The Revenge of Mattie Ross Part 2
Update 341 Kevin Lister Special
OK, dear readers, onwards with Part 2 and we are, of course, sticking with True Grit. Mattie Ross ( Hailee Steinfeld) has tracked down her father’s killer, Tom Chaney ( Josh Brolin) and confronts him.
Thanks again to two wonderful readers for several suggested pieces.
Kevin Lister
I have now read the judgment and my wife has provided helpful suggestions as well. After the Endpiece here we provide what we would prefer to describe as a ‘discussion paper’. We hope Kevin confers urgently with the Free Speech Union on the possibility of an appeal. It is important to emphasise that this case has no effect on the line of authority running from Maya Forstater v CGD which makes it clear that having gender critical beliefs is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
Women’s Darts
Respect to the two darts players who have stepped down from the Dutch team ( see below) but, at this rate, there won’t be any women or girls left in female sport!!
Katherine Lawton and Adrian Bishop in The Mail Online ( Outrage as Dutch transgender darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven wins PDC Women's Series event in Wigan - prompting two of her female team mates to resign and tennis ace Martina Navratilova to say women have 'short end of the stick' 25 March) report:
Transgender darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven has sparked outrage after winning the PDC Women's Series - prompting two of her [ Dusty - HIS - come on The Mail!!] female team mates to resign and tennis ace Martina Navratilova to say women have the 'short end of the stick'.
At event two of the PDC Women's Series 2024 in Wigan, the 27-year-old defeated World No 1 Beau Greaves in the quarter-finals before besting Fallon Sherrock in the semis 5-3.
Facing off against Ireland's Katie Sheldon in the final van Leuven triumphed 5-2 to claim £2,000 in prize money.
The victory comes just a week after she [ HE] made history by becoming the first trans woman to win a PDC Tour event on the Challenge Tour in Hildesheim, Germany.
Outraged by the win, 18-time Grand Slam tennis champion Martina Navratilova said: 'No male bodies in women's sports please - not even in darts.'
Posting on social media platform X, Martina added: 'Again - women get the short end of the stick. And it stinks.'
Trans identifying male darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven won event two of the PDC Women's Series in Wigan
Meanwhile, two of Van Leuven's Dutch compatriots have left their national team in protest following Saturday's win.
Anca Zijlstra revealed she was stepping away 'with pain in my heart' - before world number two Aileen de Graaf quit hours later in vowing to no longer represent the Netherlands.
Zijlstra, 50, wrote on Facebook: 'That moment when you're embarrassed to come out for the Dutch team, because a biological man is playing on the women's team, it's time to go.
'I have tried to accept this but I can't approve or validate this.
'I think that in sports there should be an equal and fair playing field. I hope with all my heart and for all women in sports that people come to their senses.'
The full article is here:
Meanwhile UFC fighter, Julian Erosa throws down a challenge to Lia Thomas 😂
https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1771798284673089556
Auckland - One Year On
Just in case you missed one or more of these, Rex Landy, Kellie-Jay Keen and EDI Jester produced videos to mark the first anniversary of the Auckland Let Women Speak event. Understandably Kellie-Jay had to split hers into two because she got very upset watching the awful scenes again!
A further message from New Zealand
Here is a message from Free Speech Union New Zealand from 26 March:
This month, the Free Speech Union team has celebrated legal wins, hate speech laws being canned, invitations to more high schools, a widely successful speaking tour with Graham Linehan, and much more.
All in the name of free speech.
But personally, I wonder if this is the most important email we've sent in a while. It's not about conniving attempts to silence Kiwis' speech on a large scale.
It's the story of one woman, Judith Hobson. And to me, another person's story is worth a lot.
You may well know Judith's story already. Just over a year ago, she gathered in Albert Park with other women to speak about issues that they are concerned about and listen to others.
They were silenced by violence and force.
"Thugs' Veto" is the only right term; bullies drove off those who were expressing opinions (or would have, if they have been given the chance to speak at all) simply because they didn't agree.
Judith, a 71-year-old grandmother of six, was violently assaulted by being brutally punched in the face a number of times. Several weeks ago, we contacted you when the judge who was supposed to give her justice not only released her assailant without a conviction (even though he pleaded guilty), but gave him name suppression, as well.
This is a double injustice, and now Judith isn't able to even name the man who assaulted her.
In a modern liberal democracy, we shouldn’t still be fighting for women to have a voice.
So that's why, yesterday, in the week we remember the anniversary of a dark day for Kiwis' free speech, Jonathan invited Judith to come up to Wellington and join him in meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, Laura Trask from the ACT Party, and other Members of Parliament.
We were grateful that some of our leaders at least want to hear Judith's story, and commit to working to ensure this doesn't happen again.
….
