Ms Bailey is accusing Garden Court – a member of Stonewall’s ‘diversity champions’ scheme – of bowing to pressure from the charity to discipline her, after it was complained that her gender-critical comments on social media were transphobic and bigoted. The barrister claims that she was harassed and marginalised for stating on social media that there is a conflict between, on the one hand, the rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and, on the other, those seeking to promote transgender rights. The prejudice levelled against her as result has, she complains, led to a significant loss of work and income.
Speaking bitterly of the tactics employed by Stonewall in and through its now infamous programme, Ms Bailey said, “The inducement that Stonewall offers with its scheme is reputational protection or reputational harm, it’s like a criminal protection racket.”
In a nutshell, her case hinges round the argument that Stonewall does not respect the rights of others to express views with which it itself disagrees, even where those rights are protected by human rights and equality law. As example of which, in the 2021 Maya Forstater case (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_ Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf), it was held that gender-critical views – specifically the view that transgender women cannot change their biological sex – is a protected philosophical belief under Equality law (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater). Stonewall, however, appears to dismiss this, continuing its relentless campaign to prioritise gender identity over biological sex. Using, according to Ms Bailey, intimidation, harassment and bullying, to impose its own – some might think contradictory – brand of tolerance and inclusivity.
If evidence were needed of an ideological attempt to impose cultural rebranding onto the country, this is surely it. And, sadly, it is this same spirit that we see operating in the unyielding drive to normalise and promote LGBTQ teaching in schools, with, for example, children as young as 4 being routinely told that gender is a matter of choice, not biology, and that they can choose what they want to be. Similarly, it is the same spirit behind the demands for gay activist authors, such as Simon James Green, to be allowed to promote their books in faith schools, despite the clear offence caused to Christians by the encouragement of behaviours prohibited in the Bible and, in Mr Green’s case, the designedly blasphemous gay parody of the Lord’s Prayer.
The UK claims to uphold freedom of religion and freedom of speech. That being so, provided someone does not attempt to incite others to violence, everyone has an equal right to express their views, and should not be vilified or subjected to intimidation, simply because others disagree. Ms Bailey, formerly a member of Stonewall, has every right to express her views and disagree with the promotion of transgender rights which, along with many women, she sees as belittling the identity and status of biological women.
In the same way, the protections afforded Christians under the law must be vigorously defended and maintained – and children especially must be protected from attempted ideological indoctrination. The increasing attempts by a woke elite to silence views with which they disagree, and to impose such views on children, is a form of morally bankrupt totalitarianism. Like a many headed hydra, the spreading tentacles must be cut back, wherever they manifest, before they strangle forever the fragile plant of freedom and democracy.