Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Nov 21 45 tweets 8 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Afternoon session, part 1 in Shahrar Ali vs Green Party et al. Earlier coverage of today.
JJ resumes.
The case can be seen through the prism of manifestation of belief. I'm going to deal with the law and some aspects of the facts.
The Court of Appeal had found that there was a genuine and reasonable concern to believe that expression of beliefs would be hurtful.
The case law recognises a distinction between when the reason is the fact of holding a belief and a case where objection could reasonably be taken to the manifestation of the belief. Not all objections are reasonable.
In a specific case of discrimination a human rights org
brought a case against a company which had said they would not hire immigrants. That was discrimination.
In the Higgs case, the point is if the response to SA's posts is of itself tainted by discrimination, arise from a hatred of those with GC beliefs...
that is akin to not hiring immigrants because customers don't like them.
Therefore if a minority group of activists who dislike GC beliefs and call them terfs, transphobes, don't engage with the argument, but rather engage in wholesale abuse, that is why the GP runs scared of
them, because of this tendency to abuse.
J - do we have any idea how many trans positive people are in the GP
JJ - there are 2 separate groups; those reasonable people who are trans positive and engage in mature debate, and that small vocal minority that resorts to allegations
of transphobia and discriminations.
J - playing devil's advocate, just calling someone transphobic doesn't mean it's a term of abuse
JJ - calling someone a transphobe is like calling someone anti-semitic or a racist or a homophobe.
The GP has not called in SA and interrogated
him on his beliefs and concluded 'yes, you're a transphobe and we're going to dismiss you'
J - just because it's not well found, does that mean it's abuse
JJ - we come back to is it justified, is it reasonable, is it proportionate.
Coming back to my opening submission
There are many organisation that kowtow to these activists....
J - its not the reasonableness of the remarks but its in the response of the GP to the remarks.
JJ - coming back to the periods I identified of social media and GP activity. Coming to Period 1
JJ - from start of May/June 2021 and we ask the question 'what was the reason for SA's treatment in that period'. It's our submission that the GP produced no evidence of any manifestation in that period. All that exists then was his belief. GP members saying 'he can't be
doing this job if he has those beliefs';
J - but they knew about his beliefs from previous comments
JJ - but they have not produced any manifestation of his beliefs in the relevant period that they have relied upon.
J - but there must have been manifestation
JJ - but they must produce evidence of the inappropriate manifestation of beliefs.
JJ - coming on Period 2, it was the leadership election, it is political speech that deserves the highest protection,
J - you called it political speech but all his speech in his political speech
JJ - in this period because he was in a leadership contest, he asking to clarify the position on trans rights, it is exactly what a leadership candidate should be doing. That's important because it would be quite wrong to sanction someone during that period or subsequently
sanction them for what they said during that period because it will have a chilling effect on anyone who stands for leadership because they will be concerned about what they said.
J - the GP said 'we dismissed him because of breaches of the speakers code on the other hand
we didn't consider his tweets during the leadership contest'. Are those statements consistent?
JJ - no they are wholly inconsistent, their only evidence is tweets from this period of the leadership contest.
J - moving ahead to a different issue, the two motions from local
GP and YG, do those motions go beyond political speech?
JJ - they are attempting to sanction him for his beliefs, they are not debating his beliefs they are trying to remove
J - but don't they have the right to act on their beliefs
JJ - There's a difference between engaging in
argument and attempting to remove someone solely for their protected belief
J - isn't an organised attempt to try and remove people protected speech,
JJ - that's fair and that political, but its different when they are attempting to remove people for their protected belief
JJ - that's going beyond expressing beliefs or engaging with his arguments,
J - if the motion had referred to GC beliefs instead of transphobia, that wouldn't have cured it
JJ - no, it's the right to say things, to believe them, to manifest them.
In this context it's not just
the disagreement, it's the desire to remove his from his role.
J - if you have a party with two distinct factions, one could not seek to remove the other side for a difference in belief.
JJ - those in the GP and in parts of society, they are subjected to attacks solely because
of those beliefs.
J - I'm trying to explore how this operates in politics.
JJ - it's not just a political belief.
J - but doesn't it become a political belief?
