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 for taking the time to make this very helpful and interesting comment.
Re the Christian teacher, she can, of course, rely on religion and/or belief . If she is solely relying on religion I don't quite know how the argument based on the Bible would be constructed? I am sure that there is a lot of differentiation based on two sexes in the Bible but no mention of changing sex or having lots of genders!! You see a lot of people in comments or chat who are baffled by Maya et al having to rely on belief when we all say it is a (scientific) fact but that is how you have to frame it, of course, to get within the Equality Act. The gender ideologues are then slightly backed into a corner because they can't say it isn't a belief it's a fact 😊
I think most up to date Christian theologians will now accept evolution but they come into their own when it comes to the 'Big Bang ' - even Dawkins accepts that the laws of physics can't cope with the Big Bang 😊
I have great regard, of course, for Michael Foran but I am still not sure about his conclusion. The main policy Kevin breached was the Gender Reassignment Policy. If my wife is correct in her excellent argument that there is no evidence that Student A comes within the protection of that protected characteristic then why should the policy apply? There is a separate point (though I appreciate that Kevin did not argue this - no doubt because he did not have a lawyer) as to whether the policy itself is unlawful since it paints GC employees into a corner.
As TT says below it would be great if they raised the age of majority to 21 but they are not going to do that unfortunately.
I decided not to enter into Kevin's alleged unfortunate comments about homosexuals!
What did you think about our point that it felt like everything was being driven by Student A!!
You are quite correct about recognition of reality being unprotected. The drafters of the Equality Act probably never thought it would be needed back in those halcyon days - and who can blame them!? That's why it had to be argued as a belief in Maya"s case - and it annoys me no end. Simon Edge covers it in a fictionalised way in "In the Beginning".
I wonder how the trans ideologues would react if an amendment to the EA was proposed to make recognition of reality specifically protected. Would their undoubtedly deranged resistance peak the rest of the country? It's a pleasant thought! 😁 😁
Simon Edge is a very good author. I've really enjoyed all his books - and learned more about the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins than I ever realised I needed to know!
Thanks Jeremy, I did wonder about his contractual commitments being the problem, so thanks for the clarification. So now that we have the govt guidance, can schools still enforce a contract like that, given that the teachers GC beliefs are protected in law?
I agree about the raising the age of majority although it’ll never happen. I also think that the age of transition should be raised to 25 so that the brain has time to mature.
Thanks, TT. The interaction between government guidance and this type of policy and procedure is likely to be fraught. As with so much in this area, it will need a court to decide (I'm getting increasingly worried about the power of courts over government - especially in light of Stonewall interference and "Victoria" McCloud, but that's a different issue). Nonetheless, because of the competencies of the Employment Tribunal, I think the outcome would have been much the same at first instance, and an appeal to the EAT, and possibly further to the High Court, would be in the complainant's future.
I'm of the opinion that if we have to let people medically/surgically "transition" (and I'm far from convinced about that), a minimum age of 25 is indicated, as you say. There is nothing wrong with the law saying "This is the general rule, but exceptions exist for certain things".
I am rather relying on the courts at present (eg with the Scottish hate crime act) to set up a bulwark against an incoming Labour government. So bring on the cases as far as I'm concerned.
Re school cases, this gender reassignment point does need answering!
Plus there is also our point about all the GC children and staff being gaslit!!( is it gaslit or gaslighted??) - what about them!
Probably gaslit? And that’s one of my biggest concerns which rarely gets a mention…..the psychological effect on all the other children. They’re being told to disregard human instinct, their own developing judgement, reality itself and only accept what the lying adults are saying. It’s evil.
Blair was partly, but not wholly, responsible. It's another one of those things where doing what seemed sensible to academics - decoupling the role of Lord Chancellor from the law (if you weren't aware, the role broke the separation of powers by being in the legislature, the judiciary and the executive) - has had repercussions that I don't think anyone anticipated. I hate to say it, though, but Lady Hale was, in my opinion, one of the worst influences. She (with the willing assistance of others on the bench at the time) took the Supreme Court in the direction of an unelected third chamber, directly opposed to government.
I take your point TT but if a government creates a law or a part of a law which is incompatible with our human rights eg articles 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act in the case of the Scottish Act then the courts should be allowed to challenge that.
For me the Equality Act (preferably minus gender reassignment!!) and the HRA are essential tools in our gender critical battle.
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.
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.
Hi Jeremy
Thanks for taking the time to make this very helpful and interesting comment.
Re the Christian teacher, she can, of course, rely on religion and/or belief . If she is solely relying on religion I don't quite know how the argument based on the Bible would be constructed? I am sure that there is a lot of differentiation based on two sexes in the Bible but no mention of changing sex or having lots of genders!! You see a lot of people in comments or chat who are baffled by Maya et al having to rely on belief when we all say it is a (scientific) fact but that is how you have to frame it, of course, to get within the Equality Act. The gender ideologues are then slightly backed into a corner because they can't say it isn't a belief it's a fact 😊
I think most up to date Christian theologians will now accept evolution but they come into their own when it comes to the 'Big Bang ' - even Dawkins accepts that the laws of physics can't cope with the Big Bang 😊
I have great regard, of course, for Michael Foran but I am still not sure about his conclusion. The main policy Kevin breached was the Gender Reassignment Policy. If my wife is correct in her excellent argument that there is no evidence that Student A comes within the protection of that protected characteristic then why should the policy apply? There is a separate point (though I appreciate that Kevin did not argue this - no doubt because he did not have a lawyer) as to whether the policy itself is unlawful since it paints GC employees into a corner.
