#employment tribunal hearing

[sometimes-men-need-help-too]

Male checkout worker ‘kicked in the backside’ by female colleague wins sex discrimination case

A supermarket worker has won a sex discrimination case after he was kicked by a female colleague.

Choon Seng Goh, a checkout worker at Asda, told an employment tribunal he was left “humiliated” by the woman, who kicked and kneed him twice, and that if a man had done the same they would have been “sacked on the spot”.

Bosses took months to start investigating his claims before eventually finding Mercy Asante, the woman who kicked him from behind, had “no case to answer”, the hearing was told.

Now Mr Goh is in line to receive compensation after a judge ruled Asda’s investigation had been “seriously flawed” and that the supermarket had discriminated against him on the grounds of his gender.

Mr Goh had started working at a Croydon branch of the supermarket in December 2010.

The tribunal heard that while at his checkout in January 2019, Ms Asante “kicked him in the backside”, although Mr Goh did not report it at the time as he thought it was “a one-off”.

However, in February, Ms Asante then “kneed” him in the backside with enough force that he “jolted forward” and later needed to see his GP.

‘Angry and humiliated’

The tribunal, held in south London, was told the incident left him feeling “angry and humiliated”.

He reported it to his manager, but the panel heard nothing was done over the following months.

When Mr Goh overheard colleagues in June talking about him being kicked, he was upset and approached the store manager, who told him to re-submit his complaint.

When interviewed by managers and asked about his relationship with Ms Asante, Mr Goh said they “joked and laughed” but were “never close”.

He recounted the first incident where Ms Asante “smirked” at him as she walked away from kicking his backside and said he had no idea why she had done it.

Telling bosses about being kneed, he said it had been “eight out of 10” on the pain scale and he had problems with his bowel since.

Ms Asante was interviewed by a different manager and said she did not remember hitting Mr Goh, claiming the pair “always hit and punch each other as a joke”. She was told she “shouldn’t take these jokes to another level and be aggressive”.

At a mediation hearing that December, Ms Asante then claimed Mr Goh had touched her breasts – something he strongly refuted and said was “completely untrue”.

The tribunal heard that following this, Mr Goh took out a formal grievance and was “furious” it had taken nearly a year for the complaint to be acknowledged.

Formal grievance

At a formal grievance meeting, he claimed the matter would have been dealt with quicker “had he not been male” – and that a man would have been “sacked on the spot” if guilty of the same allegation.

The investigation concluded that Ms Asante had a “very playful/banter relationship” with Mr Goh and said of their investigation that “gender had not come into it”.

In May 2020, Mr Goh appealed against the rejection of his grievance, and took Asda to court after his appeal was rejected. 

The tribunal panel ruled the sex of the perpetrator was a “relevant circumstance”.

Addressing Asda’s handling of his complaint, Employment Judge Stephen Heath said: “We have little difficulty accepting Mr Goh’s complaints were not taken seriously.

“There was no proper attempt to grapple with the core part of his complaint, namely, that had he been a woman his complaints would have been dealt with differently.

“We conclude that the appeal hearing and its outcome was mismanaged. The focus was not on addressing his complaints ... the outcome was significantly flawed in that it did not address a crucial element of the complaint.”

Mr Goh won claims of direct sex discrimination. A remedy hearing to decide on how much compensation he receives will take place at a later date.

[ukrfeminism]

Westminster city council and Social Work England last week became the latest to join a list of organisations – including Arts Council England, a barristers’ chambers and a thinktank – found to have discriminated against a female worker because of their gender-critical beliefs.

The social worker Rachel Meade’s winagainst the council and her profession’s regulator means she joins a select but growing group of gender-critical feminists who have successfully brought discrimination claims on the basis of their beliefs.

Gender-critical feminists believe sex is biological and cannot be changed, and disagree with trans rights activists who say gender identity should be given priority in terms of law-making and policy. Clashes in workplaces – in some cases with those who regard the focus on biological sex as transphobic – have led to a string of employment tribunals.

On Monday, a tribunal began hearing a constructive dismissal claim from Roz Adams against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Next month, Kenny McBride’s case against the Scottish government is due to be heard in Glasgow, while judgments are pending in a claim from Prof Jo Phoenix against the Open University and that of the Green party’s former deputy leader Shahrar Ali against the party.

In all four cases – and more in the pipeline – the claimants argue they were discriminated against because they hold gender-critical beliefs.

They hope to follow in the footsteps of the barrister Allison Bailey, and of the researcher Maya Forstater who obtained a landmark judgment in 2021 that her gender-critical beliefs were a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act. The campaign group Sex Matters, founded by Forstater, has identified at least 19 current cases.

After the Meade case last week, which like several others involved disciplinary action being initiated against an employee as a result of social media postings, Westminster council said it would “consider what changes we need to make”. For the local authority it comes too late to prevent a payout, but other employers may need to learn from it.

Lucy Lewis, a partner at the law firm Lewis Silkin, said that on such a politically charged issue, employers could feel they must act quickly after a complaint.

“Because this has become a politically toxic issue, there’s a sort of temptation [on the part of employers] to take a kneejerk reaction rather than the considered view of actually, what is the impact, is there another way we can address this [other than disciplinary proceedings or suspension]?

“People are being influenced by the very public and political dialogue on this and actually there’s value in just taking a step back and understanding all the factors.”

Georgina Calvert-Lee, an employment and equality barrister at Bellevue Law, agreed that the wider debate – in which gender-critical feminists and advocates of transgender rights have been at loggerheads – may have influenced employers, but said they must adjust their behaviour in light of the case law.

“What Forstater and Bailey have done is they’ve set this very strong precedent of tolerance,” Calvert-Lee said.

“Above all, in a pluralistic society, which is what we want, you have to accept that people are going to have different views and some people are going to find their colleagues’ views completely obnoxious – but nevertheless protected because freedom of speech is something that … has been really promoted and underlined.

“It’s always been there but it’s been sort of forgotten in some of these culture wars.”

After settling a case with a gender-critical volunteer, Katie Alcock, Girlguiding UK said it remained “a home for trans people” but added: “We agree that sex and gender are different, and will reflect this in the language we use.”

After another case that was settled out of court, brought by the student James Esses, who was thrown off his course for expressing gender-critical views, the UK Council for Psychotherapy conceded it was a valid professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should receive counselling rather than medical intervention and people should not be discriminated against for such beliefs. Esses’ case against the Metanoia Institute continues.

Calvert-Lee said the cases to date showed the importance of employers training staff “about what is acceptable and what’s not and what amounts to harassment and what probably doesn’t – the sort of respect they should give to each other”, as well as giving training to those staff investigating complaints.

“Whenever there’s some sort of complaint which involves a belief that’s basically pitted against another belief, they [the investigator] have to be completely neutral,” she said. “It’s not on for the investigator to come to it very overtly with their own value judgment.”

The tribunals have made clear that it is not a free-for-all but a balancing exercise. For instance, David Mackereth – an outlier in that he lost his case based on gender-critical beliefs – was found to have crossed the line by misgendering service users at the Department for Work and Pensions, making its decision to dismiss him reasonable.

Calvert-Lee believes the recent increase in cases will ultimately be a blip rather than a growing trend, as workplaces become more aware of the need to handle complaints and concerns more carefully.

The events that led to Meade’s claim came “just weeks before the Forstater employment appeal tribunal decision was given”, she said, and the results of the Forstater and Bailey cases would mean “employers will have training, and so they’re likely to fall off, you’re likely to have fewer cases”.

Lewis said there would always be “bad eggs” but compared the situation to legal cases on manifestations of religious belief at work, such as wearing a cross.

“You have a flurry of cases and people that aren’t lawyers … wonder why those cases go away,” she said. “In a common law system like ours, you have cases that set out some of the principles employment tribunals need to consider and then really good organisations like the CIPD [Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development] take all that reasoning, they give advice and training to employers and then employers are clear about what they need to do, how they should manage this kind of conflict in the workplace.”

