*LAVA UPDATE*

Dear friends, family, and all our supporters

The Tribunal Case has finished. Closing statements were heard on Tuesday 4 and Wednesday 5 November.

We told you in our last Update (sent 3 November) how our costs had surged, but we were subject to a prohibition order at that time and so could not explain why, nor could we give you any information about what was being said in court about LAVA – and by extension about people like you who hold similar beliefs – nor could we tell you about the ways in which we believe we have been disadvantaged in this Hearing.

Thanks to your extraordinary generosity, we have now raised $113,574 and are within reach of covering our legal costs. Once again we are asking you to please donate what you can so we can pay our wonderful lawyer and just as importantly please share this email with any friends, family or colleagues who might be sympathetic.

Our lawyer has been remarkable, supporting us by charging only half her usual rate. She has worked tirelessly on our behalf and has supported LAVA to stay the distance. Unlike Wellington Pride, an organisation that already receives public and institutional funding and were provided with pro-bono support, LAVA has had to raise all the funds to cover our legal costs.

Pride’s pro-bono support funded a team of six or seven (not necessarily full time) lawyers. On most days in Court, they had a KC and two lawyers assisting her who were looking up information, passing her notes, and finding specific things in the evidence for her reference. Our lawyer had no legal support and only the two LAVA plaintiffs could take notes.

We were unable to pay a team – or even one other lawyer – to assist Nicolette.

The impacts of this cannot be understated.

Why have our costs surged?

The large number of Wellington Pride witnesses: This increased not only the time we had to spend in Court but also the time for preparation.

Scope of Evidence: The decision of the Tribunal to accept evidence about LAVA’s views and actions from after the actual event as allowable and potentially relevant, increased the time needed to respond.

The suppression order imposed by the Tribunal: Significant work was involved in fighting this order.

Preparation of LAVA closing submission: this too is linked to the number of Pride witnesses as all their varying arguments had to be addressed.

Wellington Pride closing submission: Wellington Pride’s closing submission was close to 200 pages in length. In comparison LAVAs was 54 pages. It had to be read carefully, including numerous references, and a formal response prepared.

We believe LAVA has been disadvantaged in this case.

·       We were denied financial support by the Office of Human Rights Proceedings (HRP) who finance people and groups who want to take cases to the HRRT (they didn’t think we had a case that would clarify points of law and neither did they think our case would affect more than a small group of people).

·       We were constantly limited (by the Tribunal in response to objections by Wellington Pride’s lawyer) in both the questions our lawyer could put to witnesses and what our witnesses could say. Much more latitude was given to Wellington Pride.

·       LAVA’s witnesses could not reasonably have been expected to prepare to answer questions for material that should have been out of scope and were thus disadvantaged by this ruling made on day one of the Hearing.

·       The tribunal issued a strict embargo on the ability to report on the case citing bullying and hatred. This is not in line with open justice and compares badly to the situation in Australia and the UK where open justice means live streaming and coverage by Tribunal Tweets not suppression of all information.

·       The Kaupapa of the Tribunal is that wrong sex pronouns will be used for anyone who wishes. This Kaupapa was antithetical to LAVA’s views.

·       Wellington Pride receiving pro bono legal services meant they paid no regard to the length and breadth of their defence.

And finally for a bit of light relief, here are just a few of the things Wellington Pride’s lawyer said about us (and by extension about you!).

·       LAVA’s beliefs are based on disinformation.

·       We live in an echo chamber (in relation to the research we believe and the experts we listen to)

·       We want to exclude people who identify as trans from public life.

·       We want to exclude people who identify as trans from sport.

·       We are deliberately offensive and insulting toward people who identify as trans.

·       When we refuse to recognise people who identify as trans as the sex they wish to be, we are denying their existence.

And here are some of the things Wellington Pride’s witnesses said – and I have no doubt they believe them.

All words are paraphrased from answers to cross examination questions. Although I have access only to my memory, I have no doubt the message conveyed here is that intended by the witness.

You cannot tell a baby’s sex at birth because what you see might be misleading and you might find out later that you were wrong.

Dr Edward Hyde, obstetrician and gynaecologist, Hutt Hospital.

I do not think we necessarily need a word for the class of people of the female sex. That is the people who can usually get pregnant, experience menopause etc.

Suzanne Manning, President, National Council of Women

Children, including pre-school children should be affirmed as the opposite sex if they say that is what they say they are, because they know who they are.

Dr Alexandra Gunn, Professor University of Otago specialising in early childhood education.

The worst anti-trans action I have seen is cutting out the trans triangle from a rainbow flag and standing on the flag

Stephen Whittle, British legal professional and researcher. Trans identified woman.

Yes, I think that over time people can change sex.

Jennifer Shields, Healthcare Lead at Qtopia. Trans identified man.

You may have noticed that finally we have made the news. Overall, we are pretty happy with the coverage. Here are a few links you could look at:

Ø  The Curious Case of Pride vs the Lesbians: Part 8

Ø  NZ Herald

Ø  Law News

Or donate directly into our bank account LAVA 06-0730-0417676-50

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT