Thread by @nickwallis

This is Day 7 Session 2 of evidence given at Morrison v Belfast Film Festival. There were two witnesses giving evidence this afternoon. Keara Paterson on the left was in the last thread (I'll post it below) and Marie-Therese McGivern - co-chair of the BFF in the centre, follows 🧵

had talked to me, that she is standing up for the rights of women, that she's
"not anti anything" and told me that it's about her son.
I told her that this was not the right time to discuss it - we were surrounded

by festival guests.
I found the whole thing troubling for several reasons. (1) There seemed to
be the suggestion that Michele of spreading false information; I told Sara

that I had heard reports of her speech from several sources including other
board members. (2) There was no hint of regret for, or doubt about, what
she did. As you'll know "I'm standing up for the rights of women" is the

argument used by conservatives and religious people in several countries,
and a new staple of the anti-LGBTQ anti-lslamic right. (3) If I remember
correctly, her child is a trans woman, so she is misgendering her here (I might

be wrong about that).
If Sara is saying this to me - a board member, vocal supporter of trans rights
and friend of Michele - I think it's possible to imagine that she is being less
careful elsewhere.

I therefore feel that we need to accelerate the process”]
NC so we see MC comparing SM’s position to “anti-LGBTQ anti-lslamic right.” - he’s taking this v seriously
MTM yes

NC what does he mean by “accelerate the process”
MTM wanted an investigation - he felt there was more noise, he was looking for “let’s get this sorted” and where I come from you don’t sort these in 5 mins anyway

NC doesn’t he make it clear what kind of rememdy he has in mind where he says :”We can't have an inclusion/diversity officer who, many
weeks after making such an ill-advised speech, is still standing by her actions

completely.”
MTM you could interpret that in many ways - “it doesn’t speak to what remedy he wants… I think he wants to put some distance between the inclusion officer and people making complaints…. He was

worried that interaction might cause even more issues” MC was a “huge huge fan of SM and spoke very lovingly of her on a regular basis… very complimentary”
NC “isn’t it pretty obvious what he’s saying he’s saying she needs to be dismissed, that’s where we need

to get to”
MTM “that isn’t my reading of it”
NC LBD replies: “I agree that this situation with Sara grows rather more than less
concerning.

We can’t leave things as they are. Michele/MT let’s have a chat tomorrow?”
NC growing sense of urgent action needing to be taken
MTM action did need to be taken - I would judge SM’s actions in that bar to be “ill judged and

inappropriate” at an after work event
NC LBD says - “let’s have a chat tomorrow” - did you have that chat?
MTM “i have no memory of having a chat… I may have “spoken on the phone to Michele” but I have no

memory of speaking to LBD. LBD was living in London at the time and she was preparing to come home. “I do not have the memory of a phone call [with LBD]”
NC MD recalled today that convo took place - she said it was a phone call

MTM “I can’t remember the content of it”
NC LBD and now MD recall it. MD can’t remember anything about it and you’re not sure it happened at all.
NC that is the moment LBD says we’ve got a problem and we need to make a plan and that was the

conversation when you made the plan
MTM I can’t remember there was a flowing process at the time. I knew we need an investigation. That would be the extent of our plan

NC plan was let’s find a plan to get SM to email LGBTQ community and start a disc process on the inevitable kickback
MTM no recollection of that plan

NC and that’s why you’re so “vague” about that meeting because that’s when you cooked up the plan to “poke up the hornet’s nest against her”
MTM no
NC takes her to her statement - this is chron order?

MTM yes it’s a chron of the process
NC so in par 4 you meet with MD on 18 May, an email on 19 May and then the next thing is the email you got from MD on 4 July - so you skip over the email and chat on 27 and 28 June.

MTM they’re in the bundle - I didn’t respond to MC’s email - there’s no reason to have it in the chron
NC don’t you think you should at least have said that LBD made this suggestion, but it didn’t happen because.

MTM “possibly - but this was LBD’s suggestion, it wasn’t my suggestion”
NC goes to email from MD at 10.59am on 4 July copying her email to you “Hi Marie-Therese and Louise
Yesterday we sent this email to all LGBTQ groups on our database, I worked with Sara to draw up the

list and we jointly wrote this email. Sara was concerned about sending it from her email address,
because of an issue she had with Alliance forChoice-ltoldheritwasherjobasinclusion officer that
it should come from her, but if it would help I would send it from my email address and cc her in.”

