I have not had much time in front of my computer these last few weeks and I am not reading the posts here. I am unsubscribing from notifications about new posts. If anyone wants to communicate with me, I would prefer to be contacted by phone.

I appreciate the heartfelt comments of Brian, Jamie, Mike, and Elizabeth. There is a need to voice and hear suffering around this issue. These matters of suffering are not yet resolved in the GRP. Dialogue could move us toward resolving them.

In addition to the voicing and hearing of the pain and suffering of members who are unhappy to hear the views of other members, we need to have political discussion about what is the meaning of our Green Party US national federation of state parties.

Two serious questions have arisen in the NC proceedings. One is about the silencing of state-party delegates. The other is about ideas leading NC members have floated about rules changes that would allow the National Committee to expel individual state-party delegates. Either action, silencing or expulsion of delegates, would affect the rights of state parties to choose their representatives to the federation. That is, they could upturn the federation character of the Green Party US.

Of course, the question raised by the proposal above remains too: whether the national party may expel one of its member state parties over ideological differences. NC members are likely to be voting on this within a month.

I will address these questions shortly here.

David Keil
Metrowest region
GRP NC delegate

Well Brian,
My response to all of this would be that I ask the GRP to seriously consider participating in an anti-oppression workshop.
Clearly , there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to the subtleties of oppression and violence against marginalized and oppressed identities. I want to be able to truly offer a safe space for those who are underrepresented in the political arena and I think learning how to do so is a continual commitment & acceptance that the knowledge needed to create these safe spaces is not finite but evolves alongside the human evolution…

Emotional and verbal abuse has the same effects on a human brain as physical violence…
Here is the link to the whole article I have quoted below

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tech-support/201602/5-things-everyone-must-understand-about-verbal-abuse

Is it surprising many daughters of unloving mothers remark that they wish they’d been beaten so that their scars would show—and people would believe them?
Words are powerful: They can lift us up and beat us down, soothe us or wound us. Here’s a brief run-down of what science knows about verbal aggression and which you should too, especially if you’re a parent or just a member of the human race. Verbal aggression and abuse can be part of an intimate relationship or friendship but it also shows up in the workplace and elsewhere for adults, and many more places for children. Here’s the science of why you and I should not ignore it.
1. The circuitry for physical and emotional pain appears to be the same.
Neuroimaging in a series of experiments conducted by Naomi L. Eisenberger and others showed that the same circuitry associated with the affective component of physical pain was activated when participants felt socially excluded.
But another experiment by Ethan Kross and others went further, testing if they could involve the parts of the brain that are involved with both the affective and sensory components of physical pain. They recruited 40 people who had experienced an unwanted and hurtful romantic breakup. Using MRI scanning, they asked participants to look at a photo of their ex and specifically think about how they felt rejected. Then they had the participants look at a photo of a friend who was the same gender as their ex and think about positive experiences they’d enjoyed with that person. Pain tests were also administered to the participants: one a “hot trial” that actually hurt and one a “warm” trial that had enough heat to cause sensation but not discomfort.
article continues after advertisement
The result? The same parts of the brain lit up when the lost love and rejection were recalled as when the hot trial was applied to the forearm. This is an avenue to be further explored by science but it would appear that emotional and physical pain are very much the same. Listen up: “Heartbroken” may not be a metaphor.

Comrades-
Comrade Allies
Comrade Enemies

So much
Blood
On the Ground

Uncivil War
It seems impossible
For me to
Stop slicing my enemies

I’m not Alone

Comrade Allies
Comrade Enemies
So much
Blood
On the Ground

I have said too much

So much
Blood
On the Ground

I Pledge-
On this topic
“I fight no more forever.”

Love,
Mike Heichman
5/19/21

I have no idea why..after defeating this proposal and after all this time that has passed, Brian Cady decided to comment here and revive this NIGHTMARE!
Can y’all stop. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE HAVE WORK TO DO AND WE DEFEATED THIS PROPOSAL ALREADY!!! This is now nothing but a distraction, noise, and a form of psychological ABUSE for not only the trans people reading this, but for all of us as well.
Also BRIAN, advocating to strip human rights away from people IS VIOLENCE and simply entertaining that idea or defending it is COMPLICITY! SO STOP!!!!!
Can we remove the option from commenting on this OLD AND DEFEATED proposal please.

Elizabeth Humphrey wrote: Brian,
With all due respect, anti-trans ideology & words leads to trans-bashing & murder. I think that is something that falls in the realms of “flesh wounds”…
BC responds: Trans-bashing and murder are clearly violence – these are rightfully banned, & we must interrupt these. Anti-trans ideology and words COULD SOMETIMES lead to violence, yet they are not violence themselves. Wouldn’t it be better, since we haven’t agreed on definitions of anti-trans ideology and words, to not ban them, but respond when we perceive them with condemnation and explanation?

Mike Heichman and I have exchanged messages privately and agree that we are members of the same party and have common goals. Among the common goals that Greens have are defense of Palestine and defense of the nurses’ strike.

The Green Party of the US and the Green-Rainbow Party of MA are each fragmented by a battle over silencing and expelling state parties and members for opinions about sex and gender. To define “woman” as the dictionary does, “adult female human,” is considered by some to be an act so heinous as to merit threats of violence, identification as “fascist,” and expulsion. The silencing of women in the Green Party and the effort to dis-affiliate the Georgia party are documented at http://www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/internal-democracy-threatened/women-silenced and http://www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/nlc-vs-ggp/pleadings.

Members of the National Committee who protest the witch-hunt proceedings against Georgia are being silenced today. The point made by the proposal for discussion and unity is that a state party cannot maintain democratic discussion when discussion is suppressed at the national level.

