How Political Parties Should Support Victims When A Member Is Involved

[arranfan]

Via Shahar Ali's Twitter account - he retweeted a piece written by @LostinFife about that Statement of Support that the Green Party should have released after the Challenor trial's verdict.

A Statement in Support of #DavidChallenor's Victim

It is a fine statement - and it would have gone a long way to assuring people that politicians recognise the full extent of the crime involved and the consequences.

NB - Shahar Ali's Open Letter, his RT of this piece, and his engagement with dissenters on his Twitter line gives me some confidence that there are people in the Green Party who are beginning to assert a moral compass and acknowledge the need to reflect on what they allowed to happen on their watch. Whether it's too belated, I'm in no position to judge.

I feel that all of the major political parties should take what has happened in the GP as a heads-up that this has happened to them and do some similar soul-searching. (I know it's a complex story but I'm thinking about what happened to Claire Kober at Haringey.)

I’m definitely going to be raising safeguarding/background checks for officers and candidates with my Labour branch & constituency.

All political parties should be seeking to learn from this.

That thread is eye-opening as to what happens when internal comms, or whomever has charge of a party's Twitter/email etc. deems it unnecessary to pass some significant matters 'up the line' (if that is what happened).

Shahar Ali is coming in for some adverse comment on his timeline - I wonder if it's a shock to him to be exposed to some of the more #nodebate members of the GP?

However as his PhD is in lies and deception he is possibly inured to some tactics of disinformation, misinformation etc.?

Shahrar - my auto-correct keeps supplanting the other spelling when it's not offering me 'Sharon' and I'm not seeing it in preview. It's not taking my helpful, as in 'shah' and 'rar'

Yes, his tweets are one of the most optimistic things I’ve seen , about GP taking the whole issues raised seriously.

I also applaud Caroline Lucas, who as leader is stuck between a rocky rock and an extremely hard place. She definitely knows how much GP has fucked up, and at the same time can’t put it that bluntly, publicly, because that would be prejudging and therefore invalidating the inquiry.
Her willingness to meet the Women’s Place shows she is looking at the whole issue in the round, in all it’s connectedness.
She’s getting serious flak within the party for daring to say the previously unsayable, that there are multiple valid, nuanced sides to this issue.

The equating of any criticism of trans people and trans activism as being analogous to the horrible , hateful things that were said about homosexuality a few decades ago, has led to many caring /leftish people thinking that anything not 100% in favour of trans people is a vile attack on them. This silencing , this claim that “all difference of opinion comes from a place of hate which deserves to be shut down” has allowed the entry of some trans activists with dark, hate filled and dangerous intent.
This I will stand against.
Don’t anyone dare tell me I don’t value and support benign individuals who have a trans identity, have every right to dress as they choose, and who deserve protection from hatred.
But, as someone whose professional life has centred on child protection and safe guarding, like many other women, I will never give way or compromise on these things.

So much mainstream media questioning going on right now.
Can you hear that trickling, splashing sound? It’s the tide starting to turn.

One of the reasons that GP members should support Shahrar Ali is that there are some very disturbing procedural issues that are crying out for investigation and resolution.

The following has a screen shot of AC that should be investigated either to disprove it or to address the issues it raises. In the screenshot, AC is reported to have proposed an amendment to the Green Party constitution that would prevent those convicted of very serious crimes from being summarily expelled from the party. And simultaneously proposed it should be possible to expel others from the party for, effectively, wrongthink.

WomblingWoman Mon 03-Sep-18 12:44:19 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3351201-Green-Party-thread-3?pg=21

Is there a process to flag this up to the agency investigating failings in the GP?

Would the Electoral commission be good to talk to about this?

They give guidance on expected behaviour from parties and from party agents and candidates. All of whom in this instance have had the spotlight shone on them.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/contact-us

Would the Electoral commission be good to talk to about this?

Yes I think that's a good idea Chatty.

I haven't thought about whether there were any breaches of electoral law in the AC/DC case (I will have a look if I get a minute peace from the DCs (why are they not back at school yet??))

Posted too soon. The EC are really hot on electoral impropriety - rightly so. I'd be surprised if they don't know about this already but I think it's worth telling them.

I think sending unsolicited evidence- not, views, opinions, just evidence, to the GP enquiry is a good idea.

But not a deluge.

