Alone amongst all citizens in the UK, transgender people are not legally protected from discrimination and victimisation, unless we come out in writing to our employers first. This terrible inequality under the law is well recognised, for example in this 2007 report by Press for Change and others for the UK government's Equalities Review. The report notes that "1.6... Every legal gain made by the UK trans community has been through the courts rather than through the good will of a government pledged to equalities for all."
Using a very hard line interpretation of this dark-ages loop-hole in UK law (being forced to come out to get legal protection no matter how dangerous the work environment is) the Empoyment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have set a horrific legal precedent. They upheld Brighton & Hove City Council’s repulsive view – still in force today – that it is acceptable for my manager and the Head of Community Safety, Linda Beanlands, Brighton to knowingly invite external well-known transphobic bigots, like one of my bosses Reverend David Miller, onto a Council job interview panel and continue to generally work in 'partnership' (see this legal report here) and download the appeal Judgment itself here).
But the appeal has distorted the truth, admitted by Linda Beanlands Brighton herself, that the police officers on my interview panel knew I was transgender and told her first thing on the morning of the interview. But she went ahead with the interview anyway, when Miller should have been ejected and the interview re scheduled. According to the Tribunal Judgment: “Linda Beanlands had arranged for Mr Miller to sit on the Interview Panel and before the Panel held any interviews knew at the very least there were substantial grounds for concern that Mr Miller was transphobic [30.7.4].” The Tribunal found the interview panel selection process was “capable of being an intention to be discriminatory [30.9.3]” because Rev David Miller hates transgender people.
The Tribunal refused to find this illegal so long as I was too afraid to come out formally as transgender, even though they could see my working environment was openly and repeatedly transphobic.
It was also judged by the Tribunal to be acceptable for the Council to continue to work with other well known bullies, like another of my bosses Anthea Ballam, also from outside the Council, on Council partnership community safety projects and future funding applications.
The Council argued they have no control over their improper and inappropriate behaviour and attitudes and the Tribunal simply accepted this state of affairs.
This Tribunal decision means if your employer invites outside people into the workplace and they are shown to be racist, anti-semitic, sexist, don't accommodate people with disabilities, are ageist, homophobic, transphobic or have any other prejudice, so long as they argue they have no responsibility over 'external' parties, they can get away with anything bad that happens.
In the example of what happened to me, a few weeks before my interview, a transgender friend tried to complain to Linda Beanlands Brighton about Rev Miller for throwing my friend out of a rented room in Miller’s house after she come out as transgender a few days before Christmas. I was shocked to learn this as Miller was at the time my boss and Chair of the Safety Forum for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community (I was the forum's coordinator).
Miller told the police and his safety forum colleagues that transgender people are "vermin" saying "I do not think by anyone's reckoning that being transsexual can be regarded as normal." He then “bombarded my friend with text messages containing death threats.” But the police and Council refused to investigate and the Tribunal ignored the terrible impact of this.
Another example in the months before that, Anthea Ballam (who was the Chair of the Safety Forum before Rev Miller took over), conducted a hate campaign against me. The former Chair of the Safety Forum, James Ledward, editor of G-Scene magazine gave evidence to the Tribunal that they were “both plotting to oust me and were bad-mouthing me in the city's gay bars ... Anthea Ballam had been calling [Mr. Baldwin] objectionable and incompetent and took a personal dislike to him. [Mr. Baldwin] was told she said she would rather be dead than let [Mr. Baldwin] carry on as Co-ordinator ... Two lesbians [Anthia Ballam and another] on the AVI panel were uncomfortable that [Mr Baldwin] was having a relationship with a transsexual [woman] because they viewed that [trans woman] as a man so they could no longer view [Mr Baldwin] as a lesbian." Such terrible bigotry from my former colleagues is very upsetting and stressful.
With Miller and Balam attacking me and transgender people in public meetings and bars in full knowledge of the Council and police without any repercussion, I was “afraid to tell my bosses Linda Beanlands and David Miller about being transgender directly because I would [obviously] be exposed to more discrimination... I concluded I would never be able to work safely as a transsexual man in the employment of the Council."
I was afraid to come out at work as transgender experiencing and knowing “the Council was steeped in a culture of bigotry and discrimination against transsexuals”. I came up against "resistance, disinterest, inaction and bigotry" at the Council, which “prevented me performing my role effectively and from coming out at work.”