Brian,
With all due respect, anti-trans ideology & words leads to trans-bashing & murder. I think that is something that falls in the realms of “flesh wounds”…

Adhering to non-violence requires defining violence. To me violence involves flesh wounds – there is no such thing as discursive violence. That said, words threatening violence have no worthy place in Green Party discussion – they add nothing of value. Claims that words bring harm and pain are also not helping to make good policy answers, it seems to me. That said, our greatest opportunity in politics is to build a consensus, or failing that, a majority in favor of good policy.
For issues involving what one sees to be right, but about which one can not yet develop a consensus, or at least a majority, would it be advised to pursue different means than public discussion? Perhaps inquiring one-to-one (of those not publicly committed to a perspective), about what they think, and why they think that, and responding to their positions with individual persuasion would be more fruitful than pursuing proposals with only minority support.

Comments interspersed below:

David Keil wrote:
DK: Mike writes, “Your proposal and your failure to withdraw it brought pain and harm to many of your comrades.” Proposals that not all members support are normal in democratic procedure. To disagree does not need to bring “pain and harm” to anyone. The democratic way to defeat a motion with which we differ is to vote against it, not to demand its withdrawal. Repeatedly or retroactively demanding withdrawal of proposals is a promise to repeat the coercive tactic of attempting to suppress them.

BC responds: I agree that words alone do not wound anyone. I agree that one individual demanding withdrawal of another’s controversial motions is not democratic action, just rhetoric. But coercion is not violence, even when it is repeated or retroactive.
Yet repeatedly or or retroactively demanding proposal withdrawal is not adding much of value to a discussion, compared to making a case for how a proposal is oppressive or unfair

DK: [Mike] asserts, “Your repeated attempts to make this controversy solely an issue of expulsion was dishonest. Do any of you believe that there is never grounds for the national party to expel a state affiliate? Or never expel a state for ideological deviation? … The reason is that you support some/most/all of Georgia’s ideology.”
BC Responds: I don’t think Mike has justification for his claim of dishonesty here.

DK: Our proposal stated, “As alternatives to censuring, suspending, or expelling state parties or individual members on issues of sex and gender we advocate: education, democratic discussion, and debates.” That is, members have the right to differ politically on sex and gender whatever their views on issues now under debate. Mike, please retract your claim of dishonesty made against those whose proposal you didn’t support.

DK: [Mike] writes, “When some of your comrades screamed in pain and begged you to stop, you persisted with your abuse. This is what compulsory conversion therapy looks like.” No, to make a proposal that someone disagrees with is not abuse of that person.
BC responds: Here I agree with David Keil.
DK: In this case, our proposal was to rule out expulsions of an ideological character. Please retract your charge of abuse. Please consider whether promoting expulsions over differences of opinion has an abusive element, however; an element of threat against those with whom one differs. Should members consider your charge of “abuse” to be a threat to seek removal of those you accuse?
BC responds: Here I disagree with David Keil and think this last question spurious. Ideology to me has to do with mission and goals; central topics to a political party.
DK: Mike advises the GRP as a whole, “Never again should you permit a tiny group to hold our party hostage.” Again, there is a threatening tone here. Is making a proposal the same as holding the party “hostage”?
BC responds: Mike and David are both wrong here: hostages are held with violence or threats of it. But while Mike’s purple prose adds little to the conversation, it is not a threat.
DK: We are not getting off to a good start as we head toward hearings and deliberations in the Accreditation Committee and the National Committee about the dis-accreditation of the Georgia GP. Good luck to this party.

BC: We of the GRP might become a stronger team if we hone our discussion and interpretation skills.

David,

In your communication to me before this public response, you wrote to me, "I think you might want to review what you wrote on the discussion page, several days after the voting on the discussion-and-unity proposal. I’m not sure it reflects your considered opinions. If it does, then I’m not sure that there’s enough confidence between us for ongoing political collaboration, other than as ordinary GRP members via GRP channels such as a state convention.

After carefully considering your request to retract my previous statement, I have decided to reaffirm 100% of my previous comments.

I find it ironic that you would threaten to “expel”/“disaffiliate” our political relationship over our differences on this issue.

For myself, I will repeat that I hope that we will be able to work together in the future despite our differences in this issue.

Mike Heichman.

I agree with the co-facilitators’ recommendation that the GRP and its State Committee move, for a time, past the discussion on the proposal defeated at its May 2 meeting. The next few months are risky for the GRP, because there is a national drive to split the GP of the US by dis-affiliating the Georgia state party for its political positions on sex and gender.

The co-facilitators chose not to comment on public, inflammatory elements of the post-meeting comments by Mike Heichman. Apparently discussion is still open. I’m now choosing to reply to them.

Mike writes, “Your proposal and your failure to withdraw it brought pain and harm to many of your comrades.” Proposals that not all members support are normal in democratic procedure. To disagree does not need to bring “pain and harm” to anyone. The democratic way to defeat a motion with which we differ is to vote against it, not to demand its withdrawal. Repeatedly or retroactively demanding withdrawal of proposals is a promise to repeat the coercive tactic of attempting to suppress them.

He asserts, “Your repeated attempts to make this controversy solely an issue of expulsion was dishonest. Do any of you believe that there is never grounds for the national party to expel a state affiliate? Or never expel a state for ideological deviation? … The reason is that you support some/most/all of Georgia’s ideology.”

Our proposal stated, “As alternatives to censuring, suspending, or expelling state parties or individual members on issues of sex and gender we advocate: education, democratic discussion, and debates.” That is, members have the right to differ politically on sex and gender whatever their views on issues now under debate. Mike, please retract your claim of dishonesty made against those whose proposal you didn’t support.

