No progress in a political party, or wider society, will happen without open debate. Any Green Party policies should be able to be discussed in the light of changing scientific evidence or a change in public opinion. However, in today’s Green Party it is more acceptable to challenge some policies than others.
We have policies against HS2 and Nuclear power, but very visible groups are working to change these policies. We have a Population policy, but one of our co-leaders stated in a radio interview that she would like to see it removed.
The Rights and Responsibilities chapter of the Policies for a Sustainable Society, Para 530 reads:
“The Green Party recognises that there are many gender identities that are within, and outside of, the traditional gender binary of man and woman. The Green Party recognises that trans men are men, trans women are women, and that non-binary identities exist and are valid. We shall respect transgender and non-binary people’s identities as real. The Green Party shall include, and push for further acceptance of, transgender and non-binary people within all areas of society.“
However, criticising this particular policy is likely to result in a complaint against you, following which you will most probably receive a No Fault Suspension and find yourself removed from all official Green Party activities.
As if this isn’t bad enough, waiting outside the Party unable to participate for months, until your case is heard, you are likely to have marked yourself out as someone with a mind of their own who could well question other aspects of Green Party procedures or governance.
Attempts to promote debate about the conflict between trans rights and women’s rights or ask for definitions of some gender identities, either in local or national forums, are speedily shut down. Methods used claim that such discussion makes members feel unsafe or that you are a transphobe who does not deserve to be heard.
Since 2016 the increased erosion of Members’ rights freely to debate policy has been expanded to now epidemic proportions. So much so that several long-serving Greens have finally resorted to the Courts. There’s no doubt about the law. It is largely contained within the Human Rights Act (“HRA”) and the Equality Act (“EA”). In one, now famous, case brought by a past deputy leader of the Party, Dr Shahrar Ali, Justice Hellman laid out in February 2024 what he defined as “fundamental party rights”. Not surprisingly, the list included all the usual things you would expect to see in a thriving democratic party. It’s somewhat complex legal speak but it’s worth quoting his key statement in full:-
“However, the present case is concerned with the interaction of the EA and the HRA in the context of associations, and in particular, political parties. In my judgment, articles 9, 10 and 11, when read together, guarantee (amongst others) the rights of members of a political party 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 insofar as they are inconsistent with the policies and positions thus advocated, even using language which their opponents might find offensive; and to advocate and organise within the party to promote members who support the said policies and positions and against members who do not. I shall refer to these as “fundamental party rights”.
But Justice Hellman wasn’t breaking new ground. As far back as 2021 the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in an unfair dismissal case (Maya Forstater) to make clear that every citizen has the right to their own personal beliefs, and specifically, that this includes the right to believe in the immutability of physical sex rather than the construct of gender identification. The most senior Employment Tribunal Judge in England then spelled out that there was no doubt that section 10 in particular, but the Equality Act in general, specifically protected people’s rights to personal beliefs about sex and gender. But that is the very same law being repeatedly broken by the Green Party, its officers and its representatives?
As if the EHRC clarification of the law wasn’t enough, later in 2021 the University of Essex was advised in a formal barrister’s opinion (the Reindorf opinion) of numerous laws, regulations, Charity Commissioners’ rules and other legal requirements which could be broken when they no-platformed two visiting professors from attending a meeting to which they had already been invited. Again, the law relating to freedom of speech was spelled out for all to see and the University issued a full apology to both professors. Not so The Greens when they repeatedly banned members.
Not only that, but case after case through the Courts over recent years have restated, not just the underlying law quoted above, but equally, the right not to be bullied, discriminated against or victimised because of personal beliefs relating to biological sex. But this is precisely what the Green Party of England and Wales continues to do to its members. Greens in Exile is the living proof of GPEW continuing to break the law.
It has been suggested that supporters of the Green Party policy statement referred to above are simply ahead of the curve and the rest of society will ultimately follow suit. When Dr Hilary Cass produced her ground-breaking report on the treatment of gender dysphoric children in April this year, one thing she repeatedly made clear was that not enough is known about the impacts of puberty blockers for children and young people to know whether they are safe or not. Their use led directly to the closure of the GIDS Clinic in Hampstead. The very premise on which the GPEW policy is built is unsupported by medical evidence. How then can any member of the Party be subjected to No Fault Suspension because they express their disagreement with that, or any other Party policy? This is the true measure of the extent to which Green Party governance has been taken over by zealots.
As one of our group wrote recently:
The party repeatedly and consistently allows biased and unqualified persons to make incorrect decisions. Decisions that if legally challenged would be found to be unlawful, unfair and victimisation. Shahrar challenged one such decision. The party was found to have used unfair procedures.
Every single person in this group has been subject to the same biased uncritical unfair process. With the same lack of ‘professional’ oversight and scrutiny that caused that error. Since his case that’s 25 of us. The same critical error. No organisational learning, no investigation or process or culpability. No blame, no sanction of any volunteer or member of staff. To date no apology to Shahrar. No investigation by our E and D committee into the discrimination aspects. No investigation by GPEX into the failings of GPRC. No new processes or procedures brought in. So now the same errors of process/mistake have been amplified and repeated in the same system. The same people control the system and still don’t acknowledge there is a problem. That’s why one year later, almost to the day they have made the same process error but BIGGER. Shahrar’s NFS at this point shows us that even after costing perhaps £250k to £300k in court and legal fees they have learned nothing. The next case may well end up costing £750k !!
We are many more now than the original 25 !
It’s not surprising that Dr Shahrar Ali won his case against the Green Party. And it’s not surprising that there are more cases stacked up against the Greens that will unfold as the year progresses. What is still shocking is the sheer waste of members’ subscriptions to pay legal fees whilst their rights to free speech are removed under the guise of protecting ‘oppressed people’. Of course that’s not Open Debate. Open Debate has long been removed from the Green Party but many of us are now determined to hold the abusers to account. Feel free to comment – it’s your right.