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

Be interested to see the Grainger test applied to that.

A serious political party needs to definitively and explicitly explain the definition they want for a woman if they seek to change it from biological sex. In legal terms.

A feeling in your head is not a defined term workable in law to prevent discrimination.

if members are claiming that Ali's GC views are counter to policy then what policy denies sex is biological and immutable?

The Green Party systems are actually very democratic but that's also in a way how TRAs are dominating as many are younger and have the time and effort to stand for various roles and work their way up. The wording in some parts of procedural rules states non man and non woman. Which in practise means that when there is a role for which there is sex parity, you're voting for a women when voting for the non man position, but also trans woman and non binary of either sex.

It also means that if you are non binary you are able to stand for both positions.

But it's such a brain fuck to work out what any of that actually means

(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. (v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Is 'TWAW' cogent, serious, cohesive and important?

It definitely comes apart at 'cohesive'.

A good analysis but Red missed the issue of timing. The judge also made comments about the right to express personal views, even if contrary to party policy, when standing for election. In Sharar's case some of the actions complained about were during an internal election campaign and therefore the party could not lawfully remove him as spokesman for those comments, however loudly he said it. That was discrimination against his lawfully held belief. If he made it clear that comments at other times were personal views not party policy he could also not be removed for those comments.

The Green party leadership have certainly broken their own code of conduct for members repeatedly. Therefore they should be resigning. The Green party, if it doesnt want to waste members money, should look to settle other cases against them. IMO not doing so would be a failure of their financial responsibilities. Anyone know what the rules are for Short funding as public money should not be wasted fighting cases they cant win?

Yes thanks, what I meant was they (in the case of EB at least) they have been waiting for the outcome of the SA case before they proceed. From EB's funding page...

"With regards to my legal action, on the advice of my lawyer we have been waiting for the decision of my appeal against my second expulsion, and then for the outcome of Shahrar Ali's case before making the next move."

That's interesting. I think that point is also relevant to Natalie Bird in some ways too.

I think the closest comparison in terms of case here is probably Tim Farron: he holds personal views which are known but he understands where the party sits on the policy and why others hold those views. He respects those other views and understands how representative of both the wider public and party membership they are. He also understands where the law sits on those issues and what would be deemed discriminatory. He can not legally be kicked out the party for having those views. He can internally voice his opinion and can say this is my personal belief and why he holds that belief as a party representative.

This is a really good comparison. I was trying to think up one earlier to explain to my DH and couldn't quite get it right.

Right on queue to illustrate the point about the freedom non men men have:

This is why we need voting members.

x.com/finnwhitegpew/status/1756001288930590959?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Absolutely. This time, the TRAs didn't bother standing candidates for the Green Party Women commitee election but they are still trying to disrupt.

Just because only GC feminists are standing for election, it doesn't mean that those of us who are in the Green Party can relax and take anything for granted.

twitter.com/GWDeclaration/status/1756243077369397564?t=IYLzK2HDKzsS9FB5tSYQkg&s=19

I would question whether TWAW would pass the Grainger criteria in section v, either. It seems incompatible with women's dignity and definitely conflicts with our rights. And is it really WORIADS?

I don't know if it has been explicitly stated by a judge that TWAW is a belief that is WORIADS, or if it is just taken as a logical consequence of a finding that a belief in the binary nature and immutability of sex is WORIADS, and therefore disbelief must be, too.

I can't get away from the empirical aspect. The belief that TWAW is predicated on 1) the belief in the existence of a gendered soul or essence (GI) and/or 2) the denial of a material reality, or the idea that that material reality doesn't matter or can be altered by fiat. The first and last of the ideas in 2) can be disproved conclusively, the second one is just an opinion.

TWAW is different to religious belief. For example, the fundamental tenet of all the Abrahamic religions is that God exists. Although I personally don't believe that God exists, I can't prove that he doesn't. I might be able to point to inconsistencies or contradictions in teachings, errors in translation etc, but I cannot disprove the fundamental tenet, because it is not a belief about a material reality. It's faith. The belief in gendered souls, on the other hand, is of the same type as religious belief. So I think it passes - just - the Grainger test. (To the religious amongst us, please don't be offended by the comparison - I am not implying that GII has the same standing or any value for society as a whole.)