He writes, “When some of your comrades screamed in pain and begged you to stop, you persisted with your abuse. This is what compulsory conversion therapy looks like.” No, to make a proposal that someone disagrees with is not abuse of that person.

In this case, our proposal was to rule out expulsions of an ideological character. Please retract your charge of abuse. Please consider whether promoting expulsions over differences of opinion has an abusive element, however; an element of threat against those with whom one differs. Should members consider your charge of “abuse” to be a threat to seek removal of those you accuse?

Mike advises the GRP as a whole, “Never again should you permit a tiny group to hold our party hostage.” Again, there is a threatening tone here. Is making a proposal the same as holding the party “hostage”?

We are not getting off to a good start as we head toward hearings and deliberations in the Accreditation Committee and the National Committee about the dis-accreditation of the Georgia GP. Good luck to this party.

These comments are from both State Com Spring 2021 co-facilitators, Danny Factor & Eileen Sheehan: Respectfully, to those State Com members who have asked in a well meaning way that the GRP either delete the comments to this prpoposal , or make them private, or close out the ability to make further comments, or note the results of the vote at the heading of this proposal, we will make the following comments. 1) This proposal was voted down at the last State Com meeting which took place over zoom on May 2nd. 2) Formal notification of this on the State Com page will take place after the minutes of the meeting are approved, presumably at the first Summer State Com meeting in July of 2021. Until then, consider this comment by both of us of to be temporary formal notice that the proposal was voted down 2) It has been the pratice for many years (you will that there are proposals dating back to at least 2013 on this page) for comments regarding proposals to remain on the page for transparancy purposes. If we were to change that practice to make the comments private or delete them, we believe it would require a decision by State Com at a future meeting to alter that practice 3)We have never before formally recorded the vote of a proposal near the header of the proposal. In the past, the eventual recording of the minutes has served the purpose adequetely of providing the results of State Com votes. To put those results near the header of this proposal but not to add the results of the other already-voted-on proposals (over the years) would initiate a practice treating this proposal differently from the others. If GRP members would like to change our practices to make these comments more private, we believe a State Com proposal would be required. Recording the results of the vote near the proposal header for every proposal would right now require more human resourses than the current Communications Committee has, and we do not support singling out this proposal and adding the vote to the header regarding this proposal alone. If we want to come up with a more accessible way to inform folks about the results of State Com votes than the recording in the minutes, that is fine, but it needs to be done then uniformly for all prior proposals, not just one. Until we come up with a more universal decision to change our practices, we support leaving this page as it is, but also encouraging State Com members -since the vote has already taken place- to move on to other work such as drafting proposals for the Summer State Com meeting that might create new structures to attend to the concerns about State Com members’ comments stated above. Thanks again for everyone who cares so much about improving things in our party. It was our honor to be your State Com facilitators. —Danny & Eileen

Elizabeth, we on the Communications Committee are learning about the proper disposition of “old proposals” after they have been voted on. We are consulting with the more experienced leaders, especially regarding the comments posted during the proposal’s consideration. We expect to address the issue you raise with them. Thanks, Eileen

If this is still on the website for transparency sake – then I’m good with that.
However, there needs to be clear information posted at the top of the proposal, as to the meeting date and the vote that voted against this proposal to show that it did not pass StateCom.

End of story… Enough already.

This proposal was voted down. End of debate/discussion about this proposal please.
Why is this still up on our website?

The StateCom discussion of this proposal for discussion and unity ended with a vote in which the proposal didn’t prevail. I remain convinced that discussing and voting on motions, and avoiding expulsions and splits, is the way forward for the GRP and the Green Party of the US. A number of us are counting on StateCom taking a break in the conflict over this issue. It might be wise for co-facilitators to close this discussion thread.

5/08/21

Dear StateCom Members:

REFLECTIONS ON THE “GEORGIA CONTROVERSY” AND THE STATE OF OUR GRP

I was busy with family responsibilities and was unable to attend the most recent StateCom meeting. I’m relieved that the pro-Georgia proposal was overwhelmingly defeated.

While relieved, I’m also very upset at the state of our party. For quite some time, we have been consumed with numerous controversies. The good news is that I don’t believe that we are factionalized. Every controversy brings about a different alignment of forces. Yesterday’s “enemy” may turn out to be tomorrow’s closest ally.

The bad news is that these controversies devour most of the oxygen in the room. We’re too busy fighting with each other and defending ourselves. Our state party has very little time and energy for doing important political work.

Early this year the StateCom passed an action proposal, “GRP Goals/Activism Foci for 2021”. Since then we have done almost nothing to move our program forward. I tried. I persuaded ComCom to recommend to Adcom that we invite our members to a “Town Meeting” to discuss (and maybe get support) for StateCom’s positive vision.

My proposal failed because we are consumed by perpetual internal warfare. Comrades, if we continue in this direction, we will lack a compelling reason to grow our party.

===== == ====

Dear Comrades who Cosponsored the Pro-Georgia Proposal:

Your proposal and your failure to withdraw it brought pain and harm to many of your comrades. They asked and begged you to stop, Your proposal never had much support; the overwhelming vote against your proposal proves it.

The purpose of consensus is to create a decision with the highest degree of agreement and the lowest amount of resistance. Did your decision not to withdraw your proposal and instead insist on a vote help your fellow dissident Georgia comrades? Was all of this worth it? What did you gain from all this pain? Would you do it again?

=== == =====

Your repeated attempts to make this controversy solely an issue of expulsion was dishonest. Do any of you believe that there is never grounds for the national party to expel a state affiliate? Or never expel a state for ideological deviation? What if Georgia had embraced the Republican Party’s platform and put Trump on their ballot instead of Howie Hawkins?

