SHahrar Ali is taking the Green party to court

[Igneococcus]

Over "fanatical clampdown on legitimate debate"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1cd0a19a-3e7b-11ee-87d9-ff29f95b54f7?shareToken=743d9060f8ee7dda519c50fb93882b73

🤞

Good luck, Shahrar.

sits in the corner and rocks gently

In under 3 hours, we should know.

I have a “big problem” to deal with at work today and no guarantee I’ll be able to mumsnet until much later 😭. Maybe I’ll take a loo break mid morning just to check my phone 🤣

If he loses, I hope he is able to appeal and go for the big one - an ET Appeal Tribunal 'Maya precedent'. I'd certainly donate.

But Ali has such a strong case. Just got to hope all the technicalities are bolted down.

Less than two hours to go. I think he definitely can appeal if he loses.

I hope he doesn't lose though. Anyone reading this you can look back through this thread to see the evidence from the tribunal showing the ongoing shocking level of bullying towards Shahrar Ali over his belief in biology and that a planned campaign against him from party leaders existed.

A lot riding on this. It could turn things round for the many gender crits inside political parties.

I've just refreshed my memory of Molly Scott Cato's evidence (very poor); and also reminded myself that three of the worst alleged offenders in the Green Party did not give evidence, which seems to be a recurring theme at these ETs.

It seems to me that we almost need a change in the law to enable courts to require key witnesses to attend ETs or face legal consequences if they don't. The fact they can just refuse to engage is not really justice, is it?

Yeah, by refusing to appear they hopefully helped his case. Sian Berry famously quit the Greens and the fact she was clearly targeting Shahrar was part of that.

TT is on the case live.

Tribunal Tweets@tribunaltweets
·
We expect the judgment in Shahrar Ali vs Green Party et al this morning at 10 am. The judgment will be given in person (then presumably written judgment available on line). We hope to live tweet. This is unusual in our experience of covering first tier tribunals.

Is this to stop leaking of the judgement by one side, do you think?

It makes me feel nervous for some reason.

Not long now. Very much watching and waiting.

Yes this is a significant one not just for the Greens but all political parties in the UK.

Am watching tribunal tweets 🤞

we're all watching TT!

in the courtroom now.

I've got butterflies!

'J - I will now hand down judgment. Runs to 61 pages. Won’t read it all. SA asserts that he was dismissed for his gender critical beliefs. Found that he was unfairly dismissed from his role as a spokesperson but on narrow procedural grounds'

'All other claims dismissed. Many time barred, some would have been dismissed on the merits.'

I've just refreshed my memory of Molly Scott Cato's evidence (very poor); and also reminded myself that three of the worst alleged offenders in the Green Party did not give evidence, which seems to be a recurring theme at these ETs.

It hasn't generally helped organisations to do that in the past so I imagine their role is covered in written submissions and some inferences are drawn that key people aren't there.

Does that mean if they'd dismissed him in another way that would have been OK? So they could have lawfully dismissed him for being GC?

Shahrar:
WE WON!! “I find that by removing him as spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, GPEx discriminated against Dr Ali because of his [gender critical] protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.” (Judge Hellman, 250, p. 56)

https://twitter.com/ShahrarAli/status/1755896471591723196

YES, WE WON!! “Dr Ali’s removal was, in summary, procedurally unfair in that he was dismissed for breaches of the SGCC [Spokespeople Code of Conduct] although GPEx failed to identify, consider, or make findings in relation to any such breaches.” (Judge Hellman, 246, p.56)

YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! “Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.” (Judge Hellman, 274, p.65) #AliVsGPEW