Monday 21st August. Former Deputy Leader and Spokesperson for Policing and Domestic Affairs makes his case of alleged discrimimation under the Equality Act and article 11 of the Human Rights by the Green Party of England and Wales because of his gender critical beliefs.
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/shahrar-ali-v-green-party
We have been granted permission to live tweet.
Abbrieviations.
SA – Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ Jeffrey Jupp, barrister
EM Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor, Didlaw
GPEW – Green Party of England & Wales, respondent, represented by Elizabeth Reason and Jon Nott
CC – Catherine Casserley, barrister
MJ – Mindy Jhittay, solicitor, Bates Wells
JJ – raising several preliminary matters, has the judge read the materials.
J – Judge – have read the materials.
JJ – submitting an additional witness statement and also updated references.
More abbreviations
Witnesses – called C
JL Julia Lagoutte, GPEW officer 2020-2023
ZH Cllr Zoe Hatch, GPEW officer 2021-2022
RN Rashid Nix, GPEW officer 2019-2023
Witnesses – called by R
MC – Mary Clegg, GPEW CEO
MSC – Molly Scott Cato, GPEW External Communications Coordinator
ER – Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022
JB – Jonathan Bartley, Co-Leader GPEW, 2016-2021
More discussions from JJ for C – related to issues in the case. The alleged detriments, detriment 2 alleges discrimination on social media by party members. Claimant (C) – no longer advances this as a detriment, GP cannot be responsible for behaviour of party members.
JJ – defence based on Art 11 has been raised for the first time. In a manifestation case articles 10 is always in play. Article 11 appeared for the first time in skeleton argument, I want the defendants to set out how Art 11 applies in this case. And by 9 am tomorrow morning.
JJ cont – we need to know how this will apply in their case and straight away.
J – CC what do you say?
CC – the court has to consider the claim under Equality and Human Rights Act. Art 11 will need to be considered. We accept that Art 11 will play a large part in this case.
R – we were not expecting to have to deal with this issue.
J – that’s why it would be very helpful to have it set out in writing as a pleading.
CC – I can certainly produce that,
J- I would find it helpful, so I will direct that.
CC – we will do so.
J – do you have any applications CC?
CC – yes, you will see that this is a case where there is a bundle of some 6,000 pages. One witness statements sets out the chronology and how this came about. We didn’t have access to that until recently. And it has a great deal of
commentary on the matter that is irrelevant. We asked the C remove, they declined to do so. Now referring to the skeleton argument from JJ. It includes speculation about a conversation at launch event, but it was not about C but about another spokesman.
my concern is that the court ordered one round of witness statements and I don’t want corrections to one and then responses to those corrections.
CC – I appreciate that, and we should seek to avoid that and avoid taking up time. This is a trial with a vast amount of paperwork
and we’ve tried to take a proportionate approach to the management of the paperwork. Striking those aspects is a proportionate way of dealing with that.
J – any response
JJ – yes, citing an authority this is a case in which an identical position was taken, only if new matters
have arisen.
J – are there particular bits of the witness statement that you don’t object to?
CC – sorry to interrupt, but there is no ulterior motive here.
JJ – relevant paragraphs start at 4, really paragraphs 5 & 6 deals with a specific conversation
if MLF wants to ask about that specific conversation, I’m happy. However, it deals with more elements of the case in more specificity. (Sorry, difficult to follow who’s arguing for what).
JJ – the witness is simply responding to what other witnesses have said. The substance
is in the earlier statements. Now quoting from the relevant case. Substantive point made is that the supplemental statement is responding to other written evidence given, of course they are minded to respond but that is not how this works. Should be covered in testimony. This
witness statement does not just expand earlier matters, it advances 2 new claims or assertions and these are serious matters. For example R says that C was exacerbating an already difficult situation. Secondly, the case now being advanced in this statement and he avoided
his duties on policing and only tweeted on sex based rights . It has never been suggested that C only tweeted about sex based rights, by his own confession he is a prolific tweet and tweets on a number of matters. If this is in the case then I will need to cross examine
on these points and it will extend the case, it will stress an already tight timetable.
J – is it only paras 6 & 7 of the second witness timetable.
JJ – those are most relevant
J – CC do you have anything?”
CC – the scale of the tweeting was always going to be an important
part of the background of this case. (Now looking for a document)
CC – It is dealt with in MLF argument, it’s always been an issue in the case, raised in the background report and that assertion doesn’t expand the case.
