I don't hear anyone suggesting that people should be expelled simply for holding gender critical beliefs. That's a strawman.
Replies
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.
aug 2, 2025, 1:56 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
aug 2, 2025, 2:13 pm • 2 0 • view
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.
aug 2, 2025, 2:25 pm • 1 0 • view
And equally, continually referring to a trans woman as a man.
aug 2, 2025, 2:26 pm • 2 0 • view
I agree.
aug 2, 2025, 2:31 pm • 1 0 • view
I'm glad we appear to be largely on the same page. To summarise, GPEW can (1) select or deselect representatives based on their expressed beliefs, including their support for party policy on trans rights & (2) exclude members for transphobic harassment, including deliberate, repeated misgendering.
aug 2, 2025, 2:36 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, I think we largely agree on both counts. I hope we can also agree that simply expressing gender critical belief does not constitute harassment.
aug 2, 2025, 2:47 pm • 0 0 • view
Again, it's very context dependent. If someone were expressing that belief loudly towards a trans woman just trying to use the bathroom, then yes - that's harassment.
aug 2, 2025, 2:49 pm • 1 0 • view
Agree. But if gender-critical belief is defined by the party as inherently abusive, then *any* expression of that belief is liable to give rise disciplinary action that would put the party on the wrong side of the law. The party cannot make rules to enable it to act unlawfully.
aug 2, 2025, 6:43 pm • 0 0 • view
I think we're going around in circles here, and I don't think I'm going to make myself any clearer than I already have. Nobody is arguing that the belief is "inherently abusive". We have already agreed that context is important, and careful procedure is important. Enjoy your weekend.
aug 2, 2025, 7:03 pm • 1 0 • view
Which is, of course, where things get sticky because abusers are often very good at finding ways around whatever explicit rules are in place and claiming to be the victim when called out.
aug 2, 2025, 2:53 pm • 1 0 • view
And taking action against this kind of abusive individual will always carry a legal risk - which is where it's vital that the party gets more robust processes in place. In short, we need to be alert to bad faith actors and get better at dealing with them. That's not unique to this particular issue.
aug 2, 2025, 2:57 pm • 1 0 • view
If those caveats were added whenever someone comments that "GC views are legally protected" then I'd feel more comfortable. Lots of other beliefs have the same status & some may be incompatible with being a GPEW representative. Members get more latitude, but it's not an excuse to be an asshole.
aug 2, 2025, 2:40 pm • 0 0 • view
Additionally, discrimination is not always unlawful if it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".
aug 2, 2025, 2:17 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
aug 2, 2025, 1:29 pm • 2 0 • view