She added that the media attention afforded to gender-critical cases perhaps suggested that they were more common than they really were. In fact, she suggested there were likely to be a greater number of claims brought by transgender people alleging harm, though many go unreported.

“The overwhelming majority of employers are not setting out to discriminate; they’re not just thinking ‘well all people with gender-critical views are bad, so we’re just going to get rid of them’,” said Lewis.

“They just have got strong alternative views in the workplace and they haven’t known how to navigate through that conflict.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Matt Dathan

Published: Sep 29, 2023

Holding a view that does not subscribe to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under equality laws, a judge has ruled in what is believed to be a legal first in the UK.

Sean Corby, an employee of the government’s workplace conciliation service Acas, took the organisation to an employment tribunal after bosses ordered him to remove comments that he posted on social media that were critical of Black Lives Matter (BLM).

Corby had written that critical race theory, an ideology that believes racism is entrenched in society and which is at the heart of the BLM movement, is divisive because it portrays white people as racist.

[ Corby argued that Martin Luther King’s methods of confronting racism in society were better than those of Black Lives Matter ]

He argued that a better approach to addressing racism in society was to follow the approach of Martin Luther King, who said we should aspire to a day when people would be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.

Corby made the comments on Yammer, a workplace social media platform.

Some of Corby’s colleagues complained to Acas’ management that the comments were offensive and brought a grievance case against him. They claimed that he was “using the Yammer platform to promote racist ideas” and suggested he could be member of a far-right group. They also said they would not feel safe to be “in contact with him” and questioned his right to be employed by Acas.

Acas dismissed their complaints, but instructed Corby to remove the posts on the grounds that employees had found them offensive.

Corby has taken Acas to an employment tribunal, claiming he had been unlawfully discriminated against and his views were protected under the Equalities Act in the same way as his colleagues’ views on critical race theory. Religion or belief are among nine protected characteristics under the Equalities Act.

The Free Speech Union, which has supported Corby in his case against Acas, said his colleagues had wrongly tried to silence him.

Acas defended its decision to instruct him to remove his social media posts, arguing that what he was posting were only opinions, rather than beliefs and were subsequently not protected under the Equalities Act.

Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre, presiding over the case in Leeds in a three-day hearing earlier this month, ruled in Corby’s favour on the basis that he had given his beliefs careful consideration and much thought.

[ Corby said his beliefs on race are rooted in the ideas of Howard Thurman, above, and “others who railed against segregation and separatism” ]

As a result, she said his comments opposing Black Lives Matter and critical race theory fall under the “religion or belief” section of the Equalities Act. The ruling paves the way for the tribunal to consider in April whether Corby was unlawfully discriminated against by Acas.

It is believed to be the first time a judge has ruled that holding a contrary view to critical race theory is a protected characteristic under equality laws.

“Colleagues who’d never met me and knew nothing about me or my life targeted me and called me a racist. This caused me a great deal of distress,” Corby said.

“My beliefs on race are rooted in the ideas of Howard Thurman and others who railed against segregation and separatism, as well as in my personal experience. I grew up with black people, was immersed in their culture and dedicated my life to music and education. I have also experienced bigotry from white and black people in various forms and on many occasions. It is reprehensible of anyone to seek to divide us along lines of colour or to try and bully anti-racists like me into silence.

“I’m delighted we have made a stand and taken a step to embedding a in the workplace a more conciliatory and harmonious approach to dealing with issues around race.”

Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said the case was “a significant victory for the cause of freedom of speech” in the UK.

He added: “Sean’s belief that we should judge people on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin is eminently sensible and shared by most people, save for a handful of far-right and far-left activists. His employer should not have taken seriously the vexatious complaints of Sean’s colleagues, who claimed that his quoting Martin Luther King made them feel ‘unsafe’.”

An Acas spokesman said: “We take pride in having a diverse workforce and have noted the tribunal’s decision on one aspect of this case that is set to conclude next year. We value Acas staff having a voice and our regular staff surveys continue to show that Acas is an inclusive organisation.”

[ Via: https://archive.md/WCowc ]

--

Here's a diagram:

==

Separation of church and state.

"cAnCeL cULtUrE dOeSnT eXiSt!!"

[soon-palestine]

Rahman Lowe Secures Landmark Victory in Employment Case for Professor David Miller Against Bristol University. Tribunal finds that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.

@Tracking_Power

#Discrimination #AntiZionism #Belief #Palestine

https://t.co/7q2hztA75b

A judge has ruled that academic David Miller was discriminated against at Bristol University due to his anti-Zionist views. This landmark case has established that anti-Zionist beliefs are to be protected in the workplace.

Over many years, anti-Zionists have faced harassment and censorship in Britain due to the efforts of the Israel lobby. Many people have faced disciplinary procedures and lost their jobs for manifesting their anti-Zionist beliefs. Before I took my case, it was unclear whether a belief in the idea that Zionism is a racist, imperialist, and colonial ideology could be protected under the Equality Act 2010 as a philosophical belief. I’m proud to say that, with this case, we have proven that anti-Zionist beliefs, of the sort that I articulated, should be protected. I hope this case will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached. The determination that I was sacked for my anti-Zionist beliefs is a vindication of the case I made all the way through this process. The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because Zionist students were offended by my various remarks. However, it was plain from the evidence provided by the university’s own witnesses, that I was sacked because of the anti-Zionist nature of my comments. This verdict is also a vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period, which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist Zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-Zionism. The self-justifying and defensive approach of the sort illustrated by many on the left and even in the Palestine Solidarity movement will not work. The Zionist movement cannot be negotiated with. It must be defeated. I thank the Tribunal, Judge Pirani, and the two panellists Ms Kaye and Mr Launder for the professional way that proceedings were conducted and for giving me a fair hearing in spite of many external pressures. I also thank my legal team

@ZillRah7 of

@RahmanLowe and Zac Sammour of

@11KBW for their strong commitment, from the outset, to defending the right to be anti-Zionist. I am also truly grateful to every single person who has donated to this case through the

@Fighting_Fund. Without your support, there is no way I could have seen this through to the end. This is just as much your victory as it is mine. Now we need to spread the campaign to #DismantleZionism all around the world - wherever the Zionist movement raises its ugly head.

[sebsrainbowbicycle]

Your take on the horner situation makes sense but I still have a niggling feeling that the investigation could have been rigged because there isn't anything publicly available about it. So one question I had, is even an internal investigation like this audited? Is there some kind of overseeing external body that will have access to this information and be able to verify that things were done properly?

Hi, let me answer this in two parts, firstly there not being anything publicly available about the investigation. This is because legally, unless everyone involved in the proceedings gives their explicit consent, personal data cannot be shared. GDPR gives data subjects (aka the people who the data is about) protections for their privacy and their rights and freedoms should always be considered. When sharing any data you need a lawful basis, (there are exceptions but none that would cover a company sharing internal investigation information with the public), and if they don’t have one they cannot share it. Ultimately this is to protect both the victim and the accused from interference, keep them safe and afford them privacy which is a qualified human right.

Now, onto this investigation, is it possible that it was misconducted, rigged or otherwise improperly handled? Absolutely. This happens all the time, and for a myriad of reasons. Now onto next steps.

Let me caveat, everything I’m about to say is as the law is in the UK as I understand it, other countries will have different rules and laws, and I do not know what country the employment contract with this employee was in, so I’m using the UK to answer.

If an employee has raised a formal grievance, and is unhappy with the outcome because they feel it is wrong or unfair, they can raise an appeal to their employer. An employer should offer the right of appeal, and look at the case again to ensure that the procedures were followed, and that the outcome was fair. They may undertake another investigation if they feel it is necessary, with different people conducting the investigation, and they may change the outcome, or uphold the original outcome.

