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

That is with multiple cases still to come which ARE stronger than Shahrar's were. Plus Shahrar case part 2.

This has already become embarrassing for the Green Party. It can only get worse, it seems.

If it had just been a "procedural" issue without any discrimination under the Equality Act, there wouldn't have been any award. This wasn't an employment tribunal.

In a 61-page judgment HHJ Hellman clearly describes the treatment of Dr Ali’s case and upholds his claim that the Green Party Executive Committee, by removing Dr Ali from his role of Spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, ‘discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.’

The judgment concludes ‘I have upheld in part Dr Ali’s claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against’ and states ‘Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.’ In addition to a declaration of unlawful discrimination Dr Ali has also been awarded £9,100 as an award for injury to feelings.

didlaw.com/dr-shahrar-ali-v-gpew

They should have pushed Bailey on whether her beliefs were susceptible to evidence. She won because she had a belief which was not susceptible to evidence to the contrary, enabling it to pass Grainger (McClintock test.)

He's just rambling in his sleep now.

Good post by @fromorbit quoting Zoe Hatch about the £90k costs award on a previous thread:

Recent Zoe Hatch thread shows the truth and how the Judge saw through their evasion:
https://x.com/GreenZoeHatch/status/1835288065608221023
I wonder how TheGreenParty feels about having to pay £99k for discriminating against Shahrar Ali. A matter so clear to me that I resigned from the GPEW exec. in 2022 because of it - I was not prepared to be involved in such an obvious & egregious act of discrimination. 🧵
I was proud to be a witness in the trial, testifying against The Party that the Spokesperson Monitoring Group gave NO reason for removing Shahrar in 2022 - this was because they would not admit their discriminatory prejudice against Shahrar's so-called GC views.
It was only on the FIRST DAY of the trial, when The Party changed their defence plea, that they accepted Shahrar's GC beliefs were the reason they removed him - now claiming they could legitimately remove him in line with party policy (a lie, by the way).
Of course, you CANNOT remove a person from a political party because of their GC beliefs (or any other beliefs). Especially in The Green Party whose philosophy allows for differing opinions and clearly defines single-sex provisions & rights for women in some of its policies.
However, as GPEW tried to throw further punches at Shahrar in court on Friday, seeking to undermine his credibility, it was clear TheGreenParty
showed no remorse, no morality. They appear to have learnt nothing.
The ever shrewd Judge Hellman was across their theatrics, seeking to clarify his ruling from the outset by saying that 'Dr. Ali was clearly successful' & 'If GPEW thought otherwise they were occupying a different universe to him' (the judge).
If that is not enough to focus the minds of the GPEW exec they should heed the Judge's closing remarks that Dr. Ali was 'dismissed as a spokesperson because of his Gender Critical beliefs'... 'he succeeded on the central and most important aspect to his claim.'
There are more claims against the party coming down the line, many of them clearer & even more outrageous than Shahrar's treatment - The first of which is EmmaBatemanGPW if you want to support her, now is a superb time to donate to her crowdfunder:

From the MN thread about the costs award in September www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5164799-shahrar-ali-wins-his-case

They should have pushed Bailey on whether her beliefs were susceptible to evidence.

Well, yes, if what you say is correct and works in all these situations that would have worked. I suspect it isn't quite that simple.

By the same token, women will be able to say that their feminist beliefs about sex and gender wouldn't change according to hypothetical "evidence" (what kind of evidence?) and that they don't believe there is any kind of "evidence" which will be found to make them believe that sex based rights aren't important.

"Is there any evidence which would make you believe male trans rights activist Morgan Page was a lesbian and was justified in setting up the "Cotton Ceiling" workshop for male TRAs to strategise on how they could persuade lesbian women to have sex with them?"

"Well no, obviously not"

Quite possibly - though the defence legal team
easn even able to index a bunch of documents in time.I don’t know if would have worked in every situation, but it is established that if you would change your mind in the face of evidence, it’s not a protected philosophical belief. I am sure that more informed legal minds will correct me if I am wrong.

Being transgender isn’t a protected philosophical belief, and neither is being gay - gender reassignment and sexuality are protected characteristics in themselves.

If that’s what you asked, I suspect you would not be leading the defence team!

