SHahrar Ali is taking the Green party to court

Legally, though? Surely a political party is allowed to discriminate on the basis of political views.

I'm sure they can. I suspect the issue is more about whether they've followed their own procedures. If random party officials have discriminated against Shahrar he may well have a case.

Abbrieviations.
SA - Shahrar Ali, claimant
JJ Jeffrey Jupp, barrister
EM Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor, Didlaw

GPEW – Green Party of England & Wales, respondent, represented by Elizabeth Reason and Jon Nott
CC - Catherine Casserley, barrister
MJ - Mindy Jhittay, solicitor, Bates Wells

More discussions from JJ for C - related to issues in the case. The alleged detriments, detriment 2 alleges discrimination on social media by party members. Claimant (C) - no longer advances this as a detriment, GP cannot be responsible for behaviour of party members.

JJ - defence based on Art 11 has been raised for the first time. In a manifestation case articles 10 is always in play. Article 11 appeared for the first time in skeleton argument, I want the defendants to set out how Art 11 applies in this case. And by 9 am tomorrow morning.

JJ cont - we need to know how this will apply in their case and straight away. J - CC what do you say? CC - the court has to consider the claim under Equality and Human Rights Act. Art 11 will need to be considered. We accept that Art 11 will play a large part in this case.

R - we were not expecting to have to deal with this issue. J - that's why it would be very helpful to have it set out in writing as a pleading. CC - I can certainly produce that, J- I would find it helpful, so I will direct that. CC - we will do so.

J - do you have any applications CC? CC - yes, you will see that this is a case where there is a bundle of some 6,000 pages. One witness statements sets out the chronology and how this came about. We didn't have access to that until recently. And it has a great deal of

commentary on the matter that is irrelevant. We asked the C remove, they declined to do so. Now referring to the skeleton argument from JJ. It includes speculation about a conversation at launch event, but it was not about C but about another spokesman.

my concern is that the court ordered one round of witness statements and I don't want corrections to one and then responses to those corrections. CC - I appreciate that, and we should seek to avoid that and avoid taking up time. This is a trial with a vast amount of paperwork

Witnesses - called by R
MC - Mary Clegg, GPEW CEO
MSC - Molly Scott Cato, GPEW External Communications Coordinator
ER - Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022
JB - Jonathan Bartley, Co-Leader GPEW, 2016-2021

More abbreviations
Witnesses - called C
JL Julia Lagoutte, GPEW officer 2020-2023
ZH Cllr Zoe Hatch, GPEW officer 2021-2022
RN Rashid Nix, GPEW officer 2019-2023

I could not remember if I'd already signed the declaration, so I've signed it now. I'm hoping they would have flagged me if it was a duplicate.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1693604201845199031

'We are hoping to live tweet proceedings of Shahrar Ali vs the Green Party of England and Wales from the Mayor's & City of London court. Proceedings now scheduled to begin at 2 pm.'

The case of Shahrar is terrible, but the Greens have form on this. Google what happened to Emma Bateman and Dawn Furness also taking the Greens to court. Dawn was targeted because she fought against the coverup of the horrific Challenor case.

The clock is ticking for sexism in the Greens.

Also note in Shahrar's case he was virtually the only person from an ethnic minority in a senior position of the Greens a party way less comfortable with ethnic minorities than the Conservatives, or Labour. Did racial tensions play a part in this? We know that ethnic minority women have often been targeted when they speak out about genderist ideas.

Be good to get some more signatures on the declaration of women's rights:

https://greenwomensdeclaration.uk/

I think Tribunal Tweets are covering this. Starts at 2 pm.

You got there before me WarriorN. The damage to the Greens will be the public exposure of their minority view. I personally think he will win on the Forstater precedent but daylight will kill their nonsense.

The media fall out from loosing will ignite a bigger backlash than the greens can cope with imo, especially after cases such as Isla Bryson etc.

Although winning will be costly and severely hurt them. Either way it's a shit show for them.