Being afraid to formally come out at work has been used against me by the Tribunal to excuse the Council on a very dubious legal technicality that is the OPPOSITE of Government advice and Gender Trust advice given to transgender people: the Council persuaded the Tribunal that I had somehow “failed to tell his bosses” that Linda Beanlands Brighton had “not noticed” that she had “no idea an employee was transsexual until the day he resigned” that she “did not know or suspect Mr Baldwin was undergoing a sex change” and because she “had no knowledge of his transsexualism prior to his resignation, the tribunal had been entitled to dismiss his discrimination claim.”
First of all Linda Beanlands account is totally false. Secondly Government advice and from the Gender Trust is that I did not need to come out at all. So I didn't. But how was I to know how damaging and wrong that advice was, and still is? Thirdly the Council admit knowing anyway: on the morning of the interview a police officer formally told Linda Beanlands I was transgender. But Linda Beanlands let the interview go ahead, knowing that most qualified candidate, me, is transgender, and that Miller had shown serious prejudice and had outstanding transphobic complaints against him [30.7.3] with the Council’s Community Safety Team.
So on these facts alone the Tribunal were bent in not finding discrimination in having transphobic bully Rev Miller on my interview panel.
Instead the Tribunal bluffed its way past the law by supposing that Linda Beanlands “would have taken some action if during the interview process she believed Mr Miller had as a result of any transphobic attitudes marked any candidate adversely [30.7.5]”, when she'd already failed to challenge Miller's repeated and well known transphobic behaviour that had been investigate by the Council but never challenged.
Compared to another Tribunal case where the Claimant was funded by the (former) Equal Opportunities Commission, where that Tribunal were clearly more careful to consider the evidence and to reflect the law accurately this Tribunal clearly had NO idea what transphobic language or behaviour is.
This Tribunal "bottled it" according to Simon Harding my legal counsel. They ignored my three witnesses and every piece of evidence. They even deleted one witness's name from the judgment (see below). Moreover the Tribunal panel members, in exploiting the highly dubious ‘lack of knowledge of being transgender’ legal loop hole to protect Beanlands and the Council, were also highly transphobic themselves.
This Tribunal allowed Linda Beanlands to write, unchallenged “she or he” to describe me over 40 times in legal papers to the Tribunal. But this Tribunal refused to find the language discriminatory. Further evidence they had no idea what transphobia is, compared to another Tribunal that did find Brighton & Hove City Council guilty of transgender victimisation for using both “he or she” to describe the same person in an official capacity to an external agency.
Transphobia by the Tribunal is again exposed by their understanding of Rev Miller being selected by the Council to be on the interview panel. The Tribunal judged this as not preventing me from either applying or being interviewed, and accordingly did not amount to treatment which was capable of being discriminatory (30.9.3). At the most it was only capable of being an intention to be discriminatory. That is “at the most he only "would” have been a bigot” according to a legal report.
But discrimination law is completely rewritten by this state of affairs. A victims perceptions are what counts. The Home Office describes a hate crime as: "Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate" (see here). The Association of Chief Police Officers hate Crime Manual (see here) offers a similar definition from 2002.
The Tribunal further perverted discrimination law in ignoring the evidence of the Council’s (former) equalities officer Paul Stuart, who worked alongside me as the council's LGBT advocate during the AVI partnership. Tribunal chairman Lawrence Guyer asked Mr Stuart if he was aware of any transphobia, a fear of transsexuals, towards me, Mr Stuart reply was reported by the local paper: "I can very clearly understand that he would have a perception that some of the actions taken were driven by elements of transphobia" but was completely missing from the Judgement. Astonishingly history was again rewritten as Mr Stuart's name was deleted from the list of witnesses in the Judgement!
The Tribunal then broke Tribunal rules by emailing the Judgment to the Council and the local paper, but not to me! The rules are clear only so called 'sealed' paper copies of judgments with ink signatures on them can be sent out, at the same time to all parties! And the local paper capitalised on this unfairness by refusing to give me a chance to comment before they published the council's attacking distorted press release on the case written by since failed deputy council leader Sue John.
All this harassment could have been prevented. At the start of the hearing, Stonewall founder Micheal Cashman MEP faxed the Tribunal to ask for protection from press attacks. Despite legal powers under X v Stevens [2003] IRLR 411 the Tribunal Refused. Later that day the press followed me and my female partner (whom Anthea Ballam called a man) in the street. Our photographs were on the front cover of the next day’s newspaper. This devastated me, and made it impossible for me to conduct the hearing properly.
The Tribunal then twisted the extreme anxiety I felt, as evidence that I was too afraid of anybody at all knowing I am transgender. In fact it was evidence that I was afraid of coming out at work because the transphobic bigots were allowed to run riot by the Council being protected by Linda Beanlands, whilst I was trying to do my work.
