The Green Party expels Shahrar Ali

[cariadlet]

The Green Party had been found guilty of discrimination against Shahrar.
9K costs awarded in February.

He was suspended shortly before the Autumn Conference where he had proposed a motion in support of the Cass Review.

2 weeks ago he was awarded 90k. The Green Party is also facing massive legal bills for its own costs.

Today, they expelled Shahrar.
x.com/ShahrarAli/status/1839424905743638641?t=5LXUDcG2AzRTOHXmbMo_yQ&s=19

I'm trying to think of a single political party in the UK or its constituent parts that does what it is supposed to do.

Nah, I've got nothing.

'The tragic loss of my grandparents to the pandemic in 2021 catalyzed a period of introspection ... I identify as non-binary, traversing the spectrum of gender beyond the confines of traditional binaries. Additionally, I embrace my geristhenolagnic identity, recognizing and celebrating the attraction to older individuals as a fundamental aspect of my being.'

So, his grandparents died and this led to a realisation about his sexual attraction to 'older individuals'. I've got that right?

I may have just had a sudden insight into my 'gerrusthefuckoutofhere' identity.

Skim-read this as "stargazing to advance sexual diversity" which actually sounds pretty cool. I'm outing myself as Astrosexual

(nips off to Google to check that doesn't already exist and have some god-awful connotation)

Um.

There's nothing that any average person would find NSFW in that video, btw. It's just a 61 year old bodybuilder flexing his arm muscles while Harry films it.

I'm not that surprised. Throughout this entire saga, the entire conflict with Ali has happened because certain TRAs in power in the party are completely power-crazed and completely out of touch with reality. The GP might have lost their case with them but that hasn't suddenly made them see sense. They completely lost the plot years ago. They can't accept reality without also accepting just how badly behaved they've been. The various egos are far too huge for that level of self-realisation.

The Green Party were stupid, because they didn't properly follow their own procedures. If they had, he could have been expelled despite having a protected belief. This is what the judgment says:

"Dr Ali’s core complaint was that his removal as spokesperson discriminated against him on the ground of his protected belief. I agree, but on the narrow ground that GPEx discriminated against him by removing him as spokesperson in a way that was procedurally unfair."

All other allegations were dismissed.

That's it. They didn't follow the correct procedure. It's entirely lawful to expel someone from a party for not agreeing with their policies, even if that position is a protected belief (like almost every belief is except literal hate speech.)

Isn't it depressing? That what should be a science and fact based party have been captured by such a destructive ideology and one that does so much harm to children and women.

This a thousand times! It would be so helpful right now to have a functional environmentally-focussed party, but no.

The previous case was about Ali being removed as a spokesperson, not about expelling him as a member. You're quite right that they could have removed him as a spokesperson if they'd followed the correct procedures.

However, you seem to have missed the fact that the judge in the previous case ruled the way he did because he found members of political parties had the right to:

• Advocate for or against policies and positions adopted or proposed to be adopted by their party;
• Criticise the beliefs or conduct of other members which are inconsistent with the policies and positions they advocate, including using language which their opponents might find offensive

In the previous case, these rights were being used by the LGBTQ+ Greens to organize to remove Ali - the judgement says this was legitimate.
But equally those same rights protect Ali from being expelled from the party. These are ‘fundamental party rights’ and key to the operation of a democratic society.

So, no - they cannot expel him simply for disagreeing with party policy. This does seem like another clear case of the GP shooting themselves in the foot.

If the Green Party is going to expel every member who believes that sex is immutable they are going to meet their demise far sooner than anyone has yet anticipated.

If believing that men can become women is a core tenet of the Green Party and membership depends on a recitation of the 'trans women are women' catechism then let them be completely open and upfront about it.

Oh,oh,oh, pick me! Pick me!! I know the answer to this one!!!

It's entirely lawful to expel someone from a party for not agreeing with their policies, even if that position is a protected belief (like almost every belief is except literal hate speech.)

It's not true to say that almost every belief is protected. The EHRC's guidance states:

"For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others.

For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected. Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."

I'm also guessing, based on the guidance above, that a belief in astrology or flat-earthism wouldn't be protected.

You can absolutely expel someone for expressing a protected belief if your membership rules allow, just as you can force them to step down as a spokesperson. "I think everyone should vote Liberal Democrat" is certainly a protected belief, but you'll get expelled from the Labour Party if you tweet it, and perfectly legally.

Whether the Green Party is sufficiently competent to do this correctly is another matter.

If believing that men can become women is a core tenet of the Green Party and membership depends on a recitation of the 'trans women are women' catechism then let them be completely open and upfront about it.

This. Perhaps they could ask their membership what they think about that idea.

@RoyalCorgi the judgement said:

"Thus, the Tribunal would, in order to exclude the protection, have to be satisfied that the belief in question or its expression gave rise to the gravest form of hate speech, was inciting violence, or was as antithetical to Convention principles as Nazism or totalitarianism."

That's the bar that gender critical beliefs have overcome. I'd be surprised if a sincere belief in astrology wouldn't overcome that hurdle.

As usual DadJoke gets it wrong. ThisBluntPlumDreamer was right. You can expel someone from your party for telling people to vote for someone else but he didnt do that. You can expel someone for a variety of reasons but as the judge made clear in the previous case there are different rules for spokepeople and party members. Party members are free to seek a change in policy.

I hope he sues them again - or starts, say, the environmentalist party instead. The green party leadership are insane.

It's a core belief, in their rights and responsibilities document.

Yes

You can absolutely expel someone from a party for their stated beliefs on social media, whether they are a spokesperson or not. I am honestly surprised you've never seen a single media report about this.

Constitution

8.1 Members’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief should be respected.

Code of conduct

12.1 As the Green Party welcomes people from a wide range of backgrounds, members may encounter people who hold differing political or philosophical worldviews. Freedom of belief and the right to change that belief is a fundamental human right. Members should therefore show tolerance and respect towards people that hold political or philosophical worldviews that differ from their own.

The people who expelled him should be expelled for breaching the above.

That doesn't mean that it is set in stone and failing to uphold that belief is good grounds for expulsion. Tony Blair didn't believe in Clause IV and got it completely rewritten once he became leader.

The third word in Harry's word spaghetti of a bio is "esteemed".

As the esteemed Elections Officer for the organization of Lesbian, Gay, etc........

Esteemed by whom, other than himself?

Isn't "esteemed" usually a word one uses for a third party e.g. "I am pleased to introduce my esteemed colleague, Professor Smith"

Sheesh!

Additionally, I embrace my geristhenolagnic
identity, recognizing and celebrating the attraction to older
individuals as a fundamental aspect of my being

It’s just bananas! We’ve literally gone from “it’s actually ok to be gay and no one should be persecuted for it” (which was actual progress imo) to “can you even call yourself a serious GP candidate if you don’t overshare some niche paraphilia and 14 other assorted “oppressed minority” labels”.