Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. We are expecting the final day of the hearing at Employment Tribunal of Jo Phoenix v Open University to begin at 11.00am.

Today will be Counsels' closing submissions. The two barristers are

BC = Ben Cooper KC, counsel for
JP = Jo Phoenix, claimant

JM = Jane Mulcahy KC, counsel for
OU = Open University, respondent

The judge is
J = Employment Judge Young
P = either of two panel members sitting with the judge.

The court has asked for written submissions in advance from each side. This means that the in-person presentation of them is likely to summarised and somewhat hard to follow, but we will do our best.

Any of the witnesses (and other persons / organisations) may be mentioned during submissions; we have compiled a list of these on our substack page (where you can also read our reports of the earlier days of the hearing) tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

We are still waiting for the hearing to start.

The public hearing has still not begun.

We begin. J is mid-sentence. Is asking counsel[s] not to just repeat their written subs but to add to them.

JM: Will be addressing a few points Mr Cooper has raised and one case he relies on.
JM: Our legal subs are in response to BC opening skeleton. Am hoping to take just an hour or so.

JM: Shall be emphasising some points re the facts as I go. Shall certainly be done by 1pm.

JM: Both parties agree this a case about freedom of speech and right to express them, and, not just gender critical views.

JM: Political speech is particularly protected. This is about political speech for JP - she is a campaigner, this is political for her. We say JP has been in this "for the fight", to advance her arguments.

JM: This is a matter of significant public interest.

JM: Second aspect is academic freedom. Important to understand this properly. This is not something other than freedom of speech - it's FoS secured by statute for benefit of those in academic institutions.

JM: Has been suggested that it's more limited - that applies only to academic setting. Also suggested that AF must be secured even at the expense of FoS of others. We say that can't be right.

JM: And we disagree with BC - this is very much a case of needing balancing - balancing rights of all to express themsevles.

JM: If anything AF bolsters the protection and FoS rights of those in universities - including right to voice concerns, raise objections, ,make requests to the instiution.

JM: FoS is the main thing; AF is secured by statute; rights of all to free expression must be balanced.

JM: So - what is the substantive matter being debated. BC/JP are suggesting there's only 1 matter of substance - GC versus G-affirmative views. Not correct. There are other matters to consider - hurt, harm, offence to others as discussed with PK.

JM: There is Q of language used, again see PK, use of "transwoman" v "trans woman".

JM: Also the role universities should play and policy they should take in these matters.

JM: These are all matters of substance on which academics should be free to express their views. All part of FoS.

JM: Want to address a point from BC opening - distinction between words and actions. BC has frequently asked witnesses to say letters are "calling for" things. Important to look at motivation b4 deciding if discriminatory.

JM: Academics have every right as individuals to make requests, raise objections. And must be distinguished from the *actions* taken by the instituation.

JM: That is what happened here. Individuals wanted X to happen - but, institution decided *not* to take action v the GCRN.

JM: Again re points by BC - after DD gave evidence on Weds she emailed me, says "worried I have given impression only 7 speakers at conference - she has checked and more like 17".

[There is drilling at my house - apologies for any gaps]

JM: [is talking about Dec 2019] day of general election - so lots going on that week, re reaction to Essex report. LW evidence - have written in my sub. JP is continuing to make much of this even now via BC.

JM: JP set out in this case - see whatsapp - talks of putting in grievance, putting in everything. We ask court to bear in mind when deciding on facts.

JM: So we say those small matters end 2019 are the *only* thing JP can rely on before mid 2021. Things in 2019 are old matters, out of time, and small matters only, and nothing afterwards for a long time.

JM: Really revealing thing I want to emphasise - is also in my subs. Two stories - JP telling to the world at the time, and then what was really going on. Feb 2021 - reaction to email from LGBTQ+ group re history months.

JM: LD sends the email as EDI lead, from the group. All it wants is a new OU trans staff network, space for trans staff to meet etc, and a pronouns campaign on OU life to include and support colleagues across OU. 9th Feb, ,9.56 am

JM: Then JP emails IF at c3pm, says a few people upset by it, asking where is the L.
JP omits to say the upset people are the soon-to-be GCRN members
JM: We see JP emailed "they can F off" re pronouns.

JM: JP has often used the phrase "broke my mind". She says it is boiling her piss that lesbians being written out of history, and it breaks her mind.

JM: All that is going on behind the scenes. Discussion that all should submit individual complaints.

JM: And that's what GCRN members did - individual emails.
JM: there is a big difference between what JP is actually thinking, and how she is presenting to the OU.

JM: Striking case of someone whose political campaigning position is setting out very early on to achieve what she wants, and venomous to those who disagree with here.

JM: JP is laying political groundwork there. Very revealing moment.

JM: Then in 2021 Savage Minds podcast in May - it's circulated. LD and PB immediately raise concerns.
JM: Then 16/6/2021 GRCN launch, and the podcast attached. Remember this was a launch to the world - tweeted publicly.

JM: Then there is the open letter - again consider the private JP vs public JP. In our subs we refer again to the whatsapp discussions and the to-the-OU presentation. JP asks IF "has OU got my back" - hyperbole.

JM: Meanwhile on whatsapp JP says IF and MW have offered some support and (18/6) that OU will not shut GCRN down.

JM: We see JPike saying the open letter is "weak as fuck".

JM: These are important when you consider harassment. JP wasn't actually feeling harassed at all.

JM: 21/6 JP says she's taking out a grievance against all signatories of the open letter.
JM: None of OU witnesses were asked if their motivation was anti-CG thought in context of that grievance.