Green Party women - one more action before 14 Sep

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

I had an email today reminding me that we can help decide which motions get debated at the Green Party conference in October. But we have to vote by the end of Monday 13 September:

Prioritisation ballot for conference motions
The Green Party's conference is its supreme policy-making body and any members can attend and vote. Which motions are debated is decided by an online prioritisation ballot, which closes at 23.59 on Monday 13th Sept. Please help sound policies for women and free speech get heard - by voting using these recommendations:

Rank highest: D05 - Stonewall and Disaffiliation from Diversity Champions Scheme, and D07 Antisemitism, Palestine and Free Speech.

Do not prioritise at all: D12 - Consultation and Right of Reply for Liberation Groups and D08: Antisemitism Guidance to be added to the framework for ethics and conduct.

NB You do not have to rank every motion.

To take part in ballot, Green Party Members should find a link in an email from 'Conference Team' received 8th Sept. Autumn conference takes place both online 18-24 Oct and in person in Birmingham 22-24 October.

The 8 September email from the Green Party, titled "Prioritisation Ballot now open", gives this link:
www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/PrioritisationBallot?link_id=1&can_id=bc58247de41917958c065fbc43b7a6d3&source=email-prioritisation-ballot-now-open-3&email_referrer=email_1283011&email_subject=prioritisation-ballot-now-open

Thanks I've missed that email

Done thanks for the reminder

Could someone more knowledgeable explain why they advise that the antisemitism guidance should be ranked lowest?

I am not especially knowledgeable but it looks from the agenda like there is disagreement on which definition of anti-semitism to use. It seems to be a big deal as the Green party has historically supported a certain view of Palestine.

I think it is included there as there are concerns about debate being shut down by accusations of anti-semitism in the same way as debate about sex-based rights being shut down by accusations of transphobia.

I think it's similar to the issues the Labour party has - when does criticism of Israeli government actions shade into anti-semitism. Does the answer to that have wider implications for free speech?

I am not up on the ins and outs of this issue so will read the propositions myself before voting.

That's my fairly new member take on it. I would have left it for the more knowledgeable poster to come along but we only have till Monday to vote on that one.

Thank you @GreenandCommon. I will have a proper read of the propositions too

It shocks me as a Green to see this attempt to crush discussion and a democratic vote on antisemitism and how best to choose the best definition. This should be prioritized so members can take part in discussions, workshops and a vote at conference. It makes the party look bad that there is anyone on here trying to shut that down. We have a wonderful Jewish Greens group so maybe ask them for more information if it seems unclear.

It's also breathtaking to me to see an attempt to deny liberation groups (such as LGBTQ groups) the right to reply and consultation. What kind of party would do that? We can all have LGBTQ children and can be from minorities represented by liberation groups in the Greens. I will be prioritizing both of these as it would be wrong to deny members the right to vote democratically on such significant issues.

When I voted those I think those two motions were at the bottom of the list anyway (if I'm remembering correctly - did it in a hurry at night).

There were others I didn't agree with, eg E16 to remove any mention of population being a factor contributing to climate change. Some on transport and fuel that looked unrealistic. I moved several.

But the main thing, for me, was to prioritise motion D05 to unlink the party from Stonewall.

Well I can't see how it will "crush discussion" if there is a suggestion to prioritise a different motion involving anti-semitism. Would anti-semitism not get discussed in either case?

A lot of people take entrenched views on this and I'd rather make up my mind by reading the propositions and thinking about how they would affect free speech.

It makes the party look bad Yeah, apart from that the party is looking great, minor detail they don't know what a woman is.