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

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.

The above paragraph taken from the Green Party guidance posted June 2023 if a member is asked the question "What is a Woman?" They are instructed to say with certainty that cis men abusing self id doesn't actually happen. Really really deluded and dishonest.

Wow. So they are being given clear and specific instructions to lie.
If a private company had guidance which required it's staff to lie, I would assume that would be unlawful.
I wonder where the line is drawn in the political world on how legal it is to issue guidance that requires your party members to lie.
It's certainly unethical, if it's not illegal.

When I was active in the GP (mostly 1989 -2002 but a bit about 5 years ago) I thought that it prided itself on letting people have personal views, recognising that we are individuals with different experiences and don’t all think the same, in fact, I would almost say it used to pride itself on “ not being like the other parties”. But maybe I’ve misremembered or it’s different for speakers. It’s certainly not the tolerant parties that I used to be a member of.

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?

Shahrar Ali's counsel basically accused them of not wanting to say explicitly that they wanted to do away with single sex space exceptions entirely for trans people as they know it will put off a lot of GP members who don't necessarily get involved with the gender issue at the moment.

He put their Comms person on the spot and she floundered when given the real life scenario of an MTF in women's prison.

From Tribunal tweets yesterday:

JJ: point in in ur policies, bio women are dealt with differently from transwomen and are entitled to single sex spaces. We see this deals with pregnant women in prison and that existing women's prisons should^ be replaced. Then talks about female prison population. What I'm suggesting to u is that the policies are deliberately ambiguous bc if u know if u were to say that explicitly, that u would remove all single sex spaces for women, that would cause^ massive cavern in your party.^

MSC: don't accept but accept u have revealed inconsistencies

JJ: in 2021 SA is saying his SM contents was consistent with party policy bc the policy wasn't to get rid of all same sex spaces.

MSC: I believe its covered in the policy and it was clear his campaign was inconsistent with the policy

JJ: u have deliberately not stated u wouldn't get rid of spaces for bio^ women bc a significant amount of^ ur party would be outraged

MSC: I believe it can be dealt with with safeguarding not single sex spaces.

JJ: what do u mean by safeguarding?

MSC: like recent example in Scotland, where a prisoner should be, rather than them defining the gender, they conduct safeguarding

JJ: your policy doesn't provide for that. Let's test example. A man rapes a woman and violent history against women. By ur policy by the time he reached trial has changed and choose which prison

MSC: I disagree as a risk assement was carried out and that prisoner was not put in female estate

JJ: but that person as matter of law would be entitled to be in women's prison.

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

Last day in court. Getting so tense. I think verdict will be announced sometime after next week maybe? Surely there is no way the bigots in the Greens can get away with their nonsense? I don't have much legal knowledge but the GPEW case seems completely lacking and SA's case seems so strong.

There is so much riding on this. If we win then gender crits in other parties and in jobs across UK have a real chance of fighting back. It will expose the lies. It will build on Maya's win in real practical ways.

There is so little discussion of this online it is interesting. Obviously the GPeW don't want to talk about their trainwreck. Yet the thread here isn't even that busy.

The judgment will probably take a couple of months to arrive.

Thanks. A fairly long time to wait then.

Yes, I was interested to see the relative lack of publicity around this case. Would have thought there would have been more in the press

Part one from this morning:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694995104442749365.html

I'm finding Molly Scott Cato's repeated assertions of her authority interesting, given this (my bold):

'JJ: GP doesnt operate in same way as other parties in terms of structure, 2 leadership groups. Role of leader not the same. Party operates on consensus and collab?
MSC: correct [JJ takes to another bundle ref]
JJ: this is members COC. Para 12.2 reflects what I have just put. Given SA has spent 20 yrs in GP and steeped in the culture do you accept unfair to criticise him for seeking consensual approach?
MSC: I did offer him opp to discuss.
Not a relationship of equals.
J: You did give SA opp?
MSC: yes but as I said yty I had a role and authority as external comms co-ordinator.'

'JJ: Reason you gave for suspension was bc his decision to champion controversial position on trans rights
MSC: Correct '

'JJ: A flavour of what he was up against [gives bundle ref]. Email from Alexander S to GPEX "Continued transphobia in GP". By this point Forstater position has been handed down. This character describes them as "supposed GC ideology". These people wont listen will they?