NC you’re a vol board member. YOu don’t get involved in ops matters
MTM correct
NC is it usual for your CEO to tell you she’d sent an email?

MTM depends on the context - she may have thought it was important
NC were you surprised
MTM no I interpreted it as MD showing she was trying to “find a way through” the situation.

NC wasn’t this MD reporting back to you and LBD on how the plan that you had formulated on 28 June was shaping up?
MTM “if you’re going back to the plan you’ve charactersied for me no that’s no the way I interpret it as

we hadn’t had that plan”
NC takes MTM to more of MD email’s: “We have had a few positive emails back. And we have had 2 others which I will forward to you

separately. We have also had some tweets from Queerspace - which I will send to you FYI.” - why is she reporting all this to you in such “granular detail” - bit odd isn’t it?
MTM no there was a growing concern. The truth is, this issue wasn’t going away.

NC this is MD reporting back to you on the plan and showing you what’s come back
MTM “I reject the idea of your concept that we had some sort of plan”
NC takes MTM to R’s grounds of resistance - re engaging think people (TP) on 5 July

MTM yes
NC the iv had to have been commenced on the basis of info the R had in its hands at the time it made the decision - you can’t make decisions on info you don’t have

MTM you can and quite often do, especially if the decision is to iv to find out what you don’t know
NC the iv was made on the basis of what you already knew
MTM - yes complaints were arriving

NC but what can’t have influenced the decision was complaints received on 6,7,8,9 July
MTM yes
NC were you party to the decision to iv
MTM not the dec to bring TP in, but I supported the iv

NC so when was that decision made/
MTM I guess from my point of view as early as 18 May I was supporting an iv, because I say in my email to LBD that we should bring in “expert help”. My view was that we needed to proceed to an iv

NC on 19 May email…
MTM we should get these pieces of work carried out…
NC this is about HR and contracts - theres nothing about an investigation

MTM it’s implicit I am suggesting the matter does not have to be investigated
NC I put it to you again the dec was made on 28 June
MTM I can’t recall that meeting. I do know TP were brought in on 5 July

[CORRECTION: DOES have to be investigated]

NC I put it to you again the dec was made on 28 June
MTM I can’t recall that meeting. I do know TP were brought in on 5 July
NC and dec making sequence was “we need to generate some complaints”

MTM “I’m sorry, that’s just nonsense”
NC and what came in on 4 July - [takes her to complaint emails from Ruth McCarthy at Outburst, Sarah Williams of Outburst, Queerspace and Ardoyne which will be familiar to readers of these threads.]

NC so by the time the decision was made on 5 July that was the material on which the iv could be based.
MTM no it was cumulative - this was the “tipping point” when we realised “it’s not going away”.
NC so the decision to iv was made earlier

MTM you keep saying dec - it’s a process - where I come from the SOP is to have an investigation
NC do you see the problem at some point someone decided to start an iv - so far no one has been able to tell the tribunal who why or how this happened - can you help at all?

MTM no - “cumulatively… there were growing numbers of complaints and it was always - in my view - a good idea to have an iv. I was always supportive of the concept… it had always been my that the way through this was to get have an iv”
NC yes but someone had to do it

MTM that was the CEO
NC so it was her decision alone or was she helped to do that
MTM she was supported by me - she would have known she was supportive. so was MC and other

board members had suggested that as well “I don’t think she was pushing against a closed door”
NC and you seem to be painting a picture of a consensus forming and being acted on without anyone making the actual decision....

... Someone has to say - this is what we’re going to do and you do it.
MTM people had been talking since April
NC the problem you had the reasons this dec took so long to coalesce was that until those complaints

had been generated all you had was SM exercising her right to free speech and you needed something extra to discpline her
MTM the issue was not to discipline her, nor the fact she exercised her right to her political opinions - “it

was that it generated “blow back” for the organisation. We needed to iv - no one was talking about discipline… the main conversation I was having was about damage limitation to the festival. the tone of these emails is quite cross…

we are a small organisation which is dependent on funders and there’s no doubt the incident caused blow back which was not positive for the organisation”
NC takes her to a complaint email to MD from someone called Amie Martin. a mental health worker

writing to MD to tell her about one of her patients “Hello Michele.
Hope your keeping well?? I wanted to pass on a statement that one of our service users has asked me to send on to you based on his experience.