And now the Tribunal has protected the bigots as well.
Using a very hard line interpretation of this dark-ages loop-hole in UK law (being forced to come out to get legal protection no matter how dangerous the work environment is) the Empoyment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have set a horrific legal precedent. They upheld Brighton & Hove City Council’s repulsive view – still in force today – that it is acceptable for my manager and the Head of Community Safety, Linda Beanlands, Brighton to knowingly invite external well-known transphobic bigots, like one of my bosses Reverend David Miller, onto a Council job interview panel and continue to generally work in 'partnership' (see this legal report here) and download the appeal Judgment itself here).
But the appeal has distorted the truth, admitted by Linda Beanlands Brighton herself, that the police officers on my interview panel knew I was transgender and told her first thing on the morning of the interview. But she went ahead with the interview anyway, when Miller should have been ejected and the interview re scheduled. According to the Tribunal Judgment: “Linda Beanlands had arranged for Mr Miller to sit on the Interview Panel and before the Panel held any interviews knew at the very least there were substantial grounds for concern that Mr Miller was transphobic [30.7.4].” The Tribunal found the interview panel selection process was “capable of being an intention to be discriminatory [30.9.3]” because Rev David Miller hates transgender people.
The Tribunal refused to find this illegal so long as I was too afraid to come out formally as transgender, even though they could see my working environment was openly and repeatedly transphobic.
It was also judged by the Tribunal to be acceptable for the Council to continue to work with other well known bullies, like another of my bosses Anthea Ballam, also from outside the Council, on Council partnership community safety projects and future funding applications.
The Council argued they have no control over their improper and inappropriate behaviour and attitudes and the Tribunal simply accepted this state of affairs.
This Tribunal decision means if your employer invites outside people into the workplace and they are shown to be racist, anti-semitic, sexist, don't accommodate people with disabilities, are ageist, homophobic, transphobic or have any other prejudice, so long as they argue they have no responsibility over 'external' parties, they can get away with anything bad that happens.
In the example of what happened to me, a few weeks before my interview, a transgender friend tried to complain to Linda Beanlands Brighton about Rev Miller for throwing my friend out of a rented room in Miller’s house after she come out as transgender a few days before Christmas. I was shocked to learn this as Miller was at the time my boss and Chair of the Safety Forum for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community (I was the forum's coordinator).
Miller told the police and his safety forum colleagues that transgender people are "vermin" saying "I do not think by anyone's reckoning that being transsexual can be regarded as normal." He then “bombarded my friend with text messages containing death threats.” But the police and Council refused to investigate and the Tribunal ignored the terrible impact of this.
Another example in the months before that, Anthea Ballam (who was the Chair of the Safety Forum before Rev Miller took over), conducted a hate campaign against me. The former Chair of the Safety Forum, James Ledward, editor of G-Scene magazine gave evidence to the Tribunal that they were “both plotting to oust me and were bad-mouthing me in the city's gay bars ... Anthea Ballam had been calling [Mr. Baldwin] objectionable and incompetent and took a personal dislike to him. [Mr. Baldwin] was told she said she would rather be dead than let [Mr. Baldwin] carry on as Co-ordinator ... Two lesbians [Anthia Ballam and another] on the AVI panel were uncomfortable that [Mr Baldwin] was having a relationship with a transsexual [woman] because they viewed that [trans woman] as a man so they could no longer view [Mr Baldwin] as a lesbian." Such terrible bigotry from my former colleagues is very upsetting and stressful.
With Miller and Balam attacking me and transgender people in public meetings and bars in full knowledge of the Council and police without any repercussion, I was “afraid to tell my bosses Linda Beanlands and David Miller about being transgender directly because I would [obviously] be exposed to more discrimination... I concluded I would never be able to work safely as a transsexual man in the employment of the Council."
I was afraid to come out at work as transgender experiencing and knowing “the Council was steeped in a culture of bigotry and discrimination against transsexuals”. I came up against "resistance, disinterest, inaction and bigotry" at the Council, which “prevented me performing my role effectively and from coming out at work.”
Being afraid to formally come out at work has been used against me by the Tribunal to excuse the Council on a very dubious legal technicality that is the OPPOSITE of Government advice and Gender Trust advice given to transgender people: the Council persuaded the Tribunal that I had somehow “failed to tell his bosses” that Linda Beanlands Brighton had “not noticed” that she had “no idea an employee was transsexual until the day he resigned” that she “did not know or suspect Mr Baldwin was undergoing a sex change” and because she “had no knowledge of his transsexualism prior to his resignation, the tribunal had been entitled to dismiss his discrimination claim.”