Pg 22 of the Green Party thread 3, BobHolness Mon 03-Sep-18 16:31:53 wrote: The amendment removing the power of summary expulsion of members convicted of serious crimes passed. The other 2 fell.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3351201-Green-Party-thread-3?pg=22

I also applaud Caroline Lucas.

I don't. I applaud the women she at best ignored and at worst nigh-on defamed right up until the point her own party was implicated in a scandal involving a paedophile rapist and torturer. As the women she ignored and defamed had been trying to tell her was the inevitable consequence of making certain identities unimpeachable and not subject to safeguarding requirements.

Caroline is reaping what she has sown. Absolutely no quarter given by me.

Hmmm.... it's telling me as a gender critical feminist I am blocked by @lostinfife

A Terfblocker subscriber perhaps?

More interesting items about attempted amendments to the GP constitution with some additional remarkable stuff.

At the same Spring 18 conference Aimee #Challenor (with Molly Arthurs, NB, and Teresa Ravenshaw, trans) put forward motions to remove the word 'female' from Green Party constitution, turning mechanisms created to tackle sexism into trans promoting mechanisms
mobile.twitter.com/Justloo79304166/status/1036605561104728064

And at same Spring 18 conference the words 'women and girls' were removed from text about female genital mutilation and changed to 'a person maybe subject to FGM', to hide the fact that this is crime that happens to women and girls because of our SEX.

mobile.twitter.com/Justloo79304166/status/1036607053308067841

I have to say that I'm more and more impressed with Shahrar Ali who gives a very good response tempered with compassion to AC's critical comments about him: twitter.com/ShahrarAli/status/1036660231672086530

I can't begin to imagine the stress you must be under. However all of us in Party must be determined to submit ourselves to inquiry in order to restore confidence in our party structures esp regarding safeguarding. Defensiveness is not an option. Nothing to hide nothing to fear.

However, whoever is elected as leader - I hope that they walk back some of the amendments such as the language around FGM.

Yes Shahrar is right. Nothing to hide nothing to fear. Why would anyone not want safeguarding processes and all that affects them to be subject to scrutiny?

The reason given for using the word 'people' in the FGM amendment is because the GP doesn't use gendered language. However, the 'F' means female which is def gendered. So logic, if they knew what that was, would dictate changing that too. To what - maybe PGM? Person genital mutilation.

So logic, if they knew what that was, would dictate changing that too. To what - maybe PGM? Person genital mutilation.

Indeed, who cares if they make a laughing-stock of themselves by attempting to popularise PGM (at best). As you say, it would have been logically more consistent.

Or, more plausibly, they bring down universal opprobrium for such callous privileging of their own pomo preferences in utter disregard of the girls and women who have endured FGM.

They have their very own intersection, right there - and look who came out the winner in the Oppression Olympics.

“Caroline is reaping what she has sown. Absolutely no quarter given by me.”

Me neither.

I have heard it suggested that FGM should be renamed Misogynist Genital Mutilation.

I've just seen the amendments to the GP constitution (usual suspects) that calls for additional consideration when members with disabilities face disciplinary action/expulsion.

The Committee must consider whether behaviour could reasonably be known to be the consequence of a disability, and ensure that action from the Committee in such cases must only be taken if it is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim. Legal advice should be sought in cases of uncertainty.

Now, maybe that is entirely coincidental. However, given the litany of disabilities that are publicised by particular individuals/families/committee members, this is an appearance of a fertile area of conflict of interest.

And, how on earth, is that policy supposed to be implementable? I don't see how a professional opinion would be affordable if everyone had the right to demand it on appeal. Beyond that, I should think that even people with substantial professional experience find it hard to separate out what is a consequence of a disability and what is motivated, e.g., by selfish purposes or self-interest.

I see the pairing of Sian Berry and Jon Bartley are now co-leaders of The Green Party with Womack as Deputy.

Berry and Bartley have been quite notable through their silence so it remains to be seen what happens now and what moral leadership emerges.

As an interesting update on AC and Shahrar Ali:

So I'm getting lectured now on ETHICS, YES ETHICS from AC #Challenor. I am the one who should not have stood as a candidate?! Go Figure..... #gofigure #failuretodisclose #youcouldntmakeitup #projection #implausibledeniability #backstabbing #inyourface

twitter.com/ShahrarAli/status/1046160565775855616

For anyone not up to date on this, Shahrar Ali stood for leadership and AC was a candidate for Deputy Leader.

Some excellent contributions and exchanges in that thread (including from Jane Clare Jones).