I don't think anyone disputed that. However it seems clear that parties can decide that the expression of certain political beliefs is grounds for disciplinary action (provided it is done in accordance with party rules), even if those beliefs are "protected".
Sorry, but that is not what the judgement in the Ali case said. Disciplinary action against members simply on the grounds of holding or expressing a protected belief is very clearly unlawful. www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/equ...
bsky.app/profile/rosi...
Read the whole thing. This is about decisions to promote or demote, *not* about taking disciplinary action on the grounds of expressing a protected belief. There's a very big difference and it's crucial to understand this.
I have read the whole thing. Disciplinary action can take many forms - including removing somebody from a position (or a parliamentary party removing the whip from an MP).
I agree that the way the party treats ordinary members will differ from the way it treats representatives, and the decision to exclude someone from the party needs to be taken carefully and in line with party rules.
However, excluding people who are bullying or harassing other members *is* possible as long as it's done in accordance with correct procedures.
I agree - bullying & harassment are completely unacceptable. But they shouldn't be confused with (respectful) expression of protected belief. If the party tries to define such expression as ipso facto bullying/harassment, it will get into more, very expensive, legal difficulties.
You can't respectfully express bigotry.
And yes I do understand that the current bigoted turn in English law makes that difficult to enforce without risk.
But we should not pretend that this is not a current bigoted turn in English law.
Again, this is not what has happened, and it's not why the Green Party has had legal difficulties. Nobody, to my knowledge, is being expelled for the respectful expression of beliefs, protected or otherwise.
Then it would seem we agree that the party should not take disciplinary action against members simply on the grounds of them expressing protected beliefs. And that the expression of such beliefs does not in itself constitute abuse or harassment.
The expression of beliefs absolutely *can* constitute abuse or harassment, depending on how they are expressed and the context.
I don't hear anyone suggesting that people should be expelled simply for holding gender critical beliefs. That's a strawman.
But it is not just the holding of such beliefs that is legally protected but also the *expression* of such beliefs. If the party treats such expression as abusive behaviour in itself & takes disciplinary action as a result, it would - as the EHRC points out - be acting unlawfully.
It depends on how the beliefs are expressed. Being Christian is a set of protected beliefs, but if someone keeps lecturing their co-workers about being sinners who are going to hell, that's still harassment.
I'd agree that constantly telling co-workers they are going to hell would be an example of abusive behaviour of the sort that is definitely not protected under the Equality Act.
Additionally, discrimination is not always unlawful if it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
In much the same way that a member wouldn't (I assume) be expelled for holding the belief that burning fossil fuels is god's will. We'd just think they were a bit odd and wonder what they're doing here. If their presence became disruptive, then that disruption would be dealt with appropriately.
To suggest that the Green Party must be inclusive to those holding gender critical views is a misunderstanding.
The Party has understandably taken extensive legal advice on this matter
I read the judgement pretty carefully - which a lot of people seem not to have done - and it was quite clear on this point. I do have questions about the quality of some of the party's legal advice, and especially about the way this judgement has been widely misrepresented.
Because I always think the best of my fellow Green Party members (of course), I can only assume that this misrepresentation is due to ignorance rather than being intentional.
The point I was making was nothing to do with the Ali versus Nott case (I am familiar with the outcome of this and you are correct in your understanding of the outcome). I was referring to rights of members not spokespeople.
I'm not advocating thought police, but I don't think there is anything preventing the party from taking a strong position against transphobic harassment in all its forms, providing it is set up carefully and policed correctly.
The party has had a string of legal problems that (as far as I'm aware) ALL stem from failure to follow our own procedures correctly. That's the crux of the issue here.
On that we definitely agree.
para 272 makes this unquestionably explicit, "had GPEx acted in a procedurally fair manner, it is highly likely that they would have removed him as spokesperson anyway" clearly it is possible to remove bigots without incurring discrimination claims, the party just failed to do so correctly here
Let's be clear - GPEW's entire liability in that case was due to the actions of one particular member of the executive who refused to follow the correct procedure.
this is how every single winning case from a so-called "gender critical" bigot has gone. as far as I'm aware it's never been found that bigotry was unjust grounds for their removal, just that the organisations involved repeatedly fail to follow proper procedure to do so
and I understand why, well-meaning cis people rush things in the noble pursuit of binning a bigot but they're too tragically ill-informed to realise just how much funding there is behind these lawfare cases
The party has an implied duty of fairness to all members but... Shock horror that also includes trans people. The party has had to make payouts where trans people were discriminated against. Protected status includes reassignment and perceived gender. GCs don't have privileged status to bully
Completely agree that we have a duty of fairness to all members, including procedural fairness throughout the complaints and disciplinary process. Getting that right is key to minimising any legal costs. Nobody has, or should have, a privileged status to bully.
I think the talk about protected beliefs is a red herring, and seems to be used by some (not yourself) to intentionally create a chilling effect around the party's willingness to take action against transphobic harassment. Which is why it makes me uncomfortable to hear it from GPEX candidates.
Explain why you supported a recall motion for two north west gprc reps for the putting in a complaint against another member? Why you discussed the content of that complaint in a public meeting, breaching confidentiality?
I am not making any comment on that in a public forum
You already did. That horse has bolted. I'm taking that as an admission of guilt.