I would like to go back to disagreeing with Joanna Cherry, thank you very much. Not so long ago, it was easy enough. She was an SNP MP, beloved by the party’s grassroots, and one of the most articulate advocates for Scottish independence. She was also a lawyer, and I really don’t think that sort of thing should be encouraged.
Then something happened: she started to talk out of turn about transgender ideology and its impact on women’s rights. In doing so, this left-leaning lesbian has been vilified as a bigot, shunned within her party, and subjected to appalling online abuse. Her latest punishment has been the cancellation of her ‘In conversation with…’ event at the Edinburgh Fringe.
Liberal values are under assault and the ramparts aren’t exactly overflowing with defenders
The Stand, a popular comedy club, said it was ‘unable to proceed on a properly staffed, safe and legally compliant basis’ because ‘a number of the Stand’s key operational staff, including venue management and box office personnel, are unwilling to work on this event’. You’ve heard of the heckler’s veto, now meet the ticket collector’s veto.
Cherry has issued the Stand with an ultimatum. She wants it to admit that cancelling the show was unlawful discrimination, apologise for doing so, and reinstate the event. If the club refuses, Cherry will take legal action. Her solicitors have released legal advice from Aidan O’Neill KC which concludes that the Stand has ‘acted in a manner which runs contrary to its obligations under the [Equality Act] 2010 not to discriminate against Ms Cherry because of philosophical belief.’
The 2010 Act says a person cannot be treated less favourably on the basis of a protected characteristic, in this case ‘religion or belief’, and subsequent case law has established that this includes belief that sex is binary, biological or immutable and disbelief in the ideology of gender identity. Cherry has given the Stand seven days to remedy the problem on her terms or the matter will be placed before the courts. (As a side note, one of the founders of the Stand is Tommy Sheppard, a fellow Nationalist MP. The SNP lives for drama.)
Cherry’s proposal for resolving the dispute seems eminently reasonable but given how widespread misunderstanding of the law seems to be in this area, perhaps another restatement by the courts would be no bad thing. Belief is a protected characteristic. This includes gender-critical beliefs. Treating a person less favourably on the basis of protected beliefs is direct discrimination. The views of staff or the responses of third parties is not a justification. While the courts are busy enough as it is, perhaps a little more case law might underscore the requirements of the Equality Act and preclude future clogging up of the docket.
Cherry has said that, were this matter to go to court, any damages awarded would be given to charity. It’s a noble sentiment but it underscores Cherry’s position as a public figure with the platform, financial means and social capital to defend herself. None of that lessens her experience of discrimination but it is worth remembering that most people don’t enjoy these advantages. So while Cherry is fighting for herself, she is also fighting for other, much less prominent people put through the wringer for their beliefs.
I really would like to go back to disagreeing with Joanna Cherry, but on issues that matter — on women’s rights, on the virtue of tolerance, on freedom of conscience and expression — she is doing the heavy lifting that so many others are too weak, cowardly or complacent to do. Liberal values are under assault and the ramparts aren’t exactly overflowing with defenders. I mean no disrespect to Cherry when I say this, but we shouldn’t have to scour the backbenches of the SNP parliamentary party to find an example of personal and political courage in British public life. The fact that we do says a lot about Cherry but a lot more about everyone else.
So here I am agreeing with Joanna Cherry more than I disagree with her and finding myself not terribly fussed about constitutional differences. Frankly, she can unilaterally declare an Independent Republic of Balerno if she wants. She’s got guts and that’s what counts.
Comments