This time - no dice
Good evening Hopefully this will be a short-ish newsletter as there was only about 50 minutes of open court today. I'm sorry if the font is too small. I tried to make it 18pt text, but I can't work out this interface. I am sorry. Anyway - the headlines are - there was another recusal application today. The claimants attempted to have the "other" panel member, Michael McKeown, stand down. The judge refused for reasons I will explain below. Once that matter had been dealt with, we got a 45 minute chunk of evidence from Michele Devlin, CEO of the Belfast Film Festival (BFF), who has been on oath since Wednesday. How was your weekend, Nick? I know you don't really care, but: my newsletter, my rules. Having realised on Thursday that - all things being equal - I had the resources and time to come back to report on the tribunal this week I started the process. I bought the flights and then asked if my accommodation could be rebooked for another four days. It couldn't, but they could give me somewhere bigger (and noisier, as I'm just discovering) in the same block for the same price. All good. Mrs Wallis was okay with me being away again. I rearranged some commitments and all looked set fair for week two, so I committed publicly on Thursday night. Then Friday's recusal application came in. There was now a possibility of no week two. Or no week two for a number of weeks. Or even a retrial (or retribunal, which is not a word). In the event the trial was able to go ahead because a panel member who had draped herself in the rainbow flag stepped down due to ill health. Full story here, if you haven't read it already. I wrote that piece on Saturday morning, which was a brilliant excuse for getting out of Parkrun, then it was off to see my boy play football, a family visit to the parents then a Sunday spent watching the same boy play football and another blog post recapping Week One of Morrison v BFF. Without your generosity I would not be able to make either of the above posts free at the point of consumption, so thank you. This morning involved a 4.30am alarm call to get to 2 Cromac Quay for the scheduled 1.30pm post-weekend re-start. I pitched up nice and early at the tribunal building and started working out of Killymeal House. Another Recusal By this stage I had been made aware of rumours of another recusal application. I formally asked the tribunal and both parties what they could tell me. As you can see below I was able to confirm the fact of the application at 12.22pm and then I had to set about finding out exactly how it was going to happen.
This wasn't easy as it wasn't clear whether or not the tribunal was intending to hear the application in public or private. I made an application for the hearing to be made in public, which Employment Judge Lisa Sturgeon granted, but when it came to the public hearing the parties had no oral arguments to make, as they weren't expecting to. This meant we still had no idea what the recusal application was about. Four members of the media (Bernie Allen from the BBC, Iain Gray from The Newsletter, me and Substacker Jenny Holland) made ourselves known to the judge and indicated that as there were no oral arguments we'd be grateful if the judge would allow us to see the application for and arguments against recusal. This was granted, so whilst the judge and her panelist (Michael McKeown) went away to decide what to do, the media were allowed to inspect the application for recusal and the respondent's response. The Recusal Application The recusal application was an attempt to eliminate the second panel member Michael McKeown. The thrust of the argument ran as follows: "The Claimant says the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that Mr McKeown would be unable to approach his task impartially by reason of his work as trade union activist in the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (“NIPSA”) taken together with NIPSA’s active and uncritical support for and campaigning position on gender identity ideology over a number of years, including the latter years of Mr McKeown’s period of office." The reasons given were:
"From 2009 to 2017, Mr McKeown was employed by the Whitley Council, the central negotiating body for the Civil Service, and seconded to the union as assistant trade union-side secretary to the Council . This was a senior and key role with the union, which fully justifies the description of Mr McKeown as a “leading trade unionist” in an Irish News review of his 2014 novel, Belfast Blues." "NIPSA has since at least 2015 been actively and uncritically supportive of gender identity ideology and thus necessarily hostile to the sex-realist/gender-critical viewpoint, and this was true both in the latter years of Mr McKeown’s membership of its General Council and thereafter. Evidence of this stance includes:
"NIPSA’s willingness to make confident false assertions about the law which have the effect of prioritising the claims of trans people without regard to effects on women; see... the following from the Toolkit:
The tribunal was also told in 2016, NIPSA supported the tenth Annual Outburst Queer Arts Festival, the International Transgender Day of Remembrance and "issued information to branches about the launch of education guidance for schools, youth workers and educators working with trans and non-binary young people in Northern Ireland produced by SAIL NI and GenderJam." SAIL "support organisation for the families of transgender and gender variant people in Northern Ireland". GenderJam is "focused on supporting the human rights of transgender people in Northern Ireland". The Claimant noted NIPSA's annual reports both pre- and post-Forstater are "not balanced by any acknowledgment that the rights of women may be engaged when men who say they are women are given permission to use women’s spaces, nor that those with sex-realist or gender-critical beliefs may have protection or may themselves be a group vulnerable to discrimination." Given McKeown's long association with the union and the position he held on its general council, the Claimant felt there was enough to suggest a "real possibility" that a "fair-minded and informed observer" (the legal test) would consider there to be an "apparent bias" in McKeown's views. The claimant also felt the fact McKeown failed to raise his connection with NIPSA (and its enthusiastic mis-stating of the law around workplace facilities for trans people) could be another sign of apparent bias. The Claimant "respectfully" asked McKeown to stand down so the judge could finish the case on her own. Patently Absurd
