The Maya Forstater Appeal … still not worthy of respect in a democratic Society

And so today we received the ruling to the appeal by Maya Forstater, which to be honest, surprised no one following the intervention of the EHRC.

So below we have set out for you ALL the key points taken from the todays ruling:

TOPIC NUMBER 26: RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION

Page 4:

However:

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.

b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.

c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.

d. This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would continue to be liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment.

And then moving swiftly to the end of the ruling (note- this may sound a little familiar):

Page 60:

We take this opportunity to reiterate, once more, what this judgment does not mean:

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.

b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.

d. This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would be liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment.

And there you have it – these are the only points that truly matter, and all neatly packaged for you.

The headline ‘victory’ will of course have the usual Gender-Crits dancing in the streets, but this is really not the victory they might like to think it is. Apart from anything else, this ruling simply enables Forstater to take her case back to the tribunal. An individual may have the right to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t make those views any more worthy of respect in a democratic Society or, most importantly as made clear today, it still doesn’t make them above the law. It is worth pointing out that the repetition clearly states the importance being placed on these 4 points.

The Topic Number listed this was a case between ‘RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION’ and a tweet from Joss Prior’s nicely sum’s this up:

Gender-critical ideology is now in the same bracket as religion. You can believe any old hogwash, but you can’t use it to justify crucifying people.

Very nicely put Joss.