As TT says below it would be great if they raised the age of majority to 21 but they are not going to do that unfortunately.
I decided not to enter into Kevin's alleged unfortunate comments about homosexuals!
What did you think about our point that it felt like everything was being driven by Student A!!
Dusty
I agree that we should return to 21 as being the age of majority. Regarding the Nottingham teacher and how her case was argued, and indeed how the Forstater case was argued, I have a vague memory that simply believing something because it is a fact, does not qualify as a protected belief. Can't now find the specific reference, but believe this comment 'is not simply an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available' from this article is likely referring to the relevant case which is unhelpfully doesn't name. https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/blogs/competing-protected-characteristics-in-the-workplace-where-to-draw-the-line/#:~:text=The%20leading%20case%20confirms%20that,level%20of%20cogency%2C%20seriousness%2C%20cohesion
Thanks, WW and that is interesting re 'facts'.
I would like to hear from Dennis K and/or Sarah P and/or Naomi Cunningham on Kevin's case. I still hope he talks to FSU
Dusty
You are quite correct about recognition of reality being unprotected. The drafters of the Equality Act probably never thought it would be needed back in those halcyon days - and who can blame them!? That's why it had to be argued as a belief in Maya"s case - and it annoys me no end. Simon Edge covers it in a fictionalised way in "In the Beginning".
I wonder how the trans ideologues would react if an amendment to the EA was proposed to make recognition of reality specifically protected. Would their undoubtedly deranged resistance peak the rest of the country? It's a pleasant thought! 😁 😁
Thanks for that clarification, Jeremy.
I have noted down that Simon Edge book - I loved 'The End of the World is Flat'.
Yes that is a hilarious thought 😂😂😂
Dusty
Simon Edge is a very good author. I've really enjoyed all his books - and learned more about the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins than I ever realised I needed to know!
Thanks Jeremy, I did wonder about his contractual commitments being the problem, so thanks for the clarification. So now that we have the govt guidance, can schools still enforce a contract like that, given that the teachers GC beliefs are protected in law?
I agree about the raising the age of majority although it’ll never happen. I also think that the age of transition should be raised to 25 so that the brain has time to mature.
Hi TT
See my response to Jeremy and I agree re 25.
I'm not even sure that so called 'gender affirming' care should be allowed at all and certainly not on the NHS!!
Dusty
I agree, I just can’t see it being banned and it may drive it underground. Not taxpayer funded though.
Thanks, TT. The interaction between government guidance and this type of policy and procedure is likely to be fraught. As with so much in this area, it will need a court to decide (I'm getting increasingly worried about the power of courts over government - especially in light of Stonewall interference and "Victoria" McCloud, but that's a different issue). Nonetheless, because of the competencies of the Employment Tribunal, I think the outcome would have been much the same at first instance, and an appeal to the EAT, and possibly further to the High Court, would be in the complainant's future.
I'm of the opinion that if we have to let people medically/surgically "transition" (and I'm far from convinced about that), a minimum age of 25 is indicated, as you say. There is nothing wrong with the law saying "This is the general rule, but exceptions exist for certain things".
Thanks Jeremy. Court power over govt is very worrying. Isn’t that another thing we have to thank Blair for?
Hi both
I am rather relying on the courts at present (eg with the Scottish hate crime act) to set up a bulwark against an incoming Labour government. So bring on the cases as far as I'm concerned.
Re school cases, this gender reassignment point does need answering!
Plus there is also our point about all the GC children and staff being gaslit!!( is it gaslit or gaslighted??) - what about them!
Dusty
Probably gaslit? And that’s one of my biggest concerns which rarely gets a mention…..the psychological effect on all the other children. They’re being told to disregard human instinct, their own developing judgement, reality itself and only accept what the lying adults are saying. It’s evil.
Hear, hear - it is evil!
Dusty
Blair was partly, but not wholly, responsible. It's another one of those things where doing what seemed sensible to academics - decoupling the role of Lord Chancellor from the law (if you weren't aware, the role broke the separation of powers by being in the legislature, the judiciary and the executive) - has had repercussions that I don't think anyone anticipated. I hate to say it, though, but Lady Hale was, in my opinion, one of the worst influences. She (with the willing assistance of others on the bench at the time) took the Supreme Court in the direction of an unelected third chamber, directly opposed to government.
I take your point TT but if a government creates a law or a part of a law which is incompatible with our human rights eg articles 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act in the case of the Scottish Act then the courts should be allowed to challenge that.
For me the Equality Act (preferably minus gender reassignment!!) and the HRA are essential tools in our gender critical battle.
Dusty
Yes, I see your point about the law. It just feels as if the courts are over asserting themselves a bit but that’s probably because I’m a brexiteer. 🙂
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.
Yes the Auckland video never ceases to shock!! And great rant by KJK!
Dusty