J – I’m not sure. What I took from the 2nd witness
statement was the SA was neglecting his core duties and only focusing on gender critical matters. I had not seen that elsewhere in your case.
CC – it is not the defendants case that they are expanding the case. Making one final point, responding to a point in SA’s witness
statement about what she had said.
J – thank you, a short ruling. D seeks permission to admit a second witness statement, C objects, the statement runs to 57 paras, the basis for seeking to admit it is civil procedure rules, a witness can amplify his witness statement and give
testimony on matters that have arisen since the earlier statement. It is introduced as a means of reducing the time needed for oral evidence. The counter is that a supplementary or second statement is that it is a response to evidence, rather than new matters.
That’s not how the system works, we can’t have a system where parties are constantly responding to the previous witness statements. Further JJ objects to the introduction of the assertion that SA deliberately exacerbated that conflict with GP and that he was neglecting his
portfolio because he was excessively focused on gender critical matters. Both of those issues are already in play and the witness statement is not required to raise those. However some of her 2nd statement relates to helpful clarifications and ought to be allowed.
I therefore disallow the witness statement save that I will allow paragraphs 6,7 and 15. Perhaps a redacted version can be prepared.
JJ – shall we go straight into evidence?
J – yes.
JJ – Can SA please take the stand.
SA – swears by Allah.
J – instructing SA about process, water, breaks, please ask for clarification if required.
JJ – now having SA confirming his statement as true, except for 3 matters for clarification
SA – yes.
JJ – turn to para 48; penultimate sentence,
(pagination issues)
JJ – there was no request to refrain from using different types of media. Is that correct?
SA – no
JJ – page 150, mentions a date, 22 January, is that the correct date.
SA – no, 25 January is the correct date.
JJ – para 255, last sentence refers to your interpretation of a document – is that correct
SA – no, clarifies who made a particular proposal.
JJ – now over to CC for defendant.
CC – good afternoon, I’m going to ask you some questions, and I hope to be able to refer you to documents in the print copy.
SA – they should correspond
CC – you are an experienced politician
SA – sort of, never been elected
CC – but you’ve been around politics for some time
SA – yes
CC – you’ve been a spokesperson and deputy leader
SA – yes
CC – that would include media appearances, and what to say and how to say it
J – at the risk of sounding like a broken record, can everyone please speak up.
SA – I’ve found the page,
CC – there’s an entry ‘just had an invite for free speech nation’, MSC – says ‘I don’t know what that is’ and you push back.
SA – I suppose I do want to appear
CC – you suggest you could appear in a personal capacity
but MSC says you’ve lost the ability to appear in a personal capacity
SA – I wanted to find a way to appear
CC – Your primary focus was to appear on that programme
SA – well as I didn’t appear on that programme I will disagree.
CC – you’re a frequent user of social media aren’t
you?
SA – not by some standards.
CC – you were censured for social media use?
SA – can you be more specific?
CC – cites a document
(lots of moving folders about looking for the correct binder)
CC – do you have page 448?
SA – are you asking me?
CC – yes
CC – you’ve been critical of the party and you’ve been censured
SA – that’s not the matter this complaint is about
CC – but you’ve been censured
SA – this one was about the circulation of a petition
CC – yes it’s that one. You have taken up the cause of Palestinians and the
definition of anti-semitism and which definition to use.
SA – yes I was involved in that
CC – and what you’re involved in right now is about the rights of women
SA – I wouldn’t have put it that way, but yes I can agree
CC – it’s an area of public debate, and this stance
has raised your profile and attracted attention.
SA – I haven’t thought about it that way.
CC – you’ve stood 20 times (various offices ) with no success
SA – if success is getting elected then no I have not been elected
CC – so your gender critical views might help you get
elected.
SA – I had not thought about it in that way.
CC – this is an issue that gets a lot of engagement on social media, both from those who might be called gender critical and those who might be called trans rights activists.
SA – yes it does
CC – that it gets heated
SA – it does
CC – now reading out SA’s statement of belief; sex is real and immutable, separate from gender, sex matters, conflation of sex with gender identity
SA – it is my attempt to set it out, it is not the definitive or only expression of that belief
CC – the Eq Act sets out single sex services where it can be based on biological sex
SA – if it’s proportionate
CC – those are sex based rights?
SA – sex based rights are not uniquely covered in the Eq Act,
CC – but if a woman has a right to single sex spaces
it is because of the exception in the Eq Act
SA – I don’t think that’s the complete definition
CC – but why are you using ‘sex based rights’ in a way that is not commonly understood
SA – you asked me a question and I’m explaining my view
CC – you support the retention of sex
based exception in the Eq Act.