If the employee is still unhappy once an appeal has been conducted, or if the company refuses to conduct an appeal, they can take their employer to an employment tribunal. They would notify a body called ACAS about their intent to make a claim to the employment tribunal, and acas will offer to speak to the employee and the employer separately to try to resolve the issue without having to go to a tribunal. If this isn’t possible, the case will be heard at a tribunal. Evidence will be submitted from both sides, and a hearing will be held, where each party or their representative will present their case to the judge and any other tribunal members. The judge will ask questions of both parties, and both parties will be able to ask questions of each other. It’s a formal hearing with a judge presiding, and the judge will review all the evidence alongside the information collected on the day, and make their decision - sometimes on the day and sometimes up to a few weeks after the hearing.

If the judge found that the grievance and or appeal had been rigged or mishandled, they would not take kindly to this, and any compensation would be increased due to this, the judge will be looking to ensure any and all policies and procedures have been correctly followed, and will analyse all the evidence submitted.

After this. If the employee was unhappy with the outcome of the employment tribunal, they can ask the tribunal to reconsider the decision, but this can only be if there was an error of law, or if there is new evidence. They could also appeal to the employment appeal tribunal if they felt that the employment tribunal had made a legal mistake.

Like I said, this is only for the UK, but I hope this helps give a bit more information about what next steps could be.

[headpainmigraine]

I've seen too many posts from disabled people feeling shame for being angry now, and I've had enough of it.

I see too many posts from physically abled people disregarding the lived experiences of physically disabled people because we're angry.

Part of cripplepunk is that we don't shrink ourselves into the timid, sweet, smiling good little cripple that the ableds want to see, like it's a mystery to them.

Part of cripplepunk is letting yourself be angry.

Chronic pain causes structural and functional changes in our brains.

Induced migraine onset caused immediate personality changes in patients who entered the study clinic polite and chatty only to become surly, aggressive and withdrawn.

And even if you think all of that is bull, look at the world we live in.

Look at the things able-bodied people say in the comments of any physically disabled person's vent blogs.

Look at the world that isn't made for us.

how we can't get wheelchairs into shops,

how we're put in real danger by people parking like twats,

fighting sloped pavements,

fighting lack of public seating,

no hearing loops

no Braille

having to rely on underpaid undertrained part time staff to use the lift or get to the second floor or get through the back door because the front one has a single step

fighting dirty looks and abuse when we use the disabled seating on the bus or the train,

and people who still don't understand why we "have to be so mean."

Infantalised, dehumanised, objectified, forgotten, forgotten and again forgotten, and able-bodied people have the gall to tell us "you don't have to be so rude."

Dismissing our point of view because we didn't present it politely enough for them.

These people who don't think twice about making last minute plans, booking holidays, taking public transport, just popping to the shops, fucking hydrating, but still think we're being unreasonable when we tell them that medical supplies aren't toys and shouldn't be treated or used as such, yeah, regardless of supply.

We're forced to work twice as hard to be just as productive as coworkers with half the good will from management breathing down your neck about your sick days.

Trying to find employment with no luck, finding employment and not being unaccommodated in the workplace, being fired, trying to claim benefits via a long humiliating process, being denied, and appealing, and being denied, and going to tribunal to have a crappy decision overturned, only you've had no money for half a year and then some.

And even seeing other physically disabled people with the "luxury" of mobility aids fitted for them, and high quality care, and support, and being seethingly angry, not because they have something you don't, but because those things are seen as luxuries.

Because our basic standard of living as defined by the government (any government) is "struggle and die"

I'm not saying lashing out at others is fair, or that being angry all the time is healthy - there are therapists out there who deal with people in intractable chronic pain who can help with that kind of thing

But I AM saying, don't be ashamed of being furious. Don't be embarrassed to be angry.

Because do you think those motherfuckers could live our lives with the serenity and sweetness and politeness that they demand from us?

[anonymoushouseplantfan]

The teacher who accused Prince Harry of cheating, and claimed she ghost-wrote his A-level course work, has been awarded £45,000 in damages.

Last July, Sarah Forsyth, a former art teacher at Eton College, won her case for unfair dismissal against the school, during which she said she had written the text to accompany the paintings the prince submitted for his A-level art project.

The employment tribunal investigating the claims found no evidence of cheating, but it accepted the prince had received help in preparing his A-level "expressive" project, which he needed to pass to secure his place at Sandhurst.

An exam board later cleared Harry of cheating, but the scandal tarnished the reputation of the so-called party prince, and threw into doubt the integrity of one of the country's oldest and most venerable schools, whose management was described by the tribunal as prejudicial, unprofessional and high-handed in its treatment of Ms Forsyth.

During the ensuing unfair dismissal hearing, Ms Forsyth claimed she was bullied by staff, and that she was a victim of sexual discrimination. She also said she was asked by the college's head of art, Ian Burke, to help Harry with the written submission to accompany his artworks. She claimed she had a tape of a conversation between herself and the prince which backed her claim.

In its judgment which criticised the school's senior management, the tribunal said: "It is clear whichever version of the evidence is accepted that Mr Burke did ask the claimant to assist Prince Harry with text for his expressive art project ... It is not part of this tribunal's function to determine whether or not it was legitimate."

Yesterday, Ms Forsyth's lawyer, Anthony Sakrouge of Russell-Cooke, said his client was "content that the settlement that has been agreed reflects the fact that she was unfairly treated".

During the ensuing unfair dismissal hearing, Ms Forsyth claimed she was bullied by staff, and that she was a victim of sexual discrimination. She also said she was asked by the college's head of art, Ian Burke, to help Harry with the written submission to accompany his artworks. She claimed she had a tape of a conversation between herself and the prince which backed her claim.

In its judgment which criticised the school's senior management, the tribunal said: "It is clear whichever version of the evidence is accepted that Mr Burke did ask the claimant to assist Prince Harry with text for his expressive art project ... It is not part of this tribunal's function to determine whether or not it was legitimate."

Yesterday, Ms Forsyth's lawyer, Anthony Sakrouge of Russell-Cooke, said his client was "content that the settlement that has been agreed reflects the fact that she was unfairly treated"

Harry still claims he didn’t cheat, lol.

[beardedmrbean]

An employment tribunal hearing brought by a sacked Christian teacher has collapsed after "prejudiced" comments were made by a panel member online.

The unnamed teacher brought the case against a primary school and Nottinghamshire County Council after she was dismissed for opposing the local transgender policy.

She was suspended for refusing to "affirm" an eight-year-old girl who wanted to be treated as a boy.

The teacher was later sacked for gross misconduct after looking up the child on the school's safeguarding database and sharing the information with her lawyers.

However, the case has collapsed after panel member Jed Purkis demonstrated a "significant prejudice against Christians".

The former GMB union officer has also expressed anti-Tory views, describing Conservative Party supporters as a "tumour".

The unnamed teacher described herself as a "Bible-believing Christian" and stressed her faith informed her belief on sex being an "immutable biological fact".

She also expressed concern about "social transition" resulting in "irreversible harm" being caused to a young person.

The case was being heard by panel members for six days.

However, all three members, including judge Victoria Butler, recused themselves late on Monday after Purkis' comments were discovered.

The hearing will be rescheduled for later in the year.

Responding to a comment suggesting only atheists should be in public office, Purkis wrote: "Damn right, you won't catch us killing in the name of our non-God."

Purkis also said: "If they are so f*****g super how comes there is so much shit going on in the world."

He separately asked "what's a good collective noun for Tories?", adding "a tumour of Tories" and a "cess pit of Tories".

Representing the teacher, Pavel Stroilov argued Purkis "appears to agree with a view which expressly advocates for religious discrimination in public life".

The teacher said it was a delay in receiving justice "but I have to have a fair trial".

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

An employment tribunal in Leeds (UK) has heard suggestions that a Christian social worker's beliefs could lead to the suicide of vulnerable members of the LGBT community. 

The tribunal is hearing discrimination claims brought by Felix Ngole after a job offer was withdrawn by Touchstone Support Leeds. 

