PART 7. Day 2. Afternoon. DG (AHRC) closing.
DG: Oral submissions of AHRC complement written submission. Will take them in a classical way issue by issue. LH contends that there is a community of individuals who don’t want the applicant to have an exemption. He includes the AHRC. That is not the position of the AHRC, which has taken care to be impartial in responding to A case and respecting its statutory responsibilities. AHRC has expressed no view on what the outcome of this appeal should be, and has not said what the A can and cannot do in the tribunal

PART 6. Day 2, morning.
M How are we going for time?
LH I need till around 1.15 for closing statements
We are very grateful for accommodating LAG supporters in the room. LH [CLOSING STATEMENT] simple points 1/ LAG means no harm to anyone, 2/LAG wants the same human rights as offered to anyone, 3/ LAG is not seeking resources or anything else, 4/ there are others that do not want that to happen and that includes the AHRC.

1/ LAG vs AHRC Tuesday 3rd September DG closing submission part b [Part 8 overall?] DH: paragraph 2 it’s around 31 32 there is also a para 82 87 M: seeks to clarify if this is in the act or is DG’s argument ... 2/ DH: you will have heard CE of CA about that line of questioning about LBGTQI who are born female and are lesbian in her evidence that sex is binary and immutable so people DFAB will then take the gender ID of TIM or female and that is ...

DAY 2. Part 5.
M: enters the room: discussion about Dr Blake over whether she is required for CE so her evidence stands as is.[discussion about procedure]
LH: So that is not the provenance of the witness M: I look forward to that, you are aware there is a slight contradiction with the RA position. What is the difference between written and oral evidence?

Part 4, Day 1, afternoon. Dr Elena Jeffreys (EJ) appears on videolink.
Introductions and affirmation of witness
DG introduction can we please start with your full name and address
EJ Gives details
DG did you provide an expert report for this proceeding?
EJ Yes DG Date of report Have you read report or anything you want to add to it ?
EJ Lesbian space project I've heard other versions of what haopened since I submitted the report but none of it I can verify.

PART 3, day 1, morning. CA cross examination. M asked CA ‘what are your pronouns’. Peal of laughter from audience.
Clerk (James): CA took oath on affirmation. CA stated that having difficulty hearing, asked if there was amplification. M said he would try to speak up. LH: asked CA for full name and address. CA answered.
LH: two witness statements? One dated 21 july 2024 and second reply dated 28 august 2024. No changes? CA no. LH asked for those statements be her evidence in chief.

DG At para 23 of applicants submission there is nothing particular in SDA that limits the discretion of the AHRC but it is unfettered. DG but it is by the non-discrimination categories DG Browning says there are negative stipulations including not discriminating aginstr people on basis of GI.

PART 2. DAY 1. Morning. LH the reports of suicidality are not evidenced as being created by LAG. This is not about who is most marginalised or abused. That is not what 10a is about. Clients have the right to freely associate. They are lesbian feminists, have grown up with intolerable exclusion and violence, would like to participate. LGBTQ+ community have the right to disagree with that but not the right to prevent LAG’s activity.

DAY 1. Session opened late at 10.15. Legal teams introduced themselves. Steph C appearing for RA. referred to application dated 29 August to be made party to the proceedings, and to correspondence from AHRC expressing its position in relation to RA appli. SC suggested that the tribunal may wish to deal with this application first due to lack of time to process RA appli and objections. LH for LAG referred AHRC objections and was happy to proceed with RA submission being considered without her necessarily being a party

We will be reporting the second day of the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society from 10:30 am. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021. Details of the case, the various intervenors who have an interest in charities and whistleblowing and full coverage of the first day of the hearing are on our Substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/maclennan-vs…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society on whistle blowing protections will recommence at 2pm. This morning's report is here.
archive.ph/j8ttK Abbreviations:
NM/A - Nigel MacLennan, appellant
BPS/R - British Psychological Society, respondent

CM - Chris Milson barrister for appellant
EDS or DS - Emma Darlow Stearn barrister for appellant
OS - Oliver Spratt, solicitor for appellant

We expect to be reporting from 10:30 am on the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Nigel MacLennan vs the British Psychological Society. MacLennan, elected president in 2020, was expelled from the charity in May 2021. A tribunal ruled last year that MacLennan, an officer and trustee, did not have employment standing and thus the tribunal had no jurisdiction re detriments from making protected disclosures. The case has significance for the charity sector and whistleblowing.

