This is a long one, dear readers!
Back to the Brando season and back to ‘the hero’, here Mexican revolutionary, Emiliano Zapata who fights for the peasants, the campesinos, for the return of their lands against two corrupt presidents and then a military regime. The great thing about Zapata ( or perhaps the version of Zapata in this film) is that, though he is offered bribes, he himself remains uncorrupted. Spoiler alert: the clip below is virtually the final scene.
Scottish Prison Rules
Two FFS reports from Scotland in this update! Here is the first one.
Georgina Cutler on GB News ( New trans prison rules in Scotland 'even WORSE than before' rage campaigners 09 January) reports:
Campaigners have branded new Scottish transgender prison rules "sexist" as they warn they could lead to vulnerable women being traumatised.
In the wake of the Isla Bryson scandal, groups claim the new guidelines are worse than the policy they replaced.
Plans set to be enforced by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) will mean trans criminals with a history of violence against women can be housed in female jails if there is "compelling" evidence they do not pose "an unacceptable risk of harm."
Those deemed too dangerous to be placed in female jails permanently could still be offered the opportunity to mix with female inmates temporarily to "support their gender identity."
Humza Yousaf and Isla Bryson© GB News
Campaign groups and academics claim the rules are based on sexism and misogyny as they disregard the rights and safety of women.
The new regulations contrast those in England where trans women with male genitalia cannot be held in women’s prisons.
"The SPS has succeeded in producing guidelines for managing transgender prisoners which are more opaque than the original," Lisa Mackenzie, of policy analysis group Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) told The Telegraph.
"The review process has the thinnest veneer of meaningful consultation and yet concerns about the impact on female prisoners and female prison officers are acknowledged, only to be swiftly dismissed as being less important than the demands of trans identified male prisoners.
"The SPS believes there is an acceptable level of harm that should be borne by female prisoners. This is nothing less than institutionalised misogyny."
The whole article is here:
Victory for Rachel Meade!
Congratulations to Rachel. This is a very significant case since she has succeeded not only against the local authority but also against the regulator. Damages are yet to be decided. I think I am saved from attempting a separate analysis since the case summary from her solicitors is so comprehensive. I have long said that legal cases like this provide us with some form of bulwark against any incoming Labour Government ( and see further below re Labour). Here is the excellent summary from Cole Khan solicitors and I note that Rachel’s barrister was Naomi Cunningham ( chair of Sex Matters) 😎
Rachel Meade ‘Gender Critical’ Social Worker Wins Harassment Claim ( 09 January).
JUDGMENT OF 8TH JANUARY 2024
WIN IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL – MS R MEADE V WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL AND SOCIAL WORK ENGLAND
Ms R Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England (Case No: 2201792/2022 & 2211483/2022)
Social worker Rachel Meade has won a claim against her employer, Westminster City Council, (WCC) and professional regulatory body, Social Work England (SWE), in an employment tribunal for discrimination on the basis of her protected beliefs under the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal Panel Judge Nicolle sitting with Non-Legal Members Ms Sandler and Ms Breslin found that both Ms Meade’s regulator and her employer had subjected her to harassment related to her gender-critical belief when SWE threatened her with fitness to practise proceedings and sanctioned her for misconduct, and then WCC suspended her on charges of gross misconduct before issuing a final written warning. By the time the case was heard, both the regulator’s sanction and the employer’s warning had been withdrawn, but Ms Meade had been suspended from work for a year and bullied into silence on the subject of proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, the importance of safe single-sex spaces for women and related subjects.
This is a landmark decision. It is the first time a Regulator and an Employer have together been found to have been liable for discrimination relating to gender critical beliefs.
The claim has been listed for a two-day remedy hearing in February to determine the amount of compensation Ms Meade should be awarded, and whether the tribunal should make recommendations as to the future conduct of Social Work England and Westminster City Council.
Summary of claim
The claim relates to the debate surrounding potential reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, and the developing law as to the manifestation of protected beliefs, and in particular, ‘gender critical’ beliefs.
Rachel Meade a social worker of over 20 years standing shared gender critical posts on social media. Her regulator, SWE, received a complaint about her posts upon which she was subjected to a lengthy Fitness to Practise (“FtP”) investigation.
