Maya Forstater Appeal case

[co-op]

I know a lot of people aren't in the least bit interested in raking over the whole horrendous trans debate - I'm not either - but this is a very good article by Maya Forstater's lawyer showing why today's victory for MF in the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a landmark. It's about the wider principles at play, not about the Gender Wars.

The Forstater Judgment: What Next?

This is a landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are protected characteristic.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Colin Hunt]

There's blowing your own trumpet, and then there's heralding your victory in an employment tribunal as opening a new golden era of political debate.

Any victory for people who deliberately misgender people at work is a pretty shit day.

 

[Knotted]

Honestly, that's not a good article. They don't understand what "protected characteristics" means so I doubt they have a good handle on the broader legal implications of this ruling.

 

[hitmouse]

I know a lot of people aren't in the least bit interested in raking over the whole horrendous trans debate - I'm not either - but this is a very good article by Maya Forstater's lawyer showing why today's victory for MF in the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a landmark. It's about the wider principles at play, not about the Gender Wars.

The Forstater Judgment: What Next?

This is a landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are protected characteristic.

www.linkedin.com

Top tip: did you know that if you're not in the least bit interested in raking over the whole horrendous trans debate, then you can simply not repeatedly start threads dealing with trans issues?

 

[co-op]

Honestly, that's not a good article. They don't understand what "protected characteristics" means so I doubt they have a good handle on the broader legal implications of this ruling.

Well there's you saying that ^^, and then there's the person who wrote the article Peter Daly - Doyle Clayton - I think he might know more than you, I could be wrong.

 

[co-op]

Top tip: did you know that if you're not in the least bit interested in raking over the whole horrendous trans debate, then you can simply not repeatedly start threads dealing with trans issues?

Top tip, it was to allow anyone to ignore the thread.

Also I'm not debating the trans issue but posting an article about the ramifications of a court result of today.

 

[Dystopiary]

I guessed correctly who'd started this thread before looking. Definitely an agenda.

 

[hitmouse]

Top tip, it was to allow anyone to ignore the thread.

Also I'm not debating the trans issue but posting an article about the ramifications of a court result of today.

Lots of court results happen all the time, many of which probably have various ramifications. I reckon there's lots of interesting stuff to be said about the ramifications of the Fiona Mercer-AFG tribunal, for instance. You happened to choose this particular one to start a thread about. I wonder why that is?

 

[Spymaster]

Regardless of where you stand on the trans debate, this seems like a sensible legal decision.

The original (overturned) ruling is here, if anyone's interested:

 

[Dystopiary]

"We are not defined by class, religion and political party affiliation as once we were: these political causes have to some extent filled the gap."

Expert analysis there with a little help from an Observer article.

 

[co-op]

I guessed correctly who'd started this thread before looking. Definitely an agenda.

Oh yes I've hidden my views and I'm trying to smuggle them in, just ask anyone.

 

[Colin Hunt]

Regardless of where you stand on the trans debate, this seems like a sensible legal decision.

It definitely fits with a lot of jurisprudence in this area, which protects a wide range of beliefs.

The difference between gender critical views and, say, veganism is that putting your gender critical viewpoint across at work is quite often going to look a lot like bullying or harrassment anyway, so I'm pretty unsure about how much this will change the law.

 

[Dystopiary]

 

[Knotted]

Well there's you saying that ^^, and then there's the person who wrote the article Peter Daly - Doyle Clayton - I think he might know more than you, I could be wrong.

I don't see this ruling as protecting expression of "gender critical" views in particular. I think the broader implications are that it sets a precedent to protect eg. expression of "race realist" views regardless if offense is deliberately caused. I'll grant that it is an interesting limits of free speech at work case.

Edit: Or maybe as smokedout says, not so interesting.

 

[smokedout]

It definitely fits with a lot of jurisprudence in this area, which protects a wide range of beliefs.

The difference between gender critical views and, say, veganism is that putting your gender critical viewpoint across at work is quite often going to look a lot like bullying or harrassment anyway, so I'm pretty unsure about how much this will change the law.

