The Green Party illegally discriminated against its former Deputy Leader, Dr. Shahrar Ali, because of his gender-critical beliefs, a court has ruled. UnHerd‘s Joan Smith has more.
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.
It’s good to see another court take the side of commonsense on the gender issue. However, there is a question of whether we really want judges to be telling political parties they can’t dismiss officers or spokesmen over ideological differences. How can a political party function if it can’t dismiss officers for contradicting party policy? The court did clarify that this is still permitted, it must just be done ‘fairly’. But there are obvious dangers down this road.
Worth reading in full.