Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good Morning. We resume hearing of Mermaids v Charity Commission & LGB Alliance which went part heard on 15 Sep 2022. The hearing is due to resume at 10am with submissions from all sides.
You can catch up on this case on our substack here which has coverage of witness evidence:

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mermaids-vs-…

Abbreviations are:
AJ - Judge Joe Neville, Assistant to Judge
MG - Michael Gibbon KC, Counsel for Mermaids
KM - Karon Monaghan KC - Counsel for LGB Alliance
AR - Akua Reindorf, Assistant to KM
IS - Iain Steele, Charity Commission counsel
WS - witness statement

EA - Equality Act 2010
MM - Mermaids
CC - Charity Commission
LGBA - LGB Alliance
BITWB - ‘born in the wrong body’
TATG - trans away the gay’

Witnesses
JN - John Nicolson MP, Member of Parliament for Ochil and South Perthshire and Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights.
BB - Dr Belinda Bell Chair of trustees of Mermaids.
PR - Paul Roberts OBE, CEO of LGBT Consortium

BJ - Beverley Jackson, Co-founder and trustee of LGBAlliance
KH - Kate Harris, Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance.
EG - Eileen Gallagher OBE, Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance, having joined in May 2021.

The written skeleton arguments can be found here:
lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

The hearing is about to commence.

For press coverage about Mermaids please go to our substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/topic-press-…

Hearing commences. Judge (J) reminds everyone that cameras and microphones should be turned off. There are rules: you must not record hearing, including screenshots. This could be in contempt of court.

J asks if there are any issues that need to be dealt with before hearing starts. MG discusses burden of proof. In this case there was challenge to charity commission guidance. No-one was challenging status. If we turn to tab 20 p577 in authorities bundle. There is a citation in

the Helena case (?). The only authority that seems to suggest to contrary is at tab 29 p783, Hipkiss decision says in taking fresh decision the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. FTT decision not a precident. CC had removed charity so burden on charity .

We submit that the IFC case should be followed. That is the correct burden to follow. Re Substansive matters: go to IFC case p531 status haven't been changed by 2006 - challenge is to what charity says it does not what it does.

J pauses hearing to check that the link is working for everyone.

J: we will continue while we try to get technical issues are resolved.
J: please continue
MG: there should be a written constitution. We believe it is not sufficiently dealt with in the LGBA submission. [sound goes]. The tribunal should note that submission in IFC case -

where there is incomplete written constitution the task is to find out the charities objectives. Going to the NAS case there were references to general interpretations - the starting point is that the law conveys meaning. The River Weir case says the imperfection of language

means that different meanings can be read.
[Technical issues: hearing has frozen]

Court clerk apologises for the technical problems

Court clerk apologises again and reminds viewers not to use chat room for comments.

Court Clerk: judge has said we will not halt proceedings while tech issues are sorted out. [assume that this means that the court is proceeding without remote access]

[We're back. Audio only.]
MG: p364 laws exist which people consider unjust, inhuman or degrading. Given the time I would like to cite the CC - human dignity trust case [p590] we say that this case isn't of help to the tribunal. We say that CC was in error and there is no

such requirement. Re Vernon Miles case: CC had refused to register as charity as mission too vague. No argument as to the premise but the tribunal fell into error and this is not a binding authority.
MG: suggest that we pause now. Last point we say that any suggestion that

articles are unabmigious is clearly wrong. IDing objects goes beyond taking the governing document at face value
J: we will take a 15 min break

Hearing recommences.

MG: asked if any objection to speaking notes being posted online. We don't object
MG: we say it is wrong in law - no requirement to accept or take documents at face value. Legislation covers broad range of docs - tribunal needs to discern meaning behind them.

MG: The CC relies on its own decision re objectors to LGBA purpose. CC says LGBA purpose is truly charitable. I stress we are not here argue against decision. Re correct characterisation of our argument. True purposes doesn't appear in our statements. We don't say articles are

dishonest but rather unorthodox principles. The CC relies only on their own position on this rather than referring to other authorities. We say the 'sham test' is an incorrect test and isn't what MM are trying to do

What is the dominant message from the charity? We detect that CC may have a concern re burden of charity on written articles. We say it shouldn't be. The level of debate has been substantial in this - the CC already carries out inquiries into how charities put objects into effect

We say that taking articles at face value shouldn't be the end of inquiries. 2011 act lists types of purposes based on historic case law. It is up to tribunal to see what dominant purposes are. What is the clear and dominant message. You can't have some of purposes of charity not

being charitable. How do people with GC beliefs use language. KH and BJ stated that LGBA must be looked at through that lens. KH said most people would see articles as being biology based. L, G and B are defined as being binary at core of LGBA but not in articles

LGBA say gender is a construct. One needs to go beyond articles on any footing. What other material is admissable? Who is the audience to whome the article is addressed? BJ and KH contacted "stroppy" people re formation of LGBA. GC views - no comprehensive definition