SA – I support the retention of those exceptions
CC – the Eq Act says you can restrict access to a service on the basis of biological sex, if you can justify that, on the basis that it’s proportionate, you support those exceptions, those are sex
based rights.
SA – I’ve been asked about my current views. I make the distinction about my current views and what I did say or might have said when I was a spokesperson. Can I also say why the definition of sex based rights that has been put to me is too narrow.
There are other sex based rights.
CC – sex based rights includes the exception and includes the rights to sex based rights
SA – I think that’s too narrow
CC – includes employment rights
SA – yes
CC – can I ask you to turn to page 691,
(more binder movements)
SA – can I add to one of my earlier answers
J – if it’s necessary to clarify
SA – you referred to my censure, I wanted to appeal that because I disagreed with it but did not because I had no confidence in the disciplinary process.
CC – referring to SA’s leadership election statement,
J – can we identify the particular election
SA – leadership election 2021
CC – reading from SA statement, supports sex based rights under the Eq Act. You’ve been using ‘sex based rights’ for some time. You include rights
to non-discrimination, and single sex spaces where proportionate.
SA – it’s a great example of why a wider definition is important. For example women and girls in Afghanistan are not interested in the Eq Act but are subject to sex based discrimination
More bundles
J – it’s helpful if you identify what the document is
CC – these are D’s policies on trans rights.
SA – yes
CC – now reading out ‘transmen are men and transwomen are women and nonbinary identitises are valid’ and all deserving of respect. Gender should be
legally recognised, on only statutory declaration, that is self id.
SA – yes
CC – now onto NHS and removing barriers to access for trans health care, and calls for changes to anti-discrimination policies and calls for the sex based rights under Eq Act to be scrapped
SA – we need to distinguish between my beliefs and what I’ve said as a party spokesman.
CC – but
J – interrupting what is the second thing
SA – that specific sentence is vague and it is in the centre of a discussion of a number of aspects
CC – ‘should be scrapped’
That is not vague.
SA – We always need to interpret political language with what is practical
CC – so you get to decide what it says
SA – giving examples, and we are not saying there is no circumstances in which women should not have single sex spaces
CC – quoting from the
GP policy that are in direct opposition to sex based rights.
SA – there are some areas where GP policies are in conflict with other parts of GP policies. For example, the privacy and dignity of women in prison.
CC – but you are arguing for sex based rights that the GP policies
call for the elimination of sex based rights
SA – you will recall that I objected to your narrow definition of sex based rights
CC – there is no distinction between sex and gender in this document
SA – that’s not correct – quoting from the statement about multiple gender
CC – there is no distinction between sex and gender in this document
SA – not in the trans section
CC – nowhere in the document does it do that?
SA – I can’t say but possibly not.
CC – now on resignation statement of ?
J – letter dated February 2022
CC – letter refers to current policies on trans rights, campaign for self id, it’s quite clear that the GP policies are not consistent with sex based rights
SA – does she use the term sex based rights
CC – I’m not going to answer questions from you
SA – I was asking for help
CC – her view is that the party’s policies are not consistent with sex based rights,
SA – that’s her opinion, I can’t say
CC – you have attempted to straddle 2 positions, to support both trans rights
and sex based rights to please all the people all the time.
SA – It is true that I have supported trans rights and women’s rights and I believe that supporting both of them is compatible.
CC – you talk about sex based rights and you talk about the difference between sex and
gender. Those are wholly inconsistent with the GP policies. There is no distinction made
SA – we do talk about sex based rights in the health section, they go on to talk about women, men, and children and trans people.
CC – you make a distinction between gender and biological
sex.
SA – I usually refer to gender identity not just gender because it’s vague. And I don’t say biological sex, because it’s just sex.
J – can you clarify
SA – important to use clear terminology, gender is an ambiguous term. Sometimes used as a polite way of talking about
sex.
CC – now going to back to TMAM, TWAW – you determined that these statements are unreasonable and you determined what you wanted to add
SA – it’s up to me how I answer the question
CC – but you’re changing the view
J – can you go over that
SA – I put forward a motion to clarify the TWAW, TMAM statement is about gender identify not about sex
CC – it’s your view that members are confused or don’t understand
SA – no
CC – but that’s what you said. If there isn’t a distinction between
sex and gender identity made it’s not because they are confused it’s because they believe there is no difference.
