As the big tech tyrants tighten their grip, join us for more free speech at Parler—the anti-censorship social media platform.
On the anniversary of the Stonewall uprising for lesbian and gay liberation, Allison Bailey, a black, lesbian, English lawyer started a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds to sue the eponymous trans lobby group, Stonewall, as well as her barristers' chambers, for victimising her on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, colluding to prevent her free speech, and threatening her livelihood.
Within hours, the crowdfunding website closed her account in response to complaints, even though they had previously signed-off on Bailey's description of her claim.
They waited until after after midnight to reinstate the account, giving no further explanation for their actions and offering no apology to Bailey. But it was not a full reinstatement.
Instead, they censored Bailey’s text, prevented supporters leaving comments, and disallowed further donations after her initial goal of £60,000 target was met.
Bailey's chambers, Garden Court, are part of the Stonewall Diversity Champion scheme. Bailey says that the scheme operates by "police[ing] the opinions and views of individuals" in the organization, which pays a hefty subscription to Stonewall. In this case, it is her chambers that subscribes to Stonewall, and Bailey's speech that was policed.
Bailey said "The case that I am bringing is that I have been subjected to victimization because of the concerns I raised about Stonewall’s actions. It alleges that I have been indirectly discriminated against because both my chambers and Stonewall treat people such as me who hold gender critical beliefs as being bigoted and unworthy of respect. Those people are overwhelmingly women. This treatment is therefore indirectly discriminatory against women."
Allison Bailey is a senior criminal barrister who happens to be black, lesbian, and from a working class background. She was raised by a single mum, and is a survivor of child sexual abuse. Bailey is co-founder of LGB Alliance, a grassroots group which in 2019 broke away from Stonewall to re-affirm the rights of same-sex attracted people, leaving the established organization to pursue its extremist trans agenda.
The fund enjoyed record levels of support - primarily from women concerned about the erosion of their rights, reaching £48,000 of the £60,000 stretch target within hours. However, on receipt of "a number of complaints," CrowdJustice removed Bailey's page pending an investigation. This was remarkable given that the text had to be approved by the platform before the account went live.
After the crowdfund was taken down, Bailey wrote "CrowdJustice appear to have closed my crowdfund against Stonewall and my chambers. It had reached a record breaking £48K in six hours. Could this all get anymore sinister? Don't worry, I will raise the money. I'm not going anywhere. We will triumph. Keep heart xx"
Supporters were dismayed by CrowdJustice's decision to censor a woman who was raising funds in order to engage in a legal batter over having been censored.
Maya Forstater, a UK woman who last year engaged in a legal fight over her right to state that biological sex is real, also came out in support of Bailey.
In response to a tide of criticism, the tech platform claimed that it needed time to investigate. It seems that, when it comes to opposing the trans lobby, even a practicing lawyer cannot get a break.
Legal observers noted that the decision temporarily to close down Bailey's account was a test for the service provider. If the opposing party can prevent crowdfunding merely by lodging a complaint, the entire crowd justice model is fundamentally flawed. Access to justice can be denied by the administrators of the crowdfunding site, who become de facto judge and jury of the merits of a case which has yet to be heard.
What is the point of raising funds to engage in a legal fight if those against whom the suit is brought can scare the neutral crowdfunding platform into banning the plaintiff from raising those funds?
Another supporter wrote: "This temporary closing down of Allison Bailey's CrowdJustice page to sue Stonewall and Garden Court will be a real test. If supporters of those being sued can effectively prevent crowdfunding by just complaining then this model of funding legal cases is fundamentally flawed."
Journalists noted that the record of supporters for Bailey's fund conclusively prove that the British 'gender critical' movement is not backed by the conservative stooges of Twitter lore, nor is it funded by the evangelical right wing—a common mischaracterization.
Rather, hundreds of ordinary women who are worried about the trans lobby's takeover of public institutions put their hands in their pockets to support Bailey. This is a grassroots movement comprised of women who know the truth, refuse to accept lies on the basis of compassion for male feelings, are tired of watching their daughters and sons be butchered in the name of progress, and will not be silent.
Helen Joyce wrote: "Anyone who still believes that the American evangelical right is funding British feminism should look at the comments on Allison's fundraiser. It was always a ridiculous lie; now it's untenable."
The case also demonstrates the misogyny, homophobia and racism of the trans movement. Stonewall uses public funds to control the narrative, extending to shutting down a black lesbian's access to justice because her experience does not fit their narrative, and threaten to loosen their control.
Stonewall is the group with corporate backing, not Bailey. Stonewall is the organization that has deep pockets in institutional progressivism, Bailey is fighting for the truth.
Stonewall’s trans activist supporters, such as tax barrister and political activist Jolyon Maugham QC—who is closely linked to Crowdjustice.com—think nothing of intervening to disrupt a legal claim which poses a challenge to the trans takeover.
Maugham tweeted “Perhaps Garden Court, and Stonewall too, know a thing about human rights and protecting the vulnerable.” In his view, blocking Bailey’s access to justice by any means is a way to advance the claims of men who demand access to women’s spaces, and control over the language women use to describe our experience.
It seems that, while the fashionable woke cause is to centre black transwomen, black women like Bailey are simply not worth defending by the progressive ideologues. Instead of defending a woman like Bailey, the movement lets men take precedence. Not only is Bailey the wrong kind of black person, gender critical black women are considered fair game for the most egregious attacks upon their rights and dignity.
Bailey's case is the latest high-profile example of a pattern playing out in workplaces across the developed world. Women who question the claims of the trans lobby are disciplined, and even sacked, for refusing to comply with the demand to forget about sex as a meaningful distinction between people.
Bailey said "This is a case about me and my treatment. But it is also a case about Stonewall and its conduct against people who hold beliefs like mine. I do not believe that my treatment by Stonewall is unique, and I suspect that there are many others (whether they know it or not) who have been subjected to the same treatment. I hope that as a result of bringing this claim this treatment will stop."
Bailey's supporters expressed fear and dismay at the co-ordinated attempt by the trans lobby to silence Bailey, noting that—if she was deprived of a way to fund her case—women are left with no legal recourse for the denial of their civil liberties.
CrowdJustice wrote: "CrowdJustice believes firmly and fundamentally in the right of everyone to access the legal system. We do not pick sides or editorialize. We have received a number of complaints about a case page today that we take seriously and have closed the page while we investigate."
It is not for big tech companies to determine the speech rights of those who use their platform.
In light of the ban and reinstatement, Bailey has released a statement.
It reads: "I have asked CrowdJustice to increase the stretch target because there is potentially a greater scope for litigation as a result of events in the past 24 hours. Neither the removal of my page yesterday afternoon—nor the changes made to it when it was republished at around midnight [Saturday] night—were done with my permission or prior knowledge. I am in the process of determining precisely what happened over the course of yesterday, and I shall be seeking clarity on this from CrowdJustice. Until that clarity is achieved, it would be better not to speculate or comment further.
"My case against Stonewall deals with the censorship that has descended around discussions of male violence. The astonishing level of support that I have been shown over the past 24 hours demonstrated that this censorship is being recognized and is being rejected. I am struggling to adequately express the immense gratitude I feel to everyone who has supported my case.
"We shall not be silenced, and we shall not be deterred."