February 9, 2024 - 1:30pm
The Green Party illegally discriminated against its former deputy leader, Dr Shahrar Ali, because of his gender-critical beliefs, a court has ruled. In a stunning victory for politicians who believe in biological sex, Judge Hellman found that the party “discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act”.
This morning’s judgment, which is the latest in a series of legal wins for individuals with gender-critical beliefs, has far-reaching implications for political parties in this country. Speaking on the steps of the court, Ali described it as a “landmark case”. Mocking politicians who can’t bring themselves to use words banned by trans activists, he said it was “the mother (yes, adult human female) of all gender-critical cases”.
Ali sued after the Green Party executive committee, which included its current co-leaders Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, removed him as its spokesperson for policing and domestic safety two years ago. Ali had been outspoken in his support for a “rational” policy on sex and gender, as well as the right of women to protest about the impact of gender ideology on their health and safety.
The judge found that his dismissal was “procedurally unfair” because the party’s executive sacked him for breaches of the spokespeople’s code of conduct without ever identifying any breaches. Ali also asked for a declaration that he had been “subjected to unlawful discrimination”. The judge granted it, along with £9,100 in damages.
The Green Party acknowledged “procedural shortfalls in how we deselected one of our spokespeople” and apologised for “failing […] to live up to the standards that both we and the court expect”. It’s a mealy-mouthed response and completely fails to address the vital issue raised by the case, which is the right of party members and officials to express legally-protected views that happen to be unpopular with activists.
This judgment constitutes a warning for political parties that have allowed trans ideology to run riot in their ranks, genuflecting to ideologues who equate a belief in biology with hate speech. It’s one of the most monstrous lies ever promulgated, turning a simple statement of fact into something not just contentious but potentially career-ending.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWell, protection of gender critical views is good. But really – a political spokesman? If a Labour spokesman came out for banning trade unions, or a Church of England spokesman came out for converting to Islam, would it also be discriminatory to fire them?
The latter case has de facto been accepted.
There isn’t an obvious connection between green policies and the trans nonsense though is there?
I know in practice that is often the case but one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other.
Interesting question. Think the earliest green parties were in West Germany and Tasmania. Whether either had a connection to trans TTTTT+ politics I don’t know.
The Tasmanian ones I doubt as their trans movement was so eclectic and the green movement had traditionalist, ‘back to the Earth’ strands that spurned a lot of medicine and surgery. A lot of these people effectively wanted to live as hobbits.
One of my neighbours was a key trans figure in the late 80s. If you called her a ‘greenie’, she’d have shot you.
A good question, one which I would somebody who has read the decision might be able to answer.
So believing that men in wigs are real women is a requirement for joining the Labor Party? Geez, no wonder they’re bleeding membership.
No, because what you have described are policies, not philosophical beliefs protected under the Equality Act 2010.
I’m not sure if I could share the joy. The Green Party has a particular ideology ( nonsensical as it may be ) and they expect their members to share this ideology. That was an example of discrimination just like the basketball coach would discriminate against someone who can’t jump.
I don’t know about that. Hugging trees doesn’t imply a belief in gender and/or changing it. It should be fringe to the huggery, ought it not?
It’s the Omnicause™. If you believe that the planet is dying you also have to believe that gender is interchangeable. Failure to do so gets you banished from the Cathedral.
Wrong.
If anyone has learned anything in the last 20 years, it is that ANYONE who supports Green Party stuff is a complete fool and idiot.
Another encouraging victory for reason and free speech. Again it has come at great cost to the individual concerned – the process is the punishment, after all – but I hope Dr Ali can at least take comfort from his vindication.
Yes very good news – I hope it hits them where it hurts and may more of this follow.
You are either for free speech or against it. It is the height of irony that people in authoritarian states yearn for freedom while many in free states go the other way.
Human beings cannot change their sex. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
If politicians cannot speak freely on contested issues, then none of us can. Hopefully this will be a shot across the bow for larger parties who would like to silence GC views within their own parties.
The term “gender-critical” is not strong enough.
If you oppose the insanity of trans delusion, you are “trans-rejecting” or “biological-realistic” or “sex-normal”. Enough with the bowing down to the insane and deluded.
Gender Accurate, not “Gender critical”, views.
I don’t understand why this is the hill the Green Party has chosen to die on. When there are pressing environmental issues such as legal pollution of our rivers and seas and an apparent governmental disdain for public transport (and public spaces), why this?
This is not a victory, this is a pathetic concession