SA – it is not unreasonable to suggest that this needs clarification and we should make that distinction
CC – but the policy says there is no distinction and
therefore you might not like it, but that is the policy.
SA – My amendments were to assist people in being clear about language – its not deliberate to replace sex with gender identity, I think the language could be improved…
CC – you say…
J – you didn’t finish
SA – I did believe that my understanding was the right one and that I was allowed to give that as my answer at the hustings, and that was consistent with GP policies, I was only clarifying
CC – you applied for spokesperson. You got an email from MSC,
CC – you sent an email to MSC – there is no request to refrain from using ?? on TV. MSC expressly requests you to refrain from mentioning this exciting news.
SA – I did mention it, I didn’t notice the suggestion or direction to refrain from mentioning it. I was very excited.
SA – it was an innocent mistake and I corrected it as soon as possible.
CC – you attended the launch of ‘spokespeople’ there was considerable press work done in advance of that event.
J – time for afternoon break? We can sit until 5 pm is that okay?
CC – today, 4:30.
J – fine, 5 on other days. We will rise and be back at 4 pm.
Break.
We are back
J – Can I ask wholeheartedly that we all keep our voices up?
CC – yes, now referring to an email from member of press department in relation to the launch, turn to page 864 please
SA -yes
CC – now a email to BBC about launch
SA – sure
CC – now an email to press
association about the launch
SA – yes
CC – referring to a particular document….. now an email to the Independent about the spokespeople and your role
SA – sure
CC – there’s a response at the top of that page ….now page 379,
J – supplementary bundle or core bundle
CC – sorry, core bundle, this is the press release that went out in relation to the launch, it says pictures will be available from launch, now page 375, tweet sent by JB that introduces new spokespersons and the launch.
There is nothing to suggest that photos will be sent out.
SA – it says photos will be available from the launch.
CC – it says you have to ask for them
SA – there’s 2 things, future tense ‘will be available’, and current tense, ask for more information
CC – there is nothing to suggest that photos will be sent out, and nothing to
suggest that there would be a video.
SA – I would contest that. You should distinguish between a slide show of the spokespeople that was prepared in advance, and a video that it was taken on the day. It is implausible that a political party would take a one minute video and
then do nothing with it.
SA – and for pictures, not only does it imply that pictures would be made available, no pictures were sent to the press although they were taken. If I may just, it’s a minor point, this tweet on page 375, was by JB, it wasn’t it was a retweet
CC – you refer to ‘doctoring’
SA – I’m referring to someone else using that expression, it’s not my expression
CC – it’s a correction of a spelling error of your name in the slide show
SA – it can’t because it was already corrected. It looks to me like it’s a staff member
referring to a file that had just been shared being changed.
CC – missed – on to new document
CC – the first column references your name, the second column talks about doctoring
SA – it looks like it, but is that the evidence I was referring to
CC – you refer to a video and there was no detriment to you because of it, there was no video, you suffered no detriment at the launch
SA – the question is?
CC – you were not disadvanted
SA – I won’t delve into the legal language of detriments
but I was disadvantaged because the video was made and then not released because I was in it.
CC – but no disadvantage to you
J – can you explain again how it was a detriment to you
SA – in a situation where I was shocked by the abuse I’ve received and they were worried about
a pile on. They shot the video, and if they had released it as normal, it would have been evidence that they stood by me and supported me as a recently appointed spokesman.
CC – you refer to a heated discussion about your appointment you say that you felt she was trying to
protect you from the reaction to your appointment but that’s not true.
SA – It is entirely political. I didn’t quote her directly, but it was obvious to me what was going on and what the subject of the discussion was.
CC – but you weren’t part of that discussion.
SA – but I was close enough to understand what was being discussed.
CC – but JB wasn’t concerned about your appointment was he?
SA – that seems to be what they are saying now.
CC – JB expressed his appreciation to MSC and discussed undertaking due diligence on spokespeople
And someone had mentioned military intervention in Syria. That is another person.
SA – that is not what they were talking about. I’m certain it wasn’t.
CC – but MSC says it wasn’t about you. You are assuming it was about you and it wasn’t.
SA – but the pile on that happened on the date of launch were about me, not about the other person.
CC – but they have said it wasn’t about you.
SA – there was no need to have a heated discussion about any other appointment. I think that JB was trying to get everyone behind
my appointment. That was the point of the discussion.
J – this might be a good time to stop for the day.
