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.