To think the Green Party and esp its Deputy Leader is a real worry for women

[CraftyTaupeBee]

Over the last few months I have watched with incredulity the rise of the Green Party in the polls and wondered if I am alone in this. Mothin Ali their Deputy publicly celebrated Oct 7th (which he then apologised for) and has been seen this week at an event mourning the death of the Ayatollah. I am not anti any religion but his wife is fully covered in a niqab and I feel despite what others say to have a woman's face fully covered is a tool of oppression and not something I would want in a leader as a value set. I realise others may not feel this way and it is not meant to be offensive but the facts are there.And recently a female spin doctor for the Greens alleged that rape had not taken place on Oct 7th. To me the Green Party is reminiscent of what happened in 1979 and something that ultimately affected women's rights drastically (as well as any other rights of the gay community and others). The soft left (much like the Greens) allowed the strict islamic vote to take hold and look where they ended up. This really worries me for the country. Am I the only one? And why does the Green Party seem to be so anti west and anti white. I realise Zack Polanksi is gay and jewish and they are strange bedfellows but it feels like a trojan horse mindset and not something I want for my western liberal feminist girls. In fact it feels anti feminist?

Looks like it’s been left up though. Antisemitic tropes weaponised against a Jewish public figure being allowed to stay published on mumsnet; even after being reported by a Jewish poster is not a good look.

BBC Verify are not a credible source - they have been found to be blatantly lying on several occasions and cannot be trusted.

I always try to go to the original source which in this case I think has been removed. This is the consensus on what he said.

“After the October 7 attacks, Ali had said that people should "support the right of indigenous people to fight back" and said that "they are not victims, they are occupiers, they are colonialists, they are European colonialists". “

He dedicated the Greens recent win to the people of Gaza in case we were in any doubt on whose interests he actually represents.

From his attitude about the October 7th massacre, it is clear that when he says ‘people of Gaza’ he includes Hamas, the terrorists.

I’m not sure there is a consensus on what he said as the quotes on BBC are distinctly different.

I also think it is unfair to infer that people of Gaza includes Hamas. People as a word is generally understood to mean the populace, or civilians not a specific terrorist gang.

The Green Party views what happened and is happening in Gaza is a genocide. This is the majority opinion amongst genocide experts and historians worldwide.

“Separately, Ali apologised for the "short sightedness" of a post he made the day after the 7 October attacks, where he said "indigenous people have the right to fight back" and called for an end to "white supremacist European settler colonialism".

“Speaking to the BBC, Ali argued he had not been referencing the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians - killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.

He reiterated that the post referred to principles "enshrined in international law" and was not directly linked to the events of that day.”

Defending his position, Ali said he had been elected as deputy leader by more than 5,000 Green Party members who "put their trust in me because they recognise that I work for our community as a whole".
"Politicians have a responsibility in how they communicate, but also the media have a responsibility in how they communicate," he added.
"We shouldn't conflate what's happening in Israel to British Jews here - I think that is irresponsible.
"We need to express our solidarity with British Jews in this country, we need to express our solidarity with all marginalised communities in this country."

Ali became a councillor for Gipton and Harehills ward in May 2024 and immediately hit the headlines for his victory speech, labelling his election a "win for the people of Gaza" before shouting "Allahu Akbar", meaning "God is the greatest" in Arabic.

He later apologised for "any upset" caused.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4s Today programme Polanski said Ali was right to apologise, but he would "defend his right to be annoyed and upset by what is happening in Palestine".

"We need to have a nuanced conversation about what is a genocide and talk about what is actually happening as opposed to the words that people use."

Who do you trust then if you think the BBC is not credible at all?

Yes, agreed. The new anti-Muslim-hostility proposals complete with a Tsar to enforce it is really bad news. It privileges one community above all others. It will do the opposite of what it's meant to do. It will annoy other communities, including Sikhs and Hindus, who aren't getting this special treatment.

