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

I know it's insane.

Let's look at Allison Bailey @DadJoke - what procedures weren't followed?

@DadJoke

You are quoting the ET decision, which was overruled in the EAT.
Also, as a matter of interest, the judge was wrong about what he called "intersex" conditions, which are always sex-specific.

There will always be oddbods down the pub who'd love to wax on about moon landings, or flat earth, or sex being something one can choose.

The fact that our public institutions have apparently given credence to this bullshit to such an extent is what's so galling.

Allison Bailey won on two detriments against Garden Court Chambers, the tweet they put out saying that she was being investigated, and the investigation itself. Both her comments about Stonewall and Morgan Page, although controversial and potentially offensive were considered "protected acts" by the ET. How come?

Basically, he's a granny chaser. So lock up your grannies, ladies!

I think possibly grandads. And, by the look of it, of a particular body... shape? configuration? type?

This was from the original judgment, not the appeal.

The appeal court judge didn't like that language, because it was irrelevant whether or not it was true. He also noted that Forstater “would of course respect anyone’s self-definition of their gender identity in any social and professional context” and that was part of the basis for allowing Grainger V.

This was from the original judgment, not the appeal.

Yes, we all know. Perhaps you should have mentioned that when you brought it up.

Yes, the appeal court judge agreed with the original tribunal on this Grainger test, it was test V where the they disagreed.

Yes, the appeal court judge agreed with the original tribunal on this Grainger test,

I doubt he "agreed" with such a demonstrably false statement. It wasn't the point being disputed, because it passed in the original judgment, so it wasn't given any attention. See para 28.

Well, whether the Greens were legally free to expel Shahrar or not, I'm sure we'll find out for certain when his next legal case invariably hits.
Of course, the Greens may be completely bankrupt by then since all the other legal cases will have come up before the courts first. I'm particularly looking forward to Emma Bateman's one. I suspect the sunshine that will bring will be particularly illuminating.

I'm embarrassed that I voted for them once, years ago now.

Well, whether the Greens were legally free to expel Shahrar or not, I'm sure we'll find out for certain when his next legal case invariably hits.

Of course, the Greens may be completely bankrupt by then since all the other legal cases will have come up before the courts first. I'm particularly looking forward to Emma Bateman's one. I suspect the sunshine that will bring will be particularly illuminating.

Quite. I guess we will all see.

Why do I feel the urge to go shower in bleach now?

I guess that makes me an Australisogothicantorphile. I demand my own flag and celebratory Pride day immediately.

Nick Cave?

Quite. The EAT was scathing about the ET here.

"the Tribunal could be said to have failed to remain neutral and/or failed to abide by the cardinal principle that everyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish, subject only to a few modest, minimum requirements."

"the error in the Tribunal’s approach is apparent"

On the particular quote that DadJoke gives, the EAT both calls it an "error of approach" and also criticises the weak/non-existent evidence for the ET's claim: "despite there being little in the way of expert evidence about that issue and really little more than an article in the New York Times in support."

DadJoke's claim that the EAT agreed with the ET is dishonest or ignorant, or both.

Where?!

Anyone who maintains humans can change sex is wrong; I don't care who they are. They may be dishonest, mad, or just very very confused. But they are wrong.

He's behind you

I've voted Green a few times (well, Scottish Green, which is now worse than English Green!) I'm not embarrassed though, there was a time when they stood for the environment, not for batshit gender policies. I certainly wouldn't vote for them now.

I'm not sure that they are maintaining that humans can "change sex". Don't they say that transwomen were women all along, since birth, and just incorrectly identified as male by those pesky medical staff, who looked at their genitals and claimed the baby was a boy? (And likewise transmen were men all along).

Oh, I say!

'Gender-critical beliefs include the belief that sex is biological and immutable, people cannot change their sex and sex is distinct from gender-identity.' (From the Forstater judgement).

The whole premise of 'transition' is 'changing' from one sex to the other.