Shall we say 10 or 10:30 tomorrow?
All agreed 10 am.
Court rises.
End
We are told our application will be addressed first.
We have been granted permission to live tweet.
Abbrieviations.
SA – Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ Jeffrey Jupp, barrister
EM Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor, Didlaw
GPEW – Green Party of England & Wales, respondent, represented by Elizabeth Reason and Jon Nott
CC – Catherine Casserley, barrister
MJ – Mindy Jhittay, solicitor, Bates Wells
JJ – raising several preliminary matters, has the judge read the materials.
J – Judge – have read the materials.
JJ – submitting an additional witness statement and also updated references.
More abbreviations
Witnesses – called C
JL Julia Lagoutte, GPEW officer 2020-2023
ZH Cllr Zoe Hatch, GPEW officer 2021-2022
RN Rashid Nix, GPEW officer 2019-2023
Witnesses – called by R
MC – Mary Clegg, GPEW CEO
MSC – Molly Scott Cato, GPEW External Communications Coordinator
ER – Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022
JB – Jonathan Bartley, Co-Leader GPEW, 2016-2021
More discussions from JJ for C – related to issues in the case. The alleged detriments, detriment 2 alleges discrimination on social media by party members. Claimant (C) – no longer advances this as a detriment, GP cannot be responsible for behaviour of party members.
JJ – defence based on Art 11 has been raised for the first time. In a manifestation case articles 10 is always in play. Article 11 appeared for the first time in skeleton argument, I want the defendants to set out how Art 11 applies in this case. And by 9 am tomorrow morning.
JJ cont – we need to know how this will apply in their case and straight away.
J – CC what do you say?
CC – the court has to consider the claim under Equality and Human Rights Act. Art 11 will need to be considered. We accept that Art 11 will play a large part in this case.
R – we were not expecting to have to deal with this issue.
J – that’s why it would be very helpful to have it set out in writing as a pleading.
CC – I can certainly produce that,
J- I would find it helpful, so I will direct that.
CC – we will do so.
J – do you have any applications CC?
CC – yes, you will see that this is a case where there is a bundle of some 6,000 pages. One witness statements sets out the chronology and how this came about. We didn’t have access to that until recently. And it has a great deal of
commentary on the matter that is irrelevant. We asked the C remove, they declined to do so. Now referring to the skeleton argument from JJ. It includes speculation about a conversation at launch event, but it was not about C but about another spokesman.
my concern is that the court ordered one round of witness statements and I don’t want corrections to one and then responses to those corrections.
CC – I appreciate that, and we should seek to avoid that and avoid taking up time. This is a trial with a vast amount of paperwork
and we’ve tried to take a proportionate approach to the management of the paperwork. Striking those aspects is a proportionate way of dealing with that.
J – any response
JJ – yes, citing an authority this is a case in which an identical position was taken, only if new matters
have arisen.
J – are there particular bits of the witness statement that you don’t object to?
CC – sorry to interrupt, but there is no ulterior motive here.
JJ – relevant paragraphs start at 4, really paragraphs 5 & 6 deals with a specific conversation
if MLF wants to ask about that specific conversation, I’m happy. However, it deals with more elements of the case in more specificity. (Sorry, difficult to follow who’s arguing for what).
JJ – the witness is simply responding to what other witnesses have said. The substance
is in the earlier statements. Now quoting from the relevant case. Substantive point made is that the supplemental statement is responding to other written evidence given, of course they are minded to respond but that is not how this works. Should be covered in testimony. This
witness statement does not just expand earlier matters, it advances 2 new claims or assertions and these are serious matters. For example R says that C was exacerbating an already difficult situation. Secondly, the case now being advanced in this statement and he avoided
his duties on policing and only tweeted on sex based rights . It has never been suggested that C only tweeted about sex based rights, by his own confession he is a prolific tweet and tweets on a number of matters. If this is in the case then I will need to cross examine
on these points and it will extend the case, it will stress an already tight timetable.
J – is it only paras 6 & 7 of the second witness timetable.
JJ – those are most relevant
J – CC do you have anything?”
CC – the scale of the tweeting was always going to be an important
part of the background of this case. (Now looking for a document)
CC – It is dealt with in MLF argument, it’s always been an issue in the case, raised in the background report and that assertion doesn’t expand the case.
J – I’m not sure. What I took from the 2nd witness
statement was the SA was neglecting his core duties and only focusing on gender critical matters. I had not seen that elsewhere in your case.
