The SNP deputy made public the letter from a lawyer sent to the headquarters along with a 51-page document opinion by Aidan O’Neill KC arguing that the club had no legal basis for its actions.

Ultimately, The Stand is owned by another SNP MP, Tommy Sheppard.

Ms Cherry, KC, said she was acting to defend her reputation, but also to encourage others who wanted to express their views, including on gender.

“I am prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary to vindicate my right not to be misrepresented and discriminated against,” she said, adding that any damages she could win would go to charity.

Ms Cherry was due to speak at an In Conversation event on August 10, but was scrapped because key staff at the venue were “unwilling to work on this event”.

Ms. Cherry says it’s because of her belief that sex is immutable and her views on gender.

The South West Edinburgh MP, who vehemently denies being transphobic, has been supported by author JK Rowling, who has called her treatment “modern McCarthyism”.

Prime Minister Humza Yousaf has said he hopes the dispute will be resolved through compromise, but other SNP politicians have been less supportive.

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf Backs Joanna Cherry In Dispute Over Canceled Fringe Show

In his letter to the Stand, Ms Cherry’s solicitor, David McKie of Glasgow-based Levy & McRae, said the “clear and unequivocal opinion” of the firm and lead counsel was that the Stand’s decision was ” illegal and discriminatory” and indefensible in law.

He had informed Ms. Cherry of her “right to claim damages and legal costs in addition to non-pecuniary remedies” as well as her rights to “a defamation action”.

He said his client did not wish to litigate, but “would not hesitate to do so to vindicate not only his own rights, but also the vital rights of people to hold and express legitimate philosophical views and not be discriminated against for doing so.”

He said a “quick and amicable resolution” would be for the Stand to agree that it “acted illegally by discriminating against our client,” apologize, and restore the event.

“If you agree to these reasonable requests, our client is willing to waive any claims for damages (including defamation) or legal costs.

“If you are not prepared to agree to the above, it is our client’s intent to pursue all legal remedies available to her in court.”

McKie said an action would be brought in Edinburgh Sheriff’s Court if the Stand did not respond within seven days.

Last week, Cherry said she was being “cancelled and unplatformed” because she was “a lesbian, holding critical gender views that someone’s sex is unchangeable.

He said that small groups of activists were “now dictating who can speak and what can be discussed”, showing that “something has gone very wrong in Scottish civic space”.

In a statement today, he said the Stand’s actions were “symptomatic of a broader problem in our society” and that the cancellation of his show was “the thin end of the wedge.”

She said: “I am very concerned that those who hold perfectly legitimate views on a variety of issues, including women like myself, are regularly misrepresented, removed from the platform, and in some cases facing damage or loss of our media. of life.

“This is often accompanied by online threats and abuse.

“The gender self-identification debate is very important and should be allowed to take place, but I am a multi-part woman who has committed to speaking out about my political life in general and I see the cancellation of my hour-long show. event as the thin end of the wedge.

“My main goal is to have the Stand’s actions recognized as illegal and to ensure that the event continues. I have asked The Stand to apologize to me as well. If you disagree with my reasonable requests, I intend to ask the court to decide the matter.

“I hope that my actions to defend myself will encourage everyone, particularly women, who wish to express their views on legitimate issues of public interest.

“That, after all, is the very job of a politician and one of the reasons why I entered policy first of all.”

READ MORE: The Stand was wrong to cancel MP

In his opinion, Mr. O’Neill said that the Stand’s attempt to avoid inconvenience to its staff was not a legal defense for discriminating against Ms. Cherry because of her legally protected beliefs.

He said the law did not guarantee “any right not to be confronted” with challenging opinions.

On the contrary, freedom of expression applied not only to favorable or harmless ideas, but also to those “that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population.”

He said: “Perhaps there is a current social (ie not legal) tendency to consider that one should be protected from the expressions of others that make one feel uncomfortable or offended.

“It has led to the phenomenon commonly known as ‘cancel culture,’ where one side of an argument is simply silenced by the other.

“Such a trend is anathema to the liberties that are protected in this country by law.

“It is also anathema to healthy public debate. It has no basis in law, and it has no place in a modern democratic society.

“Freedom of expression is not restricted to matters that are not controversial or harmless.

“There is no protected right on the part of any individual not to be offended.

“There will always be, in a pluralistic society, strongly held beliefs that cannot be reconciled with each other. That does not mean that one or the other of these points of view should be prevented from being expressed.”

A response has been requested from the Stand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *