Speakers in the workplace should not harass gender critical employees

My aims

I do not aim to attack the police force with which I serve or to seek substantial compensation. My goal is to help put a stop to the widespread denigration and demonisation of those who hold gender-critical views, especially in contexts like policing, teaching, healthcare and social work, where duties of safeguarding, impartiality etc are key.  This will also help people in other contexts who hold protected beliefs but are subject to the same type of harassment.   

Background

I am a gender critical (GC) police officer. Put simply, this means I think the recognition of two unchangeable biological sexes (male and female) is important. For example, recognising the two sexes and providing single-sex services can improve women's safety; while sex-segregated sporting events can ensure fair competition for women.

These GC views conflict with those of some trans people and their allies, who believe society should treat people according to their chosen identity. The Supreme Court recently held that this approach to the Equality Act would seriously undermine protections for women. 

GC views are mainstream views that are not only protected under the Equality Act 2010 but are also aligned with the law. 

In March 2023, I attended a Trans Day of Visibility event held by my police force's LGBT Network. Senior personnel from my force and officers and staff from other police forces attended. At the event, one of the invited speakers referred to GC people as having "warped, twisted views", said that they were "obsessed", showed "cult-like behaviour", and that trans people were an "easy target for their hate". The speaker urged the police audience to take action to stop GC people "getting away with it". There was no challenge from the organisers or the floor, and the speaker was applauded and thanked by the audience at the talk's conclusion. Later in the event, Posie Parker, a prominent GC activist, was mentioned, and the audience hissed.

After the event, an officer based in my command area posted a photograph of himself on social media with the relevant speaker and others, praising them as "inspirational" and referring to a renewed drive to change, to "help shape policy and give a voice to everyone".

After raising concerns about this event internally through multiple channels and asking that attendees be informed that GC views are legitimate, I eventually took my employer to employment tribunal. I claimed discrimination (harassment) against me as a GC officer. The case was heard at a tribunal in March 2025. Judgment was handed down in June 2025. While noting that after I brought the case my force had validated my concerns and taken appropriate action, the tribunal decided I had not been harassed.

The tribunal considered freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). It decided that finding in my favour could result in a "chilling effect" on speakers' rights to express offensive views and audiences' rights to hear such views and understand the nature of the debate in question. 

The judgment is here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/newman-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis/

How strong is my case?

My legal team believes there are numerous errors of law in this judgment. In particular, it interpreted a key recent legal case on freedom of speech - Higgs v Farmor's School - as meaning that Article 10 ECHR constrains an employer's ability to control workplace harassment. In addition, I feel the judgment did not sufficiently consider the impact of the event on my freedom of speech or that of other GC officers. My lawyers think I have a good prospect of success on appeal.

How will success at appeal benefit others?

Talks of the kind that took place at my workplace are common, especially in the public sector. I believe they can contribute to an environment in which employees feel they cannot always safely speak out about the relevance and importance of sex. This is the case in many different sectors but it is particularly important that police, teachers, social workers and clinicians are able to acknowledge the fact that sex is real and sometimes matters in their work. 

My legal team

I am represented by Richard Linskell of Gunnercooke LLP and Naomi Cunnigham and Will Young of Outer Temple Chambers.

Thanks for the support. I will publish the grounds of appeal as soon as they have been lodged with the Appeal Tribunal and keep you updated with legal developments here.