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

what an odd way to try and gain your vote

as someone who has voted green, I’d be embarrassed to admit that. They had the potential to look like a legitimate party, not the crazies they were always made out to be.

only they’ve decided serious contender was not the way to go.

WTF? When I first saw this I thought zombie thread but no, they really are mad enough to do this all over again 🤦‍♀️

Or the queer party. Last time I looked they were promoting legally recognising polygamy.

In the words of the great Alan Patridge : ' These are Sex People, Lynn!'

The expulsion of Shahrar Ali is being reported on the BBC News website.

BBC News - Greens expel activist who won discrimination claim
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4dyl2n1m8o

They seem to have gone quiet on that since about 2015.

Shame, really, I would be advising younger friends and relatives to get into matrimonial law. They could make an absolute fortune disentangling polyamorous marriages and civil partnerships.

Really? I thought I read it recently when looking at our candidates for the GE in June . Perhaps it's still in documents as official policy but a bit 'don't mention the war'!!

I'm ok with that, the sooner the better and we can then have another similar party that does what it's supposed to, which in the case of the GP is hold current government to account on green issues.

I'd be extremely surprised. I think the astrology belief would fail on one of the other tests, namely "be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour."

Thank you for that bodybuilders video Arabella please feel free to post more.

@cariadlet
I think they've done him a favour. The Greens are bonkers.

I don't think it's been tested. But however wrong it is, a belief stars control your destiny, sounds pretty weighty. It also meets the bar in the Forstater appeal.It will be interesting if it ever comes up.

Forstater is interesting because the fact that gender critical beliefs are only protected because they are a belief which is sincerely held regardless of the evidence. If the belief was subject to change in the face of evidence, it wouldn't be protected.

Talking about the McClintock case, Gywneth Pitt said:

She describes it as a ‘breathtaking conclusion’, suggesting that ‘a stupid, but sincere, belief, based on nothing at all, is within the scope of the protection, but an opinion based on logic and information is not’. As she suggests, Mr. McClintock ‘would have been better off as an out-and-out bigot’

But that's where the law is.

academic.oup.com/ilj/article/53/2/239/7505301

DadJoke

gender critical beliefs are only protected because they are a belief which is sincerely held regardless of the evidence.

"regardless of the evidence."
Do you know how babies are made? There's your evidence, right there.

Also, gender critical beliefs are protected because they pass the Grainger test. As has been explained to you upthread.

I can't wait for gender ideology to be judged against the Grainger test in court. It's way past time.

I want to add that that councillor's incredibly niche 'sexuality' is so incredibly niche that I suspect it may in fact encompass and describe one other individual only. I think he may have confused 'being in love with an older bodybuilder' with being its own whole category of sexuality.

Which makes about as much sense as any of the rest of it all, tbh.

It does @ArabellaScott

It does baffle me how a party supposedly made up of environmentalists collectively has such a poor grasp of biology.

Google isn't buying it with that particular paraphilia, anyhow.

Your search - geristhenolagnic - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.

I was talking about the Graigner test itself which says "it must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available" - the McClintock test. So it must be held regardless of the evidence. If you went into court and said you'd change your mind if new evidence came up - it wouldn't be a protected belief. It seems bizarre to me (and to Pitt whom I quoted.

The second Grainger criterion has its origins in a pre-Grainger case, McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs.35 The claimant, a magistrate, was involved in making decisions about the adoption of children. He took the view that the question of the adoption of children by same-sex couples had been insufficiently researched and asked to be excused from sitting on any case involving such a possibility. The defendant declined his request and he claimed that this amounted to discrimination on the grounds of his protected belief.36

Mr McClintock’s belief was not immovable in all circumstances. He was open to the possibility that further research may assuage his concerns. On this basis, the EAT concluded that this was not a protected belief. As Elias J put it, ‘… it is not enough to have an opinion based on some real or perceived logic or based on information or lack of information available’.37 To be a ‘belief’ it seems, requires a view to be more deeply held, and not merely to be based on the present state of the evidence. It seems that in presenting himself as a rational and open-minded agent, accepting the possibility that his mind could be changed by subsequent developments, Mr McClintock had taken himself outside the protection.

Of Forstater, the judge said "I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that sex is biological and immutable. For her it is more that an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. Even though she has come to this belief recently she is fixed in it, and appears to be becoming more so. She is not prepared to consider the possibility that her belief may not be correct.

"On balance, I do not consider that the Claimant’s belief fails the test of being “attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance”; even though there is significant scientific evidence that it is wrong."

So it must be held regardless of the evidence. If you went into court and said you'd change your mind if new evidence came up - it wouldn't be a protected belief. It seems bizarre to me (and to Pitt whom I quoted.

Strange that all the opposing legal teams in the close to 80% of successful claims due to gender critical beliefs haven't availed themselves of the obvious solution then.

For instance, Shahrar Ali. That circus must have cost the Greens several hundred thousand pounds. And it could all have been avoided by them representing themselves and asking him whether he'd change his belief if hypothetical evidence "proving" that males could be women was found.

even though there is significant scientific evidence that it is wrong."

Farkin H.

In almost every case it's the employer not following basic fair procedures with their employees which has been the issue, rather than whether their particular beliefs were McClintock-proof. In most cases it's been for religious reasons anyway. Where gender critical people have lost, their employers have behaved according the the statutory guidance and within the law. Anyone who is dismissed must be dismissed within the law.

I hope employers (and political parties) will learn from this.

How the fuck did we get to this point, that qualified, educated people are standing up in court and claiming that humans can actually, literally change sex?

I mean bloody hell.

Of course when Dadjoke is talking about "the judge" here @ArabellaScott he is talking about the superseded, wrong legal ruling which enabled MF's landmark ruling by in the EAT, throwing out this judgment, not the higher court ruling. Easy mistake to make, I guess.

I know it's just sometimes the utter absurdity really hits you.

I hope employers (and political parties) will learn from this.

Perhaps they should learn not to discriminate against people who think women's sex based rights are important.

The Lib Dems evidently didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to their treatment of Natalie Bird. According to you they had cast iron protection.