We are not the duopoly. We have very little political power. Not one of our members across our country has ever achieved high political office. We don’t have patronage and hire our comrades. What we do have are our principles, values and platform. Our party exists because we believe in something positive-something beautiful-something wonderful. When that is threatened, our existence is threatened.

You opposed expulsion. Why didn’t you come up with an alternative consequence? The reason is that you support some/most/all of Georgia’s ideology.

In addition to opposing expulsion, you “offered” endless and permanent dialogue. When some of your comrades screamed in pain and begged you to stop, you persisted with your abuse. This is what compulsory conversion therapy looks like.

Please look at the faces of the cosponsors and at the faces of those who screamed the loudest. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?

=== == =====

After the statecom meeting was over, one of you argued that over 2/3 of Statecom is divided between “ardent advocates of expulsion” and members who lean in that direction. You have repeatedly made the accusation that we may “now work to set up mechanisms to expel these same cosponsors”.

I respectfully request that you provide evidence to support this ludicrous accusation. Given the volumes of discussion that has taken place over this controversy, you should quickly find multiple examples of multiple members who have threatened your expulsion.

===== == ==

Dear StateCom Members:

The GRP’s purpose is not to be a debating society where we look for opportunities for endless dialogue. Our efforts should always have the purpose of advancing our mission and our work. The purpose of every proposal should be to seek approval/consensus in order to move us forward.

Never again should you permit a tiny group to hold our party hostage.
(it only takes 2 StateCom members to initiate a a proposal that will be scheduled to be addressed.)

I recommend a change in the by-laws to prevent this from happening again.

After a proposal has been submitted for consideration, any 4 (?) StateCom members can petition calling for the removal of the proposal from further consideration. Once the petition receives a majority of the votes of StateCom Reps, the proposal will automatically be withdrawn from further consideration. (Note: A majority would demonstrate that attempts for a consensus agreement (2/3) would be futile.)

2. During StateCom meetings, at least 4 (?) Statecom members can call for an immediate vote to either ….

a. Withdraw the proposal from further consideration
b, Call for the end of discussion and an immediate vote

A majority vote would be needed to pass this procedural motion. (Note: A majority would demonstrate that attempts for a consensus agreement (2/3) would be futile.)

Comrades, let us use our energies to build our party.

Love,

Mike Heichman [email protected] 617-265-8143

Matt Andrews posted the following to the StateCom list last night: “I want to report that six supporters of the original proposal met by phone conference and we unanimously agreed that Jill’s proposal is not an amendment and should not be used to substitute away our properly submitted proposal. On a personal note, I appreciate Jill’s efforts and wish we could have collaborated to make amendments to win greater unity”

I’m commenting now, as an individual, on Jill Stein’s draft.

Among other concerns I have, that draft raises issues not addressed by the GRP platform and on which StateCom cannot be taking positions now. One such issue is the irreversible medical procedures proposed for children and minors to “affirm” their gender identities. Such hormone treatments and surgeries have properly been described as elective and ruled out for persons under 18. Without discussion in the society, media are now campaigning for them as “life-saving” and falsely describing concerns about age of consent as “anti-trans.”

The Green Party is tending to regress into Democratic Party politics in its response to such media blasts. Parts of the medical profession and insurance industry are blasting away at legal protections for children from false “consent” to tattooing, breast implants, liposuction and other cosmetic procedures. (See the latest Borat film for parents submitting a 15-year-old to breast-enlarging surgery.) Age-of-consent legislation is crucial to protecting children and minors from sexual assault and rape.

Children and minors are simply unable to give informed consent to irreversible elective surgeries and hormone treatments, some with sterilizing effects. A movement across the country is asserting the same, see https://www.partnersforethicalcare.com/. Our party needs urgently to discuss this matter in a calm way before taking positions on matters vital to the safety of children.

I would like to note that whereas the discussion-and-unity proposal focuses on directly challenging ideological expulsions such as the proposed dis-affiliation of the Georgia Green Party, the Stein draft only advocates that we “guard against the temptation to use censorship, ‘cancel culture’, ‘hate speech’ labelling, suspension, expulsion and other strategies”. It is time to pay urgent attention to the Georgia issue.

I posted here the statement by Andrews, Doyle, and Keil that was posted yesterday to the StateCom list. The statement said, “Sponsors of our proposal may soon decide whether the [Stein] text is acceptable as a friendly amendment.” I have not heard of a formal category called “acceptable substitute”. I suppose that this is the same as “friendly amendment”.

Co-Sponsors of Proposal:

I want to understand you clearly.

Jill’s amendment is NOT an acceptable SUBSTITUTE for your proposal. Is this true?

Instead, it may or may not be considered by the cosponsors as a friendly amendment. Is this true?

Mike Heichman

This is to acknowledge the submission that has been clearly identified as from Jill Stein and intended as an amendment to our proposal, “The GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity.” We note that the deadline for amendments was March 30th. Sponsors of our proposal may soon decide whether the text is acceptable as a friendly amendment.

Jill’s proposal stakes out new and specific positions on trans rights, women’s rights, and youth rights. It’s unfortunate that these issues must be weighed alongside an affirmation of our democratic rights.

It is not clear yet from discussion whether Jill’s text would be likely to obtain a 2/3 vote in StateCom.

A possible alternative procedure is to vote on our proposal and then, after more time for discussion, to vote on Jill’s at a later session.