CC – it is not the defendants case that they are expanding the case. Making one final point, responding to a point in SA’s witness
statement about what she had said.
J – thank you, a short ruling. D seeks permission to admit a second witness statement, C objects, the statement runs to 57 paras, the basis for seeking to admit it is civil procedure rules, a witness can amplify his witness statement and give
testimony on matters that have arisen since the earlier statement. It is introduced as a means of reducing the time needed for oral evidence. The counter is that a supplementary or second statement is that it is a response to evidence, rather than new matters.
That’s not how the system works, we can’t have a system where parties are constantly responding to the previous witness statements. Further JJ objects to the introduction of the assertion that SA deliberately exacerbated that conflict with GP and that he was neglecting his
portfolio because he was excessively focused on gender critical matters. Both of those issues are already in play and the witness statement is not required to raise those. However some of her 2nd statement relates to helpful clarifications and ought to be allowed.
I therefore disallow the witness statement save that I will allow paragraphs 6,7 and 15. Perhaps a redacted version can be prepared.
JJ – shall we go straight into evidence?
J – yes.
JJ – Can SA please take the stand.
SA – swears by Allah.
J – instructing SA about process, water, breaks, please ask for clarification if required.
JJ – now having SA confirming his statement as true, except for 3 matters for clarification
SA – yes.
JJ – turn to para 48; penultimate sentence,
(pagination issues)
JJ – there was no request to refrain from using different types of media. Is that correct?
SA – no
JJ – page 150, mentions a date, 22 January, is that the correct date.
SA – no, 25 January is the correct date.
JJ – para 255, last sentence refers to your interpretation of a document – is that correct
SA – no, clarifies who made a particular proposal.
JJ – now over to CC for defendant.
CC – good afternoon, I’m going to ask you some questions, and I hope to be able to refer you to documents in the print copy.
SA – they should correspond
CC – you are an experienced politician
SA – sort of, never been elected
CC – but you’ve been around politics for some time
SA – yes
CC – you’ve been a spokesperson and deputy leader
SA – yes
CC – that would include media appearances, and what to say and how to say it
J – at the risk of sounding like a broken record, can everyone please speak up.
SA – I’ve found the page,
CC – there’s an entry ‘just had an invite for free speech nation’, MSC – says ‘I don’t know what that is’ and you push back.
SA – I suppose I do want to appear
CC – you suggest you could appear in a personal capacity
but MSC says you’ve lost the ability to appear in a personal capacity
SA – I wanted to find a way to appear
CC – Your primary focus was to appear on that programme
SA – well as I didn’t appear on that programme I will disagree.
CC – you’re a frequent user of social media aren’t
you?
SA – not by some standards.
CC – you were censured for social media use?
SA – can you be more specific?
CC – cites a document
(lots of moving folders about looking for the correct binder)
CC – do you have page 448?
SA – are you asking me?
CC – yes
CC – you’ve been critical of the party and you’ve been censured
SA – that’s not the matter this complaint is about
CC – but you’ve been censured
SA – this one was about the circulation of a petition
CC – yes it’s that one. You have taken up the cause of Palestinians and the
definition of anti-semitism and which definition to use.
SA – yes I was involved in that
CC – and what you’re involved in right now is about the rights of women
SA – I wouldn’t have put it that way, but yes I can agree
CC – it’s an area of public debate, and this stance
has raised your profile and attracted attention.
SA – I haven’t thought about it that way.
CC – you’ve stood 20 times (various offices ) with no success
SA – if success is getting elected then no I have not been elected
CC – so your gender critical views might help you get
elected.
SA – I had not thought about it in that way.
CC – this is an issue that gets a lot of engagement on social media, both from those who might be called gender critical and those who might be called trans rights activists.
SA – yes it does
CC – that it gets heated
SA – it does
CC – now reading out SA’s statement of belief; sex is real and immutable, separate from gender, sex matters, conflation of sex with gender identity
SA – it is my attempt to set it out, it is not the definitive or only expression of that belief
CC – the Eq Act sets out single sex services where it can be based on biological sex
SA – if it’s proportionate
CC – those are sex based rights?
SA – sex based rights are not uniquely covered in the Eq Act,
CC – but if a woman has a right to single sex spaces
it is because of the exception in the Eq Act
SA – I don’t think that’s the complete definition
CC – but why are you using ‘sex based rights’ in a way that is not commonly understood
SA – you asked me a question and I’m explaining my view
CC – you support the retention of sex
based exception in the Eq Act.
