Green Party - conference - votes starting soon

Name changed.

As I understand it, No, it's not the latter part of the motion that was the issue.

I'm sure that would have gone through.

Er, who said feminists didn't?

this is crazy, why would feminists not want the GP to look at it's procedures around allegations of sexual harassment?

*Tight

It didn't go through.

It was right though and based on only around 500 votes as far as I can tell?

More need to vote or give proxies.

What happened kn the end to the vote to purge members who had signed the declaration on womens human rights?

Either way it's clearly not the fault of the "GCs"

Isn't everything our fault?

More misogyny, what a surprise!

A couple of others made the same comment, would this have been sarcasm too?

(This is not me being sarcastic!)

When someone explained it to me it sounded very complicated rule wise and more about the rules and fact police were involved. (I couldn't even begin to explain it.)

Either way it's clearly not the fault of the "GCs"

No.

I think Claire is just making a sarcastic comment about how hard it will be to submit an emergency motion in the short time available for proposing them if there needs to be consultation with liberation groups. But it isn't a requirement yet so wouldn't affect this emergency motion.

I don't know why individuals voted against hearing it.

Liz said the police were dealing with it.(this doesn't stop us examining how the party could have done a better job protecting victims)
Molly said a professional report would cost too much. (I just can't even... )

Molly Scott Cato is TWAW/TMAM/NBIAV. Don't know about Liz.

Is it anything to do with this?

What were reasons given for rejection?

"Emergency" here just means it is in response to something that has arisen since the agenda was published.

It's very clear that the Gp need to up their game around safeguarding and safeguarding of members against sexual assault should definitely go there.

It sounds like there's a different due process to take for that.

How the public was jeopardised by the Party’s actions;

Yes well there's a lot that could go there.

From what I can tell it's not the type of motion that comes under an "emergency motion" (for an ecological party, who might consider world wide emergencies in this situation). I don't know the thoughts and leanings of the people who decided and ruled on this.

My readings of social media is that it's been reversed into "blame the GCs."

I don't know why "GCs" are being blamed tbh.

I think there were quite a lot of inexperienced people there who were swayed by two influential women who were eager to cover their own mistakes.

The women who spoke were:
Liz Reason, the Chair of GPEx who was responsible for getting a GC member kicked off of GPEx in the past, and
Molly Scott Cato, former MEP and current External Comms coordinator who hasn't really spoken on gender stuff.

As far as I've been told it wasn't that anyone spoke against it, it didn't even get to the debate stage.

It was rightly referred to the police who apparently investigated and it may even be ongoing.

Were the people who spoke against hearing the motion particularly GC? It was senior people, wasn't it? Why are "GCs" being blamed for it?

^Sexual Harassment/Abuse/Assault Within the Party

Conference notes:

The resignation on February 19th 2022 of a Solihull councillor, following allegations of sexual harassment against them;

That resignation means that all disciplinary processes cease, with no resolution for potential victims;

That the councillor continued to represent Solihull Green Party for five months after the matter was first brought to GPRC’s attention; and

The ongoing and significant organisational and reputational damage to Solihull Green Party and its councillor group.

Due to the manifest and unresolved failures in process this situation has exposed, Conference urgently instructs GPEx to:

Organise a review into the Party’s actions from the point the matter was formally raised, to the point of resignation. The review should be independent of GPRC, GPEx, DC and DRC; and

Consider what budget can be allocated to such a review.

The review will detail:

For noting in the Management Coordinators report to Autumn Conference 2022: How the public was jeopardised by the Party’s actions;

Urgent suggested changes to the Constitution and Standing Orders to mitigate future risk and ensure the safety of our members;

As part of the final report:

How to implement an independent disciplinary process for all allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and assault;

Guidance to local parties for handling sexual harassment allegations, including clarity about who should be responsible for taking steps to protect members and the public; and Any other suggested changes to the Constitution and Standing Orders.

The report should be published on the Members’ website by Spring Conference 2023, appropriately redacted for confidentiality.^

This is the motion in question. I know a few women who have experienced sexual harassment in the party which weren't taken seriously by the party. Conference refusing to hear this motion felt like a knife being twisted.

There seems to be a lot of blaming of GC around this, which I don't understand

the answer is here

This was being pushed forward by Ash Routh around a situation which the GP had said from the start is a police matter.

There seems to be a lot of blaming of GC around this, which I don't understand, and also (as below) I'm not convinced an emergency motion at conference is the best option, but having said that, the incident may be a police matter, but GP internal policies and whether or not they contributed is a matter for the GP enter the police are involved or not.