The Respondent (the BFF) disagreed. Its submission said "The contention on behalf of the Claimant is... that if you hold a political opinion, someone who holds a diametrically opposed opinion will necessarily be hostile to you. That is simply untrue. Many people can disagree on political matters and not be hostile to those with whom they disagree. A fair-minded observer would not come to the conclusion that hostility towards each other is the necessary outworking of holding differing political opinions." "The logic of the Claimant's argument, if extended to other cases, would mean that a panel member who holds unionist political opinions could not sit on a Fair Employment Tribunal panel in a case brought by someone who supports the unification of Ireland. That is patently absurd." "The suggestion that Mr McKeown shares the views of the Union he is seconded to, and therefore the apparent assertion that NIPSA is an organisation wherein all members and staff share the same political opinions isn't grounded in fact." It went on to say: "To suggest that he is responsible for NIPSA policies on gender issues also demonstrates a lack of understanding of how Trade Unions operate. No single person forms policy. Ordinarily there is a relevant subcommittee that will suggest policy after investigations and debate or policy can be formed or influenced by votes at a union's conference that can be proposed by individual branches. The Respondent understands that NIPSA has a LGBTQ sub-committee that likely would have been responsible for policy. The Respondent is aware of no evidence that shows that Mr McKeown as a member of that sub-committee." The Judge Decides (obvs) We reconvened in the hearing room just after 3pm this afternoon. The judge began with a factual point - that McKeown used to be an employee of the Northern Irish civil service. He was seconded to the Whitley Council and whilst a member of NIPSA his salary was "at all times", paid by the civil service. The judge went on to note that individual union members are free to take whatever view they like - it doesn't have to be the same as union policy. Judge Sturgeon told the court that NIPSA policy on trans issues was made by its LGBTQ subcommittee, which McKeown has never been part of. Nor had he done any work or campaigning in this area at all. On the point he might maintain the union's policy out of loyalty to his brethren, the judge said he had been retired from the union since 2018, was never paid by them and has never given his views on the matter in hand. "Taking all this into account" said the judge, "we have not been persuaded there is a case for recusal". Duelling with the Devlin
The matter dealt with, it was time to re-call Michele Devlin, the BFF CEO, who has been giving evidence, on and off, since Wednesday last week. Naomi Cunningham resumed her cross-examination of Devlin on behalf of her client, Sara Morrison. Students of these newsletters (and now the week one summary blog post) will be aware that Devlin sent an email on 3 July 2023 to the BFF's list of LGBT groups asking their input for an event (Pride on the Big Screen, hereafter PBS) at the end of July as part of Belfast Pride 2023 which had apparently been in the planning since February that year. Unfortunately Devlin has no written evidence to back up this claim. The first written evidence appears in an email on 29 June 2023. The claimant's case is that the LGBT email was part of a deliberate stitch up to fabricate a pile-on, which would allow the BFF to start an investigation which would, in turn, allow them to look into Morrison's attendance at the 16 April 2023 Let Women Speak event. The LWS event was something at least three BFF board members were (putting it mildly)unhappy about and keen to do something to disassociate themselves from. Straight out of the traps Devlin denied point blank that the tweet she sent on 4 July to Queerspace... "We have been made aware of the incident and are investigating. We want to reassure you that Belfast Film Festival passionately supports your values. We will celebrate and defend them.“ ... had anything to do with Sara Morrison. Nor did she accept that by stating the BFF "passionately supports" Queerspace's values, she was aligning either herself or her organisation with an ideology hostile to Morrison's. Devlin also refused to confirm that Think People were engaged a day after that tweet to investigate Morrison. "I don't recall" said Devlin. When pushed, she said: "I don't know. I'd need to look back at the emails." The evasiveness was more difficult to understand when Cunningham pointed out that Devlin's witness statement says: "Think People Consulting (now known as AAB People) were engaged to commence an investigation on 05 July 2023". Cunningham tried to understand this approach "You're not willing to accept…?" she started, and then stopped, and moved on. Thickening of Plot We did get somewhere on the mysterious 28 June 2023 meeting between Devlin and the BFF's co-chairs, Lisa Barros D'Sa and Marie-Therese McGivern. "There was no meeting", declared Devlin, which threw Cunningham somewhat, as Devlin's previous statements to the court indicated that it did happen, she just couldn't remember anything about it.