Mr Ngole, a 46-year-old pastor in Barnsley, lost the job after Touchstone discovered that he won a landmark free speech case against Sheffield University, who removed him from a social worker training course over Facebook posts in which he called homosexuality "wicked" and "sinful"...

[victorianasshole]

A whole mudcrab's worth of meat (Vivec x Masc!reader) Chapter 1/?

Heyy this is my first time sharing my writing on here, so be nice. This was very self indulgent, but if you guys like it, there'll porbably be more!!

Includes: 1st person reader, OC character(s), Ohmes Raht reader, masc!reader, Vivec, other canon characters, canon environment

CW: Murder, cursing, violence, fantasy bigotry?? Lmk if more needs to be added.

Word count: 2804

...

A whole mudcrab's worth of meat. Gone, just like that. I cursed under my breath as I looked up from the shrubbery at whoever was obnoxious enough to scare my lunch away. An Elseweyr mercenary… And here I thought I'd be left alone, so far east. The feline man crouched by the bank of the water, filling his water skin. Seeming pretty pissed off himself. Perhaps he was looking for someone?

Despite my gut feeling of simply turning away, I stood up, hailing the fellow. 

We soon ended up making a campfire, finding it easier to camp together for the night. Of course only after we both understood no harm would come to the other. As a performance of trust, we shared our names and secrets as well, as the moons peaked over the horizon. 

M'aiko was his name. A grumpy and quiet Cathay, but not without a small humour in his eye. As he dusted his rations with moonsugar, he began to speak freely for the first time that night. 

“M'aiko is looking for some cultist Ashlander. As it turns out this is a regular occurrence. However, this particular cultist has avoided proving his validity long enough for it to be a bother.” 

I nodded at his words, pondering the fire as it heated the hound meat I bought some days ago in Molag Mar. 

“I hear it's about some rebirth prophecy. Some king that died long ago… But wait, if you're doing this job, wouldn't your employer be-?”

M'aiko grinned, seeming a bit self-satisfied. “This one has no idea how I've come to such luck, but Lord Vivec himself sent me. Well... Through a mouthpiece.”

“How do you know you're not being set up for a simple assassination?”

“They paid beforehand. And only the houses would grace anyone with as heavy a pouch as what I got.”

I hummed... It seemed a bit too good to be true. But I didn't have the heart to say it. Though, it WAS pretty believable. As the khajiit would show me, he had the official tribunal seal on him and everything. I looked back at his pouch… 

“Say… You still owe this one for that mudcrab I was to eat tonight. Why don't you pay me back by letting me come along?”

M’aiko didn’t seem too pleased by the idea of having me with. Understandable. I was but a simple hunter. But I did so want to come with. He simply raised a brow and handed me some of his moonsugar as the meat I had on the fire seemed finished. “What could a hunter offer a mercenary?”“Restoration magic, Illusion magic… Lock picking and a good arrow.” I listed, sprinkling a healthy amount of the glittery spice on the meat. It had been quite some time since I had felt the good and warm buzz of my home’s number one trade. “And this one could only imagine you long for another cat to speak to. These dumner are not the best company…” 

I got him to laugh at that. I curled my tail in delight, knowing I had now won him over. 

…

My boot came down heavy on the last embers of the fire the next morning. We had agreed to wake early, to be done with the job as soon as possible. I wasn't too eager to kill anyone, but it was not like I hadn't done so before. The roads were treacherous. It was necessary to kill these days. This time, however, it was to be a little different. Thankfully, M'aiko and I had already planned that I was to be his shadow, and less so in the middle of the conflict. If he needed healing, he was to get healing. If he needed his back covered, he was to be aided by my arrow. That was something I could get behind.

I followed M'aiko's steps through the tiny islands on the edge of the coast. We agreed that the roads were too risky to be caught in. The roads had yet to become more guarded in the wake of the recent uptick in crime this year, but we were primarily worried about being seen by commoners. M’aiko had promised confidentiality. So hiding in nature seemed like our best bet.

The round volcanic pebbles rustled by the shoreline, making odd clicking sounds as they grinded together. I picked one up and put it in my pocket as we walked. The trip wouldn’t take so long, he assured. Halfway to Sadrith Mora. So I was content enough to just walk along. Passing small ruins of Dwemer, egg mines, and other small locations of note… I enjoyed the change of scenery. M’aiko was quick, however, so we never stayed in one place for long. Only when we rested. He even carried me when the water was too high for me to safely swim from island to island with my gear, simply because he didn’t have the time to go around. We used the night for travelling as well. But not before long…

“You see the tents over the creeks, yes?”

I hummed in the affirmative, having already subconsciously lowered my body a little. 

“We are to target Dralas. He is a loud type, easy to spot. Preferably no one will see us by the time it is over.”

“I'll head up behind the cliffside then. From there, my arrow and spells will be within range of the camp.” 

I suggested, and M'aiko silently nodded in agreement to the plan. I took that as my cue to quietly disappear up the hill to take purchase by a larger rock, for cover. Once I was situated and hidden, I took my dagger and let the sun fall upon it, guiding the reflected light upon M'aiko to tell him I was ready.

And so he went.

He was quick. I couldn't look away for a moment, lest he simply disappear from my eyes. Not a soul in the camp realised as he sneaked from tent to tent, many of the nomads having yet to properly wake up yet. Then Dralas stepped out from the wise women's tent. And things were quick to get more complicated. 

As Dralas stepped outside, he called the camp close to surround him, to make some kind of announcement. I couldn't hear what he was saying, but I could easily understand that all this attention on our target was a stick in the wheel for M'aiko's plan. I tried to think, quickly. M'aiko looked up at me in frustrated uncertainty… I took out one of my arrows and brushed my hand against the stick. Concentrating on it… And just then, I was no longer holding an arrow. I put the weight I felt in my hand against the arrow rest on my bow, breathed in as I pulled the string back… And then Dralas clutched his chest. Blood spread quickly under his sandy cape. The arrow revealed itself as my concentration faltered. And Dralas fell to the ground.

The outrage was immediate, and the armed Ashlanders were soon out to search the surrounding area for me. M'aiko took the opposite direction, and I spent my remaining magic to become unseen as I followed him away from the crime scene…

“...Did I get him properly? I couldn't see if he died from where I sat.” 

I spoke up quietly, dropping the invisibility when I knew we were both hidden well enough. We could still hear the yells from the camp.

“Oh, you got him alright.”

M’aiko's voice was heaving, and I was for a moment afraid that he had gotten hurt in the chaos of getting away. But he held up a hand to signal he was fine.

“...You're coming back to Vivec with this one. I think this calls for you to get the other half of the payment.”

…

I had never been to Vivec City before. I had imagined it to be big, but this was beyond my expectations. The newly finished Foreign Quarter greeted us, and M’aiko looked down at me with a humoured expression. I barely noticed, my eyes glued to the giant rock floating over the tops of the cantons. I knew I was small, but this made me feel ever so smaller… 

“Never been here, I assume?”

I shook my head quietly and fixed on the straps of my old rucksack a bit. Maybe I looked too uncomfortable. Holding onto my dignity, I took the first step over the bridge to the city, knowing M’aiko would follow to not lose me in the crowd.

We had travelled together for a little under a week now, through the east side. Become what I would probably call friends. We never really spoke when on the move, but we shared plenty of stories and laughs over the fire. The night before we arrived at Vivec, I had taken out the Skyrim mead I had been keeping for the right occasion. The wooden cups dyed lightly purple from the blackberry spirits. M’aiko nodded a thank you. He was quiet tonight. “The Temple Canton is open to the public. When we get there, we’ll likely speak with Vivec about your payment.”

I choked on the mead. “What, THE Vivec??”

