More Huge Fines, Quicker!

And keep them coming until they learn!

Two academics behind a gender-critical film have taken legal action against their union, accusing it of discrimination and harassment after it campaigned on social media to stop the documentary being screened.

The film is part of a continuing debate about gender politics and free speech in UK universities. Last week, the University of Sussex was fined a record £585,000 for free speech breaches after a three-and-a-half-year investigation into the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, who was the target of protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights.

O’Neill and Wayne, who describe themselves as gender critical, believe sex is a matter of biology, that it is impossible for a human to change sex, and that sex is important in a range of different political and social contexts.

Why are these beliefs 'explained' in the article as if they were fringe beliefs that aren't simply common to 99% of the population?  

They also do not subscribe to gender identity theory, “namely the belief that people are born with an internal sense of gender which may or may not correspond to their biological sex”, the documents state.

Again, just like 99% of the UK population.  

They claim these are protected beliefs and their union has discriminated against them contrary to section 57(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The union is fighting back, of course. They've chosen a side, and it's one that hopefully will cost them dearly. 

The union – or respondent – denies it has discriminated against O’Neill and Wayne. Documents before the tribunal said: “The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and necessary in the interests of advocating the rights of others. Accordingly, the reason for any less favourable treatment was not the claimants’ gender-critical belief or lack of a belief in gender identity theory.” Denying harassment, the union’s defence stated: “The conduct of the respondent was to highlight its commitment to supporting its members that identify as trans or non-binary. The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and in line with its current support for its trans, non-binary and LGBT+ members.”

If this is your line in the sand, then I hope you have large coffers - it's going to be expensive.