It's a great shame that the Greens have courted religious sectarianism in order to win votes. What happened to the tree huggers of old? Now we have Greens shouting Allahu Akbar.

I used to vote Green sometimes. I believe in planting more trees, cleaning up our rivers and seas, animal welfare etc. But now they've changed out of all recognition and to answer the OP, yes, it's bad news for women.

Do you feel the same about the antisemitism tsar Lord Mann appointed in 2019?
Or Jess Asato, MP, appointed as the VAWG tsar?
Or Dame Nicole Jacob’s the anti DV and child abuse tsar?
Or Johnathon Hall the anti-terrorism tsar?
Or Tom Rees the inclusion tsar for SEN children?
Or Steve Row the NHS productivity tsar?

I agree it is a shame that religion and religious commentary is being brought into politics. It’s seems to be happening amongst the entire UK society though.

The assisted dying debate had alot of accusations against the critics of it as objecting only on religious grounds.

It seems that religion, which should be a private matter, has become a topic that can be openly denigrated, displayed and discussed in what should be secular politics.

Then why not have an anti-Sikh-hostility Tsar, an anti-Hindu-hostility Tsar, an anti-Chinese-hostility Tsar etc etc etc?

I've got no objection to the other Tsars you've listed, but I would get rid of the antisemitism Tsar. Every ethnic and religious community should be treated the same and none should get special treatment.

Probably because there hasn’t been a concerning surge in violent crimes/hate crimes against these groups unlike women&girls, Jews and Muslims.

Every ethnic and religious community should be treated the same and none should get special treatment.

If only that were true that everyone is treated the same.

The tsars are usually appointed to try and counter an increase in violence/crimes towards a particular group by the general population in order to get them closer to the average, so they are treated the same as everyone else.

The green party don't mind some homelands being set up on the basis of religious adherence.

Caroline Lucas was attending pro khalistan (vaunted Sikh future homeland) rallies in the 2010's.

https://scroll.in/latest/889491/united-kingdom-green-party-mp-backs-pro-khalistan-event-in-london

Well didn’t mind, and quite awhile ago.

I can’t recognise Tory or Labour or LibDem or Greens today compared to 3 years ago, much less compared to 2010.

In 2010 Labour was friendly towards Jewish voters, and then they got riddled with antisemitism with allegations mushrooming from 2015 onwards.

Agree, the increasing religious sectarianism is not a step forward (ironically, given it is the so-called 'progressive' (pffft!) parties that are promoting it so keenly), and in fact is really quite worrying.

It's worrying in itself, and also in that it gives grist to Reform's mill that I really would rather they didn't have.

Why in this day and age would anybody think pandering to certain religions, or denigrating others, is the dream ticket way forward?

I don't want my own religion brought into politics, so I certainly don't want any others to be. I'm sure lots of other people feel similarly. It can only ever be divisive.

It is never reported that terrorists have used a Christian equivalent phrase.

To make such a stunningly ill-informed statement I can only imagine that you've never read even a single history book.

Here are some facts that might persuade you that your fantasy is not, in fact, reality: The Crusades. The massacre of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Australia, and various other areas of the world. "Got mit uns", ie, "God is with us" was engraved on the belt buckles of Nazi storm troopers.The Ku Klux Klan claimed justification from the Bible as motivation for their violence and murders. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda used their extremist Christian viewpoint as "justification" for their attacks. Numerous Christians in the US who have bombed/shot at/attacked Planned Parenthood centres and staff have pointed to their religious beliefs as "justification" for their violence. And so on.

It's rare that I am totally gob-smacked by someone's proud display of their ignorance of history yet here we are.

Let’s deal with problems in the here and now. The crusades were a thousand years ago.

Because of the crusades, we shouldn't be concerned about terrorists screaming "allahu akbar"? Seriously? Wow.