M’aiko nodded, giving a cheeky smile I had come to recognize as teasing. But it seemed a bit forced. I understood it fine enough. Two Khajiiti mercenaries are not exactly ‘meant’ to interact with the Dumner gods. And the thought of even setting foot in the home of one of them was nerve-wracking… We drank from our cups in silent synchronicity. After a moment of quiet, I decided to ask what I was sure we were both uncertain about.

“Well, what do you plan on saying to him?”

The stairs up to the temple looked like a whole day’s worth of fitness. This god must think they’re quite high and mighty… I tried my best not to roll my eyes at having to exhaust myself, as we approached the temple doors. Or palace doors. At this point, I wasn’t sure what to call this gold-plated erection... M’aiko patted my back as we reached the final steps, heaving just as much as myself by the end. The guards standing watch by the entrance somehow emanated the energy of a side eye to the both of us through their helms, looking on as we caught our breath a bit. But they didn’t block the entrance, thankfully. 

I looked at M’aiko. M’aiko looked at me, reflecting my expression perfectly. He looked like he was about to shit himself. 

“On three?”

“No, that’s stupid.” He countered, opening the temple gate with a push before I could quip back. I sucked in a small breath, getting my heart stuck in my throat. I was not ready. Neither was he, but the bastard didn’t show it like I undoubtedly was. 

I had no choice but to follow his tail, however, making an active effort not to make myself too visible. Or visible at all. Anything to make M’aiko be the one talking.

The greeting hall felt bigger than it looked from the outside. Murals complimented the round loft of the chamber, gold lines shimmering echoes of the stories they told. Of Vivec, and his deeds to the lands of Vvardenfell. Of his accomplishments, and their power. I looked down at the floor. It seemed rude to stare. A small pat on my back from M’aiko made me buckle down on one knee, my eyes still fixed on the tiled floor. I felt rickety and confused. And then I felt warmth fall on my forehead and shin. A bright light casting shadows in the cracks of the ceramic stone. I made damn sure to keep my head down.

“Lord Vivec. This one comes to announce the downfall of Dralas of the Erabenimsun Tribe.” He sounded so formal.

“I thank you for this news. Who is your companion?”

My throat bobbed. I didn’t know if I should talk. Or look up. But M’aiko thankfully set forth my name before I had to do it. 

“He was the one who dealt the final blow. That is why we went to you directly, so you can judge the payment for his contribution.”

“I see.”

…I had to look up now.

When we locked eyes, he surprisingly didn’t seem all that imposing. More curious and gentle than anything. He was still hard to look at, with practically shining skin and a presence that nearly filled the entire room. It was hard to hold a common-folk bias towards what I was looking at. Even when I was kneeling on a floor that probably cost more to make than what I would have been sold for. 

I made an awkward croak. He smiled. I looked back down. “I have made up my mind. I propose you get equal payment to compliment your companion’s pouch. Furthermore, I will sign you a permit to purchase housing here in Vivec, for your initiative to help the temple. And lastly…”I could see the god’s feet touch the ground, not a sound emanating from him at all. It made me wonder if I was imagining things. I couldn’t hear him like I heard most other living things. I couldn’t find a breath. A heartbeat. Except for my own galloping organ.

“I thank you. Should you ever need work again, you will always be welcome in the temple for it. I will make sure there is always a position you may take.”

I tried making a sound, pressing out what could be interpreted as a “thank you”. It didn’t go too well, so I tried adding some kind of head-bowing to it. M’aiko thanked them as well, following my lead with a bow. This was scary and embarrassing and humiliating and I needed to leave. M’aiko was already getting up and leaving. But as I went to stand myself, to back away timidly, I was robbed of that opportunity to flee, to get away from the probably already sore eyes of the God-King. However, they were the one stopping me, calling my name. “You are but a simple hunter, yes?”

I looked back instinctively, but quickly changed my mind and averted my gaze again when I actually met them with my eyes. “Uh… Yeah- Yes. I’ve just been living off the land. For about eight months now.”

It took real strength to not use khajiiti formalities with him. I had come to know how dumner people sometimes react to such things, so I tried my best to use their tongue. But if this had been the Mane… I remembered giving my hair when I went away. It was much like this. Scary, humbling and breathtaking. Speaking to overpowering devines was never really my cup of tea. But back then, before all of it, when I had given my hair. It felt easier. Maybe that was simply just because it was kin. Or because I had an innocence to hide behind.

“You must excuse my curiosity. But I fail to see how a common hunter like yourself would need to know illusion magic to such a high degree.”

M’aiko hadn’t said how I killed Dralas, did he? He didn’t. I looked up at Vivec, my confusion louder than my awe for just a moment. They simply smiled encouragingly for an answer. “Uhm… I, well..” Would I get captured if I just run now? Was I allowed to tell him? I should act less apprehended.

“.... Back in Elsweyr, I once spent my days making some coin in higher circles, lending out my services to nobles who wanted an extra hand in networking. It was… Appreciated, when one’s opponents heard false rumours. Saw the wrong hand at the gambling table. Things like that. After some complications with those very opponents, it was best for me to leave and live off the grid for a while.”

Vivec hummed along to my words, giving a small nod. Did I just out myself for a fraud? Or a criminal? I did, I didn’t mean to say so much. It was as if their gaze pulled the words out of my mouth with string. My mind raced to try and read the god’s reaction. Was such activity illegal here? I hadn’t done it since I left, but… 

“A social networker, then. I won’t pry into why you’ve ended up here in Vvardenfell, of all places. However…”

I had to look down again when he came closer. They were scrutinizing me, I knew as much. But I also knew why, now. I was useful. I could feel it in their demeanour, I had proved myself useful. More handy than a sword for hire, at least…

“... Hm. I look forward to our next meeting, friend.”

I bowed my head.

[pronoun-fucker]

“A barrister has been awarded £22,000 after winning part of a tribunal claim that she was discriminated against because of her gender-critical views.

Allison Bailey, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers (GCC) in London, said her views wrongly resulted in her being labelled as transphobic, in 2019.

GCC was found to have discriminated against her by tweeting it would investigate her tweets that rejected the idea biological sex can change.

She lost her case against Stonewall.

The LGBT charity worked with GCC, which had joined its "diversity champions" scheme. Ms Bailey accused Stonewall of "trans-extremism".

The barrister of 30 years told the hearing at the Central London Employment Tribunal that, as a result of her treatment, her income had been left "substantially reduced" in comparison to previous years.

She said she had been given a reduced quality of work, in order to "break" her spirit.

The tribunal upheld her complaint against GCC over her view that no-one can change their biological sex, with her take on this subject being found to be protected in law.

However, Ms Bailey, who is a lesbian, lost her discrimination claim against Stonewall. In response to the outcome, the barrister said it showed that she had been victimised.

In a statement following the ruling, Stonewall said it was pleased with the outcome of the tribunal.

"The case heard by the employment tribunal did not accurately reflect our intentions and our influence on organisations," the statement said.

"Leaders within organisations are responsible for the organisational culture and the behaviour of their employees and workers.

"Stonewall's resources, support and guidance is just one set of inputs they use to help them as they consider how best to meet the needs of their own organisation."

The tribunal also rejected Ms Bailey's claim against her chambers that she had lost work and income because of her beliefs.

GCC said the ruling had rejected the main claims against it, and that it was considering an appeal.

In 2019, Ms Bailey founded the LGB Alliance, a charity that supports lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

The group opposes many Stonewall policies.

Ms Bailey said she had raised more than £500,000 from about 9,000 individual donors to fund her legal case.”

Link | Archived Link

[ukrfeminism]

Five women have accused a judge of bullying and sexist behaviour during employment tribunal hearings.

One woman told BBC News Judge Philip Lancaster had shouted at her at least 16 times, while another said she feared for any woman appearing before him.

The women, who encountered him in separate cases, said they wanted to highlight his "degrading behaviour".

Mr Lancaster has not responded to questions from the BBC.

All the women we have spoken to lost cases heard in Leeds in front of Judge Lancaster, although some of them have been fully or partially successful on appeal.

