Rosi Sexton

I prosecute and defend the most serious sexual offences in our courts.

The overwhelming majority of offenders are British-born. Overwhelmingly the victim is someone known to them, either a partner or relative.

Anybody purporting to care about protecting women might start there.

The last decade has been such a scramble to find ways of telling people that it's possible to have change without anything changing.

generally speaking if you’re furious that women are able to find relationships through dating apps whilst men aren’t, you are surely either a) on a lesbian dating app by accident or b) very confused about the mechanics of how pairing off actually works in the end

UK has got ‘fat’ on decades of free labour by women, says MP Jess Phillips Minister points to ‘sexist’ practice of country relying on women to provide services so government did not have to

I see this every time I work with community groups. Women stepping in to fill gaps left by LAs and government, only to find the more they step in, the more gaps appear, as government sees this free labour as a solution that their funding crises. It is not. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

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.

I appreciate that's not a belief that has any legal protection - but a literal reading of that bit of the code of conduct would suggest that we'd treat it the same way.

As for whether we should or not - I'm inclined to agree that it's behaviour that matters rather than beliefs per se, but I wonder how far we'd be comfortable extending that to, say, someone who was open about racist or eugenicist beliefs (but wasn't directly abusive to individuals).

While it's an interesting theoretical question (my hunch is that churches and political parties probably could make a legal argument for excluding people based on beliefs), I agree that would be legally riskier.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And equally, continually referring to a trans woman as a man.

I said that I don't think people are being expelled for the *respectful* expression of beliefs - but I acknowledge that we may have different views as to what respect looks like.

Which is why the CoC should be as explicit as possible about this.

The expression of beliefs absolutely *can* constitute abuse or harassment, depending on how they are expressed and the context.

Additionally, discrimination is not always unlawful if it is a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim".

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.

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.

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.

I don't hear anyone suggesting that people should be expelled simply for holding gender critical beliefs. That's a strawman.

Fair. My point was a "yes, but also..." rather than a negation!

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 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.

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).

bsky.app/profile/rosi...

Also - just reviewing the video now - 8 candidates for Deputy Leader is way too many for hustings to work. Can we replace them next time with some kind of Green Party hunger games? 😅

For the non-media roles on the executive, I agree that it's unfair to judge performance on camera, but for the leader and deputy I'm always going to be thinking "how is this person going to cope with a potentially hostile interview and a media that quotes selectively"?

I haven't watched it in full, so will reserve judgement overall, but I think there's a difference between watching to try to find out the candidates' positions (fair enough, people don't always express themselves perfectly) & watching to assess ability to articulate those positions under pressure.

Perhaps "some things were said in haste", but now consider what consequences things said in haste can have for the party when it's in a national media appearance.