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

@ArabeIIaScott sorry, didn't see you'd already highlighted this!!

JJ: You dont think there is a conflict of rights?
JB: I think there are conflicts but how it is framed doesnt do justice to trans people trying to speak truth to power
JJ: Vulnerable women in rape crisis are a powerful group?
JB: Thats about policy not the groups

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1695078046217245175?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

I'm guessing this is reactionary,but man alive: you need a safe space to state basic biology,then I'm not sure politics,or the debate if democracy,is for you!

JJ - Jeffrey Jupp, Shahrar Ali's barrister

JB - Jonathan Bartley, Co-leader Green Party England and Wales, 2016-21

My theory is this OTT showboating from JB is for the benefit of TRAs, who the Green Party are hoping to attract members from who are disillusioned with Labour after their recent communications about single sex spaces.

My frustration is that only a tiny minority of Green Party members will be following all of this.

Most aren't on Twitter.

The press office do a really good daily news email (mixture of any Greens getting press coverage plus links to relevant news stories) which members can sign up to but they have decided not to make any mention of the case.

The leadership don't want any coverage - not surprising with everything that's coming out.

Telling an employee to lie isn't illegal. But it's a breach of contract to dismiss an employee for not following an unreasonable instruction.

Case now adjourned until 10am 2 October for submissions, as today was taken up by witness evidence.

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

Crikey that’s bold.

Do you think this is part of why it's impossible to unsee this once you have,and that it gets under your skin: it feels abusive. I'm sorry for saying that if it's crass to people who have suffered actual abuse, but that's all I can describe it as,and it makes sense of why I find it so indigestible.

Interesting context from the "Green Feminists" group:

Strange to hear @jon_bartley champion 'listening circles' in court. This concept, which has roots in feminism, was flat-out refused by his TRA friends when proposed by @GreenPartyWomen and as co-leader Bartley stayed silent complicit in the strategy of 'no debate'.

https://x.com/greenfemsuk/status/1695081445327278192?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Then maybe they should rename it The Green and Red and Orange and Purple and Yellow Party.

It's not crass; it's highly pertinent.

Yes, there is a lot of gaslighting and abusive rhetoric in genderist arguments and strategy. Sometimes overtly - 'punch a terf' - and sometimes more subtly.

How else could one describe criticising women for 'weaponising their trauma'? Or for suggesting rape victims needed 're education'?

The abuse is baked in; dismissing women's voices and agency is a feature, not a bug. The whole movement is an aggressive grab of women's rights, it can't be anything other than abusive.

J: JJ dont feel you have to go through all the points you did with MSC
JJ: Grateful for that indication.

Does this mean that J has got enough to take a view already? Sounds promising.

It seems pretty cut and dried that Ali was not only sacked for his views, but bullied and abused for them.

I get the impression that the witnesses don't even seem to think that's a problem, tbh.

I get the impression that the witnesses don't even seem to think that's a problem, tbh.

A common feature of these cases.

These people really have believed their own hype. Self justification fallacy has convinced them they are on the RSOH and can do no wrong.

I get the impression that the witnesses don't even seem to think that's a problem, tbh.

It's pretty clear that TRAs still don't understand that in law discriminating against a person on the basis of their GC beliefs is the same as discriminating against them on the basis of any other PC. It's as if MF never happened. I guess that's what comes of living in an echo chamber.

As an ex GP this doesnt suprise me.

No, you havent misremembered.I was active from 2010 till Challenor and
I thought the same. I resigned when it became clear they had abandoned that.

Wow - they've learnt nothing from the Challenor case have they? Zero insight, self awareness and (judging by the length of time it took the KC to get them to answer questions directly and honestly) a complete lack of care for vulnerable women and children.

What a shower.

I'm recognising the abusers defence of 'he was asking for it' or 'why do you make me so angry?'

Yes, it's echoing the defensive huffiness we heard in Allison Bailey's case. At least, that's what it's reminding me of.

I wonder how these people frame thwor behaviour afterwards; do they justify it or does awareness dawn?

Labour U.K. subreddit take. Several repeating the common TRA myth that you can believe that males aren't women but can't express it. One more thoughtful TRA poster trying in vain to explain the Forstater judgment to those posters.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/15zzv65/greenpartyytakentoocourtoverrgendercriticalrow/?utmmsource=share&utmmedium=iossapp&utmname=ioscss&utmmcontent=1&utm_term=1

'The Maya Forstater ruling established that being a terf is protected under the EA, and an employer can't discriminate based on them'