Green Party - conference - votes starting soon

[DomesticatedZombie]

in 5 minutes!

A reminder!

Feminists, please attend - and please vote the motion to 'purge' women who've signed the women's rights declaration Out of Order.

@WarriorN

Ive just seen EB is suing the GP.

There's a garden to dig in.

Don’t forget Shahra Ali’s patch in the same place

Shahrar

Plenary may get to (1 or more?) D motions today.

They just said they will be back with D04 after a break. What's D04 now? ...

In the plenary reference was made to an emergency motion - what's that?

I think a motion added very late on, Colour, but don't quote me

Plenary - will debate an emergency motion now.

Phew, well done everyone if you managed to follow along with that! Now have a glass of wine/cup of tea/valium as required.

The emergency motion was basically about a GP councillor and a case of alleged sexual assault/impropriety and the GP response/lack of response to it. But the motion seemed to have required the suspension of standing orders to progress it.

It was argued (explained?) that the criteria for the suspension of standing orders hadn't been met - this was a financial aspect - so the motion was actually out of order.

The emergency motion wasn't carried.

But this does leave me wondering lots of things - what happens to the D motions we were waiting for that weren't further discussed? Do the previous results stand as party policy and, if so, why were they put forward again for the vote-that-never-happened? Also, with the emergency motion above, why didn't the proposer know that they need to get budget approval else it'd fail? Ah! so many questions. Which are largely irrelevant to me as I'll be leaving the GP before my next subscription is due.

so did the queerphobia and disaffliation motions not get discussed at all? are they gone for ever now?

Thanks for explaining that, Rights, I was too busy today to follow.

If I attend another conference I think I'll need to do some reading up.

It sounds bizarre. If they have too many motions to deal with they should know by lunch time Sun that some won't be progressed and be able to tell delegates they won't be being debated and so they fall and the real status quo happens, not pretend status quo which means a motion gets emergency motion status. Otherwise they are stricter about time keeping and allow enough time for any motions likely to be contentious ie any motions on gender ideology and what women can and can't say or do and who gets to go in female spaces.
I saw one delegate moaning that "women's sex based rights" is a transphobic dog whistle.
It does seem that TRAs interpret women standing up for themselves in any way and with any language is called a transphobic dog whistle now, and calling something a transphobic dog whistle means it should be a banned phrase women can't say any more without being denounced as evil transphobic bigots.
Woman= adult human female, women's sex based rights, believing in biology, you can't actually change sex, legal fiction.
All these phrases which used to be normal English are now banned as "transphobic dog whistles"
The most illiberal supposedly liberal movement ever that seeks to take away and restrict our vocabulary.

But this does leave me wondering lots of things - what happens to the D motions we were waiting for that weren't further discussed?

We have to spend the next 150 years preparing to debate queerphobia.

God knows what the people who joined to protect the environment think.

TRAs are resigning looking at the GPD22 hashtag on twitter. I think green feminists should hang on in there. Much more positive for women than the SGP which is handmaiden only now

GPC22

That's interesting, 2Rebecca. I note one person flounced off at the end of the last plenary. It was also interesting to get a glimpse of how these things (conferences) work - I guess lots of people who are involved and often passionate on issues getting together is often going to be quite intense. But some are noticeably more comfortable with debate and disagreement than others.

That final flounce was obviously performative. We were asked only to have cameras on if we were speaking, which that person wasn't, but they clearly wanted us to see their reactions throughout and then the flounce when things didn't go their way.

I understood little of the procedures but am glad my votes might help get the GP back on track. Great to hear TRAs are resigning! I wonder who they'll attempt to take over next?

Well spotted, yes. A performance flounce. Very dramatic.

I've just realised what it reminded me of-
students union
Which is such a shame - I know there GP councillors doing a great job, and god knows we need an environmental party right now
But it's crazy that 400-500 people can direct policy for a national party. Surely other national parties aren't like that.

I'm not on twitter can anyone direct me to the performative flouncing?

I love to see the flouncing and floundering too please.

Good morning all. I don't know if the flounce is available online as I was watching it on the actual conference.

During the debate the complainant in the sexual harassment case that this hinged on was sitting, head in hands etc and looking very distressed. Google helped me fill in the gaps. I make no comment one way or the other about the substance of their case, but it did strike me that it was a good opportunity to try to sway the vote. I think the Chair should have been really strict about everyone not speaking turning off cameras unless speaking, with no exceptions (apart from admins). Yet one more unimpressive thing about the Green Party.

I had had no idea that the person who had their camera on and left abruptly was involved in the issue being discussed.

That sounds really inappropriate to deal with it in that that way. A whole conference discussing an what was effectively a sexual harassment case?

I agree it doesn't sound particularly appropriate for the complainant to be on camera to be able to see them while it was discussed. Distressing for them too, I imagine. And if the matter hasn't yet been properly investigated by police (as people are saying on Twitter) it shouldn't be discussed in public, surely?