SA – I support the retention of those exceptions
CC – the Eq Act says you can restrict access to a service on the basis of biological sex, if you can justify that, on the basis that it’s proportionate, you support those exceptions, those are sex
based rights.
SA – I’ve been asked about my current views. I make the distinction about my current views and what I did say or might have said when I was a spokesperson. Can I also say why the definition of sex based rights that has been put to me is too narrow.
There are other sex based rights.
CC – sex based rights includes the exception and includes the rights to sex based rights
SA – I think that’s too narrow
CC – includes employment rights
SA – yes
CC – can I ask you to turn to page 691,
(more binder movements)
SA – can I add to one of my earlier answers
J – if it’s necessary to clarify
SA – you referred to my censure, I wanted to appeal that because I disagreed with it but did not because I had no confidence in the disciplinary process.
CC – referring to SA’s leadership election statement,
J – can we identify the particular election
SA – leadership election 2021
CC – reading from SA statement, supports sex based rights under the Eq Act. You’ve been using ‘sex based rights’ for some time. You include rights
to non-discrimination, and single sex spaces where proportionate.
SA – it’s a great example of why a wider definition is important. For example women and girls in Afghanistan are not interested in the Eq Act but are subject to sex based discrimination
More bundles
J – it’s helpful if you identify what the document is
CC – these are D’s policies on trans rights.
SA – yes
CC – now reading out ‘transmen are men and transwomen are women and nonbinary identitises are valid’ and all deserving of respect. Gender should be
legally recognised, on only statutory declaration, that is self id.
SA – yes
CC – now onto NHS and removing barriers to access for trans health care, and calls for changes to anti-discrimination policies and calls for the sex based rights under Eq Act to be scrapped
SA – we need to distinguish between my beliefs and what I’ve said as a party spokesman.
CC – but
J – interrupting what is the second thing
SA – that specific sentence is vague and it is in the centre of a discussion of a number of aspects
CC – ‘should be scrapped’
That is not vague.
SA – We always need to interpret political language with what is practical
CC – so you get to decide what it says
SA – giving examples, and we are not saying there is no circumstances in which women should not have single sex spaces
CC – quoting from the
GP policy that are in direct opposition to sex based rights.
SA – there are some areas where GP policies are in conflict with other parts of GP policies. For example, the privacy and dignity of women in prison.
CC – but you are arguing for sex based rights that the GP policies
call for the elimination of sex based rights
SA – you will recall that I objected to your narrow definition of sex based rights
CC – there is no distinction between sex and gender in this document
SA – that’s not correct – quoting from the statement about multiple gender
CC – there is no distinction between sex and gender in this document
SA – not in the trans section
CC – nowhere in the document does it do that?
SA – I can’t say but possibly not.
CC – now on resignation statement of ?
J – letter dated February 2022
CC – letter refers to current policies on trans rights, campaign for self id, it’s quite clear that the GP policies are not consistent with sex based rights
SA – does she use the term sex based rights
CC – I’m not going to answer questions from you
SA – I was asking for help
CC – her view is that the party’s policies are not consistent with sex based rights,
SA – that’s her opinion, I can’t say
CC – you have attempted to straddle 2 positions, to support both trans rights
and sex based rights to please all the people all the time.
SA – It is true that I have supported trans rights and women’s rights and I believe that supporting both of them is compatible.
CC – you talk about sex based rights and you talk about the difference between sex and
gender. Those are wholly inconsistent with the GP policies. There is no distinction made
SA – we do talk about sex based rights in the health section, they go on to talk about women, men, and children and trans people.
CC – you make a distinction between gender and biological
sex.
SA – I usually refer to gender identity not just gender because it’s vague. And I don’t say biological sex, because it’s just sex.
J – can you clarify
SA – important to use clear terminology, gender is an ambiguous term. Sometimes used as a polite way of talking about
sex.
CC – now going to back to TMAM, TWAW – you determined that these statements are unreasonable and you determined what you wanted to add
SA – it’s up to me how I answer the question
CC – but you’re changing the view
J – can you go over that
SA – I put forward a motion to clarify the TWAW, TMAM statement is about gender identify not about sex
CC – it’s your view that members are confused or don’t understand
SA – no
CC – but that’s what you said. If there isn’t a distinction between
sex and gender identity made it’s not because they are confused it’s because they believe there is no difference.