The FtP process culminated in a formal sanction, later withdrawn. When her employer learned of the sanction, Ms Meade was suspended on charges of gross misconduct. After a year’s suspension, a final written warning and an appeal, WCC finally reversed the finding of gross misconduct and withdrew the sanction.
Findings of the Employment Tribunal
In a 51-page Judgment the Panel held:
“All of the Claimant’s Facebook posts and other communications fell within her protected rights for freedom of thought and freedom to manifest her beliefs as protected under Articles 9 and 10.”
“We do not consider that any of her manifestations of her beliefs were of a nature that they aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of others contrary to Article 17.”
“In particular we do not consider that the Respondents struck a fair balance between the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression and the interests of those who they perceived may be offended by her Facebook posts”.
“The continuation of the disciplinary process from 6 November 2021 onwards constituted harassment of the Claimant, given that the overarching view taken by the First Respondent and its representatives, was that the Claimant, in the expression of her gender critical beliefs, had behaved in a manner which warranted a suspension and a disciplinary process.”
“Context is important and merely accepting at face value a complainant’s subjective perception of offence is not the appropriate test, but rather that an objective evaluation should be undertaken.”
“[Social Work England’s] failure to check if Mr Woolton’s complaint could be malicious, and not checking his previous social media history, is indicative of a lack of rigour in the investigation, and an apparent willingness to accept a complaint from one side of the gender self-identification/gender critical debate without appropriate objective balance of the potential validity of different views in what is a highly polarised debate.”
The Tribunal found that the Claimant, Ms Meade, succeeds in the majority of her complaints of harassment:
As against her employer, WCC:
1. Being subjected to a disciplinary process;
2. The refusal to postpone the disciplinary process when informed that the Claimant was seeking a review of the SWE’s decision;
3. The on-going refusal to lift the Claimant’s suspension in August and September 2021, in January 2022 and in February 2022 or at any time thereafter and despite requests from the Claimant to do so;
4. An investigation report which was hostile in tone and content, served on the Claimant on 6 December 2021;
5. Being instructed to attend a disciplinary hearing on 6 January 2021;
6. the refusal, until the day before the scheduled hearing, to postpone the disciplinary hearing despite being informed in early December 2021 that SWE had referred the matter back to its Case Examiners;
7. A letter dated 20 January 2022 in which it refused to lift the Claimant’s suspension;
8. An addendum dated 3 February 2022 to [the] investigation report which maintained that four of the Claimant’s Facebook posts were “transphobic”;
9. A letter of 25 February 2022 confirming the continuation of the Claimant’s suspension;
10. A disciplinary hearing on 28 June 2022;
11. A two-year final written warning issued on 8 July 2022;
12. A continuing restraint on her freedom of expression at return-to-work meetings on 14 and 25 July 2022;
13. A letter of 15 November 2022 withdrawing the final written warning but implying continuing disapproval of her conduct and continuing the restraint on her freedom of expression.
As against her Regulator, SWE:
1. Being the subject of a prolonged investigation into her beliefs from November 2020 to June 2021;
2. Being sanctioned by SWE’s Case Examiners on 8 July 2021;
3. The failure of SWE to set aside the Case Managers’ decision in September 2021 when presented with the evidence in support of the Claimant’s application for a review;
4. The consequences of the failure of SWE to train its Case Examiners to respect protected beliefs.
5. SWE failing, when requested to do so, on 16 and 24 December 2021, to remove the flawed Case Managers’ Report from its website.
6. SWE referring the complaint against the Claimant to a Fitness to Practise hearing, communicated to her on 31 January 2022.
7. SWE putting forward a statement of case dated 6 July for the FtP hearing.
Quote
Rachel Meade said:
“It’s a huge relief to be so completely vindicated after all this time. It has been a horrendous experience. This ruling makes it clear that I was entitled to contribute to the important public debate on sex and gender. I hope it will make it easier for other regulated professionals to speak up without threats to their career and reputation.”
