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.

The person concerned presumably chose to leave their camera on. They had Tweeted previously a long thread about their claim so had made it public themselves, possibly compromising legal action. I think the motion was essentially about the way the GP has handled it and we do know here how they have reacted before to more serious incidents, like the Challenors. I'm sure their processes do need looking at but not convinced this was the way to do it.

Anyway, GP conference is behind us, the fall-out will be fun to watch but I will leave this here for the present.

Did they have an emergency motion or anything in the conference about the Challenor safeguarding debacle? Genuine question, if anyone knows.

The emergency motion was for an international investigation into how the party may have failed to protect victims of sexual harassment. I'm disappointed it wasn't heard and very upset that it was women who spoke against it.

International? How come?

I wasn't really clear on the background of this motion at all. Surely someone can ask for an internal investigation at any point, does it really need to be done at a conference?

@IamGreen

The emergency motion was for an international investigation into how the party may have failed to protect victims of sexual harassment. I'm disappointed it wasn't heard and very upset that it was women who spoke against it.

I mean, if they have to ASK...

Surely it would be completely obvious to have investigations about failures to protect victims of sexual harassment?

Wouldn't it?

It could be that the GP needs to look at its processes around this issue. I recall it was found they failed to properly investigate Challenor.

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/green-party-aimee-david-challenor-15677155

But then perhaps this needs to be put forward in a more robust way than an (apparently) hasty emergency motion at the last 15 minutes of a conference?

I don't know enough about internal policies and processes to understand how this might be best approached.

@DomesticatedZombie

International? How come?

I wasn't really clear on the background of this motion at all. Surely someone can ask for an internal investigation at any point, does it really need to be done at a conference?

Typo. Internal

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

A request from an individual can be ignored. An instruction from conference cannot.

Thanks, makes more sense. So - can this not be just asked for? Does it actually have to be done at conference? Is this really the only way to raise the issue of an internal investigation - because if it is then that itself a serious issue. Many motions didn't even get discussed because time ran out.

My impression was that conference was for discussing & voting on party policy, not internal issues like this. But perhaps I've got it all upside down - that would explain a lot.

Executive members speaking against this and the majority of members there voting against it was just an example of how the party lets women down.

It's for both discussing policy and party organisation.

This was being pushed forward by Ash Routh around a situation which the GP had said from the start is a police matter.

There seems to be a lot of blaming of GC around this, which I don't understand, and also (as below) I'm not convinced an emergency motion at conference is the best option, but having said that, the incident may be a police matter, but GP internal policies and whether or not they contributed is a matter for the GP enter the police are involved or not.

There seems to be a lot of blaming of GC around this, which I don't understand

the answer is here

^Sexual Harassment/Abuse/Assault Within the Party

Conference notes:

The resignation on February 19th 2022 of a Solihull councillor, following allegations of sexual harassment against them;

That resignation means that all disciplinary processes cease, with no resolution for potential victims;

That the councillor continued to represent Solihull Green Party for five months after the matter was first brought to GPRC’s attention; and

The ongoing and significant organisational and reputational damage to Solihull Green Party and its councillor group.

Due to the manifest and unresolved failures in process this situation has exposed, Conference urgently instructs GPEx to:

Organise a review into the Party’s actions from the point the matter was formally raised, to the point of resignation. The review should be independent of GPRC, GPEx, DC and DRC; and

Consider what budget can be allocated to such a review.

The review will detail:

For noting in the Management Coordinators report to Autumn Conference 2022: How the public was jeopardised by the Party’s actions;

Urgent suggested changes to the Constitution and Standing Orders to mitigate future risk and ensure the safety of our members;

As part of the final report:

How to implement an independent disciplinary process for all allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and assault;

Guidance to local parties for handling sexual harassment allegations, including clarity about who should be responsible for taking steps to protect members and the public; and Any other suggested changes to the Constitution and Standing Orders.

The report should be published on the Members’ website by Spring Conference 2023, appropriately redacted for confidentiality.^

This is the motion in question. I know a few women who have experienced sexual harassment in the party which weren't taken seriously by the party. Conference refusing to hear this motion felt like a knife being twisted.

Were the people who spoke against hearing the motion particularly GC? It was senior people, wasn't it? Why are "GCs" being blamed for it?

As far as I've been told it wasn't that anyone spoke against it, it didn't even get to the debate stage.

It was rightly referred to the police who apparently investigated and it may even be ongoing.

I don't know why "GCs" are being blamed tbh.

I think there were quite a lot of inexperienced people there who were swayed by two influential women who were eager to cover their own mistakes.

The women who spoke were:
Liz Reason, the Chair of GPEx who was responsible for getting a GC member kicked off of GPEx in the past, and
Molly Scott Cato, former MEP and current External Comms coordinator who hasn't really spoken on gender stuff.

How the public was jeopardised by the Party’s actions;

Yes well there's a lot that could go there.

From what I can tell it's not the type of motion that comes under an "emergency motion" (for an ecological party, who might consider world wide emergencies in this situation). I don't know the thoughts and leanings of the people who decided and ruled on this.

My readings of social media is that it's been reversed into "blame the GCs."

It's very clear that the Gp need to up their game around safeguarding and safeguarding of members against sexual assault should definitely go there.

It sounds like there's a different due process to take for that.

"Emergency" here just means it is in response to something that has arisen since the agenda was published.

@WarriorN

It's very clear that the Gp need to up their game around safeguarding and safeguarding of members against sexual assault should definitely go there.

It sounds like there's a different due process to take for that.

This was the due process.

What were reasons given for rejection?

Is it anything to do with this?