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

Exactly what I'm thinking.

And what they already do. The way some rules are written, 'non man, non woman,' it's actually possible to discriminate on basis of sex. Because I've recently seen an example of that within the Gp.

BBC article. Surprisingly factual.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071

"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)"

It's whether the EA has more sway?

The concern is that the items that were dismissed will be seen as being given the go ahead to do much more frequently

I am concerned that if this is a procedural win it means that the GP can discriminate so long as they discriminate in the procedurally correct way.

I don't know how, exactly , because IANAL, and I didn't follow the case as it unfolded, but I wonder if the declaration of unlawful discrimination is relevant here? The EA might override any conflicting procedures, in the same way as it overrides contractual clauses. Perhaps the "narrow procedural grounds" relates to the "how". I don't think it means that it's a technical rather than a substantive win.
Also, IIRC, a first-instance judgement does not set a legal precedent, so even if your conjecture is correct, it wouldn't stymie other claims.

And now more cases to come. The GP must be in disarray.

I'm hoping that the Gp now can't discriminate against GPW potentially being single sex.

'the right to disagree, to advocate for and against policies and positions adopted or proposed in the party, and to organise for those who agree with them and against those who do not, and that the Equality Act is not intended to interfere with those rights. '

They can't discriminate though.

Congratulations, Shahrar!

I think the Green Party will struggle to make hay out of this, because any amended policies and procedures will still have to arrived at fairly, and be lawful, otherwise every time they try to follow their own policies and procedures they will be, potentially, unlawfully discriminating against a member(s).

So the GP certainly doesn't have carte blanche to write itself some easy get-out clauses.

Some additional information:

https://didlaw.com/dr-shahrar-ali-v-gpew

I see so any procedural changes would need to be transparent and democratically voted in? That makes sense. They would need to become a party who openly discriminate against those who believe you can't change sex which would probably be quite difficult for them to achieve. At the moment they rely on obfuscation of language and opaque policy.

'Dr Ali called for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the Green Party over how it handles trans rights debates.
Alongside this, he said independent inquiry "into the hostile environment in political parties across the left" should be set up.
He said: "The current Green Party of England and Wales is out of control.
"Parties are not beyond the law when it comes to seeking to discipline their representatives in accordance with their own rules for alleged misconduct."

From bbc article

Hmm

In a statement, the Green Party said it "acknowledges that there were procedural shortfalls in how we deselected one of our spokespeople".

'We will find out ways to hunt the witches in future...'?

*other

signalbox

From Sharar Ali's solicitors:
This is a landmark case and the first protected belief case against a political party. It is also the first case in which the court has had to consider the protection of those with gender critical beliefs in a political party. The key factor for consideration in any protected belief case is the balance between the reasonable manifestation of a belief and the limitations imposed by Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR in the context in which those beliefs are expressed. This is a tricky balancing act. One thing is clear, the Equality Act 2010 and the obligation to protect members from discrimination applies to all political parties.

I think this means that even if the Greens transparently and democratically agreed their procedures they still couldn't lawfully use GC beliefs as a reason for expulsion/removal etc.

The GP statement focused on everything bar the fact that they have been proven to have discriminate against Mr Ali for his gender critical beliefs.

It's what you can call the 'positive spin', typical of politicians.

The successful claim will have far reaching implications, Labour looking at you and your treatment of Rosie Duffield.

Good thread by Emma Bateman.

Oops

x.com/emmabatemangpw/status/1755908490323788242?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

This has huge implications for all parties, especially I suspect, how it will be discussed in public at length.

Buckets of sunlight

Yes. The sunlight is really key, tbh.

Green Party is 50 today.

🥳 .

Oh, happy birthday Green Party