Ms Meade’s solicitor, Shazia Khan, Founding Partner of Cole Khan Solicitors said:
“This is a landmark victory for common sense and free speech in the culture war on gender issues. The Tribunal found that my client was subjected to sustained and prolonged harassment by her employer Westminster City Council and her Regulator Social Work England for merely expressing her gender critical beliefs. This judgment sounds an alarm for all regulators — and all employers of regulated professionals — that they must not let their processes be weaponised by activists bent on silencing the debate on freedom of speech on gender. We demand apologies from Westminster City Council and Social Work England who have to date failed to acknowledge and accept their breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and the harrowing impact of their actions upon my client. We now call for urgent root and branch reform from the top down of both organisations to mitigate against further unlawful discrimination of employees and registrants”.
Watch Rachel tell her story via the link below:
You Tube Video - Crowd Funder Appeal
Donations towards Rachel Meade’s campaign and remedy hearing can be made via CrowdJustice via the link below:
Help defend freedom of speech: Sanctioned by Social Work England (crowdjustice.com)
Link to the Judgment below:
NOTES TO EDITORS
Cole Khan Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership, regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
Cole Khan is dedicated to fighting discrimination in the workplace, in the belief that Equality at work is a right we are all entitled to.
Website: www.colekhan.co.uk
Please direct all press enquiries to:
Shazia Khan: 0207 406 7440 shaziakhan@colekhan.co.uk
Rachel Meade was represented by Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple Chambers.
Naomi.Cunningham@outertemple.com
Excellent analysis of the case by Michael Foran in The Critic.
The right to be gender critical (09 January)
An Employment Tribunal yesterday held that a social worker was harassed on the basis of her protected gender critical beliefs when Social Work England and Westminster City Council subjected her to a protracted disciplinary process and described her expression of gender critical beliefs as transphobic. This case affirms the law protecting employees in their holding and manifestation of gender critical views and should be seen as a stark warning to employers not to embrace a culture war narrative that gender critical views are by definition transphobic.
Rachel Meade had worked at Westminster City Council since 2001. She had a private Facebook page where she posted messages to about 40 friends, including some colleagues. On the 15th of June 2020, one of those colleagues, Aedon Wolton, complained to Social Work England that Rachel had made transphobic comments on her account, signed petitions “by organisations known to harass the trans community” and donated money to causes “which seek to erode the right of transpeople as enshrined in law”.
This complaint was investigated. The Facebook posts that were of particular concern to Social Work England included a link to a petition to the International Olympic Committee that male athletes should not compete in female sports and a link to a petition that women have the right to maintain their sex-based protections in the Equality act, including female only spaces.
Rachel was notified that there was a realistic prospect that her fitness to practice would be found to be impaired by virtue of being “conduct of a morally culpable or other disgraceful kind”.
The Case Examiners’ report concluded however that this would not require a public hearing to maintain public confidence in the regulation of social workers, so long as Rachel agreed to accept a one-year warning which would be published on the register as an example to others.
When this report was forwarded to Westminster City Council, Rachel was suspended on gross misconduct charges. Two of her colleagues were also suspended for failing to report her “discriminatory posts”. Rachel sued for unlawful discrimination and harassment.
In response, Social Work England and Westminster City Council tried to rely on the distinction between holding a belief and manifesting it, contending that it was the objectionable nature of how Rachel manifested her protected belief that was at issue. This was rejected as an artificial revision that did not reflect the true views of the investigators that Rachel’s beliefs were inherently discriminatory and transphobic and therefore unacceptable.
The Tribunal considered it self-evident that the investigators considered Rachel’s views unacceptable and that they believed she had no right to manifest them in the workplace. It also concluded that the very belated attempt to distinguish between holding a belief and manifesting it was an attempt to circumvent the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Forstater that protects gender critical views under the Equality Act.
The Tribunal was clear that the manifestation of belief is protected unless it is conduct that is so objectionable that interference with it would be a justified and proportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression. Nothing that Rachel did amounted to that. Everything she posted was protected by her rights for freedom of thought and freedom to manifest her beliefs.