Matthew Andrews
Maureen Doyle
David Keil

We are directed to “Jill Stein and All’s Amended Proposal, please see”; however, Jill’s name is nowhere to be found on the document – if “All’s” is to indicate there are sponsors to the amendment, their names are also absent from the document.
I find it hard to take any written document seriously if the author(s)/sponsors themselves are hesitant to take credit for their own work .

“For Jill Stein and All’s Amended Proposal, please see”
- who is “All” referring to please?
Is "All referring to all the sponsors or others that are not named on the amendment ?
By the way, Jill’s name is not on the amendment either

Jill Stein’s amendment 4/29/2021 – 2pm Title: The GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity Summary: StateCom affirms Green Unity in support of both human rights and the democratic process. Specifically, we support trans rights as well as democratic dialogue, education and discussion to advance those rights. Background: A long and complex conflict is raging on the GPUS national committee list serve, which most members of the GRP have not had time to follow in depth. This proposal attempts to build Green-Rainbow Party unity around the core values we share that provide common ground beyond the particulars of the current controversy. Core values at stake in this controversy focus on 1) human rights of a vulnerable community, and 2) the democratic process, which is also broadly under attack in this political moment as resurgent McCarthyism is targeting basic rights of free speech, protest, political association and privacy. In supporting trans rights, we focus especially on access to sports and medical treatments which can be life saving. Our support for medical treatments for trans youth is not unlike our stance supporting young people’s access to abortion (which in fact we extend to minors without parental consent or knowledge – unlike trans youth whose parents must actively support gender affirming treatment for their son/daughter). In the course of dialogue to advance trans rights, we recognize that members may inadvertently “pour salt” into each others’ wounds. While seeking to guard against needlessly hurtful language, we must also be wary of censorship, “cancel culture” and related practices. As Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader, Glen Greenwald and Noam Chomsky have all recently warned, such techniques undermine 1st Amendment protections and are ultimately directed at Greens and the left above all in the effort to silence and criminalize progressives, dissidents, and advocates for peace, racial justice, climate action, animal rights and others. Text of Proposal: The Green-Rainbow Party affirms support for the civil, human and economic rights of transgender people, and respect for self-identification. Specifically— we support the rights of trans people to engage in sports, make decisions around which bathroom to use, and in the case of trans youth, to make decisions in concert with parents and doctors regarding matters critical to their health and well being, including gender identity. We believe that support for trans rights will grow with continued dialogue. Towards that end, we advocate education and discussion. While differences of opinion are to be expected, we implore members to exercise empathy and critical self-awareness. Likewise, discussion should be free of insensitive, insulting and inflammatory commentary, as well as slurs, threats, and profane language. Similarliy, we call for respect for participants’ race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, self-identification and dis-ability. While seeking to avoid hurtful and insensitive language, we must guard against the temptation to use censorship, “cancel culture”, “hate speech” labelling, suspension, expulsion and other strategies traditionally employed by the right wing, but now embraced by many in the liberal establishment as well. As Greens we can uphold our highest principles of both human rights and democracy. Implementation: State committee will create a working group to develop tools for education and civil discussion to: 1) advance trans rights (and potentially other sensitive issues on which GRP advocacy is needed), 2) clarify the historic threats to democracy (and the Green Party) posed by censorship, “cancel culture”, “hate speech” labelling and other strategies now in widespread use by elements of the left as well as the right. Financial Implications: none.

David Keil, In regards to the UN treaty you mention:
This treaty was not ratified by the United States, which means it’s not binding to the United States Government.

I believe you know this already because you have been in&/or privy to this conversation with the NC already regarding this specific treaty.

This is to acknowledge Elizabeth’s contribution to the debate on the discussion-and-unity proposal. This Sunday StateCom may take more comment on it and will then vote on it, yes or no.

I’m replying as an individual because Elizabeth mentions my name a couple of times. In particular, she refers to items I wrote when she asserts that “the sponsors of this proposal have no intention of mutual respect or assuming good faith of those in opposition of their proposal or opinions.” I don’t doubt her sincerity in sharing this sort of opinion with us.

Elizabeth states, “Supporting and defending human rights for transgender people can not be affirmed by the GRP if the GRP is defending GAGP’s right to differ from the GPUS platform.” I have a number of differences with Elizabeth here. Our proposal supports and defends the human rights of transgender people, though apparently not in a way that Elizabeth can support. But differing with the Georgia GP on some political issues does not prevent GRP members from supporting another state party’s right to hold its positions and remain a state party. Moreover, the effort to dis-affiliate the GaGP is itself at odds with part of the GP Platform in that the GaGP reaffirms the sex-based rights of women, embodied in the 1979 UN treaty called CEDAW. The dis-accreditation complaint rejects the concept of sex-based rights of women as persons with certain reproductive anatomy.

Our proposal challenges the use of punitive measures to address political differences. It seeks to protect all state parties and members from ideological purges. Opponents of our proposal have said that supporting the rights of trans people requires dis-accrediting or expelling the Georgia party and all who have similar ideas.

What I suggest is that after Sunday’s meeting, we take a break from this matter. We can plan to return to it later, if necessary. We could also return to an analysis of the 282 reactions to the proposal that have accumulated, if we wished. A majority of those reactions have been negative comments by a small number of members.

To summarize the situation, our proposal is scheduled for a vote Sunday. No proposed amendments have been submitted. Counter-proposals that have circulated are not in order as proposed amendments, because such a procedure would disenfranchise the four StateCom members making the proposal. Contrary proposals should be submitted for discussion at a later time. StateCom members have a democratic right to raise the issue again for discussion if they wish.

I hope that members who have been silent will consider commenting.