Cunningham was about to explore this, when Devlin clarified that on 28 June there was a discussion with her co-chairs on the phone. Cunningham wondered if Devline had been able to remember any more about what was said. Devlin said it was a conversation to "see if anyone senior was available" over the next few weeks to "oversee" some sort of BFF activity. Devlin would not specify what this was. Cunningham put it to her straight - Devlin was trying to "blur the chronology" of the conception and instruction of the investigation, because to come clean on the dates would all but prove the whole thing was a stitch up. The claimant clearly believes the PBS event, the 3 July email-prompted complaints and 5 July investigation was cooked up with the co-chairs on 28 June, hence the speed at which Think People were engaged on 5 July. Devlin denied it all. Cunningham then dug even deeper into the complaints prompted by Devlin's 3 July email. Could it be that was part of The Evil Plan, too? At this point I must emphasise, as I have before, that the Respondent is very clear this alleged conspiracy is total "rubbish" and didn't happen. The Alleged Conspiracy Evil Plan Devlin's 3 July email inviting LGBT organisations to "co-design" Pride on the Big Screen, sent with Sara Morrison's name at the top of the cc list, went out at 5.52pm. At 9.28am the next day, Ruth McCarthy from Queerspace replied to Devlin with a long complaint about Morrison's participation in the Let Women Speak event (which we are now all but certain was), cc'd to all except Morrison. Cunningham asked Devlin about the subsequent email chain in which Devlin told McCarthy Morrison was being pulled off the PBS event and an investigation was being launched. "I was protecting our reputation" said Devlin. Cunningham pointed out that collaborating with Outburst Arts was not a regular occurrence. Devlin agreed that the BFF and Outburst had not worked together since 2011. Cunningham dug into why that might be, given McCarthy and Devlin co-founded Outburst Arts in 2010. Devlin wondered if it was because Devlin started a relationship with, and subsequently married... McCarthy's former partner?!?!?!?!? Sean Doherty intervened immediately to point out nothing about this situation was in evidence anywhere. The judge wondered at its relevance. Cunningham stuck to her guns, telling the judge that Devlin was under oath and could either answer or deny it. All eyes went back to Devlin, who told the court she would answer the question. "I am not married to Ruth McCarthy's former partner", she said, with some finality. After about five seconds of silence, she added: "We live together." So there was no real way Devlin was likely to work with Outburst Arts anyway, was there, asked Cunningham? "I'm a professional", said Devlin. Trans Inclusional Feminist
The final exchange of the day related to Devlin's decision to wear a "TRANS INCLUSIONAL FEMINIST" t-shirt to Belfast Pride in 2023. Cunningham tried to get Devlin to explain what she meant by a trans-inclusional feminist. Devlin remained elliptical, calling it "complex". Cunningham was unable to get her to admit it meant believing Trans Women were Women. Maybe it doesn't. Cunningham referred back to Mark Cousins' evidence that most people in Belfast hold gender-critical views, especially in his experience of being amongst working class communities. Should Michele Devlin have therefore been disciplined by the Belfast Film Festival for displaying an allegiance to an ideology that most people disagree with and some find homophobic and sexist? Devlin took issue with the way the question had been asked, as did, at one point, Sean Doherty. The question was put a number of times in a number of different ways. Devlin said she would be happy to be investigated by her employer, but the fact was there were no complaints about her wearing a trans-inclusional feminist t-shirt, so it was academic. "Let's leave that to one side for a moment", said Cunningham. Nonplussed Before we got to the end of the line of questioning, Devlin volunteered that she had actually been on the end of abuse from people responding to Sara Morrison's crowdfunder page. "I was called a bastard" she said. Cunningham was nonplussed. "If there's anything you wish to say outside of my questions to you I am sure Mr Doherty will put them to you under re-examination." At that point Devlin said she needed a break. The court agreed. After some discussion, the decision was taken to bring Devlin back tomorrow to finish her cross-examination. The judge told everyone to be present at 10am tomorrow and proceedings came to a close. So that's your lot. I am off out to forage for milk, which I forgot to buy on the way back from court. Thanks so much for the donations, feedback, support, critcism and story tips, whether you've just joined today, or been here for the whole time. I'm very grateful. Everything anyone send me stays confidential. All you have to do is hit reply to this newsletter and it goes straight to my email inbox. Even Andrew of the Dark Arts can't see it. Live-tweeting resumes tomorrow! Have a good evening. Nick This is the GenderBlog newsletter. If you have been forwarded it and would like to join the mailing list so each newsletter and GenderBlog blog post drops, freshly-baked, directly into your email inbox, please consider making a small (or large!) donation via the donate page on my GenderBlog website. Thanks. © Nick Wallis 2025 |
|
Gender Blog | Unsubscribe |