The Tribunal did not consider any of her posts had aimed at the destruction of any of the rights of trans people. The fact that some people might be offended does not justify infringing upon her rights. This included the expression of “a legitimate safeguarding concern that some transwomen, retaining male bodies, could exploit their position as self-identified women to have access to young and vulnerable girls”.
The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process Rachel was subject to constituted harassment. This was exacerbated by investigators describing her Facebook posts as transphobic. Importantly, it was also held that this independently constituted harassment, a finding that should be taken very seriously by employers in describing gender critical views.
Rachel’s suspension was “wholly excessive and undoubtedly constituted an act of harassment”. The suggestion that she might pose a threat to vulnerable clients, children or adults was an act of harassment.
Finally, it is worth setting out the concluding paragraph of the judgement in full. It should be read by every employer contemplating disciplining an employee for expressing their protected gender critical views:
‘We consider it wholly inappropriate that an individual such as the Claimant espousing one side of the debate should be labelled discriminatory, transphobic and to pose a potential risk to vulnerable service users. That in effect equates her views as being equivalent to an employee/social worker espousing racially discriminatory or homophobic views. The opinions expressed by the Claimant could not sensibly be viewed as being transphobic when properly considered in their full context from an objective perspective, but rather her expressing an opinion contrary to the interpretation of legislation, or perhaps more accurately the amendment to existing legislation, advocated for by trans lobbying groups to include, but not limited to, Stonewall.’
The Tribunal was heavily critical of the investigators for their clear failure to do due diligence to ensure that the complaint against Rachel was not malicious. This should be seen as a warning to employers not to unquestioningly investigate every complaint made by hard-line activists. Some complaints should be dismissed out of hand.
EDI Jester greatly enjoys reporting on Rachel’s victory 😂
Lynne Pinches
Pool player Lynne Pinches forfeited a pool title when she faced a trans identifying man in the final.
Excellent piece by ex-BBC employee Cath Leng on the Glinner Update about how the BBC have treated Lynne. I heard Julie Bindel, on a recent Lesbian Project podcast, suggest that Lynne was the gender critical sportswoman of 2023.
A quiet assassination. The BBC erases a heroine from her own story (10 January)
My old employer, the BBC, has done it again. When it comes to staggering bias in the gender debate, many parts of it seem stuck in 2017. Its melodramatic interview with the guy who took the Women’s Champion of Champion’s pool title - because principled and fabulous Lynne Pinches withdrew - could have been copy-pasted straight from Pink News.
Harriet Haynes suffered ‘vile transphobic abuse’ the author wails. ‘She’ was ‘shocked’ Pinches forfeited their final. ‘She’ insists transgender ‘women’ (the BBC can’t bear to tell us they’re men) are not a threat to women’s pool. And ‘she’ has no ill feelings towards Lynne despite the abuse ‘she’ received on social media after the final.
How generous of him. Ruined a woman’s title hopes but forgives her for it.
The full article is here:
Women’s Football
Ben Rumsby in The Telegraph ( FA to be questioned over ‘slow’ transgender ban 09 January) reports:
The Football Association will be summoned by the Government to explain why it has not banned transgender women from the female game.
Stuart Andrew, the sports minister, has announced plans to hold to account the FA and other sporting bodies who were told in 2022 to exclude those who had undergone male puberty from women’s competitions.
Many of those bodies have since done just that but Andrew accused the FA of being “slow” to follow suit – with the Telegraph revealing in November that teams had begun boycotting matches over the issue.
The full article is here:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/fa-to-be-questioned-over-slow-transgender-ban/ar-AA1mHkEG
Louise Distras
Excellent interview by Andrew Gold on his Heretics channel with singer Louise who has been cancelled for expressing ordinary gender critical views.
Scottish Conversion Therapy
Things are getting very bad again in Scotland. We so need to see the end of the rule of the Scottish National Party.
Daniel Sanderson in The Telegraph ( Parents who refuse children gender change face seven years in jail in Scotland 09 January) reports:
Marion Calder, a director at For Women Scotland Colin Fisher/Alamy© Provided by The Telegraph
Parents who refuse to allow their children to change gender would face up to seven years in jail under SNP plans to ban “conversion therapy” [ Dusty - FFS!!!].