David Keil
Metrowest chapter

You all say you asre following “all the rules” but one seems to be ignored – the VETTING process…

With the accusations directed at the opposition to this proposal of a desire to silence you are belittling our convictions to the TRUTH “No Justice, No Peace”.

These may be just slogans to you but they are deeply held values of SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER to me. Hows that “slogan”?

There IS only ONE CORRECT ANSWER when it comes to HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMANS.

If you think otherwise, this may not be the right party for you to work within.

When I ask you “WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP”, I am asking the sponsors of this proposal to

please STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE me and our entire party that there should be limits on trans rights OR that we NEED to support those who support anything other than full human rights for all humans by disguising your purpose as freedom of thought & speech.

You must know this by now because many have been asking the question “When is this going to stop?”, in conjunction with how hurt & divided our party has become since this proposal was submitted.

Elizabeth Humphrey

My Concerns of this proposal are in bold text embedded into a copy of the revised proposal & by beginning each section with the words “Concerns” – “quote” or the words “Proposal” – “quote”, I am further differentiating my concerns from the proposal language.

Document List Referenced in my concerns:

Full text of the LC Complaint

https://www.lavendergreens.net/nlgc_dispute_with_georgia_green_party

Hr3 & Hr4 as it appears on the GAGP platform

The GAGP Platform Hr3 & Hr4 are in full text in the LC Complaint along with a break down of how the Georgia Green Party is in violation of several sections of our Platform. Specifically: Social Justice & Civil Rights and Equal Rights

Full text of the Declaration of Women’s Sex Based Rights (DWSBR)

https://www.womensdeclaration.com/

The written rules for the AC:

The AccredCom rules and procedures for handling complaints, specifically, are here: https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-complaints/.

The AccredCom’s more general policies and procedures are here: https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-policies-procedures/.

The AccredCom’s “Requirements,” including requirements for GPUS accreditation and procedures for revocation of accreditation, are here: https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-policies-procedures/.

“Proposal – “quote”:

Title: The GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity

Proposal sponsor/shepherd: Matt Andrews

Floor manager: Maureen Doyle

Co-sponsors: Elie Yarden, David Keil, Maureen Doyle

Contact info for floor manager: [email protected]

Summary: StateCom opposes expulsions or dis-accreditations over perceived platform differences.

“Concerns” – “quote”:

This is misleading language:

The platform differences are not perceived. Hr3 & Hr4 are clear and egregious deviations from the GPUS Platform (see attachment to read Hr3 & Hr4 as it appears on the GAGP platform). The Declaration of Sex Based Rights for Women (DWSBR) is an egregious offense to trans people. This is also not a perceived difference.

The DWSBR uses language that could ultimately be used to adversely affect everyone’s human rights including cis women & men. The language could also affect how everyone receives birth certificates, child custody & adoption case outcomes, & fertility medical solutions as well as medical & social resource accessibility for anyone other than the women who subscribe to this ideology of exclusion.

The language is dangerous and ill advised:

The few and reasonable requirements for accreditation were created democratically with all the GP state parties able to participate. Therefore, it is not unreasonable or violating the values of decentralization for the GP to hold state parties accountable to these requirements. Prior to the accreditation process the requirements are clear and understood by all who wish to apply for accreditation/affiliation. StateCom should not even consider a cart blanch opposition to dis-accreditation of state parties. Alaska is a perfect example. If there are no requirements to be an accredited state party, every GP state party could run their own candidate like Alaska did, rendering the national reach of the GPUS candidates unable to run for POTUS; therefore making a national party obsolete.

We must not render the accreditation/affiliation process obsolete. Without an accreditation process, the GPUS and all other states within the federation would be left open to being forced to accept contrary values and platform planks to those they applied to be affiliated with through the accreditation process.

“Proposal – “quote”:

Background: A complaint against the Georgia Green Party is under consideration in the Accreditation Committee.

“Concerns” – “quote”:

This is vague language and an incomplete background:

It does not explain what the complaint is for, or who submitted the complaint. How can one make judgments on the unknown? The full text of the LC complaint should be included as an addendum to this proposal (see List of Referenced Documents above).

This is not the entire background. There is documented actions taken by the GPUS SC TO PREVENT the DIS-ACCREDTATION of the GAGP. Over 16 months of documented attempts of mediation, education and discussion is left out of the background. This should be reflected in writing on an addendum to this proposal.

The NC LC submitted the complaint. Caucuses within the GP exist as advisory entities regarding their particular lived experience for their particularly vulnerable, unique and marginalized communities. If we do not take the advice of these caucuses seriously when forming our opinions, values and platforms directly and indirectly regarding their particular communities and lived experiences, there is no real purpose for the entire GPUS Caucus System of Advisory Knowledge and therefore, making the caucus system merely platitudes to our members and constituents.

“Proposal – “quote”:

Text of Proposal:

The Green-Rainbow Party affirms support for the human rights of transgender people. Transgender people are oppressed, and we need to defend them.

The Green-Rainbow Party opposes the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party being considered by the GPUS Accreditation Committee, which is not based on explicit rules, but rather on interpretations of the GPUS platform. The GPUS platform is an inappropriate standard for membership or the accreditation of state parties.