It's not really that big a deal although it's being turned into one by both sides. Lots of things have been ruled to be protected beliefs including that gay and lesbians are deviants, and when this case started no-one really thought it was very likely her tribunal would fail on those grounds. It now goes back to tribunal, she hasn't won that yet and this decision doesn't have much bearing on the likely outcome. Most beliefs are protcted except those which explicitly encourage violence, but that doesn't mean that any old gobshite can spout off about trans people or gays or immigrants at work and claim to be protected under the equality act. Holding the belief is different from how the belief is manifested. As today's judgement explains:

a.This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the meritsof either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.

b.This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or notconduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be fora tribunal to determinein a given case.

c.This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do.Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct: see footnote 1

d.This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would be liable(subject to any defence unders.109(4), EqA)for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans personscommitted in the course of employment.

tl:dr Nothing has really changed. This judgement merely confirms the staus quo. You have the right to believe pretty much whatever you want but if you bang on and on about it at work to the point of harassing or discriminating against fellow workers you may face consequences.

 

[Geri]

There's blowing your own trumpet, and then there's heralding your victory in an employment tribunal as opening a new golden era of political debate.

Any victory for people who deliberately misgender people at work is a pretty shit day.

Who has done that?

 

[Colin Hunt]

Who has done that?

Who has done what?

For 'heralding your victory in an employment tribunal as opening a new golden era of political debate', here's a quote from the lawyer's article.

"This judgment, as fundamentally significant as it is for questions of sex and gender, is therefore perhaps of broader significance still. By potentially re-asserting the principles of protected speech and belief, by reminding us of the necessity for respect for those with whom we disagree, by removing the crutch of moral naivety and by denying the legitimacy of catastrophisations - perhaps this is a blueprint for applying 20th century human rights principles to 21st century political debate."

And the judgment sketches out a potential defense to people who have been dismissed for deliberately misgendering someone at work (although how well it'll work in practice we don't know).

 

[bimble]

Most beliefs are protected

What does that mean, protected from what?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What does that mean, protected from what?

It means that you can't, for instance, be sacked for holding said belief, or 'philosophical belief' in the jargon. From the 2010 equality act:

1. the belief must be genuinely held;
2. it must be a belief (and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available);
3. it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
4. it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and
5. it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Very generally, I think this is a wrong-headed way to approach freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, but that's a far wider point. But as others have said, it doesn't protect you from being sacked for being a dick.

 

[Clair De Lune]

I'm fine with it. They should become taxi drivers though like the fascists next door.

 

[bimble]

I could legitimately be sacked for believing all sort of nonsense couldn't I ? I think so.
In the abstract, this issue is quite interesting imo, in a wanky sort of way - not the substance but the form:
The idea is that some beliefs are 'philosophical' and so they're legit whilst some other beliefs aren't.
And for whatever reason this woman's views of the world were judged not so and then that was reversed.
Tbh I cant be arsed to read about why, why that judgement was made differently this time, but the whole structure that's supposed to define what is and isn't legit to think is very odd, curious.

 

[bimble]

It means that you can't, for instance, be sacked for holding said belief, or 'philosophical belief' in the jargon. From the 2010 equality act:



Very generally, I think this is a wrong-headed way to approach freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, but that's a far wider point. But as others have said, it doesn't protect you from being sacked for being a dick.

number 2 is very peculiar isnt it. Looks designed for religious people.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

number 2 is very peculiar isnt it. Looks designed for religious people.

Yes, it is. It's anti-science, for starters. If you're talking about a scientific 'belief', these should always be provisional - all of them - based on the present state of information available. I guess you'd then need to argue that your 'belief' is that a certain scientific method is the way you approach your opinions, which becomes dangerously circular.

 

[bimble]

the gay cake refusal people did they get awarded the Philosophical badge of legitness or not i don't know. It must rub up against 'freedom of religion' all the time this awkward bit of law.

 

[hitmouse]

I could legitimately be sacked for believing all sort of nonsense couldn't I ? I think so.
In the abstract, this issue is quite interesting imo, in a wanky sort of way - not the substance but the form:
The idea is that some beliefs are 'philosophical' and so they're legit whilst some other beliefs aren't.
And for whatever reason this woman's views of the world were judged not so and then that was reversed.
Tbh I cant be arsed to read about why, why that judgement was made differently this time, but the whole structure that's supposed to define what is and isn't legit to think is very odd, curious.