Employment tribunals are specialist courts that rule on disputes between employers and employees. There are about 30,000 hearings in England, Scotland and Wales each year, centring around issues such as unfair dismissal, discrimination or redundancy payments. Northern Ireland has a separate system.

Dr Hinaa Toheed, a GP, appeared before Judge Lancaster at an employment tribunal in February 2022, while bringing a case of maternity discrimination against her former business partner.

She says that on the first morning of her hearing the judge described her case as an "omnishambles".

Dr Toheed says as soon as she started giving evidence, the judge took over cross-examining her from the barrister representing her former partner, and tried to bully her into conceding points that supported the other side's case.

"If I didn't agree with anything that he said, he would shout at me," she says.

At the end of the first day, Dr Toheed's legal team became concerned that Judge Lancaster was behaving in an intimidating and aggressive manner towards her.

They noted down each time he shouted at Dr Toheed while she was giving evidence, counting 16 separate occasions over three days.

Dr Toheed says that her lawyers considered asking the judge to stand down from the case but concluded that such a move would almost certainly be unsuccessful and might well simply antagonise him further.

She lost her case but is appealing against the tribunal's findings.

Dr Toheed complained to the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary about Judge Lancaster, accusing him of "an inappropriately hostile attitude" towards her.

Her complaint was considered by a higher judge, Stuart Robertson, in 2022, but his conclusion is being kept "in abeyance" [on hold] until Dr Toheed's appeal is decided.

Judge Robertson justified his decision on the grounds that her complaint covered similar points to her appeal and he wished to "avoid possible embarrassment" to the employment tribunal process.

"It seems like the bigger concern is how this looks for the judiciary, than actually dealing with Judge Lancaster's conduct," says Dr Toheed.

Nine months earlier, a woman called Andra had appeared before Judge Lancaster to represent her partner, Ion Ionel, a joiner from Romania. He had brought a case of racial discrimination against the construction company he worked for.

Although she was not legally trained, Andra, who is also Romanian, said she had prepared extensively for the hearing.

She says Judge Lancaster appeared irritated from the start of the hearing and shouted at both her and her partner on multiple occasions.

"I don't think I've ever been treated like that in my life," she says.

"He literally interrupted me whenever I was asking any questions, saying it's either irrelevant, or I shouldn't ask this today, I should put it to another witness, not this witness. And then when we got to the other witness, he would say: 'Why didn't you ask the other witness yesterday?'"

Mr Ionel lost his case but successfully appealed against the ruling.

An appeal tribunal said that there had been "serious material procedural irregularities" during the hearing, including "a significant number of occasions when the judge intervened to prevent questioning of the respondent's witnesses".

A new hearing - in front of a different judge - has been scheduled for September. Meanwhile, Andra still wants action taken against Judge Lancaster: "What he put us through was horrible, really horrible."

Since November 2023, audio from employment tribunal cases has been routinely recorded in England and Wales.

But at the time these cases were brought (between 2018 and 2022), the judge's written notes of proceedings were treated as the official court record of employment tribunal hearings.

The lack of independent evidence, say the women, means it is difficult to have complaints against judges upheld.

Even now, there are strict guidelines on accessing the recordings - claimants must be accompanied by a court official on court premises.

However, one case heard by Judge Lancaster received publicity in the press. In 2021, Alison McDermott, an HR consultant, brought a high-profile case against Sellafield, the nuclear waste disposal and reprocessing company in Cumbria.

News reports referred to criticisms she made of Judge Lancaster. Ms McDermott says he yelled at her and made "sneering" comments about her earnings.

"I think it mattered hugely that I was a woman," she says. "For some reason, he had a real problem with the fact that I was a well-paid professional woman."

Ms McDermott lost her case, although an appeal judge found there had been errors in her tribunal and she won some minor concessions. A separate hearing is deciding if she is liable for costs.

Her story served as a rallying point for complaints against Judge Lancaster in particular, and the employment tribunal system in general.

BBC News has spoken to two other women who approached Ms McDermott after her case, who had also complained about the judge:

A nurse, who brought a case against an NHS trust in 2021 claims he showed "extreme bias" towards her employer's witnesses, and says he bullied her and "raised his voice angrily" - she lost the case but was partially successful on appeal

In 2018, a woman who lost a case brought before Judge Lancaster alleges that his behaviour was "erratic, illogical, aggressive" and "profoundly disturbing"

"On the one hand, it's affirming," says Ms McDermott. "On the other hand, it's really upsetting to hear that more women have been abused."

Judge Lancaster, who has been an employment tribunal judge since 2007, declined to comment when approached by the BBC.

In a statement, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary said it could not provide comment in response to any conduct allegations.

It also said they could not provide a figure for the number of complaints that had been made against Judge Lancaster, as such information is confidential.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Daniel Martin

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Britain’s diversity drive has been “counterproductive” and done little to reduce prejudice despite millions being spent on inclusivity initiatives, Kemi Badenoch has said. 

The Business Secretary commissioned a report which found that the majority of spending on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) was a waste of money.

The report calls on bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the white working classes when shaping diversity schemes, rather than focusing on “visible” quotas.

It comes amid a wider government crackdown on wasteful diversity schemes, with Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, using his Budget earlier this month to urge councils to cut spending on such policies and Rishi Sunak appointing a “common sense minister”.

Writing for The Telegraph, Mrs Badenoch, who is also equalities minister, says: “The new report shows that, while millions are being spent on these initiatives, many popular EDI practices – such as diversity training – have little to no tangible impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice.  

“In fact, many practices have not only been proven to be ineffective, they have also been counterproductive.”

She adds: “No group should ever be worse off because of companies’ diversity policies – whether that be black women, or white men ... Performative gestures such as compulsory pronouns and rainbow lanyards are often a sign that organisations are struggling to demonstrate how they are being inclusive.”

Expensive schemes

Mrs Badenoch commissioned the independent Inclusion at Work Panel last year to investigate whether EDI was working in Britain amid concerns that too much money was being spent on the schemes.

Diversity training aims to help staff understand the types of discrimination, including direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation, and how to treat others with respect.

But the Business Secretary claimed that it had little impact in increasing diversity or reducing prejudice, pointing out that the number of employment tribunals hearing cases brought under the Equality Act had seen a “notable uptick”.

Experts also said that the “well-intentioned” attempts to boost visible diversity could lead to organisations breaking the law by discriminating against white candidates for jobs.

They found that one in four business leaders said their approach to diversity was reactive, such as being “in response to societal events like the Black Lives Matter protests” that started in 2020.

The report recommended that bosses avoid diversity schemes which alienate certain groups – such as the white working class – cause division, and have no impact. It called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to clarify the legal status for employers in relation to diversity and inclusion practice.

It also urged bosses to take into account disadvantages faced by the working classes when shaping diversity schemes, concluding: “Employers must also consider less visible diversity, including socioeconomic and educational background.”

Mrs Badenoch – who last year said that Britain was “the best country in the world to be black” – hits out at “snake oil” diversity schemes and tells firms that their equality strategies must uphold “fairness and meritocracy”.

She says some firms had broken the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by “censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others”.

“The report finds that, in some cases, employers are even inadvertently breaking the law under the guise of diversity and inclusion by censoring beliefs or discriminating against certain groups in favour of others,” she says.

“This Government believes that EDI policies should unite rather than alienate employees, and crucially uphold fairness and meritocracy.”

The report cited the example of Cheshire Police, which in 2019 had to pay out £100,000 after being found to have discriminated against a white applicant on the grounds of sexual orientation, race and gender.

RAF discrimination

The panel also highlighted the RAF’s discrimination against white men as part of its drive to improve diversity. Last year, it admitted that initiatives to increase the numbers of women and people from ethnic minorities had led to unlawful positive discrimination.

An internal inquiry was sparked by the resignation of a female RAF group captain who told her superiors the policy penalised white men. The inquiry found that she had faced significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets.

