Read on Twitter
Reading the tribunal judgment of Bryan Meagher SC in CLINCH v REP (No. 2) (Discrimination) [2020] ACAT 68
https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1624613/CLINCH-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf
It is properly chilling
![Reading the tribunal judgment of Bryan Meagher SC in CLINCH v REP (No. 2) (Discrimination) [2020] ACAT 68 https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1624613/CLINCH-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdfIt is properly chilling](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhoLYBhX0AE7E92.png "Reading the tribunal judgment of Bryan Meagher SC in CLINCH v REP (No. 2) (Discrimination) [2020] ACAT 68 https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1624613/CLINCH-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdfIt is properly chilling")
https://www.acat.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1624613/CLINCH-v-REP-No.-2-Discrimination-2020-ACAT-68.pdf
It is properly chilling
This is how the story begins: at an International Women's Day event in Brisbane in 2018 some women carried signs and one one woman spoke on an open mic.
According to this Green Left report they were seen as "transphobic" and shouted down https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/otherwise-excellent-iwd-rally-marred-transphobia
According to this Green Left report they were seen as "transphobic" and shouted down https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/otherwise-excellent-iwd-rally-marred-transphobia
I don't know what their signs said, but these are the signs carried by a similar group of women in Melbourne that year.
These women too were yelled at, jostled and their signs grabbed by groups wanting "TERFS and SWERFS out" of International Women's Day
https://realforwomen.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/letter-to-iwd-rally-organisers-organised-harassment-of-women-at-international-womens-day-rally/
These women too were yelled at, jostled and their signs grabbed by groups wanting "TERFS and SWERFS out" of International Women's Day
https://realforwomen.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/letter-to-iwd-rally-organisers-organised-harassment-of-women-at-international-womens-day-rally/
The Green Party, in which Clinch was involved, wrote a letter declaring these women's political speech to be transphobic and withdrew their endorsement of the event for allowing them to attend.
Rep wrote something about the event on Facebook and Clinch complained, resulting in a mediated outcome in which Rep posted an apology to Clinch for "any hurt I have caused Bridget and for any way I have vilified or victimised her"
Other people commented on Rep's apology post. These are a sample of the comments.
For liking some of these comments Beth Rep was ordered to pay AUD$10k (£5.5k) and ordered to delete “all posts, statements, information” on the matter & refrain from same or similar posts in future
For liking some of these comments Beth Rep was ordered to pay AUD$10k (£5.5k) and ordered to delete “all posts, statements, information” on the matter & refrain from same or similar posts in future
The Discrimination Act in Australia defines Gender identity circularly as "the gender-related identity, appearance or other gender related characteristics of a person."
The Act doesn't say how sex is defined, but presumably the same way your Grandma would recognise
The Act doesn't say how sex is defined, but presumably the same way your Grandma would recognise
When Beth Rep posted her original apology on FB the debate became heated, after trans rights activists posted. Rep did not participate, but did like some posts.
Rep said liking the comments was not vilification or victimisation but concerned her political, gender critical, feminist view in the debate.
The tribunal disagreed.
It said that referring to Clinch as male (and even liking a comment referring to Clinch as male) was unlawful vilification.
Why must "male" be interpreted as a reference to "gender identity" and not to sex?
The tribunal does not say.
It said that referring to Clinch as male (and even liking a comment referring to Clinch as male) was unlawful vilification.
Why must "male" be interpreted as a reference to "gender identity" and not to sex?
The tribunal does not say.
Towards the end the of the ruling the tribunal says it is not minded to order an apology because it is not "appropriate to seek to compel the respondent to a sentiment that [s]he plainly does not feel"
![Towards the end the of the ruling the tribunal says it is not minded to order an apology because it is not "appropriate to seek to compel the respondent to a sentiment that [s]he plainly does not feel"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehn9e5mWkAELxp_.png "Towards the end the of the ruling the tribunal says it is not minded to order an apology because it is not \"appropriate to seek to compel the respondent to a sentiment that [s]he plainly does not feel\"")
It does not reflect on the fact that forcing Beth or anyone to say that a male person is not male is compelled speech.
Of course we can politely avoid mentioning sex, but there are situations - sports, prisons, refuges, single sex spaces where it is necessary for women's rights
Of course we can politely avoid mentioning sex, but there are situations - sports, prisons, refuges, single sex spaces where it is necessary for women's rights
Which is what the women were doing.
They wanted to talk about women's sex based rights and they were shouted down, condemned by a political party, and economically punished.
For speaking politically on the *one day* to celebrate women's rights.
They wanted to talk about women's sex based rights and they were shouted down, condemned by a political party, and economically punished.
For speaking politically on the *one day* to celebrate women's rights.
Referring to both sides of the Facebook discussion the judgement said "we do do not see any public purpose in promoting a debate that consistently falls below the standard of respectable discourse".
I wish the Australian judge had reflected on George Orwell, like Judge Julian Knowles.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/miller-v-college-of-police-judgment.pdf
As far as I know Beth Rep is not appealing, but her crowdfunder is open to help cover her costs. https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-costs-for-acat-hearing-v-bridget-clinch