First of all Linda Beanlands account is totally false. Secondly Government advice and from the Gender Trust is that I did not need to come out at all. So I didn't. But how was I to know how damaging and wrong that advice was, and still is? Thirdly the Council admit knowing anyway: on the morning of the interview a police officer formally told Linda Beanlands I was transgender. But Linda Beanlands let the interview go ahead, knowing that most qualified candidate, me, is transgender, and that Miller had shown serious prejudice and had outstanding transphobic complaints against him [30.7.3] with the Council’s Community Safety Team.
So on these facts alone the Tribunal were bent in not finding discrimination in having transphobic bully Rev Miller on my interview panel.
Instead the Tribunal bluffed its way past the law by supposing that Linda Beanlands “would have taken some action if during the interview process she believed Mr Miller had as a result of any transphobic attitudes marked any candidate adversely [30.7.5]”, when she'd already failed to challenge Miller's repeated and well known transphobic behaviour that had been investigate by the Council but never challenged.
Compared to another Tribunal case where the Claimant was funded by the (former) Equal Opportunities Commission, where that Tribunal were clearly more careful to consider the evidence and to reflect the law accurately this Tribunal clearly had NO idea what transphobic language or behaviour is.
This Tribunal "bottled it" according to Simon Harding my legal counsel. They ignored my three witnesses and every piece of evidence. They even deleted one witness's name from the judgment (see below). Moreover the Tribunal panel members, in exploiting the highly dubious ‘lack of knowledge of being transgender’ legal loop hole to protect Beanlands and the Council, were also highly transphobic themselves.
This Tribunal allowed Linda Beanlands to write, unchallenged “she or he” to describe me over 40 times in legal papers to the Tribunal. But this Tribunal refused to find the language discriminatory. Further evidence they had no idea what transphobia is, compared to another Tribunal that did find Brighton & Hove City Council guilty of transgender victimisation for using both “he or she” to describe the same person in an official capacity to an external agency.
Transphobia by the Tribunal is again exposed by their understanding of Rev Miller being selected by the Council to be on the interview panel. The Tribunal judged this as not preventing me from either applying or being interviewed, and accordingly did not amount to treatment which was capable of being discriminatory (30.9.3). At the most it was only capable of being an intention to be discriminatory. That is “at the most he only "would” have been a bigot” according to a legal report.
But discrimination law is completely rewritten by this state of affairs. A victims perceptions are what counts. The Home Office describes a hate crime as: "Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate" (see here). The Association of Chief Police Officers hate Crime Manual (see here) offers a similar definition from 2002.
The Tribunal further perverted discrimination law in ignoring the evidence of the Council’s (former) equalities officer Paul Stuart, who worked alongside me as the council's LGBT advocate during the AVI partnership. Tribunal chairman Lawrence Guyer asked Mr Stuart if he was aware of any transphobia, a fear of transsexuals, towards me, Mr Stuart reply was reported by the local paper: "I can very clearly understand that he would have a perception that some of the actions taken were driven by elements of transphobia" but was completely missing from the Judgement. Astonishingly history was again rewritten as Mr Stuart's name was deleted from the list of witnesses in the Judgement!
The Tribunal then broke Tribunal rules by emailing the Judgment to the Council and the local paper, but not to me! The rules are clear only so called 'sealed' paper copies of judgments with ink signatures on them can be sent out, at the same time to all parties! And the local paper capitalised on this unfairness by refusing to give me a chance to comment before they published the council's attacking distorted press release on the case written by since failed deputy council leader Sue John.
All this harassment could have been prevented. At the start of the hearing, Stonewall founder Micheal Cashman MEP faxed the Tribunal to ask for protection from press attacks. Despite legal powers under X v Stevens [2003] IRLR 411 the Tribunal Refused. Later that day the press followed me and my female partner (whom Anthea Ballam called a man) in the street. Our photographs were on the front cover of the next day’s newspaper. This devastated me, and made it impossible for me to conduct the hearing properly.
The Tribunal then twisted the extreme anxiety I felt, as evidence that I was too afraid of anybody at all knowing I am transgender. In fact it was evidence that I was afraid of coming out at work because the transphobic bigots were allowed to run riot by the Council being protected by Linda Beanlands, whilst I was trying to do my work.
And now the Tribunal has protected the bigots as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment