Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Currently no information on tribunal which resumed in November

The tribunal resumed in November but currently there is no information about it in the article. Here are the references I can find

John Cummings (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing substantive to add - it was 2 days of closing arguments, the judgement comes when it comes, probably next year.

Although - as always - fascinating how you managed to miss this reference, purely an oversight I'm sure: "LGB Alliance provides ‘public benefit’, court hears" - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/07/lgb-alliance-provides-public-benefit-court-hears-in-case-brought-by-trans-group Void if removed (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Void, please avoid toxic comments like these. While the Guardian article headline pulls out a claim from one side, we don't consider headlines a reliable source and are typically not written by the journalist. It is disappointing that they quote one side on covering a day (7th) when the court heard from the counsels for Mermaids (morning) and the Charity Commission (afternoon). The court heard from the counsel for LGB Alliance on Wednesday morning, which Pink News covered, but the Guardian doesn't seem to. So we have Pink News which appeared to cover both mornings, and Guardian which appeared to cover only Tuesday. Useful to have another source, but your comments, suggesting an editor avoided one source (which turns out to be neutral in its body, but which you assume supports one side by quoting the headline), without any evidence or factual basis, constitute a personal attack. Don't do that again.

I continue in my view that Wikipedia is not a news outlet and we should stop trying to dump in every statement made by each side. -- Colin°^Talk 17:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The statements that have been added in coverage of the tribunal are overwhelmingly negative. 3 paragraphs of 7 have no balancing point of view, and the remainder seem to focus on titillating or inflammatory quotes rather than illuminating ones. Additional commentary like "despite originally arguing Mermaids had no legal standing to challenge their charity status since it was unaffected by their campaigning" is pure editorialising, as if editors on this page are fit to judge whether isolated quotes have any bearing on the matter of legal standing. I think the whole section should be replaced with a neutral observation of the facts of the tribunal, and scrap the running commentary. To that end trawling through these additional links for further coverage adds little.

The sourcing is also odd, eg. the section on Paul Robert's testimony currently links to one pink news article, and a guardian piece from 2015 about him receiving an OBE.

In terms of balance, even where there is an attempt to present quotes from both sides, the quotes from LGB Alliance's barrister and witnesses are presented as unfavourably as possible. For example, a standout portion of The Guardian's coverage would be "Reindorf asked Roberts: “Do you think it is transphobic to say a person with a female body cannot be a gay man.” Roberts replied: “Yes.”". To a disinterested reader, this is easy to understand, highly relevant, and cuts to the heart of the actual conflict. Instead, however, remarks about Iran are reproduced which don't seem to connect with the actual witness, and serve to present a less coherent picture of Akua Reindorf's questioning.

So, the commentary is redundant and what is there seems poorly selected.

But if the commentary is to remain (and this latest talk section seems about not only retaining it, but expanding it further), it was argued in a different part of this talk page by Sweet6970 that there are, in fact, three parties to this, not two, and presenting this as two opposing sides in a blow-by-blow as it currently is, is false balance. The Charity Commission are not on LGB Alliance's "side", but their own. If we must continue to bloat this section, I see no problem with adding a quote from the Charity Commission's closing arguments, and there is no real reason this would require "balancing" with closing args from Mermaids or LGBA, who are both amply represented in this section already. Void if removed (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is you complain about cherry picking, and then go and pick your own cherries to include for "balance". We don't fight in front of the reader. Articles should not be written where editors get to pick and choose to insert some quotes or statements from each side. Although there are three parties, the Charity Commission is coming here to defend its stance (which it maintains) that LGB Alliance is a charitable organisation, so it is effectively on the same side as LGB Alliance. If they'd agreed they'd made a mistake or had been misled, there wouldn't be the court case.

The text currently is terrible, with unencyclopaedic details like "At the end of the day it was decided not to convene the following day to conclude the tribunal but to delay until November, to allow sufficient time for closing statements" and with language like "claimed" and "admitted" that are to be avoided (MOS:CLAIM).

The Guardian covered most days in court [1][2][3][4]. The Telegraph covered only two days [5][6]. The Times, The Independent and the BBC News online do not appear to have reported on it at all. We have to remember that LGB Alliance is a tiny organisation that has, by its own admission in court, yet to get around to doing anything for LGB people. It's not exactly Guide Dogs for the Blind or Cancer Research. The only notable events were that they were the first organisation to have their charitable status legally questioned by another charity, and whatever the judge decides next year. The rest is some folk in a room arguing what a handful of people believe and have or haven't done. That's why for example, the BBC have more important things to cover, like a war in Europe or the economy failing. This court case has low weight. The reporting, if you ignore the headlines, is essentially a list of quotes, and the newspaper reporters have not attempted to make conclusions. If we include anything about the actual case, I think it should be extremely general, short, and avoid quotes. -- Colin°^Talk 10:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My view in general is that all the quotes taken from the tribunal hearing should be removed from the article: we should wait for the decision, which I am hoping will have detailed coverage in the mainstream media. But if Void if removed has a suggestion for making the material on the tribunal hearing less biased, I would be interested to see their proposed wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PROPORTION and WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- Colin°^Talk 16:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You say the Charity Commission is effectively on the same side as LGB Alliance, but this simply isn't so. The Charity Commission's skeleton argument took no position on any factual disputes between the appellants and LGBA ("it intends to focus on assisting the Tribunal with the applicable law on charitable status and on standing to bring an appeal.").

The CC's position is: Mermaids don't have standing to bring this appeal, and if they do, the CC discharged its duty based on the available information, and they won't argue the case for LGB Alliance to retain charitable status, merely assist the tribunal in interpretation of the law.

Mermaids et al brought a large volume of factual material into question, and LGB Alliance had to seek permission to intervene in order to dispute these factual claims. If found to have standing, the tribunal will rule afresh on charitable status, taking this new information into account, and the CC have offered no defence in this regard.

These different perspectives are important, and to frame it as the commission being "on LGB Alliance's side" is not only false balance, it impugns the neutrality and integrity of the Charity Commission.

Your comment about "yet to get around to doing anything for LGB people" is not in any sense a fair or accurate framing of what was said in the tribunal.

All of which is moot though if there is consensus for cutting down the section anyway. In terms of wording, I'd reduce the whole thing to something like:

In June 2021, a number of groups, including transgender youth charity Mermaids and the Good Law Project, appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, with the Charity Commission as first respondent, and LGB Alliance subsequently intervening as second respondent. This was the first time a charity had challenged the charitable status of another charity. The tribunal sat between September 9th-16th 2022 and November 7th-8th 2022, with judgment reserved until a later date.

Everything else is basically chaff. Until the judgment comes in we can't know which of the quotes are relevant or persuasive to the tribunal. Void if removed (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My comment about "yet to get around to doing anything for LGB people" is only unfair and inaccurate if attacking trans rights and "gender ideology" is doing something "for LGB people", which some people clearly think. I'm not proposing it for article text, but it is interesting that they admitted not achieving and couldn't actually come up with anything beyond their negative campaigning. Both the commission and LGB Alliance have an interest in being found to be right, and the commission's counsel made clear they continue to believe LGB Alliance has a public benefit. In this regard, they are on the same side. One can be biased in more than on way. I'm not saying the commission is biased wrt trans vs LGB Alliance, I'm saying they are biased, as all of us are, against being found to have screwed up. It is interesting, however, that the Commission couldn't find a public benefit beyond representing one side of a debate, a debate they acknowledge was "conducted in a manner which is perhaps not collaborative".

Wrt the proposed summary, I might have tried to summarise the general areas covered in the tribunal (for example, that they discussed what is a lesbian, without going into detail or quoting), but perhaps the best way to cover those aspects is to include them as appropriate in the sections on what LGB Alliance believes. I'd drop the "first time a charity had challenged the charitable status of another charity". The Guardian puts it "It is understood to be the first time one charity has attempted to strip legal status from another." which is journalese for "I don't know, this could be bullshit, I'm just taking someone's word for it". It appears this claim comes from LGB Alliance, who aren't known as a fount of legal historical knowledge. -- Colin°^Talk 21:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I support Void if removed's proposed wording; I would not object if the 'first time' etc. was removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't an especially controversial claim, and it is repeated in numerous other sources eg.

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-11-26/chief-executive-of-transgender-childrens-charity-mermaids-resigns

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/26/mermaids-chief-susie-green-steps-six-years/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/02/regulator-escalates-investigation-into-trans-charity-mermaids

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/tribunal-hears-charity-appeal-to-remove-lgb-alliance-from-register.html

"This was understood to be the first time one charity has attempted to strip legal status from another." is IMO a fair wording, but I don't feel strongly about it, and happy to ditch it if it means moving to a less bloated tribunal section.

As for summarising the general areas of the tribunal - I suggest that is too difficult given the contentious nature of this page, and will rapidly descend into warring quotes again. I don't think that "you're anti-trans/no we're not" adds anything, nor is it a good reflection of the actual substance of the case. Void if removed (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that three of your sources use exactly the same sentence, with "understood to be" and the fourth says "It is believed that this is ..." Not a single one of them has confirmed this fact. I confess to finding the claim interesting, which is why it gets repeated, but interesting is not the same thing as verifiable. The sources carefully distance themselves from it yet also feel the urge to mention it. We should not feel that urge, since we are an encyclopaedia. Whether or not it is the first is something that could be determined by our sources should they bother, so it doesn't fall into any category of minority belief that Wikipedia might give weight to. It is heresay.

What I was suggesting wasn't summarising the arguments made, but just noting the domain the arguments were within. So your quoted words would be a dispute over whether LGB Alliance was anti-trans, say, without going into any details of what each side claimed. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It just means it isn't an attributed opinion, I wouldn't assume that they're distancing themselves from it. The Charity Tribunal was established in 2010 and its decisions and directions are here. I don't think its beyond belief that journalists have seen or heard enough to say they "believe" it to be the first time it has happened, but haven't explicitly got eg. a professor of charity law to give them a quote to confirm it. Maybe there'll be commentary in the opinion that confirms this when the judgment comes that would serve as confirmation.

I don't mind leaving it out - I imagine the Judgment will come in the new year so can always put it back in if there's better coverage then.

As an aside I think it is more than just interesting because whether or not Mermaids even have standing to bring the case is actually one of the most critical and consequential parts of it since the accepted test for standing is very narrow and Mermaids seek to widen it. That a charity has never done this before is important because - if successful in their reasoning on whether they have standing - it creates a precedent for charities to do it again in future on the same grounds. Void if removed (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If they had confirmed the facts or received this information from a reliable source, they would have stated it as so. It isn't an "opinion" at all. All myths are interesting, otherwise they wouldn't exist. -- Colin°^Talk 13:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to the tribunal, I think we should remove the last four paragraphs of the Challenge to charitable status section. Neither our sources or ourselves know which arguments and testimony the tribunal will find convincing. We don't need a need the quotations from either side of the case, because in the medium to long term what will be more impactful will be the tribunal's judgement and reactions to it by legal scholars and commentators.

Paring that content back to just a slightly extended version of the third paragraph, which states factually that a tribunal was held between September and November 2022, with a judgement expected in the near future, is enough for now. By limiting it to just these facts, we avoid the use of cherry picked quotations from either ourselves as editors or the sources we use, that ultimately may or may not have had any meaningful impact on the findings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer that all the wording under the Challenge to charitable status be deleted and replaced by a very brief para based on the wording proposed by Void if removed in their post of 19:53 4 December 2022 above, but not including the reference to the ‘first time’ one charity has challenged another charity’s status, as the sources are indefinite on this :

In June 2021, a number of groups, including transgender youth charity Mermaids and the Good Law Project, appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, with the Charity Commission as first respondent, and LGB Alliance subsequently intervening as second respondent. The tribunal sat from 9th to 16th September 2022 and November 7th-8th 2022, with judgment reserved until a later date.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that goes too far. While the current text still relies too much on quotations, we do at least have to explain to the readers why these groups appealed the decision, took that to court, and give an outline of their arguments. At present, this will naturally be negative because it is exactly that: serious questions have been raised over whether this group warrants charitable status, serious enough to be heard in court. Think of it like when someone has been arrested for a crime and a court case is ongoing. Wikipedia has to report that and can't "balance" it by saying nice things about them. We simply have to report this negative matter. -- Colin°^Talk 15:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So what wording do you suggest? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the first paragraph as-is. As I said, I'd prefer if generally we were doing less quoting and more original words, but that's a separate matter for another day. The first paragraph outlines the rationale for the appeal case. I'd drop the second paragraph about that grant award (or move it somewhere else). From the third paragraph, take just the "Mermaids are being supported..." sentence and stick it on the end of the first.

In the above text it isn't clear that this appeal went to court (rather than being dealt with by some Charity Commission process). So we need to mention the First-tier Tribunal. I wonder if "first respondent/second respondent" detail from the above suggestion is too much legalese that readers won't understand. How about

A First-tier Tribunal sat from 9th to 16th September 2022 and November 7th-8th 2022, with Mermaids, the Charity Commission and LGB Alliance represented in court. Judgment was reserved until a later date.

If we have a source, we might be able to change that last sentence to something like ".. expected in early 2023". -- Colin°^Talk 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that this suggestion by Colin largely matches my own thoughts on this. The first paragraph of the "Challenge" section details the background of the case, why the Good Law Project and the group of five charities (Mermaids, LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation, and TransActual) brought the case. I agree that it makes sense to take the last sentence of the current third paragraph to add it to the first. It's fundamental for the understanding of our readers why this paragraph needs to be included, otherwise it begs the question as to why so many of the UK's LGBT+ charities brought the case.

The second paragraph does give an immediate effect that bringing the case had, namely that the LCF withdrew a grant because of the case. It seems somewhat noteworthy, but it could easily be excluded.

The third paragraph states factually when and where the appeal was heard, and that judgement is still pending. We don't need to go into more detail than that at this time. We don't know which arguments made by counsel, and which testimony and evidence the tribunal panel found or will have found convincing. While the media has picked a number of quotations out from the proceedings, those may or may not be given the same weight by the tribunal panel, and are devoid of context of how convincing they were to the tribunal. We should leave those aside for now, and let the tribunal determine what was or was not convincing.

Looking ahead with regards to the reactions from the judgement when it is delivered, while there will likely be a flurry of media attention when the judgement is delivered, aside from the factual reporting (ie who "won" their case), I think for our content purposes we're better waiting for commentary from legal scholars, academics, and commentators. While we should pretty quickly include a brief mention of what the judgement is based on the initial media reporting, as well as key quotations from the relevant parties about the judgement (ie satisfaction or intent to appeal), further information as to the details of the outcome should be deferred away from the likely sensationalistic media coverage in the immediate aftermath. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Colin’s suggestions for changing the wording, with one exception: I would like the last sentence of the first para (Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, said "LGB Alliance purports to be an organisation that supports lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but it doesn't. Many trans people are LGB and LGB Alliance actively works to oppose the advancement of rights of trans individuals.") to be deleted, as this gives only one side of the dispute.

I am neutral as to whether the inf about the LCF withdrawing the grant should be included; I think it is noteworthy, but it would not really fit in to a reduced section which concentrates on the bare facts of the legal challenge. Perhaps this should be moved to the History section.

As regards Sideswipe’s comments about what we should include when the judgment is reported: whilst in principle I agree that detailed comment should be based on comments by legal experts, we don’t yet know whether there will actually be any significant legal points for them to discuss, and we would want to give our readers some idea of what the legal issues were, before scholarly articles (if any) are written. But our wording on this would be a matter for discussion when the judgment is reported in the press. Hopefully we would be able to reach agreement.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If editors think the grant revoke is ok to keep, I won't oppose that. But, Sweet6970, we absolutely do need that last sentence (or an equivalent). That is represents one side is not a problem, any more than writing "Samsung have sued Apple for patent infringements" represents only Samsung's side. Dropping this would be like changing "John Smith was arrested for the murder of his wife on 15 December and the case was heard in January" to "John Smith went to court in January". That there was an appeal and the appeal was heard is a bad thing, and like an arrest, doesn't just happen spontaneously for no good reason. Like an arrest, where John Smith could be found innocent, we might well end up writing that the accusation was found to be baseless or irrelevant or whatever. But equally it could be upheld. At present, all Wikipedia can report is that an accusation of a bad thing was made and discussed in court. It needs to be explained what that bad thing is. -- Colin°^Talk 10:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point. I still think that, in effect, this wording is giving the ‘oppose’ side too much weight, but I will not object to keeping it if no-one agrees with me. If you do not object to keeping the grant refusal text, and moving it to the History section, then I think we have agreement, and the changes discussed can now be made (?) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the quote from Lui Asquith is opinionated, and a better option is to use the drier quotes from skeleton arguments in this article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/12/gay-rights-group-was-set-up-to-promote-transphobic-activity-court-told eg.

Mermaids argued that LGB Alliance should lose its charitable status because it was "not tackling problems facing lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but rather is seeking to prevent the resolution of problems facing transgender persons". LGB Alliance submitted that the appeal was based on a “profound disagreement with LGB Alliance’s approach to the promotion and protection of LGB rights”.

Or similar. This at least is what was argued in court without too much editorialising, and puts the basis of Mermaids' action clearly. Frankly you can't put this neutrally because much of the disagreement comes down to *who* is LGB, and what sexual orientation even is, and both "sides" have very strong and irreconcilable differences about that. Void if removed (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

the quote from Lui Asquith is opinionated ... Frankly you can't put this neutrally because much of the disagreement comes down to *who* is LGB, and what sexual orientation even is, and both "sides" have very strong and irreconcilable differences about that. As a transgender lesbian who knows many LGB trans people, I call BS. It's only a vocal minority of idiots who believe trans people can't be LGB, neutrally speaking, as everyone else realizes different. There is a long homophobic and pathologizing history of medical professionals believing trans people can/should only be heterosexual (or rather, denying care to any trans person who didn't say they were completely hetero), which has been recognized as wrong for years at this point. The new quote takes longer to say less than the Asquith one, and ignores the additional yet pertinent fact that LGBA purports to help LGB people while denying the existence of LGB trans people. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)