Green Party disaffiliate from stonewall

[WarriorN]

Very quietly and with no fanfare...

x.com/shahrarali/status/1885814476412236227?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Small steps… 👍

It's also what they've listed though - reasons are pretty damming.

Not just "costs."

@WarriorN I saw that on Twitter and was also struck by the reasons given. Sounds to me like attempts to head off future law suits.

Also sounds like someone may have had a bit of a peek at the Cass review. Seen how Wes is approaching it. And thought, oh shit.

Crikey, are the grown-ups back in charge of the Green Party?

Would be nice if the Greens could get back to focusing on environmental issues!

Those who have put their heads above the parapet and taken an enormous bashing have been utter heroes.

One day there may also be accounts given of the number of greens working hard behind the scenes, flying under the radar, being quietly renegade.

I hope so as it will mean enough will have changed in the Green Party (and also across society,) that it can be discussed openly without being suspended or being treated like a heretic.

This is positive, but I'd like to know how they handle issues like pronouns and access to single sex spaces with their party's events. That will be the real test.

The first comment I can see below the original tweet "Green party thinking about reputational risk, whatever next!"

My thoughts exactly.

Yes it will be, won't it.

Considering some of the changes that Stonewall have been discovered making to their website and their definitions, is it because stonewall have now removed mentioning cross dressers and tweaked some of their other definitions? Have Stonewall, under a new executive, become too moderate for the Greens?

@Helleofabore I suspect it is more that there may be more legal cases or even staff tribunals that we don't know about and the GP are trying to get in an argument that anything they did was based on stonewall advice. Not an argument that I think will have a lot of success in legal circles

I hope that the Greens will not consider Stonewall legal advise to be an accurate interpretation of law anymore. I mean, imagine being a barrister associated with Stonewall advising people and organisations on discrimination law … significant credibility issues and I would hope any one getting that advice would be seeing a second opinion.

Conservative for Women wrote a grimly fascinating thread about how Stonewall's Equality Index operates. It details the totalitarian nature of it and the attention to detail in removing every single aspect of women's language, single sex spaces with endless spreadsheets demanding accountability for every single aspect of working life and interactions with others.
Linking it as it shows how fundamentally anti democratic it is and how when an organisation is involved in Stonewall they are committed to remove women's rights, undermine fundamental safeguarding principles and all the rest;

https://x.com/CforWomenUK/status/1883180795088748650

The Greens have been fiddling about with this twaddle while the planet burns

Where does the text marked “Synopsis” come from? Is it a conference motion previously put forward by Ali or is it the Green Party themselves? It seems too strongly-worded to be the latter.

Out of the many batshit things there, one that jumped out at me was the email addresses in different names for genderfluid people. So you could email someone but they may not identify as that name that day meaning you don't get a response. Do you email all names each time? What happens when they change mid email conversation, do you lose the previous message thread as the next reply comes from a different address. Utterly bonkers and totally unworkable.

I think it is a significant indication that this year will see genderism take its biggest losses yet in the Greens and elsewhere. Not just the Trump stuff, but the results of long fight backs from many people.

Emma Bateman's case is incoming on Feb 12th - more details on her gardening site. The Greens are going to lose and it is going to hurt. This step away from Stonewall is part of it. I believe Dawn Furness case may get a date this year too:

12th February - A Day in Court!
I am pleased to say that after a long wait, I have a date (February 12th) for a one day application hearing in my case against the Green Party. It will still be some time before the actual court case, but this is a stride forward. On the 12th of February, the Green Party will attempt to strike out parts of my claim, but I have a fantastic lawyer and a very strong case.

The delays in getting to this stage have been frustrating and I expect the Green Party will attempt to draw things out further. That is their preferred mode, though pressure is building as groups like the Green Women's Declaration, Greens in Exile, Green Party Women, Green Feminists and Lesbian Greens doggedly pursue explanations for the arbitrary expulsions, gaps and obscuration in Party dealings.

The tunnel vision on gender ideology runs throughout the Greens and the Party has failed to address it.Green MPs Sian Berry and Carla Denyer are still pressing for puberty blockers for kids, and n Parliament, Wes Streeting made short shrift of Sian's suggestion that not giving kids puberty blockers is discriminatory, replying "the hon. Member’s intervention is why we should listen to clinicians, not politicians."

Those responsible for the mess must be exposed in court. In preparation for my case I have been reading through angry emails sent to the Green Party by members complaining of my alleged transphobia. Reading opinions on what a terrible person I am can be harsh, but this one gave me a wry smile:

"The recently re-elected Co-Chair of Green Party Women, Emma Bateman is local to me and I know has local support from members of the party including some elected as Councillors in various places. As you all well know this woman actively pursues an Anti Trans Rights agenda under the guise of feminism and has done for many years. On social media she commands a following of individuals who agree with her, this is extremely intimidating."

I know that there are many causes asking for funding, but as I am preparing for the 12th of February, if anyone does feel inclined to spare some money for worthy cases, please be assured, if you chose to donate to mine, your money will be spent well.

As ever, thank you to everyone for your ongoing support.

The big other date will be the May elections. The Greens are going to be in an interesting position as regards gender in discussions then plus their court cases drain funds for campaigning.

It's from a motion put forward in 2023 which obviously never passed.

I don't think there is any official statement from the Green Party regarding their disaffiliation.

So, are they actually disaffiliating then? If the motions weren’t passed, and they have made no official statement…

Once the Green Party was about the environment. That was a long time ago, and it is interesting they are now mostly fanatical about pushing gender identity as reality.

My word, are the Greens deciding they're a party of science again? 🤞 I've not voted for them in years, I'd love to be able to do so again!

Green Party's funds are dwindling. There's a real danger of going bankrupt if they continue to follow stonewall and extreme GI policies.

But, as I said, it's interesting that the statement is not just costs.

I think what SA is saying is that he brought a motion to conference a while ago, and they have quietly disaffiliated without telling anyone (presumably he's saying he has knowledge of this). I agree the text he used in his tweet is the text of the unsuccessful motion.

I cancelled my green party membership on this issue and also stopped voting for them nationally and locally.
I'd still like to see more of a commitment to science based policy though before considering voting for them again.

Yes.

Also I wonder if it's a case of "when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold".

The wording in both the "...Restoring biological truth to the federal government" and "Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation" EOs is pretty sobering when it comes to public institutions thinking about how they handle belief. We have the Nolan Principles (and also Teaching Standards in schools) for this and I think it's dawning on the leaders in the Green Party and others that perhaps they haven't quite got this right.

It's possible that the BBC might be waking up too, although that still remains to be seen:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5265037-keira-bell-launches-bid-to-ban-cross-sex-hormones-for-under-18s?reply=141854036&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Anyway, it's all...

Small steps… 👍

and sunlight. Well done to everyone who has been working behind the scenes on this in the Green Party and to the battle-scared trailblazers like Sharar Ali.