But says sex is immutable. So people should be described with ref to their sex so male or male-bodied. Says GI orgs are homophobic. Also a view that LGB rights are not same as GI rights. The effect is to challenge or be against trans rights. Who is the audience to whom this is

addressed? The mission statement was to challenge the notion of gender and unscientific doctrines. AB's tweet encapsulates the mission of LGBA "gender extremism is about to meet its match". There is no single statement that shows LGBAs views - we can conclude that they go further

than sex is immutable. BJ said "The word lesbian is taken". The phrase TATG is used. We say the articles should be read against that background. We consider that the articles are incomplete. In light of this, we say you can conclude that GC beliefs (in campaigns etc) want to

change the law on policies. This would affect MM and other trans orgs. We don't want to get into equality legislation. This is a charities case. We should draw a distinction between what a witness says in court and what was said prior to tribunal. We say that these are expressive

of LGBA views - KH speech says "SW is at the heart of the lie of GI. We are going to campaign that confirms that there are 2 sexes." She is talking about political lobbying. Also BJ says: "our 1st priority is to press pause on GRR in scotland" "Our battle agains Stonewall law"

"We demand a seat at every table re LGB issues". So against this we move to other issues. Re theoretical underpinning - Will tribunal conclude what we propose is the correct interpretation of articles. Re principles - obvious authority is IFC(?) ISC(?) case.

What benefits the community? Also those who may benefit must be sufficiently numerous. Charities must be established for charitable purposes only. Do purposes include political purposes? Re McGovern case - non-exhaustive list of political purposes. The judge says a trust involved

in political purposes cannot be considered beneficial.
MG: It is not limited to party political. It is clear that you can have a political purpose if you want to oppose or support policy. [Reads case judgement] "Political propoganda" is not charitable.

Also, re McGovern the objectives might be seen to be for society's benefit, if they fall foul then they cannot be considered beneficial. Educating the public can be political in some circumstances. In Bushnell case - money had been left for education re socialised healthcase

[*heathcare]
This was considered political. Trying to educate re a particular view fell foul of the rule. It wouldn't have been if differing views had been put forward.

MG: This is a difficult area. 2011 act advanced the law in some ways but didn't alter underlining law. The element of public benefit can be debatable. The court doesn't sit on the fence if it doesn't have enough evidence. They remove charitable status.

Re Balance of benefits - it is normally needed to set out benefits eg combat poverty. Tangible benefit is necessary. Re ISC case - re education where independent schools are considered charitable - we say it can't be read across re advancing human rights.

In LGBAs own evidence they are forced to push back on othodoxy that they disagree with. We note that CC was satified that LGBA was engaged in political purposes but were ancillary. MM do not have to prove that CC was wrong.

CC view is that more evidence has been made available since decision. It is clear that LGBA has purposes that are political. These are not ancillary. LGBA was established for lobbying and political purposes. They suggested investigation against Stonewall. It is clear beyond doubt

that they want to change policies that are relevant to GC beliefs. BJ said in this tribunal that they were building an org that fought against GI beliefs. It was said in the tribunal that self-ID erases same-sex attraction.

LGBA views must be of benefit. We say there is no concensus re this. The law is undergoing an ongoing process and for current purposes the law is not as clear as LGBA says it is. Re EA section 7. Re PC of gender reassignment. Sex isn't used in exclusively biological sense.

Sex used in section 7 isn't immutable - mentions reassigning person's sex but heading is Gender Reassignment. Sex and gender used interchangably. Re GRA - sex is not immutable in GRA, we see use of sex and gender used interchangably.

In terms of using Equality law, it is not as clear as they say it is. Re education public. LGBA approaches this with one point of view only. KH and BJ said LGBA would educate the public using GC beliefs as facts. BJ said education must be based on facts - shouldn't say boys can

be girls and girls can be boys. We say this is not neutral. On the totality of the evidence LGBA are saying they will be putting forward the GC view as the factual view. The evidence shows they haven't done much outside the GC side of education.

Are LGBA views of the concensus? They put forward their GC position and so can't say that there is a common understanding. This is a paradigm case. We say that the chosen approach of LGBA is fundamentally confrontation and unpleasant.

That confrontational approach was inevitable. Shifting the debate was dependant on getting their views across. LGBA said that social media was important in getting their views across.

MM accepts that a human rights charity is acceptable. On the other hand if they focus on a small group then there is no benefit. The question comes down to: what are their true purposes? Does a sufficient number of the public need LGBA?

Re public benefit: LGBA claims to represent all LGB people. It labels any people who disagree as homophobic. We say that covers a significant number of people. LGBA mention long list of various orgs that promote gender identity.

We say that this must be looked at in practical sense.
Re Standing - this can only be considered in light of all facts and circumstances. The bar for this must be high.

How what's been done by LGBA with regards to my client and to the public should be considered. I would add when considering the decision to register it must encompass everything not just the name. Re appropriate test we suggest that Nicholson is leading authority

and should be read in its entirety. Nicholson should not be watered down. We need to extract principles. The Nicholson decision is binding. The facts, however, were very different to this case.
This is probably an appropriate point to finish.

KM: we are assuming that we can start tomorrow. If we finish in time today, madam, can we start tomorrow?
J: yes. Hearing resumes at 2pm

@threadreaderapp pls unroll

@threadreaderapp please unroll