While the media reported the court's ruling, they didn't seem concerned at the wider implications of this decision on our society. It's up to us to carry the torch.
No one else is ensuring Judith has access to our representatives, to share her experience, so we'll get it done.
While meeting with MPs, we discussed the Protection of Freedom of Expression Bill, which we have drafted, which protects access to public venues, even for 'unpopular' opinions. We also discussed our concerns on name suppression, and the fact we must preserve the right for victims to tell their full story. The right for someone who has suffered a crime to speak trumps the right of a perpetrator to hide behind anonymity.
Judith's story reminds us why free speech matters. The ability for a grandmother to give voice to the fears she has over the decisions we're making in our society, whether she's right or not, must be respected.
It also illustrates that if we abandon the belief that we each get to have our say, violence is the alternative.
I'm proud to serve in an organisation that has long-term strategic goals that will ensure Kiwis' speech is secured in decades to come, and who get to teach the next generation the value of free speech.
But most of all, I'm proud to stand by individuals like Judith, who like many others every day, have the courage to stand up and speak out for their beliefs.
Gender Service Challenge Put On Hold
Tom Pilgrim in The Independent ( Legal challenge over NHS gender services practices paused by High Court 26 March) reports:
Anna Castle court case© PA Wire
Two mothers bidding to bring legal action against the NHS over allegedly “unsafe and discriminatory” gender services practice have had their case paused by a High Court judge.
Anna Castle, 36, from London, and another woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, want permission to pursue a challenge against NHS England over how service guidance is applied to 17-year-olds and its impact on those with certain conditions.
Lawyers for the women claim that overlapping care specifications for this age group have a “stark inconsistency” and could have a “disproportionate impact” on young people with ADHD, autism or Asperger’s.
NHS England says their case should be dismissed, arguing that it was “academic” amid ongoing and planned reviews of gender identity services and policy.
At a hearing on Tuesday, a judge paused the claims until May 23 to give time for the potential publication of findings from an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people.
Mr Justice Swift said that the review, led by Dr Hilary Cass, is due to release its final report next month and concluded that its contents could help “clarify” arguments in the legal challenges.
Jeremy Hyam KC, representing the two mothers, said in written arguments for the hearing in London that there was “widely recognised concern about the high proportion of individuals presenting with gender dysphoria” who have other conditions like autism and ADHD.
The full article is here:
Christian teacher’s case has to be re-heard!
I trust that the panel member ( see further below) will be relieved of his duties on employment tribunals!!
Claire Duffin in The Daily Mail ( Tribunal over Christian teacher sacked in trans row collapses after panel member makes 'prejudiced' online comments 26 March) reports:
An employment tribunal hearing claims from a Christian teacher that she was sacked over her opposition to a school's transgender policy has collapsed following comments made online by a panel member.
The messages posted on social media by Jed Purkis were said to demonstrate a 'significant prejudice against Christians'.
Mr Purkis, a former GMB union officer, also expressed anti-Tory views, referring collectively to the party's supporters as a 'tumour'.
The teacher, who cannot be named, was bringing a case against a primary school and Nottinghamshire County Council after she was suspended for refusing to ‘affirm’ an eight-year-old-girl who wanted to be treated as a boy.
She was then sacked for gross misconduct after looking up the child on the school's safeguarding database and sharing the information with her lawyers.
The teacher, who describes herself as a 'Bible-believing Christian', said her religion informed her belief that being male or female was an 'immutable biological fact'.
She was concerned the 'social transition' would result in 'irreversible harm' being caused to the youngster.
The case had been hearing evidence for six days but, late on Monday, all three members of the tribunal in Nottingham, including judge Victoria Butler, recused themselves after the discovery of Mr Purkis's comments. The hearing will be rescheduled for later in the year.
Responding to a comment that only atheists should be in public office, Mr Purkis posted: 'Damn right, you won't catch us killing in the name of our non-god.'
In other posts, he responded to the question, 'What's a good collective noun for Tories?' by saying 'a tumour of Tories' and a 'cess pit of Tories'.
Pavel Stroilov, for the teacher, said Mr Purkis 'appears to agree with a view which expressly advocates for religious discrimination in public life'.
The teacher said it was a delay in receiving justice, 'but I have to have a fair trial'. The Judicial Office declined to comment.
Scottish Conversion Therapy Bill
Gay Men's Network Scottish Conversion Consultation Response
Consultation closes midnight Tuesday, GMN public response now available as a template
DENNIS NOEL KAVANAGH
MAR 29
The Gay Men’s Network has published a public response to the Scottish Conversion Practices Consultation, available now here.
Please try and get a submission in even if you just support the GMN’s response.
Endpiece
Trans Day of Risibility
I understand that Easter Sunday is ( apart from being my birthday 😁) Trans Day of Risibility ( my wife says I may have misheard this but I think she’s wrong about that). I intend to be highly risible all day long.