A belief in gendered souls means you believe that there can be such a thing as a woman in the body of a man. The belief that TWAW is that the male body is therefore a female body. This can be shown to be untrue. If the definitions, properties and measurements relating to body/sex/female etc (the established understanding) which are used to show its falsity are decried as wrong or outdated or something else then TWAW itself becomes irrelevant to policies around bodies and sex and women's rights. Because those policies are based on that established understanding of what bodies/sex/female/rights etc mean. So of course anyone is free to believe that TWAW but I don't think it passes part v of the Grainger test. It is a demonstrably false belief and I don't think that category of belief should be protected. The Royal Family are not lizards. Men are not women.

IANAL and I would love to see this tested in court.
If it already has been, apologies for wasting your time! 😂

Some would say it's not a belief, it's a lie.

And it boils back down to the dictionary definition of a woman.

It's more akin to saying "I am Christ reborn, you must believe me and treat me accordingly" than a religious belief that has a set of moral principles.

I don't know if it has been explicitly stated by a judge that TWAW is a belief that is WORIADS

Its yet to be tested. It will be tested.

The problem with a belief that TWAW is it's imposed on others without consent and has no real solid ground in law nor nature nor historical understanding nor has majority public support as to the definition of 'woman', especially in the context of the equality act which states sex separately and explicitly as different to gender reassignment.

It prevents others from being gender critical by definition and leads to harassment if not adhered to. (Asking for pronouns is imposed on the speech of others and isn't part of the speech of the subject).

Whilst you can be respectful of someone that doesn't mean you should be forced to believe someone is the opposite sex. The use of language to blur the boundaries is authoritarian and controlling of others. It isn't innocent as it has implications to others.

Trans activism is caught up in this Idea that identify is all about individuals identity but then it seeks to impose it on groups who then have no individual rights to identity as they see fit. And the truth is all identities are both individual and shared and BOTH must be recognised.

As I say, I think exploring this point legally is coming - all previous cases are naturally leading to it.

It's at the heart of everything really, this desire to socially isolated and shun people who don't play ball with it, IS harassment and intimidation.

TWAW has not been tested in court for Woriads.

I am sure that the potential for TWAW being not WORIADS, was mentioned in the ERCC hearing, recently?

Agree with all of that, RedToothBrush.

There has been an assumption that TWAW must be WORIADS because its supposed opposite, GC beliefs, is.

Roll on the court case which examines TWAW!

Yes the "belief" has so far only been ascribed to "gender critical."

We are assuming it translates in a polarised fashion.

But actually, the law does not support that. Because it is entirely legal to have single sex spaces and to insist that they are.

woriads constantly gives me WOMAD flashbacks which I need to work on.

Thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4994270-is-believing-in-transgenderism-a-protected-belief

Mentioned in Forstater's EAT, sort of, though this isn't the same as the belief being assessed and tested, as far as I can see with my non-lawyerly eyes:

'Gender identity belief should be protected under the Equality Act 2010. See paras 107-8 of the Forstater EAT decision:'

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

which programme was this please? is it worth looking it up on sounds?

That is an interesting thread, which I haven't read all of yet, but I notice there is no distinction made between GI belief and TWAW (not so far, anyway). I think they are different things. Getting people to to Be Kind and swallow GI...and then hitting them with TW are literally W - so they feel they have no choice but to accept TWAW because they have accepted the first, less contentious idea - is classic motte and bailey. But I don't think TWAW is logically entailed by GI. You can feel like, even believe that you are a woman in a man's body and that there has been some horrible mistake in assigning your gendered soul - while accepting that the body "you" are in is a man's body.

Forgot to say - the point of making the distinction is that GI might pass Grainger and TWAW wouldn't. Shouldn't, in fact. (GI is incoherent, but belief in souls is prevalent in religious belief.)

Not forgetting that whilst others will argue the toss, trans peoples rights ARE protected. Within their own sex. So not transwomen can be treated less favourably than another MAN. Not woman. And repeat for transmen.

If you start to suggest that rights and dignities should be removed from women to accommodate men it's 'problematic'

@newtlover: Go to just before 19 minutes to hear Shahrar Ali being interviewed on The World Tonight on Radio 4 last night:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001w1h7

ArabellaScott
I just looked at the paras of the Forstater judgement which you highlighted, not the whole thing. Seems to me it says that Maya's disbelief in GI was protected as much as her positive GC beliefs. That both were legitimate ways to frame her claim for protection under the EA.
Am I missing something? Because I don't know why the fact that disbelief in it is protected would make GI a protected belief?