Gransnet forums

News & politics

Alison Bailey wins her Trans tribunal case.

(19 Posts)
DiamondLily Thu 28-Jul-22 07:04:58

"Founded almost 50 years ago, Garden Court Chambers has built a top-notch reputation for fighting Left-wing causes.

Be it securing last-minute injunctions to stop asylum seekers being deported to Rwanda or fighting for the rights of gypsies and travellers, its line-up of 200 well-paid barristers are there to help. Or as its motto reads: 'Do right, fear no one.'

Brave words – but ones that some think should carry the addendum: 'Except the trans lobby.'

In recent months, the London-based chambers has found itself in the deeply uncomfortable position of having its progressive credentials challenged in a landmark employment tribunal.

To make matters worse, the person doing the challenging, Allison Bailey, is not only one of its own barristers – but ticks many of the same boxes as its roster of clients.

The daughter of Windrush-generation Jamaican parents and a survivor of child sexual abuse, Bailey is a lesbian gay rights champion.

With that background, it might be assumed the insight she has into fighting prejudice and inequality would have been regarded as an invaluable asset by her colleagues.

Instead, the 52-year-old claims that because of her belief that biological sex is immutable and those who are born male cannot transition to become women, she has been branded a transphobe and discriminated against, losing out on lucrative work.

Her chambers, she told the hearing, had fallen under the thrall of Stonewall, the UK's leading LGBT charity, parroting its position that everyone should be accepted as the 'gender' they say they are, without exception.

That view was promoted, she alleged, through the campaign group's controversial Diversity Champions scheme. The workplace programme has faced wide-ranging criticism, with organisations including the BBC and the Cabinet Office quitting it after questions were raised about whether they could be impartial on issues the charity campaigns on.

'The inducement offered with its scheme is reputational protection or reputational harm,' the tribunal was told by Bailey, who counts author JK Rowling among her supporters and who successfully crowd-funded more than £500,000 to fund her case. 'It is like a criminal protection racket.'

Yesterday, after deliberating over four weeks of evidence, the tribunal's panel delivered its ruling, finding that Bailey had indeed been discriminated against by Garden Court Chambers because of her beliefs."

There can be no doubt that the evidence heard has damaged the reputation of both Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers, which will be ordered to pay Bailey compensation. But it also shone a light on the wider debate about transgender rights – and some of the views held by influential figures shaping it.

Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall's head of trans inclusion and the person who instigated the complaint about Bailey, told the tribunal that humans are not naturally male or female.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11055651/Barrister-wins-historic-battle-victimised-standing-trans-extremist-group.html

volver Thu 28-Jul-22 09:22:52

www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/27/allison-bailey-tribunal-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-judgement/

LGB Alliance founder Allison Bailey loses legal fight against Stonewall

However, the tribunal ruled against Bailey in most respects.

It found that Bailey had not lost work and her income was not affected, “let alone significantly influenced”, because of her views or her opposition to Garden Court Chambers’ membership of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme.

Depends who you ask, I guess.

DiamondLily Thu 28-Jul-22 09:53:34

Well, she's been awarded compensation. Looks as though they upheld her claim that biological sex cannot change, but disputed she had lost work because of it.

"A barrister has been awarded £22,000 after winning part of a tribunal claim that she was discriminated against because of her gender-critical views.

Allison Bailey, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers (GCC) in London, said her views wrongly resulted in her being labelled as transphobic, in 2019.

GCC was found to have discriminated against her by tweeting it would investigate her tweets that rejected the idea biological sex can change.

She lost her case against Stonewall.

The LGBT charity worked with GCC, which had joined its "diversity champions" scheme. Ms Bailey accused Stonewall of "trans-extremism".

The barrister of 30 years told the hearing at the Central London Employment Tribunal that, as a result of her treatment, her income had been left "substantially reduced" in comparison to previous years.

She said she had been given a reduced quality of work, in order to "break" her spirit.

The tribunal upheld her complaint against GCC over her view that no-one can change their biological sex, with her take on this subject being found to be protected in law."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62294030

Doodledog Thu 28-Jul-22 09:54:14

It's always better to go to the source of the news rather than the mediated versions (particularly when mediated by the Mail or Pink News, neither of which is noted for objectivity grin), so here is the actual judgment.

FWIW my initial take on it (as a non-lawyer) is that Stonewall has lost credibility, rather than the case itself, as it has not been held responsible for the advice it gave. This means that there is no incentive for anyone to pay them for advice, any more than there would be an incentive for someone to pay a surveyor to look at a house before buying it unless they knew that the surveyor would have to cough up if they had missed something that cost the buyer a lot of money down the line. It will cost Stonewall dear in the long run (or even in the short run) as the chances are that many people will pull out of paying to be in their Diversity Champions scheme knowing that they are getting no legal protection and that the 'guidance' given by Stonewall cannot be relied upon to be sound legal advice.