Last part -
BN - is 7b is engaged then 7b should be engaged, in the way it was framed - it was said it was engaged.
BN - [addressing whether the in app communication - hard to prove - as whole thing shut down long ago - (goes to ability to prove what went on) BN addressing HR commision
- GI doesnt include thoughts & feelings
- chief justice for SA -when you have multiple purposes - you look at text and context on cases
BN - engage with conduct - 'her gender characteristics are why she is being treated like a man'

Part 4 -(Correction on MM, the name was actually Elodie Nadon, apologies)
Counsel coming in. BN - parties rely on conditions of court (lists paragraphs)
BN - speaks of the content of a treaty obligation what it depends on - reads the interpretative principles -
- given weight - footnote says taken as a whole - the int law,... BN says court only takes on recommendations

Part 3
BN - Have to engage with case as pleaded.
Honor made remarks - there is a division tween direct and indirect discrimination (dis')
Only one way to pursue this case is it has to be direct - indirect in discrimination -
J says planning direct and indirect discrimination.. J reiterates PLAINLY dir and indir discrimination.
J asking if only handling direct - not a way to procede
BN and arguing -BN arguing about a comparative class -
J says should address both,
BN says will do so - but makes the point - that the case has changed - as imprudent

Part 2 -
Ms Mcdonn (MM)
MM - reading sections relating to justifying (SG been charged 200K aggravated damages)
Puts to J that should refer to that section due to the extent of hurt as purpose of SDA - to protect -
- sustained misgendering for 3 years

J - queries... J - read Caplan relates to actual conduct
mm - continued misgendering
J - when is the first act relied upon - the more conduct is removed from initial acts - more it weakens the argument
-MM - [repeats misgendering]
-J bulk of case about tweets and so on
..

DAY 3 - Giggle vs Tickle
DAY 2 - will commence 10.15 am Syd/Australia Time
Abbreviations
J = Justice Robert Bromwich

Giggle's Counsel
BN = Bridie Nolan

COUNSEL FOR TICKLE:
GC = Georgina Costello
BG = Briana Goding

SG = Sall Grover
RT = Roxanne Tickle
CW = Colin Wright AHRC - Australian Human Rights Commission
ZH - Zelie Heger (counsel)
AC - Anna Cody - Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Further abbreviations:
LAAW - Lived as a women
TW - Transgender Women
App - Giggles for Girls App

Last Part -
ZH - [looking at sections of documents to define terms - special measures and equality, how CEDAW relates to this...
- is court acting with reasonableness and the capacity of the measure; how it was executed 4 issues of sections or questions
1. what does women mean - if TW is excluded and is a women - thats relevant
2. does the app fit into the description of discriminating
How does the app fit into the categories regardless of sexual orientation, pregnancy etc no distinctions

PART 4 - Counsels starting to return. ZH (Zelie Hegel) for everyone's info is counsel for AHRC. Correcting name from last thread. Waiting on Giggle's counsel and Judge
Time is 2pm. ZH - giving submission
- SDA go through
- Key legal questions with case
- Sex mean?
- Relates to GI?
-Special Measures?
Does section have an effect?
Sections 9, 10, 11 - whether section 5-30 gives effect.
How it apply s to trading org.s

PART 3 - [Organizing next steps]
(Note using [ and ] to paraphrase conversations)

BN - objecting to ad nauseam questions asked about tweets - that were offensive. Points out RT is blocked - so RT couldn't have seen all those tweets Sall Grover made. GC - the issue is that BN has said that RT can not be offended for tweets that RT didn't see.
J - said these tweets in evidence
GC - objects - that RT needs to be asked if has seen the question
J - said should have raised that

PART 2 -
NEW ABBREVIATIONS:
du? = didn't you?
wua? = wouldn't you agree?
u = you
dk = don't know
Court starting to come back in... GC - Crowdfunding questions - Giggle received via CR yes? SG yes.
GC - CF by website?
SG - No, by supporters.
GC - Who is it?
SG - she's anonymous
J - why want to know?
GC - drawing ties to funding and with Giggle's balance.