A former parliamentary candidate has taken legal action against the Liberal Democrats, seeking £90,000 in damages after alleging that she was branded a “bigot” for wearing a T-shirt with a feminist slogan.
Natalie Bird, 45, claims that members of Sir Ed Davey’s party targeted her for expressing the gender-critical belief that men cannot transition to become women.
Ms Bird, a single mother who stood as the party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Wakefield, told the judge her ordeal began in 2018, when she attended a party meeting wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words: “Woman: Adult Human Female.”
She claims this act ignited a campaign of complaints from party activists.
A survivor of domestic abuse, Ms Bird has long fought for women’s rights and spoken out about the importance of spaces like refuges and changing rooms remaining single-sex.
She says she was first targeted by trans activists in November 2017 after she was elected co-chairperson of the party’s Radical Association.
Her legal claim states that she “was bullied by other members of the executive of the Radical Association for expressing her views regarding biological sex and safe spaces for vulnerable women.” She was also reportedly called an “illiberal Terf”—a term meaning “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist,” which is used pejoratively against people with gender-critical views.
As Ms Bird continued to voice her lawful opinions, she claims she became aware of discussions within Liberal Democrat social media groups advocating “a coordinated campaign of complaints” against her for her stance on biological sex.
Despite this, she was selected as the party’s prospective candidate for Wakefield on December 6, 2018.
Two days later, she attended a party meeting in her gender-critical T-shirt
Three days after that she received a letter suspending her party membership and informing her of a forthcoming disciplinary hearing for allegedly breaching the party’s code of conduct.
She claims she was later barred from standing as a parliamentary candidate, and lost “opportunities to hold party roles and progress internally within the party”, including the chance to stand in the 2019 European Parliament elections.
A disciplinary hearing held in October 2019 concluded that Ms Bird had shared “transphobic material over a prolonged time”. As a result, she was barred from holding office or standing for election for the party for ten years.
In January 2021, Ms Bird filed a legal complaint against the party, alleging “discrimination on the grounds of her sex and because of her philosophical beliefs.”
According to her legal claim, the party “simply ignored” her allegations, as well as further complaints about “double standards and unequal treatment compared to those individuals within the party who had bullied her, subjected her to a campaign of harassment, and smeared her reputation”.
Earlier this year, representatives of the party conceded liability just before the trial began, in an effort to resolve the matter, leaving the court to determine the amount of damages to be awarded.
However, the case has now returned to court, with Ms Bird arguing that she is entitled to £90,000 in compensation for “injury to feelings” stemming from the party’s breach of her membership contract and her rights under equality law.
Emma Walker, the barrister representing Ms Bird, told Central London County Court that her client had endured “silencing, intimidation, and bullying” because of her gender-critical beliefs, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010.
The legal team representing Ms Bird alleged that her complaints about harassment by party activists were not properly addressed, while the party had “effectively condoned” harassment of members who shared her beliefs.
Walker told the court that Ms Bird had suffered from depression since 2017, when she was first threatened with expulsion and labelled an “illiberal Terf.”
The barrister painted a picture of a political career derailed by a party hierarchy that had “demonstrated a pattern of behaviour of intentionally ostracising” Ms Bird “for holding a view which she has every right to hold”.
Walker added that Ms Bird, who had begun building her political career with the Liberal Democrats in 2016, has been “painted as a bigot, far-right, and described in a pejorative manner”.
Nathan Roberts, the barrister representing the Liberal Democrat membership, acknowledged that liability had been admitted “in an effort to save further costs” when Ms Bird’s claim was initially set at £10,000. However, Roberts challenged the significantly increased claim of £90,000, arguing that the new figure constituted an attempt at “double recovery” and questioning the justification for a claim that had grown to 4.5 times its original amount.
He also played down claims that Ms Bird was blocked from a “shining political career”, telling the court: “In my submission, she only has evidence for her candidacy in Wakefield and, as she has admitted, it was an unrealistic expectation to win that seat.
“In terms of her other achievements, she had unsuccessfully run for other seats.”
He added: “Not being able to run for a seat that is not a realistic possibility is not evidence of a clear miss for a shining political career.”
In court, Ms Bird conceded that there was no realistic prospect of becoming MP for Wakefield, with the Lib Dems finishing behind the Conservatives, Labour and the Brexit Party, now Reform UK, in the 2019 election, but went on to tell Judge Jane Evans-Gordon that the process “was about establishing myself in a seat at the start of my political career and being able to campaign effectively in that seat”.
The case, which raises important questions about freedom of expression within political parties, continues.
