The Times- Critics call for law firms to quit Stonewall

Critics call for law firms to quit Stonewall

Some lawyers say the charity’s diversity scheme is harming free speech

Pressure is mounting on law firms, barristers’ chambers and leaders of the Law Society to withdraw from schemes run by the charity Stonewall amid concern over its stance on transgender rights.

Allison Bailey, a black lesbian barrister, is suing Stonewall over allegations that the charity instructed, caused or pressed her chambers, Garden Court, to investigate her after she helped to set up the LGB Alliance, which sought to provide an alternative view to the charity’s position on trans rights.

And within recent weeks it has emerged that the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Acas, the employment dispute service, have withdrawn from the diversity scheme for “costs reasons”.

At the heart of the row is a move by Stonewall, which was founded in 1989 to campaign for gay rights, to shift its focus on to the transgender issue since the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 came into force.

Its view that people born men should be able to self-identify and be treated as women (and vice versa) has put it at loggerheads with those holding “gender-critical” views. Proponents of that counter position argue that biological sex is different from gender.

Critics also accuse the charity of misrepresenting the Equality Act 2010 and seeking to go beyond legislation to impose “Stonewall Law” through membership of its workplace diversity programmes and other lobbying. They argue that Stonewall’s view of sex and gender damages women’s rights and harms free speech by silencing those with gender-critical views, who fear they will be labelled as transphobic bigots. Critics of Stonewall also claim that legal profession membership of the “diversity champions” scheme — and the wider grip that the charity’s message has — results in gender-critical feminists being denied legal representation.

Maya Forstater, a tax researcher who lost her job after tweeting that men cannot change their biological sex to become women, is seeking to overturn an employment tribunal ruling that her views are “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others” and “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

She tells The Times that “two major law firms” turned away her case, one of which was on Stonewall’s list of the top 100 most inclusive businesses to work for. “I have also heard of other gender-critical claimants being told by law firms ‘the Equality Act doesn’t defend bigotry’,” Forstater says.

Stonewall earns millions of pounds a year from its diversity scheme, which counts government departments, including the Ministry of Justice and Government Legal Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, and more than 80 law firms and three barristers chambers, among its 870 members.

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) are also members, while the Bar Council, which represents barristers, and the Bar Standards Board are not.

Stonewall declined to divulge the cost of membership or annual subscription fees, and declined to provide The Times with a full list of members, which has been removed from its website. It is understood that membership of the scheme costs about £2,500. According to its latest financial report, Stonewall earns £3.2 million annually from its various training programmes.

Forstater claims that lawyers with gender-critical views who are working in firms that participate in Stonewall’s diversity champions programme are afraid to speak out. They “are facing belief discrimination in their own workplace,” she says. Forstater’s solicitor, Peter Daly, a partner at Doyle Clayton, says: “Where a lawyer or firm has a policy of treating gender critical women as bigoted or otherwise unworthy of respect, and this policy causes the firm to refuse to represent a gender critical woman, there is a real risk of them unlawfully victimising or directly or indirectly discriminating against her in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and therefore the SRA code of conduct.”

Other lawyers called for the Law Society and SRA to withdraw from the schemes. Sarah Phillimore, a barrister in Bristol, says: “I do not see how any organisation that represents lawyers can continue to give money to this organisation, without some proper recognition by Stonewall as to how far it has strayed from its path.”

Naomi Cunningham, another barrister, suggests that law firms should consider the “reputational consequences of outsourcing their judgment on equality, diversity and inclusion to a lobby group that’s been caught attempting back-door law reform by misrepresenting the law”. She called on all public bodies to withdraw from the scheme, echoing reports in The Times last weekend that Liz Truss, the equalities minister, is keen for all government departments to quit. None of the five “magic circle” law firms — Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters and Slaughter and May, which are all members of the diversity programme — would comment on the controversy.

A Law Society spokesman says that it has had “a good working relationship with Stonewall for more than a decade” and will review its membership when it comes up for renewal. The SRA would not comment.

The Crown Prosecution Service says that it is reviewing its position, while the Ministry of Justice adds that it keeps its “membership with all bodies under constant review”.

Nancy Kelley, Stonewall’s chief executive, says: “We’re very proud to support more than 850 organisations to create an inclusive working environment through our diversity champions programme, which continues to grow and take on new members.” Kelly says that its advice on the Equality Act is based on guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.