However, for the benefit of anti-women activists, here is Titania McGrath 😂
https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-of-titania-mcgrath-part
Part 3 to follow soon, Terven!
If you like this update, please share with a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.
Kevin Lister v New College Swindon
Discussion paper
The judgment is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Lister-v-New-College-Swindon.pdf
At the end of our discussion we provide some excerpts from the conclusion of the Tribunal. The points we make below are not, of course, intended to indicate the prospects of success of any appeal and are not meant to be taken as grounds of appeal.
The facts.
Kevin was a Maths A Level teacher. One of his students, Student A was a girl who said she identified as a boy and wanted people to use her new name and male pronouns. Kevin declined to co-operate with this and also said to her that he was worried about her decision and whether she would regret this decision.
The school had a Gender Reassignment Policy:
Clause 4.1 stated: “New College celebrates and values the diversity of its student population and workforce. The College will treat all employees and students with respect, and seek to provide a positive working and learning environment free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation. The aim is to create a positive inclusive ethos with a shared commitment to respecting diversity and difference, and to encouraging good relations between people with any gender identity. New College applies these principles beyond the scope of the Equality Act 2010 to all those with gender variance, some of whom may not permanently identify as male or female” (our emphasis).
On names and pronouns the direction to staff was as follows: “Use the name, title and pronoun by which the person wants to be addressed. If you are not sure, just ask. If you make a mistake, correct yourself and move on.”
Throughout the judgment it seems apparent that the whole case is being led, as it were, by the feelings of Student A. It is accepted that she was upset and, therefore, everything centres around how that ‘upset’ should have been dealt with. In a strange way Student A is in charge of the proceedings!
On the facts, we do not feel that Kevin did anything wrong. He did not abuse or insult or denigrate Student A.
Kevin’s Union withdrew support. Unfortunately, Kevin then decided to proceed on his own. It is very apparent to us that he would have greatly benefitted from legal representation. We hope he now urgently seeks such representation on the question of a possible appeal.
My wife feels very strongly about this next point ( and I concur). The Equality Act 2010 section 7 defines gender reassignment as relating to a person who is “proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” The Tribunal concluded that Student A could rely on this protected characteristic. Firstly, it is not at all clear to us that a child can have the necessary capacity to make such a proposal. Even if they can, there was no direct evidence from Student A on this issue and no direct evidence that she proposed to undergo, was undergoing or had undergone any process as detailed above. There was hearsay evidence about Student A’s dealings with Kevin and with others but none of this could assist with any question of proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign her sex. None of the other evidence in the case assisted with this issue. How could the Tribunal conclude , therefore, that she could rely on this protected characteristic?
The School’s policies were, effectively, very pro transition and , by their own admission ( see above), went beyond what might have been required by the Equality Act. Should these policies really have been taken into account or given the weight they were given?
A handful of students were referred to as supporting Student A. What about all the other students and other teachers who were, effectively, being expected to or even forced to go along with the assumption that Student A was now a boy?
Here are some excerpts which may assist:
4.3.5 to 4.3.7
Were the Claimant’s interactions with Student A a result of the manifestation of his beliefs? Again, in our judgment, they were….
But was it appropriate for the referral [ to the disciplinary process] to have been made? Again, in our judgment, it was…. We agreed with the Respondent that Student A was protected under the Equality Act under the broad definition of gender reassignment…. The interactions had clearly caused upset and potentially constituted harassment under s. 26 [ see postscript below re section 26] and the Respondent’s Bullying and Harassment Policy…. The clear concession that the Claimant had treated the student differently, by failing to use their chosen name and gesticulating, had also been potentially discriminatory.
By referring the Claimant to the LADO [Local Authority Designated Officer] , the Respondent was not directly seeking to restrict the manifestation of his beliefs. That might have been a subsequent consequence. But even if it was, it was justified in doing so … the Respondent was justified in seeking to protect the welfare of the student and to prevent further harm and/or the risk of further harm. The manifestation of the Claimant’s beliefs had been extensive, blunt and clear … and there was a significant power imbalance between him and the student. Comments had been made to the student and/or in front of their peers which may have had the effect or intention of making the student feel guilty (the references to the NHS). Others had also been affected; Student B and Student A’s mother.
4.3.12
The Claimant was clear that he was advancing his case on the basis that he had been dismissed because he had manifested views which were protected philosophical beliefs.
That issue was well understood by Ms Kitching who said in evidence that she understood that his beliefs were strongly held and protected, but that Student A’s views and requests ought to have been respected also. What she did not understand was why, when the Claimant had been confronted by that conflict, he had not sought assistance for so long; from the date of his feedback meeting with Ms Murphy in September 2021 until February 2022. Instead, he had simply not adhered to the student’s request. Had he sought assistance, she felt that a way though [ sic] the problem could have been found; a proportionate and reasonable manner of respecting both parties’ views ought to have been capable of having been brokered.
