatever, asking to get in touch.
MG: Only matters that gender critical?

KH: You use "gender critical" a lot. We believe in values of the Enlightenment - fact, debate. I don't think you can put those in a box and label "gender critical".
MG: But you also use the phrase. In this speech even.
KH: Yes guilty as charged.

MG: You say "whatever your belief, so long as you are gender critical". Fair?
KH: Yes, but more than that too.

MG: And towards end of speech. You say Stonewall is at the heart of lies about gender identity, and must shine a light.
MG: You say you want to stop the RSE curriculum rollout and develop a different version.

MG: This is a pungently expressed political statement.
KH: Culmination of lifetime of lesbian and gay activism mainly through Stonewall. And after 3 years of trying to engage with SW for dialogue. We had 10,000 signature petitiion asking for dialogue.

KH: so if you say asking for dialogues is a political act, then yes.

MG: You talk about the curriculum, and govt equalities office. This is about what happens in schools.
KH: Yes. The D of Ed came to agree with us that the curriculum has serious flaws.

MG: You say "dissemination of lie of gender identity". Very blunt.
KH: Yes. If you are to build bridges you have to be very clear in what you say. There is no evidence that gender identity exists - or if there is, there needs to be a discussion about it, because nobody seen it.

MG: This tribunal isn't going to be ruling on people's beliefs.
KH: understand that
MG: your beliefs not shared by my clients & by many others
KH: Understand that.

MG: You say in speech children should not be bound by gender stereotypes. You say lots of people helping. Implication is political lobbying, as central thing for LGBA.
KH: Only in support of our actual aims. Yes we think idea of gender identity is re damaging stereotypes

MG: Put it to you that you formed with the political objectives, and that is how all this is to be read.

MG: You mention LGBT-inclusive curriculum, you describe as chilling and obligatory, and say you want to stop it, cannot be allowed to happen. This is a political objective. A primary objective.
KH: no. Secondary objective - primary is wellbeing of LGB children.

KH: Admit it's a rabble-rousing speech. But we had been blocked and blocked by SW - we have put in the correspondence
MG: Have read
KH: We tried every angle to get dialogue re SW direction.

KH: We suggested a faciliated dialogue if they didn't want just to meet us. Lots of former trustees, founders of SW saying the same.
KH: I say here am at end of my tether - in fact we have continued to reach out to SW

KH: Am expressing my frustration at SW refusal to engage.

MG: So going back to "stroppy on Twitter". You and BJ approached confrontational people, people prepared to stand up. Demonstrated by language in this speech.

KH: Not really. Bev and I initially had not a clue what we were doing, how to proceed. Were trying to think how we could protect children, how to wake up LGB people. Completely wrong to say we were *looking* to set up a confrontational organisaiton.

KH: 50% of early responses thanked us hugely for getting started - other half accused us of being the Ku Klux Klan.
KH: We wanted to set up an organisation that could replace the way SW had lost.

MG: So in the early days, there's your personal relationship with BJ, and then there's the reaching out to other people to get things off the ground
KH: Yes

MG: Setting up initial meeting. You'd have been all sharing ideas in advance?
KH: Yes
MG: making sure everyone onside
KH: Yes

MG: Draft mission statement - primarily by BJ?
KH: Yes
MG: launched at meeting?
KH: We had posters around the room, inviting comments on it, asking for suggestions, for lots of ideas.

MG: BJ says there were a lot of drafts. Can we look at --
[J intervenes re heat of room, says jackets can come off]

MG: This is Jan 2020 draft, I discussed with BJ, you can see also above it - a bit cut off [reads]. It says re standing with lesbians to resist pressure to have sex with males on the basis of gender.

MG: These are the sorts of things that came up at the October discussion?
KH: Pretty much. We had several speakers, covered the main directions we wanted to take. Included Simon Fanshawe founder of SW, and Miranda Yardley, descsribes self as transsexual gay man.

KH: We didn't "exist" at that point - no name, no website, nothing.
MG: but mission statement agreed that day.
KH: No not that day.

MG: So there's a process, ABailey's tweet then is the actual launch
KH: Yes
MG: Let's look at the tweet.

MG: 23.11pm that night. Says historic moment, says we mean business. says gender extremism about to meet its match. Very gladiatorial

KH: Yes it is. Many people esp lesbians but also gay men, straight people, had been feeling completely under siege. Had seen lesbians erased slowly since about 2015 in SW reporting. We were all happy to be able to be together and to speak freely.

KH: "Gladiatorial" is a good word. This is David and Goliath.
MG: Not gladiators.
KH: you're right, but I mean that in terms of funding, access, we are a minnow.

MG: It is an organisation set up for a fight.
KH: In the context of having spent years trying to say that children in danger. Important to remember what fighting *for*.

KH: Dr Cass has said this is all our business. Care for gender non conforming children is a big part of our founding.

MG: It's not correct to say Tavistock being closed. Service restructured.
KH: It has been found unsafe.
MG: Tavistock says otherwise, says they will be involved.
KH: We have to wait for the full report.

MG: Complex situation, full report not out, we don't know how will be restructured.
KH: All we ever asked for was light to be shone on these services, for evidence.