I mean, I think the important point is not just what beliefs you hold in the abstract, but how those beliefs manifest in how you deal with people. So, for instance, you could have a strongly held belief that drinking alcohol is a sin, and it wouldn't be legitimate to sack you for that, but if you held those beliefs so strongly that you refused to serve alcohol to people, I think a pub could probably sack you quite easily. But that'd be on the basis of your conduct, not the actual belief.

 

[Knotted]

It means that you can't, for instance, be sacked for holding said belief, or 'philosophical belief' in the jargon. From the 2010 equality act:



Very generally, I think this is a wrong-headed way to approach freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, but that's a far wider point. But as others have said, it doesn't protect you from being sacked for being a dick.

I agree with that. Also I don't think you should have your employment threatened because of being a dick on twitter. Did Forstater doing anything IRL?

 

[bimble]

I mean, I think the important point is not just what beliefs you hold in the abstract, but how those beliefs manifest in how you deal with people. So, for instance, you could have a strongly held belief that drinking alcohol is a sin, and it wouldn't be legitimate to sack you for that, but if you held those beliefs so strongly that you refused to serve alcohol to people, I think a pub could probably sack you quite easily. But that'd be on the basis of your conduct, not the actual belief.

Maybe, yeah, but a fervent anti-alcohol person would probably not be behind the bar ?
The whole things kind of interesting imo, like I remember when this sort of thing was a big news story, Outrage As Britisher Man Denied booze in his own country etc How stories about Muslim cashiers refusing to sell alcohol go viral

 

[smokedout]

I agree with that. Also I don't think you should have your employment threatened because of being a dick on twitter. Did Forstater doing anything IRL?

Not really, or at least not that was brought up in court, although she did misgender someone and slag off a named individual (Pip Bunce). I kind of agree though but I don't think it's a very realistic prospect of ever coming to pass. She had a position with a think tank that actively promotes trans inclusion, other employees complained about her tweets and her account was intitially linked to her work. I think it's pretty unavoidable really if you have employers who are voluntary sector or maybe political in some way that those known to represent them will be expected not to challenge those objectives. Imagine if some bloke who worked for a domestic violence charity went full on MRA and started ranting on social media that most victims were making it up or something, or if a manager at Stonewall suddenly decided being gay was a sin and used their social media to promote that.

Of course for most normal people, who don't have middle class jobs and social media accounts directly linked to our work, then it's not that likely to come up - but I doubt a McDonalds admin workers who started going on in the office about meat being murder or called for the overthrow of capitalism would last that long either. I remember one of my first bosses saying if he found out anyone had voted Labour in an election then he'd sack them beacuse Labour wanted to destroy small businesses. This isn;t really a new thing, it's just a thing that's now affecting middle class people who want all the cred and followers having a social media account linked to their role in an international think tank gives them but still thinks they should be able to use that platform to spout whatever they want or it's literally just like 1984.

 

[Guineveretoo]

This case has pissed me off today - I actually toyed with the idea of putting it in the thread about what has pissed you off today - because of all the misreporting and sensationalising about it and the fact that people are deliberately ignoring or disregarding the sections of the judgement which emphasise that this does not condone her behaviour or beliefs.

Maya Forstater herself claims that it has "vindicated" her behaviour, and it most certainly has not. As detailed above.

The BBC reported it particularly poorly and I was surprised at how little effort they had made to understand what had happened. It was reported as a "high court decision", for example.

I don't think it is insignificant because it has opened the can of worms on twitter today, allowing a load of people to claim it gives them the right to say and do what they like about trans people and their rights, and it doesn't. But, all it means for Maya Forstater is that she gets to go back to the Employment Tribunal who will then have to determine if she was an employee, before they decide anything else.

If, and only if, they decide she was an employee, they will then determine whether she was fairly dismissed when it was decided not to renew her contract after there were lots of complaints about tweets that she was making.

At one point, she told the court that she would "respect" trans people, but defended her right to misgender them. Which is why the Employment Judge made the comments about how this judgement does NOT give her that right.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Also I don't think you should have your employment threatened because of being a dick on twitter.

Lots of companies now include social media behaviour in their contracts and policies, regardless of whether you're doing something connected to politics/charity/whatever. Usually it's something about "representing the company".