JJ - it's a fundamental belief, not a political one.
J - you could have a consistent political philosophy
or two different sets of belief that run up against each other and come into conflict.
JJ - the EA and the HRA give broad protections in this area, we think it's not appropriate for the court to try and carve out political speech and shelter it here. We think it is more
reasonable to go through the checklist: is it a protected belief, was it reasonably manifested, was he discriminated against.
JJ - using the Home Secretary as a thinly veiled example, we don't have the evidence on that case. In most cases you will have clear evidence who
where someone traduces a trans member of the GP, that would be clear, it would be unreasonable manifestation and the person should be removed. We don't have that in this case. They haven't produced the offensive manifestation.
JJ - now going on the Period 3.
From post leadership election onwards. He produced a report on what he did, his activity, his social media output, there was no evidence of unreasonable manifestation of his beliefs.
Once we get through all that, we get to proportionality. He was removed from his role.
He was never told clearly what was inappropriate, he was never warned and told to discontinue specific activities, he was not warned, no specificity and they fail on justification.
Moving on from manifestation to vicarious liability.
JJ - the GP has no independent legal personality, everyone is an agent.
J - is the consequence that everyone is an agent
JJ - the point is that it is accepted that they are liable for the actions of GPex, and when members of GPex are acting as agents. The principle is liable
*Principal is liable whenever the agent is discriminatory.
Citing examples of Browne and Berry.
Not addressing in great deal because it's in my written argument.
JJ - going on to the comparator point.
J - give me a minute to read
JJ - discussion of hypothetical comparator, there is nothing in this point, it is not necessary in every case to construct a hypothetical comparator. Having grappled with an artificial comparator, it is frequently so artificial
(directing J & L to specific paras to read)
JJ - a very good authority that the court doesn't need to engage in this artificial exercise, so this is the discussion earlier that it is about the belief itself. This is crystal clear.
Brings me to my next point.
Touching on evidence, some critical documents; our theme is that some of the party were consistent with trying to get SA out because of that belief. It had nothing to do with unreasonable manifestation.
We see right at the beginning SB questioning the process.
JJ - they know what they're talking about. Seeking to unpick his appointment from the very beginning.
JJ - referring to various messages in WhatsApp and other chats.
JJ - the next important document is the GPex minutes, reading out snippets from the minutes of June 2021
JJ - this encapsulates the conflict between members stance on this matter.
(referring to documents we have not seen hard to grasp points he is making other than they relate to the attempts to remove SA without manifestation of his beliefs)
JJ - another example of where a
process designed to remove SA is spilling over into general processes (referring to MB's paper and his correspondence with MSC).
JJ - we see the complete lack of respect for MSC from MB, this is a coordinator for GPex who is dominating this debate and bullying MSC
and he's just a coordinator, bullying a professor and GPex member.
Then the SSMG recommendation, this is the reason given for the recommendation for suspension 'the SSMG has received a number of criticisms about SA's performance as a spokesperson, but because he was championing
what was said to be a highly controversial position. Nothing about breaching the code of conduct or unreasonable manifestation.
Now on to notes in prep of GPex meeting, he (MB)
proposes that they agree to remove SA, rather than the suspension suggested by SSMG.
JJ - finally
J - just help me, this refers to what
JJ - a note from MB to GPex members, MB is a moving force here
(J reading)
J - the SSMG had recommended suspension, MB is suggesting removal on his own initiative.
JJ - yes, overreaching the decision of the SSMG.
JJ - quoting from MB paper, 'highly controversial comments on social media' but recommendation from SSMG relies on MB report, that looks back over leadership election, no reference to breaches of the code.
J - can you help me, I seem to recall that SA had been advised that
he should not be saying certain things on social media.
JJ - the SSMG then refused to hear his defence at the meeting in October.
JJ - finally moving on to time, omissions can be part of a continuing course of conduct,
J - is it fair to say, that the core detriments are
the process leading up to SA's dismissal as a spokesperson.
JJ - yes, that is the core of it, the actions of the group of MB, SB and the manipulation of the SSMG process.
Those are my submissions.
J - CC, I have a specific point I'd like you to address. The GP cannot
J - If the GP can dismiss SA from his position because of his GC beliefs than they can dismiss him because he is a Muslim can't they.