It seems to me a bit like those cases where someone is awarded 50p in damages despite winning a defamation case, but people can read the judgement and come to their own conclusions.

grannydarkhair Thu 28-Jul-22 09:59:39

I prefer to believe The Times and others.

twitter.com/pauljl62/status/1552570578145624064?s=21&t=XAcL-bTV53VFeLkEdA7oeA

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 10:24:05

You cant use Pink News as a credible source after the lesbian recruitment debacle grin

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 10:27:48

I always was worried about the chance of winning against Stonewall, but she has won against her employers which will give those with gender critical view further protection along with the forstater ruling.

FannyCornforth Thu 28-Jul-22 10:28:18

Galaxy

You cant use Pink News as a credible source after the lesbian recruitment debacle grin

What was that Galaxy?
Dare I ask?
I’ll have a guess; did it involve men applying?

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 10:34:39

Julie bindel sued pink news and they came to a settlement after they wrote an article implying she had been 'arranging a wife' for someone in the gender critical movement. It was very funny (although not for Julie Bindel as there were serious allegations made) and sort of undermined their credibility a tad.

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 10:35:59

She went through a phase of tweeting about the fact she sued them every day on Twitter.

GagaJo Thu 28-Jul-22 10:55:01

Galaxy

You cant use Pink News as a credible source after the lesbian recruitment debacle grin

But it's OK to use the Daily Mail??????? ?????

Namsnanny Thu 28-Jul-22 11:00:18

Isnt Julie Bindel in the process of suing a council at the moment?

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 11:04:12

The guardian or the times are running the story too. I just like remembering Pink News and its weirdness around arranging lesbians wives for those who were GC. I used to deliver Pink News back in the day, it's a funny world.
The judgement is a mixed bag I think, although I think it probably means GC views will now not be discriminated against within workplaces, the risk is surely too high for employers.

Galaxy Thu 28-Jul-22 11:06:15

Yes its Nottingham Council Namsnanny. No idea where that has got to yet.

MaizieD Thu 28-Jul-22 11:10:25

The judgement is a mixed bag I think, although I think it probably means GC views will now not be discriminated against within workplaces, the risk is surely too high for employers.

I think that is the thing that most people will focus on. The argument over whether or not Stonewall has 'won' or 'lost' is too arcane for much of the public.

Rosie51 Thu 28-Jul-22 11:24:44

From the Pink news article that volver linked to
co-founder of the anti-trans lobby group LGB Alliance they'll pedal that lie unless they're legally stopped. Are Stonewall an anti-heterosexual group because they lobby for anyone who isn't? Is the Cats Protection League anti dogs, horses and rabbits? LGB Alliance was formed to protect the rights and interests of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who feel that Stonewall now not only neglects them but lobbies against their interests in favour of their adopted wider remit. LGB are sexual orientations, transgender is expressing gender orientation or in some cases species orientation hence the 'furries', they are completely different things.

Doodledog gave a link to the actual judgement, which surely is the most reliable source to read?

FarNorth Thu 28-Jul-22 13:18:19

Thanks for starting this thread DiamondLily and for the link to the judgement Doodledog.

DiamondLily Thu 28-Jul-22 14:34:55

The NHS are to shut the Tavistock Clinic:

"The NHS's controversial gender clinic for children will shut its doors after a damning report found it was unsafe while calling for more research into so-called 'puberty blocking' treatments for teens.

An ongoing review of Tavistock's Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) clinic accused doctors of rushing children into life-altering treatment.

It also found the service was overwhelmed with patients, with more than 5,000 referrals being made in the last year, compared to just a few hundred 10 years ago.

The scathing review by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass found the service was 'not a safe or viable long-term option' and that other mental health issues were 'overshadowed' by gender concerns when children were referred to the clinic.

She also raised concerns that placing young people on puberty blockers could interfere with their brain development, as she called for those taking the medication to be tracked and studied as part of wider research.

It comes after former patient Keira Bell took the clinic to the High Court, accusing doctors of rushing her into taking puberty blockers at the age of 16. "?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11057813/Controversial-Tavistock-gender-clinic-children-shut-damning-report.html

FarNorth Thu 28-Jul-22 14:38:55

She also raised concerns that placing young people on puberty blockers could interfere with their brain development, as she called for those taking the medication to be tracked and studied as part of wider research.

It's absolutely stunning that those raising concerns about this, until now, have been ridiculed and ignored.