A lesbian barrister who is under investigation for her stance on transgender ideology has said her chambers bowed to the “hate mob”.
Allison Bailey is being investigated by Garden Court Chambers after she hailed the launch of the LGB Alliance pressure group, of which she is a founding member.
Bailey was subjected to a torrent of abuse and death threats after she posted on social media: “Gender extremism is about to meet its match.”
The LGB Alliance has said its mission is “asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted”. Its stance that “gender is a social construct” faced immediate opposition from trans groups.
Garden Court said on Twitter that it was “investigating concerns” raised about the comments in line with Bar Standards Board policies. “We take these concerns v seriously & will take appropriate action.”
It did indeed.
Garden Court Chambers @gardencourtlaw Oct 24
We are investigating concerns raised about Allison Bailey’s comments in line with our complaints/Bar policies. We take these concerns v seriously & will take all appropriate action. Her views are expressed in a personal capacity & do not represent a position adopted by Garden Ct
My reply:
If her views are expressed in a personal capacity then why are you investigating them, and not only that but announcing the fact on Twitter?
I thought it was revolting that they disavowed her in public like that.
Bailey said her chambers had “simply gone along with what the hate mob want” and were “offering me no support whatsoever”.
She pointed out that Garden Court, which handles many transgender cases, had signed up as a Stonewall “diversity champion”.
“The bigger picture,” she added, “is that Stonewall have signed up many companies, public bodies, voluntary sector organisation and government departments to their manifesto and their value system regarding trans rights. What we call Stonewall law. Without most of the public realising it, a large swathe of British employers have signed up to the Stonewall value system.”
The LGB Alliance has written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to complain that Stonewall is using public funds to promote gender identity rather than gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. “So successful has ‘Stonewall law’ been that the planned compulsory education in primary and secondary schools from 2020 will tell children that ‘gender identity’ is a reality which they need to understand.”
Which is horrifying, given that it is in fact a fantasy and thus the opposite of a reality, and children don’t need to “understand” i.e. accept and believe a lie like that.
The usual shits are lining up to urge Gardencourt to fire Bailey.
Comments
7 responses to “Under investigation”
I wish the Trans Rights Activists would make a choice between “transgender people are the weakest, most vulnerable, most put upon and despised minority ever” and “we WON and we ARE POWERFUL and FEEL THE MIGHT OF OUR WRATH FALL ON ALL THOSE WHO DARE DISSENT!!!”
Will these white cis women never stop oppressing trans people?
– Kate Manne, probably
Not irrelevantly, the BSB has, just a few days ago, published new guidelines on barristers’ use of social media, available via https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/resource-library/social-media-pdf.html.
Paragraph 2 states that
That “at all times” means that the BSB reserves the right to treat your off-duty comments as being within its demesne. I have problems with that; but maybe it’s part of being a professional that one is expected to behave in a certain way all the time. Lots of professional bodies have similar rules.
But it’s paragraph 3 that’s the kicker:
I doubt it; but, again, lots of professions make this sort of claim, so it’s not super-unusual.
Bullshit. Heated debate is in no way corrosive of honesty or integrity, and it’s the square-root of in no way unlawful. Lots of unlawful discrimination is very cool-headed.
And? Note that there’s no point made here about the reasonability or good faith of those considerations of distaste or offence. In other words, the BSB has, in essence, decided that all a person needs to do to get a barrister into regulatory hot water is to say that they find a comment distasteful or offensive, and that barrister will, at least prima facie, have a regulatory case to answer. I leave aside the question of whether the distasteful or offensive, when in a private capacity, is properly a matter for professional regulators.
And this will give the Christian right a huge gift, as well.
So what happens when a comment offends a trans person, and that trans person happens to be a barrister, and they post a reply that offends a Christian? (I’m not going to bother to ask what would happen if a trans person barrister offended a woman, lesbian or otherwise, because that is an easy answer – the trans person must not be offended). What about Muslims? Can a trans person barrister offend a Muslim with impunity, or does this law apply there, as well?
This is going to raise a s***storm.
As a Barrister, Bailey cannot be ‘sacked’ as she is self-employed. Technically she can be expelled by her Chambers, which operates as a collective.
Most likely she’ll leave for a more supportive set. Not only did Garden Court publish their disapproval of her views before launching an actual investigation into them, the Head of Chambers had to be “pressed” by the Sunday Times to condemn the threats of violence being made against her.
Two fellow Garden Court barristers have also put the boot into her on Twitter – Tom Wainwright, and Alex Sharpe, the latter being a transwoman who campaigns to remove the offence of obtaining sex by deception when it’s a trans matter.
https://inherentlyhuman.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/blind-desire-the-troubling-case-of-gayle-newland/
In my view, Alison Bailey has brought the bar into disrepute by her association with this group and her actions on social media and in my opinion her Chambers should expel her from their collective. However there should be no threats of violence into Alison Bailey which such threats should be condemned by all members of the LGBTQI community. I hope that the Bar Council will take appropriate action and an investigation into her public position on social media.
Why is that your view?