“Concerns” – “quote”:

This is misleading, contradictory and false language: Supporting and defending human rights for transgender people can not be affirmed by the GRP if the GRP is defending GAGP’s right to differ from the GPUS platform particularly with the amendments of their platform that includes Hr3 & Hr4, which clearly violate the human rights of transgender people (see List of Referenced Documents above) There is NOT a petition for any action including punitive action. There is only a legitimate complaint submitted properly by the LC. Moreover, dis-accreditation is not a punishment, it is a consequence that is part of a GPUS nationally consistent process regarding accreditation and is managed through a democratic and transparent process. The process of dis-accreditation is not casually considered or without careful investigation. Documented mediation, education and discussion must occur with the state party in question and with those who submitted the complaint that the state party was in violation of the requirements of accreditation. Then if there are no resolutions or Restorative Justice that can occur, the complaint is investigated again thoroughly and carefully by the AC and only then, if the dis-accreditation is considered legitimate by the AC (a 40 + member committee with all states able to participate), it is put to a democratic vote on the NC floor and for a reasonable length of time that will allow all the states delegates to participate in the vote.

The following ARE EXPLICIT RULES and criteria for a state party to be accredited and for a state party to AGREE TO MAINTAIN in order to keep their status of accreditation; of which, the AC is committed to investigate when reviewing the actions taken by a state party during a dis-accreditation case. Violation of any ONE of them would be legitimate grounds for the NC and AC to consider removal of accreditation: 1) Acceptance of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement [Ecological Wisdom; Social Justice; Grassroots Democracy and Non-violence or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles 2) Organized and run in accordance with these values 3) A statewide organization open to, and reflective of, a statewide membership 4) Agrees to support national candidates selection by Green Convention 5) Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status 6) Makes good faith effort to run state and local candidates 7) Has applied to GP for accreditation, and has included written by-laws, platform and other documentation with that application. 8) Has a history of networking with other environmental and social justice organizations 9) Evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender balance in party leadership and representation 10) Evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, identity caucuses and alliances with community-based organizations and endorsements of issues and policies

After 16 months of dialogue, mediation and education failing in finding a resolution or restorative justice, the AC accepted complaint that GAGP has in fact, failed to adhere to #1; #2 and #3 – there is evidence that the GAGP has failed to achieve ballot access in 2 cycles so they have most likely failed to adhere to #5 and in amending their platform with Hr3 & Hr4, they are in blatant violation of #10

There absolutely ARE EXPLICIT RULES, SPECIFIC AND CLEARLY COMMUNICATED that the AC must follow (see List of Referenced Documents above) The GPUS platform is absolutely an appropriate standard for membership and accreditation of state parties.

The only thing that differentiates the GPUS from any other party is the platform and the 10 Key Values. I myself, witnessed the vetting process for potential GRP Candidates back in 2018, which used adherence to the platform as well as the Ten Key Values, as one of our MOST IMPORTANT AND FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS that EVERY GRP CANDIDATE IS HELD in order to be considered an official GRP candidate. The platform and the 10 Key Values are the very reasons why I joined the GRP in the first place and the only reasons why I am still a member & trying to work in the madness of the GRP’s dysfunctional, abusive, toxic and ineffectual internal culture.

It would also seem that this proposal is calling for more rigid and restrictive rules while also caliming the issue with GAGP has shown the GPUS has too much top down powers – misleading and contradictory language.

“Proposal – “quote”:

As alternatives to censuring, suspending, or expelling state parties or individual members on issues of sex and gender we advocate: education, democratic discussion, and debates. These must be free of insults, slurs, threats, and profane language. In the absence of specific evidence, an assumption of good faith among fellow Greens must be maintained. The right of Green-Rainbow Party members to participate in our democratic process, including the right to make proposals and request a vote, shall not be infringed by bureaucratic maneuvers or peer pressure campaigns.

Democratic discussion will be facilitated if participants’ race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, self-identification, dis-ability, and good faith disagreements of opinion are respected.

“Concerns” – “quote”:

This is misleading and falsely insinuating language: I repeat from above: After 16 months of dialogue, mediation and education failing in finding a resolution or restorative justice, the AC accepted the LC complaint that SPECIFIC EVIDENCE has shown GAGP failed to adhere to #1; #2 and #3 of the requirements for accreditation – there IS SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that the GAGP has failed to achieve ballot access in 2 cycles so they have most likely failed to adhere to #5 - in amending their platform with Hr3 & Hr4, they are in blatant violation of #10 – In signing onto or even just endorsing the Declaration of Women’s Sex Based Rights (DWSBR), this action by the GAGP is a second blatant violation of #10 There is nothing the GPUS or any state party can do to un-register a member; therefore, members can not be expelled from membership.

This language has been demonstrated as hypocritical: Since the beginning of the discussion within the GRP (going on now for over two months to anyone who is paying attention), it has been demonstrated that the authors/sponsors of the “The GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity” proposal will not be able to follow their own edict, written in their own proposal to participate and facilitate “Democratic discussion will be facilitated if participants’ race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, self-identification, dis-ability, and good faith disagreements of opinion are respected.” and have themselves not been able to communicate and support their disagreements without accusing the opposition of slander; ill faith and disrespect , as well as bullying; facilitation of a “witch hunt” &/or “purge”; slander; insinuations that members of the opposition are insufficient of intelligence; name calling; peer pressure campaigns; participation in threats against the GRP; calling out long term members of bureaucratic maneuvers, & stonewalling and former candidates of disingenuous commitment to the GRP and the list of accusations directed at the opposition for the sake of supporting their arguments for this proposal goes on & on… A clear example of the accusations directed at the opposition to this proposal was clearly demonstrated during the StateCom Spring 1st session meeting by David K. when he accused Sean of name calling when Sean specifically voiced his comment was an example of what could happen by allowing a cart blanch acceptance of differences to the platform. This type of gas-lighting has been consistent from the authors and sponsors of this proposal throughout the entire email, Round Table and StateCom spring sessions discussions. The aforementioned list of accusations have repeatedly been directed at the members opposing the debate on whether or not the GRP should be defending members’ and state parties’ right to differ with the GPUS Platform and the 10 Key Values when those differences are clear in their anti-trans ideology (GAGP Hr #3 and Hr#4 amendments to their state platform and endorsing/signing the DWSBR). It has been demonstrated more than once on the GRP listservs (& via hundreds of emails gleaned from NC listservs) that information crucial for democratic discussion/debate and for forming accurate and informed opinions on the subject of sex & gender, this proposal, and the 16 month long process of mediation, education and discussion still happening on the NC, has been shared with the GRP and StateCom, selectively and inconsistent with the entirety of the information available by three of the four MA NC Delegates and the authors/sponsors of this proposal. The email thread between David Keil & David Spanagel in regards to David S.‘s parliamentarian explanation IN GOOD FAITH, of the GRP Process of Consensus as written in the GRP Bylaws, demonstrates that there is not a mutual display of good faith and respect for fellow GRP members from the sponsors of this proposal; therefore, it is my concern that this email thread, along with the aforementioned points of concern, demonstrates the sponsors of this proposal have no intention of mutual respect or assuming good faith of those in opposition of their proposal or opinions. Furthermore, the email thread is an example that my concerns are true in regards to at least one of the sponsors’ assumptions of NO good faith directed even at members who are consciously taking neutral positions which are expected due to duties of their position as Parliamentarian.