It is complicated. What we know is that it is illegal to have a political party with out right racist views because the BNP lost its court case:

BNP 'whites-only' membership rules outlawed
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/12/bnp-racist-membership-rules-outlawed#:

Notice current far right wing political parties focus on immigration and religious beliefs not skin colour.

We also know that you can have a religious party advocating one religion such as the Christian party which can campaign on banning abortion and gay marriage and restoration of Christian values, so it is a party which gives primacy in men in certain ways:
https://ukchristianparty.org/what-we-believe/

However gender beliefs are unclear and messy. Gender ideology believes that gender, social ideas about being a man or a woman, or not being either i.e being nonbinary, is more important than sex, and human biology is not that significant. So the fact women are physically weaker than men doesn't actually matter that much and we shouldn't take it into account. It thinks that people who give primacy to biology are bigots and dangerous.

I think this is a metaphysical set of ideas which are basically religious. They are clearly sexist. The problem is we have people thinking this ideology is reality like the racist social beliefs of the BNP. I think it we have to live in a world with sexist parties, BUT if you want to be sexist then you can't pretend you are not. If you want to believe the sexes are unequal in some way you need the cover of a religion.

Religious members of a political party might have to compromise their beliefs to be members or choose other parties. However the choice is pretty clear for them. For gender critical people the situation is very unclear still. We are secular people who believe biological sex is more important than gender ideas. The courts have to weigh up if this idea shared by most people in the UK is in some way bigotry. How can it be when the existence of sex is a key part of the legal system and sex is a protected characteristic?

This is why this case and the case of Emma Bateman and Dawn Furness is so important.

Win or lose we will know far better where we stand after this. If we win the genderists will be in serious trouble. If we lose we have a way way bigger fight to come.

What IS good is that more and more green women are speaking out and are being allowed to speak out at various meetings.

For a party that prides it'self in being extremely democratic it's embarrassing to be authoritarian. The authoritarianism is slowly crumbling

He's standing up for the women if the party who had to suffer a period of time being told that must accept a male as the lead chair of the Green Party women's group.

The level of coercive control there was abhorrent.

Surely if a political party operating within a democratic society acts in authoritarian ways, it should be challenged?

I know none of that is law detail but the gumption the blue haired micro plastic obsessed green washed woke warriors had, was and is, something to be challenged.

Shahrar's case also covered in Telegraph and the Mail.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/20/shahrar-ali-former-green-party-deputy-sues-trans-view-row/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12425097/Ex-Green-deputy-set-sue-party-sacked-position-views-gender-fanatical-clampdown-legitimate-debate.html

This is the first time I’ve seen anything about this case. It’s chilling reading that believing there are two sexes and wanting to safe guard children is seen as abhorrent views. Yet again.

Good to see articles in a couple of papers, looks like he could do with a little more gardening.

These cases have done more to break the TRA stranglehold than anything else.

It is so interesting. I imagine that is the argument the Greens will make, though I'm not a lawyer. The Equality Act does make it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of protected beliefs, so would that apply in the same way to a political party as any other employer/service provider?

Alternatively perhaps the Greens will argue that Ali is an evil transphobe, rather than just gender-critical.

You'd get kicked out of the Greens if you opposed green energy. You'd get kicked out of the Tories if you supported communism.

And you'd get kicked out of the Labour Party if you supported socialism. 😛

Is this online does anyone know?

Just done a bit of Sunday gardening.

I agree that it's a political view, but it's also a protected view based on a protected characteristic: belief as covered by the Forstater case. Certain elements of the Greens have behaved appallingly. This is an area that needs a lot of sunshine.

Personally, I think the Greens have made the wrong decision. Legally, though? Surely a political party is allowed to discriminate on the basis of political views. You'd get kicked out of the Greens if you opposed green energy. You'd get kicked out of the Tories if you supported communism. If you don't like it join another party, or make your own.

I wonder if there will be support animals such as vegan cats or if it will be stuffed (teddy) animals I mean with them being the greens and pets not being eco friendly and all 🤭

Another really important case that needs to be won.

Watching with interest. Particularly in the light of the current Graham Linehan situation.