Ex-Lib Dem candidate sues social gathering for £90,000 in compensation after she was suspended and labelled ‘far proper bigot’ for carrying T shirt with slogan ‘Woman: Adult Human Female’

A former Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate who was ‘hounded out’ of the party and barred from standing as an MP for wearing a gender-critical t-shirt is suing for £90,000 in compensation.

Natalie Bird complains of being unfairly targeted for her beliefs after she wore a top bearing the slogan ‘Woman: Adult Human Female’ to a party meeting. 

The domestic abuse survivor – who says she is ‘passionate about the existence of safe spaces for vulnerable women’ – was called ‘an Illiberal TERF’, suspended from the Lib Dems and banned from standing as one of the party’s MPs for a decade. 

The single mother and former prospective Parliamentary candidate for Wakefield sued for discrimination, and representatives of the Lib Dem membership ‘conceded the claim’ earlier this year.

The case is now back in court to determine how much compensation she is due, with Ms Bird asking Judge Karen Walden-Smith to award her £90,000 for ‘injury to feelings’ for breach of her membership contract and rights under the Equality Act.

Representing her at Central London County Court, barrister Emma Walker said Ms Bird had been subjected to ‘silencing, intimidating and bullying’ behaviour due to her beliefs.

Her own complaints about harassment by activists in the party were not properly dealt with, while the party had ‘effectively condoned’ harassment of members with gender critical views, it is claimed. 

With her claim admitted by senior Lib Dems Mark Pack and Alison Rouse – representing the party membership – the case is proceeding only as an assessment of the amount in damages which Ms Bird is due.

Natalie Bird – seen outside court yesterday – complains of being unfairly targeted for her beliefs after she wore a top bearing the slogan ‘Woman: Adult Human Female’ to a meeting

The domestic abuse survivor is pictured wearing the shirt, which prompted allegations of transphobia 

‘The claimant is a domestic abuse survivor, and single mother, and is passionate about the existence of safe spaces for vulnerable women, and the ability to have healing spaces after undergoing abuse,’ her barrister told the court.

‘The claimant has suffered from depression since 2017, which is when the claimant was first threatened with expulsion from the party and called an ”illiberal TERF”, with the purpose of silencing, intimidating and bullying the claimant.’

A TERF is a term used to describe a ‘Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ and is sometimes used as a derogatory description of those with gender-critical views.

Ms Walker said Ms Bird had essentially been ‘discriminated against, victimised and harassed for holding gender-critical beliefs,’ with the party ‘effectively condoning’ it.

‘In addition, the defendants have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour of intentionally ostracising the claimant for holding a view which she has every right to hold,’ she continued.

‘The claimant has been painted as a bigot, far right, and described in a pejorative manner. The claimant had tried to build a political career from 2016 in the party, however her ambitions have been destroyed by the defendants, due to her gender critical views.

‘The claimant’s disciplinary hearing appeared to be pre-determined to treat the claimant as a horrendous person, resulting in the book being thrown at her, and a wholly excessive punishment, which was double the period for election fraud.

‘They made the claimant an example, giving her an excessive punishment because she was the first person to speak out and challenge the culture within the party.’

The single mother and former prospective Parliamentary candidate for Wakefield is demanding compensation from the Lib Dems 

She continued: ‘On the day of suspension, 11 December 2018, the claimant was on her way to a meeting of the Wakefield District Liberal Democrat Club and therefore had not read the suspension letter, to discover that the chair of the local party, Dr Peter Williams, has also received a copy of the suspension letter and asked the claimant to leave immediately on arrival.

‘This was an extremely humiliating, embarrassing and upsetting experience for her, causing her great upset and harm to her.’

She said Ms Bird was claiming damages for the loss of her prospective parliamentary candidature of Wakefield and other potential candidatures, her loss of ability to progress within the party, as well as discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

‘The claimant has suffered years of abuse, vexatious complaints, bullying, discrimination, harassment, grossly excessive punishment, and made to feel like a pariah by people across the country for holding gender critical views,’ she added.

Representing the party membership, barrister Nathan Roberts said liability had been admitted for Ms Bird’s claim ‘in an effort to save further costs’ at a point when she was claiming only £10,000.

For her to now increase her claim to two lots of £45,000 against the two named defendants was an attempt at ‘double recovery’ for what in reality is one claim.

‘There is no good reason that the claimant says the claim is now worth 4.5 times more than she originally and repeatedly pleaded,’ he told the judge.

He said much of Ms Bird’s evidence about her ‘injury to feelings’ was about her treatment by activists, pointing out that the ‘party isn’t liable for the membership at large.’

‘What she said in her oral evidence was that her injured feelings derived principally from acts of other members,’ he said.

‘She focused her attention on activist members, but that is not what this case is about.’ 

Conceding that she could be awarded £10,000 in total, he added: ‘The claim clearly isn’t worth anything like what she is pleading it is.’

The case continues.