Bigots complaining that they’re being discriminated against for being discriminatory seems like it *should* be something that we can all enjoy laughing at.
But the fact that she’s using the law to try to bully people into accepting her bigotry and transphobia shows that this isn’t a laughing matter.
There’s so much complaint against “the woke” for canceling and silencing people that it’s sometimes easy to forget who the actual marginalised and silenced voices are!
Misleading, she had one claim upheld and every other one rejected.
From the article:
> She lost her case against Stonewall, but her complaint against GCC was upheld.
Which in itself is misleading because one claim against GCC was upheld and the others rejected. On top of that, she positioned this as her sueing stonewall, all claims against stonewall we rejected. On her own measure she lost and in a pretty catastrophic way.
In terms of damages, she was awarded £22k after spending ~£500k of donated money, most people would not call that a win. Those damages were awarded because GCC put out a tweet saying she was under investigation and this caused “injury to feelings”
There should be serious questions asked of a barrister losing so catastrophically on the dime of her supporters, some of those people having donated more than the entire amount she was awarded. Those who donated should be questioning how she and the far-right, religious-extremist groups from the US that enable her were so reckless with their donations
good for her, i hope she wins more cases.
I mean, it is fair to say that you won even when you lose most of your claims, and I thought as much when the Good Law Project received much criticism for doing so recently.
But it’s pretty irresponsible for news publications to report it as such. Already this is being massively misrepresented on Twitter, and the headlines certainly don’t help.
It’s additionally shameful because the press summary — found [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bailey-v-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-and-others/) alongside the full judgement — makes it clear that most of her claims of direct and indirect discrimination by Garden Chambers failed, and all of her claims against Stonewall failed. The only ones that succeeded were against Garden Chambers for tweeting that they were investigating her, and for finding at the conclusion of said investigation that two of her tweets fell short of a barrister’s duties.
This wasn’t an appeal (though I’d expect it will be appealed) so doesn’t set precedent, but recent cases are establishing what the law properly is in this space. Gender critical beliefs, like almost all beliefs (including equally horrible beliefs like racism, sexism, and bigotry of any kind), are protected and individuals can’t be discriminated against because of them — but the manner in which those beliefs are manifested by those holding them is a separate matter and still subject to usual professional and legal standards.
In short, you can believe what you want (and in the absence of workplace policies, tweet what you want), but you can’t behave in a shitty way to customers or coworkers without consequence. Although Mackereth is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court in the near future and that may result in much of this area facing upheaval.
The writing is on the wall for Stonewall. It is tragic how they managed in just a few years to completely trash the good reputation they had earned for decades of excellent work for gay and lesbian rights.
But it’s clear that any institution that continues to take their dodgy advice on equality law will be liable to make expensive mistakes like this.
LGB Alliance are a hate group.
Funny how when you had your claim that this was the case squashed in the ukpolitics thread you’ve then gone to find another source that doubles down on it.
It’s also misleading as fuck.
> LGB Alliance opposes the view held by Stonewall that transgender women are women in the eyes of the law
Transgender women *are* women in the eyes of the law. It’s not a ‘view held by Stonewall’ like it’s a crazy conspiracy theory, that is literally what the law of the country that we live in holds. Now, Ms Bailey’s group is welcome to disagree, and to campaign against that being the law, but as a barrister you’d think she would be aware of what the law itself currently does or does not say, no?
> The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to apply to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A Gender Recognition Certificate is the document issued that shows that a person has satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender. The Act gives people with gender dysphoria legal recognition as members of the sex appropriate to their gender identity allowing them to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate. People whose birth was registered in the United Kingdom or abroad with the British authorities are able to obtain a birth certificate showing their recognised legal sex.
This has been the law for nearly 20 years in the UK and it is literally complete falsification of history to claim otherwise. Like I say, you can disagree with it, but let’s not tell lies.
10 comments
Great to see.
Wonderful news for free speach!