Accordingly, there were really two reasons why the Claimant had been dismissed, inextricably linked within Miss Plested’s dismissal letter …; his failure to adhere to the Respondent’s policies (she specifically identified the Code of Conduct and the Gender Reassignment Policy) and his interactions with Student A. The former, in isolation, would have exposed any member of staff to sanction irrespective of their views and/or irrespective of whether it was alleged that the conduct was said to have been an objectionable manifestation of them. The latter, of course, fell into the same category as the matters discussed under paragraphs 4.3.5 to 4.3.7 above; the Respondent was justified in seeking to limit and/or restrict the manner in which the Claimant had manifested his views.
Concerning the allegation of indirect discrimination:
6.47 … The Tribunal did not accept that clause 4.1[see above] proactively encouraged, persuaded, cajoled or advocated gender reassignment. It contained a statement that it ‘celebrated’ diversity and sought to outlaw discrimination, harassment or victimisation. The fact that it sought to go beyond the Equality Act was not, by and of itself, a statement advocating gender reassignment. The clause was of a general aspirational nature….
6.48… Did that exceed the protection of the Equality Act? Whilst it was not central to our determinations in the case, we did not think that it did. If a protected member of staff or student had not been named in accordance with their wishes under the Policy, we could well imagine that they might argue that such a failure could have violated their dignity and/or created a hostile environment within the meaning of s. 26. The Policy did not seek to break new ground or extend legal rights.
Postscript:
Equality Act 2010 section 26:
Section 26(1) of the Equality Act defines harassment as unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic where the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating the person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.
Any comments on this gratefully received.
Hi, Dusty et al - Happy Whatever Day it is (Easter Holidays, so all the days are blurring into one with the twins at home!) Somehow, I find myself with time and energy to fully read and comment!
First, whilst I'm delighted that justice has hopefully been done, and seen to be done, in the Nottingham teacher case, I find something very odd about the teacher using her belief in the word of the Bible to justify why she thinks sex is a scientific fact. I've never been able to reconcile recognition of science with religious belief, even though I've read a fair amount by scientists (some very prominent ones) who have written about it. For me, it's Richard Dawkins all the way down!
Secondly, "Trans Day of Risibility" is brilliant! 😁 😁
Lastly, on the topic of Kevin Lister. I am aware that I'm somewhat inclined to dislike him because of his reported comments on homosexuality, and I am checking everything I write to make sure I'm being fair. Overall, though, whilst I agree with everything he did in relation to this confused young woman, and that a lot of evidence was hearsay from other young people which should have not been given the credence it was, I agree with Michael Foran's typically well-crafted conclusion on Twitter/X yesterday - an appeal is unwinnable. Ultimately, the Employment Tribunal cannot look at whether the policies were reasonable, just whether they were lawful. This wasn't a case about the Equality Act or the meaning of trans, or the ridiculous situation legal England puts 16 and 17 year olds in (I'll come back to that in a moment), it was a straightforward case about contractual terms. Lister simply failed to follow the policies and procedures set out by his employer. I know many of us have a nostalgic yearning for the days when teachers had an individual relationship with students, and could safely give more global advice than just focusing on the subject-matter, but it isn't like that any more. Education, like everything else, is bureaucratised to the point of total inefficiency. That's a much broader issue than an ET can deal with, though. Ultimately, no matter how much Lister had the best interests of the student at heart, he didn't follow the rules - and hence it is doubtful that any barrister could have changed the outcome.
On the issue of 16 and 17 year olds, it is beyond common sense that England maintains this bizarre uncertainty regarding legal status. It should have been consigned to the file of "Wierd Stuff Countries Did" years ago. Scotland did it over 20 years ago with a simple Act saying that at 16, a person becomes legally adult for virtually all purposes. Now, I think 16 is too young - and, as I get older, I think 21 should be reinstated as the age of majority! - but legal certainty is needed, regardless of what age is set.
Sorry for the long waffle - no doubt it could be edited to half its length! - but it's good to get that off my chest.
Thanks Dusty. I agree with the points you make in the Kevin Lister case. In particular, the point about the intention to transition should not really apply as it’s illegal for children under 18 to transition. The girl may have said that she intends to transition in the future but that is stretching the law to its limits surely? If social transition is being counted as ‘transitioning ‘ then it too, should be banned for under 18 year olds….which would solve all these problems. He really should have had legal advice.
The KJK ‘rant’ had me in tears. I’m not doing much, the nearest I’ve come to arrest is being warned by security in my local shopping centre. But she made me feel as though I’m contributing something. And that NZ video is so shocking.