Green Party Deputy Leader on being 'gender critical'

[ArabellaScott]

https://thecritic.co.uk/it-isnt-easy-being-a-gender-critical-green/

'The Deputy Leader of the Green Party Zack Polanski also thinks people with gender critical views aren’t welcome in the party. He’s made it clear that “those members who claim that trans women are men and trans men are women – should not have a place in the Greens.”'

Quoting this interview from earlier this year:

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/03/zack-polanski-interview-transphobia-is-not-welcome-in-the-green-party/

'... he says that the small number of members who take a contrary view to the party’s policies on trans rights – specifically those members who claim that trans women are men and trans men are women – should not have a place in the Greens. He says: “I’m really clear that if you want to misgender someone then that is transphobic and transphobia is not welcome in the Green Party.”'

sounds like potential discrimination, to me.

I'd also add that saying a 'small number' of members are 'gender critical' is a deliberate distortion.

Same.

Just like, a religious group should be able to kick someone out if they hold the wrong views on morality or if they're an atheist.

Not an accurate comparison. We're not talking about the Trans Rights Party. Or should another general political party be able to kick out anyone who believed in gender identity?

Nuff said really.

RIP Green Party, you were a good idea once.

But I think the Green Party did make it an official part of their beliefs.

And yes, I don't really see the issue with kicking out trans activists either.

A Christian group, as far as I know, could kick you out over any disagreement with interpreting a single Bible verse. And that seems absolutely correct that they can control their own criteria for group membership.

He's basically saying that no one should have a place in The Greens unless they are a despicable misogynist.

But I think the Green Party did make it an official part of their beliefs.

It's not the primary focus of their organisation, it's completely unrelated and they don't have much of a mandate for it. Most of the membership don't attend the conferences to vote these policies in. They're also snuck in under the radar.

Leaving aside that it's not legal under the EA to harass people even if you were technically allowed to discriminate in accepting them as members as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

These court cases are about abuse, bullying and harassment.

They are clearly scientifically illiterate, what makes you think they will be any clearer when trying to evaluate environmental policy?

I think I would argue that a political party can center around almost any ideological position.

However that would undoubtedly limit their membership and probably voters.

Who benefits if the Green Party makes itself more unelectable by adopting this stupid unscientific antiwomen stance?

I think I would argue that a political party can center around almost any ideological position.

Maybe, it's a valid perspective. They at least need to be honest about it to their members though. And it's not a justification for bullying and abusive behaviour. Dawn Furness alleges that she was actually physically assaulted for her gender critical feminist views.

To address the point about beliefs - this is what the document linked to purportedly from the solicitors said:

'18. In order to lawfully apply a PCP that disadvantages members with gender critical beliefs, the Green Party would need to be able to demonstrate that the application of the PCP was prescribed by its constitution and relevant policies/procedures and “necessary in a democratic society” “for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” and proportionate i.e. had regard to the need for a fair balance between the rights of all members affected.'

So, in order to exclude/discriminate against members with gc beliefs, they'd need to change their constitution. Which I can't remember but I think they may have already tried to do before, unsuccessfully?

I presume it would be possibly lawful to set up a group discriminating against/excluding people who don't share your own beliefs, but you'd need to do that to begin with? You couldn't set up a Unitarian church and then decide you were going to kick out all Catholics, or set up a gardening club and then decide atheists weren't allowed to join.

(I am obviously neither a lawyer nor a theologist, just trying to think of parallel possible belief/exclusion situations.)

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/religion-or-belief-discrimination

'A difference in treatment may be lawful in situations outside the workplace such as if:

• a faith school is using religious criteria to give priority in admissions to children from a particular religion.
• a religious or belief organisation is restricting its membership or participation in its activities, or the provision of goods, facilities and services to persons of a particular religion or belief. This only applies to organisations whose purpose is to practice, promote or teach a religion or belief, whose sole or main purpose is not commercial. A restriction can only be imposed:
• if the purpose of the organisation is to provide services to one religion or belief
• if it is necessary to avoid causing offence to persons with the same religion or belief as the organisation
• an organisation is taking positive action to encourage or develop a group of people with a religion and belief that is under-represented or disadvantaged in an activity
• the circumstances fall under one of the other exceptions to the Equality Act that allow organisations to provide different treatment or services based on religion or belief'

'

I presume it would be possibly lawful to set up a group discriminating against/excluding people who don't share your own beliefs, but you'd need to do that to begin with? You couldn't set up a Unitarian church and then decide you were going to kick out all Catholics, or set up a gardening club and then decide atheists weren't allowed to join.

Yes, that's how I see it too.

In general I think, and I may be wrong about this, that political parties can change their core mission, beliefs, and membership requirements if that is what the party members want. To some extent change happens over time with any party that is around for a while.

As for who benefits if the Greens become a niche party? If they were doing what they were meant to, clearly they would be bringing important environmental issues to the fore and also if you look internationally Green parties often have some interesting policy approaches that bridge the left/right divide and put emphasis on political localism which is all to the good, IMO.

TBH though I am not sure it would be a great loss now if they were to simply disappear. I'm not convinced they aren't as blindly partisan with many of their environmental policies, preferring to virtue signal their goodness than really dig down into whether policy recommendations are going to be effective.

Could Labour have for eg legitimately expelled all people who believe Israel has the right to exist? If they took a membership vote? I don't think it's as simple as what the members want, even if this was the wish of the majority of the membership. Which I'm not convinced it is.

• 'a religious or belief organisation is restricting its membership or participation in its activities, or the provision of goods, facilities and services to persons of a particular religion or belief. This only applies to organisations whose purpose is to practice, promote or teach a religion or belief, whose sole or main purpose is not commercial. A restriction can only be imposed:
• if the purpose of the organisation is to provide services to one religion or belief
• if it is necessary to avoid causing offence to persons with the same religion or belief as the organisation'

None of the above applies to a political party. Because its primary purpose isn't promoting genderism/gender ideology. I suppose perhaps, say, Trans Equality Now or whatever could conceivably ban people with GC beliefs from membership?

I couldn't find further expansion of this:

'the circumstances fall under one of the other exceptions to the Equality Act that allow organisations to provide different treatment or services based on religion or belief'

And yet, they are happy to pretend to support Women, just not those in GPEW.

Hypocrites

https://www.facebook.com/100064801653159/posts/pfbid0DeoDzKuJqMdQfkYz7wvtzMJHCNovwkmcHdV48Ltox8oxFCHebYFgu6SGJicznKe8l/

Ach, careerist politicians with no integrity.

Yep

And, having paid full price to be at Conference online, I can't vote, can't join various side meetings

Woah, that's not on! How come? Are votes only in person, because that's really unfair on anyone who can't travel. Of course women with caring commitments will be more affected.

I don't know, it's difficult to imagine that particular scenario. But maybe because it's not really a very realistic political proposition. I could imagine policy things a party could adopt that might well put them in some kind of real conflict with Israel, and also probably with some other countries.

A Christian group that did so on the basis of interpretation of a single verse would be a dangerously cultish sect. Most churches do have expectations of some level of orthodoxy, but the more detailed any 'statement of faith' is, the more concerning the level of authoritarianism.