Bigots complaining that they’re being discriminated against for being discriminatory seems like it *should* be something that we can all enjoy laughing at.
But the fact that she’s using the law to try to bully people into accepting her bigotry and transphobia shows that this isn’t a laughing matter.
There’s so much complaint against “the woke” for canceling and silencing people that it’s sometimes easy to forget who the actual marginalised and silenced voices are!
Misleading, she had one claim upheld and every other one rejected.
From the article:
> She lost her case against Stonewall, but her complaint against GCC was upheld.
Which in itself is misleading because one claim against GCC was upheld and the others rejected. On top of that, she positioned this as her sueing stonewall, all claims against stonewall we rejected. On her own measure she lost and in a pretty catastrophic way.
In terms of damages, she was awarded £22k after spending ~£500k of donated money, most people would not call that a win. Those damages were awarded because GCC put out a tweet saying she was under investigation and this caused “injury to feelings”
There should be serious questions asked of a barrister losing so catastrophically on the dime of her supporters, some of those people having donated more than the entire amount she was awarded. Those who donated should be questioning how she and the far-right, religious-extremist groups from the US that enable her were so reckless with their donations
good for her, i hope she wins more cases.
I mean, it is fair to say that you won even when you lose most of your claims, and I thought as much when the Good Law Project received much criticism for doing so recently.
But it’s pretty irresponsible for news publications to report it as such. Already this is being massively misrepresented on Twitter, and the headlines certainly don’t help.
It’s additionally shameful because the press summary — found [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bailey-v-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-and-others/) alongside the full judgement — makes it clear that most of her claims of direct and indirect discrimination by Garden Chambers failed, and all of her claims against Stonewall failed. The only ones that succeeded were against Garden Chambers for tweeting that they were investigating her, and for finding at the conclusion of said investigation that two of her tweets fell short of a barrister’s duties.
This wasn’t an appeal (though I’d expect it will be appealed) so doesn’t set precedent, but recent cases are establishing what the law properly is in this space. Gender critical beliefs, like almost all beliefs (including equally horrible beliefs like racism, sexism, and bigotry of any kind), are protected and individuals can’t be discriminated against because of them — but the manner in which those beliefs are manifested by those holding them is a separate matter and still subject to usual professional and legal standards.
In short, you can believe what you want (and in the absence of workplace policies, tweet what you want), but you can’t behave in a shitty way to customers or coworkers without consequence. Although Mackereth is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court in the near future and that may result in much of this area facing upheaval.
The writing is on the wall for Stonewall. It is tragic how they managed in just a few years to completely trash the good reputation they had earned for decades of excellent work for gay and lesbian rights.
But it’s clear that any institution that continues to take their dodgy advice on equality law will be liable to make expensive mistakes like this.
LGB Alliance are a hate group.
Funny how when you had your claim that this was the case squashed in the ukpolitics thread you’ve then gone to find another source that doubles down on it.
It’s also misleading as fuck.
> LGB Alliance opposes the view held by Stonewall that transgender women are women in the eyes of the law
Transgender women *are* women in the eyes of the law. It’s not a ‘view held by Stonewall’ like it’s a crazy conspiracy theory, that is literally what the law of the country that we live in holds. Now, Ms Bailey’s group is welcome to disagree, and to campaign against that being the law, but as a barrister you’d think she would be aware of what the law itself currently does or does not say, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004
> The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to apply to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A Gender Recognition Certificate is the document issued that shows that a person has satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender. The Act gives people with gender dysphoria legal recognition as members of the sex appropriate to their gender identity allowing them to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate. People whose birth was registered in the United Kingdom or abroad with the British authorities are able to obtain a birth certificate showing their recognised legal sex.
This has been the law for nearly 20 years in the UK and it is literally complete falsification of history to claim otherwise. Like I say, you can disagree with it, but let’s not tell lies.
Full Judgment here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bailey-judgment.pdf
A fairly interesting read.