He has asked that you do not show it to Sara , nor let her know that he has sent this or keep it anon as possible as she has been known to chase up some people and he does not want any contact with her at all.

He has said that its okay to show to board but to just keep it between yourselves for now and not with Sara or online as he understandably was a bit shaken with the experience and does not want to be harassed for doing this or for it to effect his

relationship with the festival as he is an avid fan of the festival and will attend screenings regularly as well submit. If you need to have a chat about this or need me for anything let me know as we were
supporting him through this . Kind Regards, Amie Martin

MTM she refers to service users - I wouldn’t know that it’s about mental health
NC it comes from LGBTMH - I’m guessing MH stands for mental health
MTM you might be right

NC you said in your WS that this email was one of the reasons behind engaging TP on 5 July but it was sent on 7 July so that’s impossible, isn’t it
MTM it was about the cumulative complaints

NC but your email says this email was part of the decision making process
MTM it wasn’t intended to be misleading - I included this email - I was “genuinely shocked” as I was involved with the film school. “If the allegations are true I was shocked that a young film

film maker was being treated in this way at one of our events.” “But what’s clear is that’s his complaint. It’s an allegation. The purpose of an iv is to try and draw some light” that’s why I’m an advocate of ivs

NC but this was not the what started the iv
MTM accepts
NC but if it’s true it’s very serious
MTM shocking

NC if true we’d be pretty clearly in gross misconduct territory
MTM not familiar with GM but I would agree it probably is

NC so an iv is being planned - and it’s fair to all to conduct an iv
MTM absolutely
NC was this complaint iv’d

MTM it would have been had the iv happened. There can’t be a special one. There are a lot of complaints
NC SM was still at work on 7 July - would this be a suspension following an allegation like this
MTM it would be better to bundle them together

[NC goes back to the bundle]
NC there’s no mention of the Caleb complaint being part of the iv
MTM correct

[Caleb was the person who went to Amie Martin, just to be clear]

NC if an employee is still at work after a complaint like that there’s risk she might do it again. She should be suspended
MTM it would be but she was not at point a danger to the organisation - the office was closing down, she

was going on holiday - and it’s only an allegation - we didn’t know it was true
NC you could pick up the phone to TP and ask them for advice, but you didn’t
MTM yes, theoretically, but the decision was to do the iv and “just get on with it”

NC there was no iv of this complaint becase no one ever really believed it was true
MTM I can’t speak for anyone. “I took it as a complaint. I neither believed or disbelieved it. If it was true it’s not really the way I would like someone employed by the Film Festival to act”

NC reads the Caleb email: “I drafted an email to you in November after having an incident with Sara Morrison during the
festival, and again on the 16th of April after Sara publically spoke at an anti-transgender rally in

Belfast city centre that was circulated online. On both occasions I opted not to send the emails,
feeling powerless and quite worried about the possibility of being exiled from the Belfast Film
Festival for speaking about my experience.” - this par is particularly implausible

MTM well you’re saying they had mental health issues and they’re young
NC there’s no way that a woman who identifies as a man would be abused by a TERF is there
MTM I don’t know what a TERF is - I have no knowledge of this whole debate - the letters, the different

factions etc etc - it is not an area that I have any expertise in
NC do you understand the terms sex realist or gender critical
MTM no

NC you’re telling the tribunal that you are giving evidence about a claim against the BFF for discrimination and you haven’t taken the time to acquaint yourself with the issues
MTM yes - an employee has done something which has caused complaints to be made, so I thought an

investigation was the best way to proceed. In the context of that process I might have learned
NC you stand accused of discriminating against someone based on their belief and you don’t know what it is

MTM “you may think me utterly blind or whatever”, but my starting point was that an employee had done something and it had caused problems for the org and we had to investigate it.
NC MD went off to get Equality Commission advice and you thought that was a good idea

MTM always think it’s a good idea
NC what protected characteristic did you think was being engaged?
MTM that SM might think she had the right to express views about trans people and that’s as far as it went

- that she believed she had a protected right to express those views.
NC you’re a senior person, director of a company - experience
MTM yes
NC this has been a debate which has been going for some time