It's the reality of the situation, free of any TRA spin. The point is that it's perfectly reasonable to not believe that any "evidence" could exist which would contradict it.

I use this example because her comments, which were even blunter than mine, occasioned the complaints and subsequent detriments, and this was ruled as such by the ET because these comments about Page were considered a "protected act" as per the EA.

And I’m sure that, if elected, he or she will put their full attention into protecting the environment and prioritising their constituents’ concerns.

Yeah, right.

In case anyone thinks DadJoke has stumbled across a point of law or legal strategy that eluded the combined defence teams and judges in all of the recent successful gender critical cases, here's Maya Forstater's summary of her GC beliefs from her submission to the original ET:

• “Sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”.
• Being female (or male) is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.
• Sex matters.
• In particular it is important it is important to be able to talk about sex in order to take action against the discrimination, violence and oppression that still affect women and girls because they were born female.

That is evidently a statement of philosophical belief rather than a summary of the current state of knowledge. I can only see two possible ways that it would be affected by evidence:
1 - bio-engineering advances which make it possible for human bodies to change from one sex to another (which would have the effect of removing the word 'immutable' from item 2)
2 - convincing evidence that sex has no bearing whatsoever on life outcomes and that the two sexes don't statistically behave differently in any significant way (which would invalidate 3 and 4)

But both of these are complete fantasies. It's worth noting that the judgement that established the Grainger criteria was about a belief in the seriousness of man-made climate-change and the moral imperative to change lifestyle to mitigate it, and to encourage others to do so. This belief was found to satisfy the criteria, even though it presumably has a similar hypothetical susceptibility to evidence, for example if it could be convincingly proved that recent warming is a measurement error or due to sunspots rather than carbon emissions. Equally, the moral imperative would go away if the danger were to be addressed, such as complete decarbonisation of the economy. These are of course very far-fetched possibilities, and do not impinge on the protections afforded to the belief, and would not apply to GC beliefs.

The ultimate source of the Grainger criteria is the jurisprudence around Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More about this here if interested: https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_9_eng

Great post, thank you for the clarification of what Dadjoke is basing his assertion on. I admit I mostly just rolled my eyes at it as yet another excuse to call women who value sex based rights irrational and compare us to flat earth believers.

I've been thinking about this person and I'm wondering if in fact he is quite vulnerable and may have been groomed.

To suddenly start coming out with the rainbow waffle just after what he says was such a traumatic event is concerning.

Not susceptible to evidence doesn’t necessarily mean irrational. I was discussing the McClintock test which, frankly, I think is bizarre.

“I've been thinking about this person and I'm wondering if in fact he is quite vulnerable and may have been groomed.”

It’s possible because sexually exploitative types and vulnerable people are both attracted to gender ideology for different reasons, and end up mixing together in “queer”/genderism groups in a culture that excludes safeguarding and questioning.

I saw an interesting new “Trans umbrella” diagram recently that someone had done, exploring the different groups that may identify as trans with greater or lesser degrees of earnestness or ulterior motives. As well as predators they identified the vulnerable, and “trendy hangers on”. But while I agree with that, I think those two groups aren’t always easy to distinguish and may overlap because the vulnerable often want to be cool and accepted.

With this person I think it’s either a genuine attempt to turn an individual relationship situation (that may or may not be exploitative or dodgy) into an LGBTQ+++ identity for “queer” cred points - which makes sense in Green Party clown world - or it’s being done with fully aware cynicism and they’re just grifting, which is common now - self-identifying as whatever “oppressed” or “underrepresented” category you can to get the opportunities, grants, candidacies etc that are being handed out to those groups preferentially. And there’s nothing wrong with trying to encourage diversity - except when you can self identify into it there’s a somewhat obvious loophole.

I hadn't come across this person before this thread. I've now been told by someone who is pretty sure she knows who is being referred to that yes, he is vulnerable.

So I don't think there should be any more piss taking or jokes made at his expense.

After all, it's not as if the Green Party is short of non-vulnerable, batshit, authoritarian TRAs to laugh at.

Shahrar's name is obviously very well known and most of the people posting here will be familiar with Emma Bateman and maybe a couple of others but if anyone wants to know more about others who have been kicked out of the Green Party, it's worth checking out the Greens in Exile website. They're also on Twitter.

greensinexile.org.uk/