Earlier this year, The Telegraph revealed that military personnel wanted to relax clearance checks for ethnic minority officers in a push to hit diversity targets.

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, said the findings showed a “woke” and “extremist culture” had been allowed to infiltrate the Army.

The independent panel said firms should ensure that the number of EDI staff they had represented “value for money”, pointing out that the UK appointed twice as many as any other country.

Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2022 to 6,000 public bodies including the NHS found they employed around 10,000 diversity and inclusion staff, at a cost of £557 million a year to the taxpayer.

Mrs Badenoch is considering a further crackdown on EDI spending in government, with a possible new rule that external consultants should not run such schemes.

It comes after Mr Hunt told government departments last year to sack diversity managers if they wanted to bring in more staff, saying: “Smashing glass ceilings is everyone’s job – not a box to be ticked by hiring a diversity manager.”

Pamela Dow, the chairman of the independent panel, from think tank Civic Future, said: “It has been a privilege to work with such expert colleagues, united in the goal of fairness and belonging in the workplace. Our aim was to support leaders in all sectors to spend time and money well.

“The insights from our wide discussions show how we can build a useful evidence base, track data, improve confidence and trust, and reduce burdens, for organisations across the UK.”

[ Via: https://archive.md/JDB2Z ]

[incarnateirony]

You guys know about the media turf war, right?

Like people talking about how elect groups of people influence the news regardless of a network's supposed primetime skew? like the big anti-trust concerns when Sinclair tried to merge with Tribune in 2018, which would have made it an unchallengeable monopoly. Instead, Tribune fell under Nexstar, a smaller servicer, but that's your triad of like, tv syndicate conservative push, meaning the news on their channel is gonna run similar narratives to each other.. That's your conservative news media you hear about doing machiavellian things under the surface.

What offsets it is other large giants like Gray, based in Atlanta, who have intelligently navigated the market through what could be called black cultural centers to end up claiming the markets in most metro areas, or most ones worth a damn beyond New England, where Sinclair has its foothold. Gray keeps liberal and progressive messaging as best possible on its local news and stays socially focused, doing major food drives and other benefits for struggling communities.

Gray is, in fact, that unicorn of a relatively ethical corporation. I'm sure some obnoxious shit happens inside I haven't seen at some level that just comes with massive companies and employment, but under the skin the values they aspire for and actually enact are. You know. Good. It's wild.

Gray is our corner of the market, if you will. It's the values we want in media. Which is why Gray, Atlanta owned, and owning Atlanta iteslf again from good ol Peachtree, buying out that giant facility that NBC is latching onto and paying for, like. Incomprehensibly huge move people aren't catching yet, and that's before considering the way Atlanta is taking WB for a dogwalk on a leash in revenge for the 10 year ago final new york abandonment. like yeah, assholes, we remember. Oh you need our precious airspace now that's sweet.

Nexstar buying CW is actually an extension of Tribune's market war. they wanted to demand certain value for packages from cable providers that weren't wanting to pay as much, specifically in CW packaging, so for a while CW itself became a regional BSOD in Tribune areas with a very angry message about Tribune being a bunch of greedy shitheads.

But even with their news bias by day that they're gonna tilt the channel with, they actually can't afford to completely undermine the brand that they're trying to elevate. They don't care what it is as long as it brings numbers up so they can charge out the nose again, because we broke the CW's kneecaps that hard.

this is HOW these turf wars work. That's fine, you own a station or a network, but we own all the major cities that you need those ratings from, so get in line buddy.

yeah, it puts the syndicate in TV syndicate. When I say "this is a hold up", I need you to imagine an atlanta tv tower holding out 100 arms of guns at different nexstar and sinclair heads keeping them in check while becoming a direct NBC pipeline, shackling WB in penance and drawing in the new seminal project of the film industry.

lmao eat shit

[coochiequeens]

Among the first casualties of transgenderism and the ideology it spawned were the sexual and social boundaries of lesbians. But very few know that the problem is far older than this nouveau iteration of what is often referred to as a “culture war.”

In recent years, the exclusivity of on- and offline lesbian spaces have been repeatedly subject to scrutiny from those who clamor for the “inclusion” of trans-identified males. Women who assert their right to keep these spaces single-sex, or who express their attractions as being rooted in sex and not the mystical concept of gender, are met with hostility and branded as bigots.

For example, in 2012, Planned Parenthood of Toronto held a workshop called Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the “barriers” (cotton underwear) faced by “queer trans women” in “queer women’s communities.” The workshop description also noted that participants would strategize ways to “overcome” these barriers.

The Cotton Ceiling workshop was recently referenced at a court hearing in May. Allison Bailey, a barrister and lesbian activist, took Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers to an employment tribunal for policing her livelihood due to her views on gender ideology. During the course of the hearing, the idea that lesbians must include males in their sexuality was likened to the racial integration of South Africa. 

But this was hardly the first time lesbians have been deemed “sexual racists” for not wanting to affirm the identity of males. Nor was it the first time that trans-identified males had attempted to force their way into lesbian communities and lives. 

In fact, this is a phenomena goes back decades — right to the beginnings of modern lesbian social and political organizing.

While today’s transgender movement tries to position nebulous conceptions of “gender” over the factual reality and importance of sex, the lesbians of the early gay liberation movement suffered no such confusion. In fact, many who were initially involved in the Gay Liberation Front, which was formed after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, shifted their focus to the growing women’s movement instead. They felt that the gay rights movement was male-dominated and that their interests would be better served by organizing for the specific interests of their own sex.

One of the groups formed by these early lesbian activists was the Radicalesbians. Founded in 1970, the Radicalesbians distributed a manifesto titled “The Woman-Identified Woman” at the Second Congress to Unite Women in New York City. The manifesto focused heavily on the reality of living as a female in a male-dominated society. It helped set the stage for later radical feminist and lesbian feminist thinking.

An early example of heterosexual males in the lesbian movement and lesbian lives came later that same year, when folk singer Beth Elliot (Elliott Basil Mattiuzzi) sent a “Letter from a Transsexual” to the radical feminist newspaper It Ain’t Me Babe. “I am a transsexual,” Elliot wrote. “On the intellectual and emotional levels, I know myself to be a woman; on the physical level, my own body denies me this.” Elliot also described how he met and had sex with an “exclusively gay” woman who “could really see my being a woman.”

The editors of the paper invited Elliot to a conversation where they tried to talk him out of undergoing a sex change operation, telling him that it “shouldn’t matter whether one is born with female or male genitalia. That’s our point.” It continues: “As your new reality emerges, as you are able to live it to any degree, you should be able to feel differently about your body.”

Nevertheless, in 1971, Elliot joined and became the vice president of the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis — a lesbian political organization — despite some members’ protestations. He also served as the editor of the group’s newsletter, Sisters. However, accusations of sexual harassment against Elliot in 1972 led to a vote which removed him from the group and barred the inclusion of any trans-identified males in the chapter.

Unable to take a hint, Elliot joined the organizing committee of the West Coast Lesbian Conference in 1973, where he was also slated to perform. On the first night of the conference, a lesbian separatist group called the Gutter Dykes passed out leaflets protesting the presence of a man. Elliot did briefly perform but left soon afterward. 

The following day, keynote speaker Robin Morgan amended her address in light of the previous day’s events. Her speech, titled “Lesbianism and Feminism: Synonyms or Contradictions?” contained some strong opinions about referring to men as women.

“No, I will not call a male ‘she,'” Morgan passionately declared, “Thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society and of surviving, have earned me the name ‘woman.’ One walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which hemay enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No. In our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.”

Morgan’s words rippled through feminist and lesbian communities over the proceeding decade. 

By 1977, DYKE magazine had published a six-page feature titled “Can Men Be Women? Some Lesbians Think So! Transsexuals in the Women’s Movement.” The story presented a conversation about some lesbians’ baffling acceptance of men who claim to be same-sex attracted females, like themselves.