MSC: Spokespeople are held to different standards

JJ: You were cowed by these ppl?

MSC: I do not accept. I believe ppl have a right to hold their beliefs '

I've followed previous cases and of all of them, my impression is that this is the most shocking. Not only for the level of abuse the party ignored but the scheming to remove Shahrar.

I'm really disappointed at the lack of integrity with no WhatsApp supplied by key instigators (Sian Berry) but also the memory lapses of Molly Scott Cato that she relied on whenever evidence of manipulation or bad practice would come to light. For both these points it seems the Green Party have decided that any inferences the judge will draw from these gaps cannot be worse than the truth.

I left the Green Party when a Brighton Green, who I think has been referenced in court, made tweets around older GC women dying off. Membership didn't give a shit when I complained. The abuse of Gender critical women and men in the party has been off the scale and it WILL cone out in court. It has been nasty at all levels. But as a lifelong Green voter and 'green' professional, it's really sad what has happened. The party is full of decent people and they have been so let down.

'JJ: [Gives bundle ref] You identify pressure by Sian Berry to remove SA. Do you agree she had a team around her in that endeavour?
ER: No, do not agree
JJ: EW and MB were supportive of that position no?
ER: I don't know when they came together.
JJ: Had by June in that paper
Look at list of names who signed that paper. They were all supportive?
ER: Yes MB and Florence were one job share [Lists other jobs shares]
JJ: Not asking you about vote asking you about people. They wanted him removed as he was GC?
ER: yes '

Absolutely. The vast majority of members are good, decent people who have had absolutely no idea of what's been going on.

And I'd describe it as a planned, hostile takeover.

'JJ: You knew that there was sustained targeting for 2/3 months and GPEX leaders did nothing ER: We could not take a side in this argument as will be unhelpful
JJ: I suggest your both sides argument is overstated. I think you would accept the majority of abuse from one side?
ER: Re SA, yes.
JJ: Take a step back. Do you accept that on broad view, abuse came from TRAs and their supporters and anything on GC side is dwarfed in comparison?
ER: Point is ppl choose to engage in these matters and he was choosing to engage causing the reaction/abuse.
He should cease in his role as spokesperson bc contributes to conflict
JJ: My question is that the abuse by GC people is dwarfed by TRA abuse (in general not just talking SA here)?
ER: I have seen abuse on both sides
JJ: SA not targeting individuals nor demeaning T ppl. He is simply setting out his GC beliefs in measured way. Open for ppl on other side to engage on the same basis?
ER: I agree SA is generally respectful and would agree responses to him are not always respectful. '

ER - Elizabeth Reason, Chair of GPEW, 2018-2022

'ppl choose to engage in these matters and he was choosing to engage causing the reaction/abuse.'

He was asking for it, your honour.

Arabella, I think you're absolutely right. Anybody who has been to conference or follows the Green Party more closely can see this and the Green Party was a sitting duck for this targeting.

Many of the key young greens have multiple disabilities, issues, protected characteristics and are vulnerable themselves. Most don't seem to have held any sort of professional employment and are inexperienced. They are let down by the lack of professional mentoring, for want of a better term. Many would have benefited from support and boundaries being put in place, rather than the 'nice' leadership running so scared of them or just seeking to exploit their support.

This is hugely important, given the impact that the judgement could have. Thank you for posting the updates.

And 🤞🤞🤞🤞

JJ: That is the first time anyone has said that in this case. With respect SA wouldn't be doing this if that happened.
ER: I cant remember date but there was a statement
JJ: We have never seen that statement. Not in your WS.

Lol at this.

Just popping on to say thanks for this thread

WTF is a listening circle? Not sure who this witness is!

He's the former co leader, at the time, I think.

Did she just use the " he was asking for it" defence?!?! I know this has been used before,but still shocking.

Context:

JJ: Anyone who says anything about sex-based rights has to be cancelled in your view?
JB: Not at all, we can speak in listening circles. Debates on social media are visibly hurting trans people. If SA wanted to come to a safe space we might be able to facilitate a discussion.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1695075836813103287?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g