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

Sorry I'm dense but can someone please explain the typo thing?

You're not dense, I'm just being too obtuse, lol.

The memo was until just 5 minutes ago
Men cannot become women.

Suddenly, there was a glitch, and the last three letters of the second word were accidentally deleted.
Instead of the memo being returned to sender, it stuck.

Molly Scott Cato isn’t coming across very well in the Tweets. Both in the (selective?) memory issues but also the exchange about expecting Shahrar to be quiet to protect “vulnerable” trans people - at least his representative pointed out the reasonableness in tone of his Tweets compared to “the other side”, and also refuted that he only Tweets about trans matters with a list of other subjects.

Today's tweets:

Part 1

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694692197470281943.html

Green Feminists UK have run up a list of some of the more dramatic revelations today:
https://twitter.com/GreenFemsUK

Court hears today that the campaign to sack @ShahrarAli as Green Party spokesperson was led by then leadership team Sian Berry & Amelia Womack along with Matt Brown. Yet none of these 3 is due to give evidence.

Replying to @tribunaltweets
3 or 4 direct questions, if u don't accept that I'll take u through it all. The process was reopened?
MSC: when do u say that?
JJ: by time of JUne...
MsC: ..I'd say process was challenged
JJ: challenge led by SB, Amelia and Matt brown

Trump-style loss of memory from @GreenPartyMolly over pressure she was under from @Sianberry to revoke appointment of @ShahrarAli as Green Party spokesperson.

JJ: SB says she had a long chat with you and putting pressure on u about SA appointment?
MSC: can't remember
JJ: can't remember the thrust of convo?
MSC: it's over 2 years ago

Court hears of a 3rd member of Green Party's executive committee raised concerns about the attacks on SA

JJ: Peter Barnet expressed his concern of level of attacks on SA?
MSC: yes
JJ: he reminded GPX only COC and he says you should take a stand.
MSC: that's what he said
JJ: also says has concerns about probation period. Right?
MSC: yes

Court hears a 4th member of Green Party's executive committee, it's Equalities and Diversity Coordinator @RashidNix, raised concerns that @ShahrarAli was being singled out for discriminatory treatment.

JJ: Rashid Nix expressed concerns and said [reads 'failure to address issues'] He's saying it's only been used in relation to SA
MSC: that's a weak argument, about processes in order

Court hears that concerns were raised by Green Party peer @GreenJennyJones over the extreme targeting of attacks on @ShahrarAli

[Moves on]
JJ: this is from Baroness and says she's been attacked over years but nothing like SA experiencing now. She has tremendous experience in party?
MSC: yes

Court hears today that @ICAN founder and Nobel peace laureate Dr Rebecca Johnson raised concerns about the way The Green Party was discriminating against people with gender-critical beliefs.

[moved on to Rebecca Johnson.]
JJ: [reads] let me suggest it's about the way gc beliefs are handled not trans rights
MSC: that's true that's what she says.
JJ: [reads] it was open to GPX to ratify what went on before?
MSC: yes

Remember there are TWO more court cases to come for the Greens Emma Bateman and Dawn Furness if this is the level of their defence they are in serious trouble.

Part 1 afternoon proceedings:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694692197470281943.html

I caught up on the whole case from Tuesday onwards this afternoon via TT. Wow. Today was particularly jaw dropping.

Today - Thursday - Part 2

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694721212004614352.html

Farkin H:

...We've seen a few of SA tweets - he doesn't send into abuse does he?

MSC: he signals and uses dog whistle technique but civil in use of language

JJ: Why is he responsible for reactions of other ppl?

MSC: he's not

JJ: if he responds in courteous ways and ppl have extreme reaction to that, why is he responsible?

MSC: were talking about very vulnerable ppl here.

She lays out the ideological position very clearly.

'He signals and uses dog whistle techniques'. FFS.

These people are beyond belief. Sharar Ali speaks in plain English, not bloody dog whistles.

The Greens apparently have this 🙄

lgbtiqa.greenparty.org.uk/2023/06/15/dogwhistle-guidance/

• 'What is a woman?'

What it means: This question is usually asked in bad faith. The answer it demands from queer people is an answer that can easily be construed as 'big burly (cis) men with penises' in order to 'discredit' self ID as a safeguarding risk, similar to (5), by presenting the real threat of male violence as one of a fictional 'trans violence'. This is in spite of the evidence from countries like the Republic of Ireland.

Like Barbie Kardashian?

How to disarm: Pointing out that the question is flawed in how it seeks to reduce women to their genitals can work, but can backfire by seeming to avoid the question. If you go for a self ID answer, know the facts: say with certainty that cis men abusing this doesn't actually happen.
Lie, then. Plus, how do we tell the difference and why should we care about a rapist or threatening man's identity?

I note that was put up June this year and it reads like propaganda put out in readiness for their statements during this trial

You could be right there.

Wow what a load of horseshit.

Thanks for the updates.

I had a look at the dogwhistle guidance, searching in vain for a definition of the words "man" and "woman."

Without such definitions, how am I supposed to understand the definitions which do appear in that guidance? - specifically the following two definitions:

Trans woman: someone assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman.
Trans man: someone assigned female at birth who identifies as a man.

Ah but you see those are the words that we mustn't discuss the definition of. That would be dogwhistling. It all makes perfect sense...

And thus the snake eats its own tail

Has anyone been to view these proceedings in the public gallery? Is there room if I went along to see for myself. I couldn't go before next Thursday but some of the evidence I'm reading is priceless and I would love to watch the impact live.

I couldn't get to London but I know people who have gone.

There are some supporters for Shahrah each day (hence the laughter at some of the evidence).

No Green Party TRAs have turned up.

It's only scheduled to last a week.

I only managed to read about half of that load of old bollix, but probably the more exposure of their crazy and very dishonest views, the better.

I'm hoping that there will be more press and tv coverage once the case is finished and the judge gives his verdict.

Tribunal Tweets are doing a brilliant job but only a tiny % of GPEW members will be reading those tweets.

If it is so clear to the party what the policy is why are they not standing up and stating, yes we believe people can change sex, no males will ever abuse a self ID process and we are are ok with sacking people who don’t agree. Do they believe it or not?

I remember commenting before on the link @Ereshkigalangcleg shared above. It's almost all American references and has little or no validity in the UK. Really pisses me off.