Janet, one of the interviewees stated: “That is what is so weird to me, what I find so scary about the way a lot of Lesbians have reacted to the transsexual issue. The attitude seems to be that however someone presents themself, that is the way you are supposed to see them … No distinction is made between respecting someone else and suspending your own perceptions. It is always tempting to be passive.”

Fellow interviewee Liza agreed, writing: “It is also very tempting to be generous. I think that a lot of Lesbians say they have gone through such a hard time being accepted as Lesbians and now these poor transsexuals are having such a hard time and here we are in the same boat, both oppressed by the same culture. If we recognize them as our sisters it helps everybody. It is very generous and I appreciate that in women, but it is really shortsighted.”

It is incredible how the discussions on this topic from more than 30 years ago feel like they could have been plucked from any heated social media page today. 

In 1978, the issue was given even greater prominence in the book Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly, a radical feminist and theologian who taught at Boston College for more than three decades. In a section of her book, “Boundary Violation and the Frankenstein Phenomenon,” Daly opined that “transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.” 

Daly was a dissertation advisor for Janice Raymond, who went on to become an even more prominent critic of transsexualism. In 1979, Raymond published The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male, which highlights many of the issues we are still dealing with. In the book, Raymond argues that transsexualism reinforces gender stereotypes and that it is just another method of patriarchal oppression. 

An entire section of the book titled “Sappho by Surgery: The Transsexually Constructed Lesbian-Feminist” deals with the issue of men who claim to be lesbians. Such a man, writes Raymond, “attempts to possess women at a deeper level, this time under the guise of challenging rather than conforming to the role and behavior of stereotyped femininity.”

In a particularly prophetic section, Raymond raises some questions that one could argue reflect the state of the modern lesbian community:

Will the acceptance of transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists who have lost only their outward appendages of physical masculinity lead to the containment and control of lesbian feminists? Will every lesbian-feminist space become a harem?

The only point where Raymond seems to have missed the mark is in the fact that most male lesbians today have not lost their “outward appendage” and, in fact, are very proud of it.

In his book, Transgender History, prominent trans-identified male “lesbian” Susan Stryker helpfully provides us with evidence that Raymond’s ideas were alive and well several years after her book’s publication. 

Stryker includes a fiery excerpt from an anonymous 1986 letter to the editor of the San Francisco lesbian newspaper Coming Up:

When an estrogenated man with breasts loves women, that is not lesbianism, that is mutilated perversion. [Such an individual] is not a threat to the lesbian community, he is an outrage to us. He is not a lesbian, he is a mutant man, a self-made freak, a deformity, an insult. He deserves a slap in the face. After that, he deserves to have his body and his mind made well again.

The gay community was still grappling with transsexual (at this point also often referred to as transgender) inclusion during the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation. 

Contrary to the claim of some modern trans activists that the “T” was always part of the acronym, that was not yet the case. The national steering committee of the march did seek to add “transgender” to the title, but it did not receive the necessary majority vote to do so. Over the next few years, however, it became more common for lesbian, gay, and bisexual organizations to include “transgender” in their names and transgender issues in their mandates.

Around this time, another controversy was brewing regarding the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival—often referred to as Michfest—because the predominantly lesbian festival had made clear in 1991 that the event was for “womyn-born womyn,” i.e., females. 

This made some males very angry, and they organized an annual demonstration named “Camp Trans” to protest the fact that women had created a female-exclusive entertainment space. Michfest was also criticized by prominent LGBT organizations like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign. The festival, which began in 1976, held its final event in 2015 after years of facing increasingly ruthless scrutiny.

The termination of Michfest marked the end of an era, and the beginning of the end in general for lesbian spaces where same-sex attracted women could socialize with one another without the incursion of males.

Lesbian bars were also dying out — not even notoriously-woke Portland had any lesbian bars left by 2016. Identity politics like those that shut down Michfest made it a minefield to create spaces and events that would exclude males who identified as lesbian women. In 2021, Smithsonian Magazine reported that there were only 15 lesbian bars left in the entirety of the United States.

It is now 2022.

Same-sex marriage is legal, and the expectation that homosexual people are free to live their lives is commonplace. Yet, we are facing a new predicament where this generation of lesbians are rapidly losing access to their needed exclusive communities. The music festivals and lesbian conferences once attended by hundreds and even thousands of women are a thing of the past, and any attempt to hold a similar event today would be met with rabid protest.

All of that being said… I do believe there is a silver lining, though it be a somewhat bleak one. 

Trans rights activists are becoming increasingly emboldened in their abusive behavior towards lesbians (and all women) that the trickle of criticism seeping through the cracks is inevitably bound to turn into a flood. More and more lesbians are speaking out, joined by feminists and women from all walks of life, and even prominent voices, such as that of Harry Potter author JK Rowling, are joining in to apply pressure. 

It might feel sometimes like we are stuck rehashing arguments from the 1970s, but we should be proud to take up the mantle of the women who saw this coming for the benefit of those yet to come.

By Eva Kurilova

Eva is a guest essayist for Reduxx. A regular contributor at Gender Dissent, Eva is passionate about promoting lesbian activism and protecting women's sex-based rights. You can find her traversing the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada with her partner and their husky, Freya.

[j4mw]

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finds that police engaged in racial discrimination against migrant farmworkers during DNA sweep

TORONTO – On Monday, August 15, 2022, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) delivered a historic ruling following a 9-year legal battle between 54 migrant farm workers, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The underlying incident stemmed from a October 2013 sexual assault that occurred near the community of Bayham, Ontario. As part of its investigation into the incident, the OPP conducted a DNA sweep to collect samples from dozens of migrant farmworkers employed in the region. The HRTO’s 64-page ruling is the first human rights case of its kind in Canada to examine allegations of systemic racial profiling and discrimination by the police towards migrant farmworkers. The decision details how the police exploited systemic vulnerabilities experienced by participants of the the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, and involved the workers’ employers during the investigation. It was found that Leon Logan (the lead applicant for the group) and his fellow workers were targeted solely on the basis of their skin colour and their status as migrant farmworkers, and that DNA samples were obtained from them even if they had alibis or did not match the suspect description. The Tribunal found that the police’s conduct during the DNA sweep was contrary to section 1 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, and that it violated Mr. Logan’s right to be free from discrimination by improperly targeting him on the basis of his race, skin colour, and place of origin. Damages in the amount of $7,500 were ordered for Mr. Logan. The parties have also reached an agreement between them which will provide a pathway for the remaining 53 applicants to receive the same award granted to Mr. Logan, resulting in a potential aggregate damages award of $405,000. A subsequent hearing to address public interest remedies remains to be scheduled, where the applicants will seek an order that their DNA samples be destroyed and that the OPP be required to develop a policy that ensures DNA sweeps are compliant with the Human Rights Code. Chris Ramsaroop of Justicia 4 Migrant Workers (J4MW) observes that “This is a significant victory by a group of courageous workers whose strength in numbers and a burning desire for change lead to today’s victory. These workers fought and will continue to fight to end criminalization, and racist police practices. This isn’t about a few bad apples though; the entire system is rotten to its core.” Shane Martinez, the lawyer representing the 54 migrant farmworkers who brought the case, states “While this decision represents a landmark victory, it also reminds us of the significant work that remains to be done to understand and combat anti-Black racism and its impact on migrant farmworkers across Canada. The oppression and exploitation endured by tens of thousands of racialized migrant farmworkers in this country is a shameful part of both Canadian history and our present-day reality.” For interviews and additional information, please contact: Chris Ramsaroop (Justicia 4 Migrant Workers): Tel: 647-834-4932 / E-mail: j4mw.on@gmail.com Shane Martínez (Lawyer for the 54 Migrant Farmworkers): Tel: 647-717-8111 / E-mail: shane@martinezlaw.ca Please click here for the pdf version of our press release. Click here for a link to the full legal decision.