Proposals published on Tuesday state that actions designed to “change or suppress” another individual’s gender identity, causing them physical or psychological harm, would become illegal under the radical law.
SNP ministers acknowledged that so-called conversion practices often took place in a “family setting”, raising the prospect that parents could be criminalised if they refuse to go along with their child’s declaration that they are transgender.
Stopping someone from “dressing in a way that reflects their sexual orientation or gender identity” was put forward as an example of an action that would become illegal, even if a parent believed they were acting in a child’s best interests.
A consultation states that alongside new criminal sanctions, pre-emptive civil orders could be obtained against parents or religious leaders, even where conversion practices had not yet taken place.
The plans are the latest controversial measure put forward by the SNP. Critics argue the proposals would have a devastating impact on freedom of speech, privacy and family life in Scotland.
Last year plans by Nicola Sturgeon to allow children as young as 16 to change gender were blocked by the UK Government.
Religious campaigners have vowed to fight the ban in the courts.
“We have grave concerns that these plans will criminalise loving parents, who could face years in jail simply for refusing to sign up to the gender ideology cult,” Marion Calder, a director at the campaign group For Women Scotland, said.
The full article is here:
Epoch Times also report on this here:
Rex Landy
Rex’s sister was recently ejected from a supermarket for wearing one of Rex’s T shirts which says ‘Men are not women, even if you squint’ 😊
They are looking to take a court case against the supermarket.
Here is a short video from Rex asking for donations:
Still Tish
A piece on her substack from wonderful Still Tish about her son who, as many readers will know, is caught up in this gender madness. Looks like she handled the very awkward ( to say the least) situation that she relates very well indeed. I do recommend her Newsletter.
Policing Speech: A dilemma (11 January)
Since this might explain my inactivity on here I am going to share some personal news. I have not been idle on other platforms but they tend to lend themselves to more impersonal content. So, as the YouTubers say “Let’s get into it”.
On Christmas day a relative (an in-law) called to enquire how we were going to be managing pronouns and a new name for our son (L), as we were due over on Boxing Day. This came as a shock to me to us because son has not asked us for a new name /pronouns. Apparently he is making them known on social media, so younger relatives are aware. It was clear we needed to consider the ramifications of this for both ourselves and our son but this also creates an issue for wider family.
The younger relatives, and perhaps some older ones, are likely to have absorbed the current messaging and, unlike me, won’t see it as a campaign of propaganda. They have a relationship with my son separate from any relationship with me so they may wish to accede to his request. They may be true believers or see it as a polite concession irrespective of belief. I can’t control that.
The decision, I made was to absent myself from the visit, on the grounds that I don’t wish to mandate other people’s speech, re son, but I would be unable to witness it with equanimity. I won’t affirm my son in an identity which has already led to medical harms.For me, calling my gay son a girl feels like the most homophobic thing I could do. It would feel as if I too was telling there was something wrong with him.
This came after another. biological, relative had made casual reference to my son “transitioning” and included an implied judgement on the work I am doing to combat this ideology: all of which I do to save my son from further harm. In this case I decided to suspend all contact until I felt I could rein in my red hot rage. Suffice to say I am not there yet.
Which brings me to all the ripples caused by this ideology, which grooms children, teens and young adults to believe your biological sex is a pick and mix choice and entirely self determined. Once you start asking / demanding that others share your self perception it, inevitably, has real world consequences for other people. If your self worth is dictating by other peoples reaction to your preferred pronouns you are setting yourself up for a life of fragility. I have lost count of the number of hysterical TIkTok meltdowns from blue haired non binaries when people fail to use their ridiculous pronouns.
The good news is that son went to family gathering, everyone called him by his real name, as far as his Dad could tell. He made no demands and was just happy to spend time with his cousins, aunts, uncle and grandparents. He gave effusive thanks for a gift his grandparents had bought him with his full (real) name emblazoned across it. He had rather too good a time judging by the gin and tonics he consumed. When he arrived home we sat up talking and watching his favourite (not mine) real housewives episodes.