MTM yes I’ve read about it in the papers, but I’m not interested in it
NC would you not want to acquaint yourself with it more after being accused of discriminating against someone

MTM no - I didn’t care about her views one way or another - I wanted to protect the company and the best way to do it was an iv
NC so you say you wanted to do an iv but you hadn’t up til today taken an interest in it -

I’m trying to think of an example - what if you had been accused of antisemitism - would you read up about that
MTM it’s “absurd” to say that antisemitism is any way equivalent- the world knows about antisemitism, the

holocaust happened. we have not being discussing trans rights and gender ID for 00s and 00s and 00s of year. I don’t do social media and largely the info I get is through the newspapers and its one of those areas I just glance through

NC you were until recently principle and CEO of Belfast Metropolitan College
MTM yes
NC And are you aware of BMC’s policies with regard to trans-identified people

MTM no because I left in 2020 and I don’t have a memory of discussing trans rights - discussing gender neutral toilets etc after I retired.

NC you knew Caleb’s allegation was made up. you knew it was offered up as support of your action against SM - that’s why you didn’t investigate

MTM it had to be taken seriously
NC Caleb is employed by Outburst arts isn’t he
MTM I don’t know
NC if he is, it's odd that three complaints come in quick succession from one org

MTM people talk to each other - not that surprising

[new subject]

NC do you not think you were not the best person to sit in on SM’s grievance appeal

MTM no
NC but part of the G appeal was about the decision to investigate and how it was taken - was it okay for you to be presiding over an appeal for a G provoked partly by an iv deicsion to which you were a party

MTM you’re saying that - I was supportive of the idea. with regard to the appeal I was there to listen and make commentary and note process. Mr Owens led it.
NC “was this not a bit too much like being judge in your own cause”

MTM “you might say that I couldn’t agree with you”
NC and you said Emmet Owens led the process, you were v much the senior partner in this pairing weren’t you

MTM I think we were equals in the process - he was very thorough, he led all the questioning on the day and he wrote the final report
NC appeal hearing on 30 Sep - you say you reviewed your notes - which notes did you review

MTM the package of things that were in front of us that day
NC appeal report in Nov and it was issued to C on same day. Didn’t see any drafts?
MTM no - we wanted to do it as quickly as possible

NC it’s quite a chunky report isn’t it
MTM it’s chunky enough, but an hour would take you through it - reviewing it against my notes I was very happy with his diligence
NC so you approved it unchanged

MTM yes
NC I am going to suggest you knew exactly what it was going to say as you were the senior person on this
MTM no

NC you did the appeal, LBD did the initial grievance so the two directors intimately involved in kicking off the investigation were now controlling the process.
MTM we were not intimately involved and we did not have any influence over the process. [stars waxing

lyrical about Mr Owens brilliance]
NC you got TP in to look impartial, but both the people you engaged had a board minder to ensure you got the result you wanted.

MTM I’ve already said what I’ve said and I think Mr Owens will tell you himself when he gives evidence
J he’s not being called
MTM in my experience he’s a v accomplished HR expert and was “very impressed by him and I’m not

easily impressed but I was very impressed by him”

MTM the reality is that a voluntary board did not have the time or expertise to undertake iv, so they were brought in to bring that expertise to us in the same way if we had a building contract, we’d bring in a

builder, if we had a legal issue, we’d bring in a lawyer - we didn’t have the skillset, so we brought in a company to ensure it was done properly and it was done in a very professional way.
NC no further evidence

[SD re-ex]
[SD picks her up on her agreement with NC about SM’s contract.]
SD Where does it say anything about regular employment
MTM now you mention it it doesn’t

SD what was the purpose of the iv
MTM to look at everything in the round - what had happened in the past and subsequently.
[re-ex ends]

And that was it! Fellow BFF co-chair Lisa Barrod D'Sa gives evidence tomorrow, then BFF director and founder Laurence McKeown and BFF employee Moyra Lock - proceedings start at 10am.

If you'd like a report concatenating everything which...

... happened today into a long-ish read with pictures, please consider signing up for the nightly email which will hopefully be sent before midnight tonight!

It's a one-off donation to get everything I send out on sex and gender going forward:

genderblog.net/donate/

🧵ends! Thanks very much for reading. Hope you have a good evening. Same again (hopefully without a massive internet outage) tomorrow!

Nick

@threadreaderapp unroll