CC - the characteristics are separate, religion or belief.
J - but on what's in the statute or in case law I'm struggling with the distinction
J - if we dismiss you because you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, is that an area where the court could intervene.
CC - it would have to meet the Grainger test.
J - we haven't looked at Grainger have we
CC - no, it's not in the authorities.
J - if you could send
that to me with the other materials you promised.
JJ - it's extensively cited in Forstater vs CGD, gives reference.
J - thank you.
CC - any belief has to meet the Grainger test, if not justifiable would it fall under the threshold. (repeats self)
J - it seems to me a powerful point, I will go away and read Grainger. n
J - do you want to say anything else on the law (to CC)
CC - on the point of a comparator, it needs thought,
J - it may or may not be helpful in this case
CC - I don't think there's anything else, may I have
a moment.
J - JJ, do you want to address me on Grainger
JJ - MLF's response is not sufficient. Religious belief is a philosophical belief and so is protected.
J - judgement is reserved, you will have a written judgement in due course.
Court rises.
@threadreaderapp unroll please.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets

Tribunal Tweets Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

Nov 21
We will resume shortly in Shahrar Ali vs Green Party et al. Part 1 of the morning session is here:
We resume.
Apologies. Initials for R’s barrister are CC. Was using EM.
Read 47 tweets
Nov 21
Good morning. We will be live tweeting submissions (oral arguments) today in Sharar Ali vs Green Party et al. Our previous coverage can be found here:…
Our usual health warning on live reporting on submissions: oral argument is the most difficult form of proceedings to live tweet. We do not have access to written submissions that are frequently referred to. There are frequent references to case law and
Legislation that ranges from the familiar (Forstater vs CGD) to the obscure. Our reporting aims to relay the relevant aspect of the case law rather than repeat the citations. The barristers are usually reading from scripted remarks and often speak quickly and or quietly.
Read 48 tweets
Nov 1
Part 2 thread on the judical review RC v the gender recognition panel re non-binary status.
Abbrevs: J Judge
RC Complainant C
GRP Gender recognition panel
JE Sir James Eadle KC, Counsel for GRP
JE: We do say the Joubert case will assist this case - even though the no Art 3 claim has ever been mounted at any stage but it does stray beyond the bounds of proper assistance and into advocacy. The basic purpose of that document
JE: seems to be that it's all very good - if you're going to get sucked into a debate - that isn't the point on which I take my stand. It seeks wholly inaccurately to present as simple and pragmatic things which are both complex and ultimately under each of the foreign
Read 30 tweets
Nov 1
We are about to join the afternoon session of the judical review RC v the gender recognition panel re non-binary status.

J Judge
RC Complainant C
GRP Gender recognition panel
JE Sir James Eadle KC, Counsel for GRP
J Further requests for remote access and will develop a schedule. Want to emphasise re not recording if attending remotely. Certain reference to the explanatory notes and wld be helpful to have a note on this

JE On legis backdrop, correct that GRA was after Goodwin and Bellinger
JE was a remedy. Is an area of legis policy covered by small and cautious legis steps, telling strongly against parliament making quite a large step eg various types of gender. So the conception re how the GRA works and use words in their legis context
Read 51 tweets
Nov 1
CB: we know that New Zealand accepts NB markers since 2005 so it was possible the it was on governments rader in 2004. If they didn't see NB does this undermine my interpretation?
[apologies missed some of this - references to cloning of embryos]
CB: question on whether this is covered by act turns on whether they are covered by genus of act. HOL (House of Lords) was authoritative on that point.
CB: Lord Bingham says the principal operates in same way re cloning of dogs. HOL says cloned embryo is same as other embryos even though cloning was not around when act was made. We say that even though NB wasn't mentioned at the time, it is still covered by same genus of the Act
Read 38 tweets
Nov 1
Good morning. Today we shall be tweeting the application for Judicial Review brought by a US citizen Ryan Castellucci against the Gender Recognition Panel. We expect the hearing to begin at 10.30 am.
Our substack page on the case is here:…
RC = Ryan Castellucci, bringing the application
GRP = Gender Recognition Panel
Read 66 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!