SA – it is not unreasonable to suggest that this needs clarification and we should make that distinction
CC – but the policy says there is no distinction and
therefore you might not like it, but that is the policy.
SA – My amendments were to assist people in being clear about language – its not deliberate to replace sex with gender identity, I think the language could be improved…
CC – you say…
J – you didn’t finish
SA – I did believe that my understanding was the right one and that I was allowed to give that as my answer at the hustings, and that was consistent with GP policies, I was only clarifying
CC – you applied for spokesperson. You got an email from MSC,
CC – you sent an email to MSC – there is no request to refrain from using ?? on TV. MSC expressly requests you to refrain from mentioning this exciting news.
SA – I did mention it, I didn’t notice the suggestion or direction to refrain from mentioning it. I was very excited.
SA – it was an innocent mistake and I corrected it as soon as possible.
CC – you attended the launch of ‘spokespeople’ there was considerable press work done in advance of that event.
J – time for afternoon break? We can sit until 5 pm is that okay?
CC – today, 4:30.
J – fine, 5 on other days. We will rise and be back at 4 pm.
Break.
We are back
J – Can I ask wholeheartedly that we all keep our voices up?
CC – yes, now referring to an email from member of press department in relation to the launch, turn to page 864 please
SA -yes
CC – now a email to BBC about launch
SA – sure
CC – now an email to press
association about the launch
SA – yes
CC – referring to a particular document….. now an email to the Independent about the spokespeople and your role
SA – sure
CC – there’s a response at the top of that page ….now page 379,
J – supplementary bundle or core bundle
CC – sorry, core bundle, this is the press release that went out in relation to the launch, it says pictures will be available from launch, now page 375, tweet sent by JB that introduces new spokespersons and the launch.
There is nothing to suggest that photos will be sent out.
SA – it says photos will be available from the launch.
CC – it says you have to ask for them
SA – there’s 2 things, future tense ‘will be available’, and current tense, ask for more information
CC – there is nothing to suggest that photos will be sent out, and nothing to
suggest that there would be a video.
SA – I would contest that. You should distinguish between a slide show of the spokespeople that was prepared in advance, and a video that it was taken on the day. It is implausible that a political party would take a one minute video and
then do nothing with it.
SA – and for pictures, not only does it imply that pictures would be made available, no pictures were sent to the press although they were taken. If I may just, it’s a minor point, this tweet on page 375, was by JB, it wasn’t it was a retweet
CC – you refer to ‘doctoring’
SA – I’m referring to someone else using that expression, it’s not my expression
CC – it’s a correction of a spelling error of your name in the slide show
SA – it can’t because it was already corrected. It looks to me like it’s a staff member
referring to a file that had just been shared being changed.
CC – missed – on to new document
CC – the first column references your name, the second column talks about doctoring
SA – it looks like it, but is that the evidence I was referring to
CC – you refer to a video and there was no detriment to you because of it, there was no video, you suffered no detriment at the launch
SA – the question is?
CC – you were not disadvanted
SA – I won’t delve into the legal language of detriments
but I was disadvantaged because the video was made and then not released because I was in it.
CC – but no disadvantage to you
J – can you explain again how it was a detriment to you
SA – in a situation where I was shocked by the abuse I’ve received and they were worried about
a pile on. They shot the video, and if they had released it as normal, it would have been evidence that they stood by me and supported me as a recently appointed spokesman.
CC – you refer to a heated discussion about your appointment you say that you felt she was trying to
protect you from the reaction to your appointment but that’s not true.
SA – It is entirely political. I didn’t quote her directly, but it was obvious to me what was going on and what the subject of the discussion was.
CC – but you weren’t part of that discussion.
SA – but I was close enough to understand what was being discussed.
CC – but JB wasn’t concerned about your appointment was he?
SA – that seems to be what they are saying now.
CC – JB expressed his appreciation to MSC and discussed undertaking due diligence on spokespeople
And someone had mentioned military intervention in Syria. That is another person.
SA – that is not what they were talking about. I’m certain it wasn’t.
CC – but MSC says it wasn’t about you. You are assuming it was about you and it wasn’t.
SA – but the pile on that happened on the date of launch were about me, not about the other person.
CC – but they have said it wasn’t about you.
SA – there was no need to have a heated discussion about any other appointment. I think that JB was trying to get everyone behind
my appointment. That was the point of the discussion.
J – this might be a good time to stop for the day.
Shall we say 10 or 10:30 tomorrow?
All agreed 10 am.
Court rises.
End
The Green Light 