MG: This is slight sidetrack, we'll move on.

MG: Your WS. You say first action of the meeting was to write to the EHRC.
KH: Yes we wanted to take an action straight away.
MG: But not action of meeting. Decision of meeting.
KH: Yes - and a few people volunteered, and we wrote next day.

MG: [takes to letter in question in bundle]
MG: You sign on behalf of LGB Alliance and with an email address. You had set up address before meeting?
KH: Yes. Not same one as now though.

MG: You say a group of influential lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, decided at a London meeting to counter this movement.
KH: yes
MG: You say many regard gender itdientity ideology as psueodo-scientific and dangerous. Most people at meeting thought that?
KH: All, I would say.

MG: Does not say, was formed to create benefit for LGB people, as primary purpose.
KH: [pause]
KH: No we don't spell it out. We do say we are concerned about erosion of most basic rights, and refusal of dialogue. We mention education.

KH: We mention the medical pathway that we think is so dangerous for LGB children.

MG: You say, SW gets much public money and people should be aware of how it is spent, and how little goes to lesbian community. You mean, too much spent on trans people?

KH: No, our focus was - nothing is spent on lesbians. SW focus had changed so dramatically - word "lesbian" vanished from website, documents.

MG: You use phrase "Stonewall law" and explain what it is, and say it's dangerous.
KH: Yes
MG: You are asking EHRC to intervene with Stonewall.

KH: Yes, because of child safeguarding. SW approach is, children are told from very young age that if they diverge in any way from gender stereotypes they are in wrong body.

KH: I have personal interest. Played in boys' sports as a child. I am certain if a teacher had taken me aside and told me I perhaps had a boy gender identity, I would have ended up taken to a gender clinic.

KH: We have seen lots of evidence of "Stonewall law". Reindorf report. Submissions to govt consultations. Lots of evidence.

MG: You cite a Stonewall glossary that talks of attraction to the same "gender" and say that this is not what the law says.
MG: You are asking EHRC to intervene, especially with SW. Political.

KH: No. It's concern for child safeguarding. It is not just a political disagreement. We disagree with it because of its dangers esp to children.

MG: You say you set up a working group for mission statement. Letter says you already have one?
KH: Yes I agree it wasn't finalised at that point.
MG: But core there.
KH: Yes.

MG: As part of process of finalising, you incorporated as a company?
KH: Yes

MG: And you drafted the application to be charity?
KH: Yes
MG: You're not a lawyer or anything? You put together application and passed to solicitors?
KH: Yes - we took legal advice early, we had not expected to be doing any of this.

KH: So I am responsible for having filled in the form, but was with legal advice.
MG: You were advised that you needed to get some charitable objects.
KH: No we already had them.

KH: It did all happen very fast - we got so much support.

MG: You were told you ought to be a charity so you needed to get charitable objects.

KH: No it's simpler than that. I had worked with Stonewall for many years, had seen it work as a respected, valuable org for years. Until 2015. So we knew right from the off that we wanted our charitable aims to be exactly what we thought SW's should be.

MG: Application made 13/3/2020 to Charity Commission.
KH: Yes.
MG: You sought to adopt structure - your decision, solicitors?

KH: I think we discussed with solicitors that we wanted to adopt the best structure, which we thought, origins of Stonewall.

J: Conscious of time and heat.

J: Perhaps we could break for counsel to discuss structure of the rest of the week, and come back at 4.15. Miss Harris you are under earth, mustn't discuss with anyone during break.
[BREAK]

[CORRECTION last tweet should of course say "under oath"]

[we resume]

MG: We have made some progress. I expect to finish witness evidence lunchtime tomorrow. Q is what happens after that. My own view is we should ask tribunal how to best use remaining time.

MG: On grounds that tribunal might think a day and a half not long enough for submissions in complex case. Miss Monaghan and Mr Steele both feel we must rather cut our cloth to the time.

J: To clarify you expect to finish both KH and Miss Gallagher by lunch?
MG: yes

KM: We feel that we should finish witness evidence and then share remaining time for closing subs. [KM has no microphone, am not hearing well]

KM: If there was an interim period [think she means, if break in case] funding affected; at least one funder has said, is waiting result of the case. Don't want to presume but that will already be some months we think? We do think day and a half will be enough

KM: Skeletons are detailed, we can do detailed written submissions and short oral ones, we do think there is enough time.

IS: Would add, we would need to find 2 days if 1.5 not enough, which is a big ask of court time. Note also CC will not need a "fair share" of time - will be much shorter, perhaps an hour

MG: Repeat that we are in tribunal hands, but point out that charity cases are relatively rare. This is a matter of great importance to very many people. Would argue that weighs perhaps in direction of ensuring adequate time for the court.

J: Judge Neville and I will retire to discuss. Will let you know before end of day what we have decided.
[BREAK]

J: We would like to complete this week if we can, but are aware competing interests. We think we would want to allocate 3 days if we were to take break in the case. Our own diaries are flexible but we don't know about counsel.

J: Please consider that overnight; tell us tomorrow what options are.
J: End for today: Restart tomorrow 10.00am
[END OF DAY]

@threadreaderapp please unroll