When you have kids there’s always a new stage to get to grips with for the first time. This is just an added thing to deal with and there’s even less of a roadmap. Family can help or hinder, in my experience. I think the relative who raised the new name and pronouns got it exactly right. It can’t be easy having to pass on these things.
I will return soon with an update on everything I have been doing whilst I have been silent on here.
Here’s to 2024!
Times round up
Thanks as ever to my mate, Fingers for the press cuttings from the Times, and I am choosing just one… And it’s Rod Liddle again! This one is priceless!
Man up for a crack at UN women’s title (07 January).
Another year, another grave disappointment. I had fully expected to be nominated by the United Nations as its “Women UK champion”, but was pipped to the post by a transgender person called Munroe Bergdorf.
A letter from the UN, which I am sure was not a hoax, explained why I had come in only second place. It said: “ While you fulfilled the most important criterion-that of being born male – you did not, like the winning candidate, disport yourself in a grotesque sexualised parody of womanhood, nor make obnoxious racist remarks about white people.
“In short, to win a prestigious post representing the UK’s 33 million women, you’re going to have to man up a bit more .”
Labour Is Losing LGB Votes
Good video from wonderful Mr Menno.
I’m afraid I have given up on Labour as regular readers know.
The WOO WHO
I started my reports on the World Health Organisation’s proposed ‘transgender health’ guidance here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/stand-by-your-man
I was just waiting for Ms Alsalem to wade in 😎
Thanks to wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic for this one.
UN envoy criticises ‘one-sided’ WHO approach to trans health guidelines ( 10 January)
The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls has accused the World Health Organisation of taking a “one-sided” pro-medicalising approach to trans healthcare in its development of new guidelines.
Reem Alsalem has stepped into a developing row over the composition of a recently announced WHO committee, which will work to develop the organisation’s first global guidelines on adult transgender care.
Alsalem, who has previously intervened in the debate over Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill, wrote to the WHO’s director general to say she believed the committee’s composition contained “significant unmanaged conflicts of interest”.
Most committee members had “strong, one-sided views in favour of promoting hormonal gender transition and legal recognition of self-asserted gender”, she wrote, adding that of the 21 committee members “not one appears to represent a voice of caution for medicalising youth with gender dysphoria or the protection of female-only spaces”.
Alsalem said it was a “significant omission” that the committee contained no representatives who are experts in adolescent development, as “the vast majority of individuals contacting gender-related services worldwide are now adolescents and young adults who had no prior history of gender-related distress”.
She also raised concern that the WHO’s three-week consultation period for offering feedback on the committee’s makeup had fallen over a holiday period, and ended on Monday.
The committee is due to meet in February at the WHO headquarters in Geneva to examine the proposed guidelines. Alsalem said she hoped the meeting would be postponed until all concerns over the committee had been addressed. She said she had yet to receive any response from the WHO to her letter sent on 4 January.
Source: UN envoy criticises ‘one-sided’ WHO approach to trans health guidelines | Transgender | The Guardian
Endpiece
Over to Louise Distras. Go, girl!
Another fabulous update, Dusty; I don’t know how you do it. I join you in congratulating Rachel Meade on her tribunal victory; a win for all women, which i hope will be the beginning of a tidal wave of lawsuits to put an end to gender woo. Poor Louise Diatrass, she has suffered so much in her life & now gets cancelled by the music industry. Scotland is totally insane; is there something in the water/whisky up there? I follow Rex Landy on utube; she’s a force of nature. Poor Lynne Pinches; boycotts the final & the ‘impartial’ BBC gives all its coverage to the man who stole her title. Sheesh! And, as for the FA, all I can say is they’re very misogynistic....Thanks very much, Dusty. 💚🤍💜
Fantastic result and summing up on the Rachel Meade case. I notice that the complainant, Aedon Wolton, said that Rachel had donated money to causes which sought to “erode the rights of transgender people enshrined in law”. Here we go again- which rights are these then? The right to invade women’s spaces and sports seems to be what they mean but how are they “enshrined in law” as he states?
Glad you posted the STILLTish piece.
There is nothing that Labour can say or do which would induce me to trust them ever again.