As far as I know, there has not been a wave of horrific terrorist attacks by people screaming "thank God!" in living memory. Or ever, actually. The terms are quite obviously not comparable. If you can think of any, that would be relevant. Suggesting that the crusades are equivalent (which by the way were very definitely not one sided 🙄) so Christians are just as bad as islamists, is fucking absurd. To make such a stunningly ill-informed statement I can only imagine that you're ... I probably shouldn't finish that statement, actually.

Christians have historically done really shitty, evil things. Muslims have historically done really shitty, evil things. Currently, only one religion is blowing up little kids screaming "god is great!!".

Separately, Ali apologised for the "short sightedness" of a post he made the day after the 7 October attacks, where he said "indigenous people have the right to fight back" and called for an end to "white supremacist European settler colonialism".**

Literally the day after the attacks..

Speaking to the BBC, Ali argued he had not been referencing the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians - killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.

So the timing is just an unfortunate coincidence? Seriously?

became a councillor for Gipton and Harehills ward in May 2024 and immediately hit the headlines for his victory speech, labelling his election a "win for the people of Gaza" before shouting "Allahu Akbar", meaning "God is the greatest" in Arabic.

He later apologised for "any upset" caused. He seems to make a habit of saying upsetting things. Almost like he keeps accidentally expressing his views and they are awful.

What about when he said the following about a Rabbi from Israel which inflamed a situation and ended in the Rabbi being removed to a safety place because of serious death threats?

At Leeds University, Ali said about the Rabbi:
You should be protecting people. You should be protecting students from this kind of animal, because if he's willing to kill people over there, how do you know he's not going to kill your students over here?"

Who do you trust then if you think the BBC is not credible at all?

Nobody. Generally I look at a whole range of sources for information and try to go to the source when possible. The BBC has blatantly lied about important issues too many times - their entire existence is to report the news factually and impartially but they failed. It is full of activists trying to silence the few good honest journalists they have remaining.

You may trust Ali’s excuses, in the same way you may still trust the BBC but his fairly extreme views are quite clear. His wife also appears to hold quite hardline views on Islamism and wears a full face covering.

Yes. Have you seen the restaurant owner in London (I think he is Hindu or Sikh?) who, when asked by a diner, told them that he didn’t serve halal food and then posted about the abuse he received.

He is now being mobbed by violent Muslim men on a regular basis who block his restaurant and threaten him. The police showing to protect from the raging mob looks rather lacklustre. I can’t imagine that being tolerated against a Muslim run restaurant.

I think there may be two sides to that story. This is from the restaurant owner's X account.I have sensitive imaged as it is offensive.

"indigenous people have the right to fight back"

Wow. If you didn’t know it was Mothin who’d said it, you could imagine it might have been Tommy Robinson, or someone else of that stripe.

Yet Mothin is not only tolerated by the left, but actively courted and feted.

I'm sorry, but I do not see what is in any way offensive about that image.

The sign reads "Rangrez [the name of the take away] Proudly Non Halal Restaurant"

Quite frankly, I think this is an excellent stand. I think that non-stun killing of animals is quite barbaric (and, for me, that applies equally to shechita (kosher) as well as to halal).

In 2024, 30.1 million animals were killed in that way (ie had their throats slit whilst still fully conscious) in the UK. Of those 30.1 million animals slaughtered without stunning, 27 million were for halal and 3 million were for kosher.

In contrast, non-stun ritual slaughter was banned in Germany in the 1990s and the European Court of Human Rights upheld a Belgian ban on the practice in 2024. I believe that there are currently nine EU countries that ban non-stun halal and kosher slaughter.

Wow. Did you not bother to click on the image to see what he wrote on the post? Or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

Here, to make it clear to you:

One of the tenets of Sikhism is they are forbidden from eating meat killed in a cruel manner.

He's also kicked off against the khalistan separatist movement in the Sikh community, which likely has not endeared him to the community

There are some reports that he was arrested earlier today. I have only seen on X so far so massive pinch of salt needed.

Can you please explain what is offensive about that picture?