The FSU scored a significant victory this week, helping one of our members successfully fight back after she was barred from her local pub for wearing a hoody emblazoned with a gender critical slogan.
Liz Panton is a gender critical feminist who believes that sex is an immutable, biological characteristic.
It was thanks to her longstanding commitment to campaigning for sex-based women’s rights that she decided to stand in the forthcoming General Election as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Party of Women in the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.
Importantly for what follows, Ms Panton has also been a regular customer and attending musician at the Cumberland Arms in Newcastle since the suitably fitting year of 1984.
It was therefore something of an emotional shock when last month she received a formal, legalistic email out of the blue from the pub’s management team, barring her from the establishment.
In the email from the pub, dated 17th June, Ms Panton was informed: “On the 7th of May 2024 you came to the Cumberland wearing a hoody making a clear statement. Your name now appears as a parliamentary candidate to represent the Party of Women at Westminster, a party with which the Cumberland will not be associated. Accordingly you will no longer be allowed entry within the pub’s boundaries.”
The “clear statement” alluded to by the pub was a message inscribed on her hoody that read “Women’s Declaration International: WDI”, and was accompanied by a logo representing the same organisation. On the webpage of WDI it states that it is a “group of volunteer women from across the globe dedicated to protecting women’s sex-based rights”.
Liz then got in touch with our case team, and we took up the cudgels on her behalf.
In our letter to the pub, we pointed out that gender critical philosophical beliefs are a protected characteristic within section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, and that under section 29 of that Act service-providers are required not to discriminate in the provision of services because of a person’s protected characteristic(s).
This was relevant, we said, because it was perfectly clear from the pub’s correspondence with Ms Panton that the reason she had been barred was not because of any disorderly or drunken behaviour, but because the management objected to her protected philosophical beliefs.
On that basis, we went on to advise the pub that in addition to constituting a breach of the Equality Act, barring Ms Panton constituted a breach of the common law duty laid out in the case of Constantine v Imperial Hotels Limited ([1944] KB 693, [1944] 2 All ER 171), which holds that an innkeeper has an implied tortious duty to receive and entertain guests unless there is just cause to refuse.
The letter concluded with a demand that the decision to ban Ms Panton be reversed. Were the pub to decide to keep the ban in place, we advised that we would assist our member in considering the legal remedies available to her, which would include, without limitation, the right to seek injunctive relief as well as a claim for compensation for injury to feelings.
We also reminded the pub that because Ms Panton was a prospective parliamentary candidate at the time she was banned in any subsequent court proceedings the court would be required to have regard to her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 – in particular, her rights to Freedom of Thought (Article 9); Freedom of Expression (Article 10); Freedom of Association (Article 11) and the Prohibition on Discrimination on Grounds of Political or Other Opinion (Article 14).
Earlier this week, we received the following response from the pub’s lawyer: “I can advise you that my client has now written to Ms Panton to advise her that it has reversed its decision to bar her from the Cumberland Arms.”
Speaking about the pub’s decision to back down following our intervention, Ms Panton said: “I’m pleased that The Cumberland Arms management has come to their senses. However, it is disappointing that they have not apologised for the wholly avoidable distress caused.”
She added: “WDI and the Party Of Women both advocate for women’s single sex spaces and rights. Most people don’t find that controversial at all. Although obviously some people do, and apparently it is what they think that matters. It didn’t matter that I’ve been visiting the pub for 40 years without any bother.”
Sadly, Ms Panton’s case isn’t the first time we’ve had to step in to support people accused of having had a little too much to think.
Recently we went to bat for a member after he was banned from his local in Bristol. When he was informed he’d no longer be welcome for a drink at The Drapers Arms because other patrons disagreed with his gender critical views, we wrote to the pub’s management pointing out that they had wandered into dangerous legal territory. Following receipt of our letter, they lifted the ban.
Earlier this year, we helped a group of our Northern Irish members after they were refused service at a watering hole in Belfast because several of them were wearing ‘Woman = Adult Human Female’ T-shirts. They’re now suing the pub.
The ‘public house’, as the full title of that great British institution aptly reminds us, used to be regarded as a space for lively debate and discussion, and since at least the 19th century has been closely associated with principles like freedom of speech and association.
How times have changed.
Indeed, if the FSU’s recent casework is anything to go by, the humble pub is rapidly becoming a major flashpoint in the war currently being waged by progressives on forms of speech they happen to find politically distasteful.
At first glance it might seem odd that staff employed within a sector that has suffered 7,000 pub closures over the past decade would be so keen to alienate punters in this way. But then as our Director of Data and Impact Tom Harris has pointed out in several recent research briefings (here and here), the current fad among progressive employers for equity, diversity and inclusion rarely makes for good business.
We suspect our current spate of pub-related cases may well be the tip of the iceberg. So if you or anyone you know has been banned from your local because you vote a certain way or have expressed a point of view that the landlord just doesn’t like, we want to hear from you. Email us via help@freespeechunion.org.