Calling the rights of GRP members to conduct Political Lobbying “peer pressure campaigns” is misleading & dangerous.

“Proposal – “quote”:

Implementation: The text of this proposal as adopted will be sent by a member of our National Committee delegation to the “NatlComAffiars” list.

“Concerns” – “quote”:

This is dangerous to the GRP name and public optics: This act will be damaging to the GRP name within the GPUS and public optics outside the party. This is demonstrated via hundreds of documented NC emails and multiple caucuses and committees openly condemning the actions of the GAGP, the DNE & and the MA Delegates in support of GAGP &/or involvement within the DNE. It will discourage new membership among the youth and trans rights supporter demographics and has already demonstrated that current members will leave the party with statements specifically naming this proposal and/or the toxic discussion of this proposal as the the reasons they are either seriously considering leaving the party or already have left the party (Remember, the youth conduct extensive research and can easily look up what GAGP has on their platform that we are defending – & yes, if we defend their rights to differ with the platform we defend what plank they differ on).

By submitting this proposal to the “NatComAffairs” list, the GRP would be publicly stateing we are in oposition to the following list of signer to the LC Complaint.

With regards to the Committee we, the undersigned State Parties, Locals and Caucuses, support this Complaint:

National Lavender Green Caucus

Young Ecosocalist Caucus

National Women’s Caucus

Arizona Green Party

Green Party of Washington State

North Carolina Green Party

Maine Green Independent Party

Green Party of Pennsylvania

Illinois Green Party

Middle of the Mitten Greens

Central Michigan Greens

West Shore Greens

YES Caucus of Michigan

Women’s Caucus of Michigan

South Sound Greens

Green Party of Seattle

Green Party of Sacramento

“Proposal – “quote”:

Financial Implications: none.

The whole second half of our proposal sets healthy boundaries. They are about how to show respect to fellow Greens rather than political boundaries. The last two months of discussion in the GRP has been overshadowed by one side calling for the other side to be silenced. Please consider how slogans like “No Justice No Peace” and exclamations like “When is this going to stop?” feels to members who are following all the rules to put forward a proposal calling for civil dialogue and party unity.

If we really want to educate each other and build a genuine unity; not just impose a line on the GRP, then we must create a secure and welcoming environment to actually discuss issues first. The issues are not the problem. It’s the way we talk to each other about them that’s the problem.

Lastly, I think it’s fine if we don’t have full consensus on every issue. There are already a range of views on many issues in the party and I consider it a strength. There’s more than one way to look at most issues. I’ve never been attracted to organizations that already have all the “correct” answers.

In Solidarity,
~Matthew Andrews

My response to Matt’s comment

Use of Semantics & Misleading and Contradictory language:
Quote: “As you can see below, the rules are extremely general and lax.  The first point states they must accept the four pillars of the international Green Party movement or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles.  No details are spelled out over how these pillars or values must be interpreted on any particular issue.”
- Just like the claim that water-boarding was not torture because it was not explicitly written into the anti-torture policies…
- It would also seem that this argument is calling for more rigid and restrictive rules while also claiming the issue with GAGP has shown the GPUS has too much top down power at the same time.

Misleading and Contradictory language:
Quote: “It is clear these rules are not designed to be tools of political discipline.  Nothing here should lead the GRP or GAGP to believe that policy positions we adopt will be vetted by the GPUS for approval.
So even if the GAGP is politically 100% wrong, we cannot look to the GPUS accreditation process to force them to change their position.  This doesn’t mean we have to sit back and do nothing either.  The policy we are suggesting the GRP adopt advocates “education, democratic discussion, and debates.”  I hope we can agree that persuasion is Greener and better for the Party than discipline.”
- Yet, the sponsors of the proposal are saying there should not be political discipline wielded by the GPUS on any member or state party. Which is it to be then?…
- It has been clearly demonstrated that “education, democratic discussion, and debates.” have occurred for over 16 months on the NC and over 2 months within the GRP. When is this going to stop?
“Persuasion” WITHOUT clear and written Healthy Boundaries, in some cases, can also be considered to be obsessive harassment.

A critical piece of background information StateCom members should consider leading up to the vote on Sunday is the criteria for state membership in the GPUS. There are 10 criteria the Accreditation Committee is charged with measuring. They can be found here: https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-requirements/

I am also pasting them below.

Let’s assume that the Georgia Green Party was politically 100% wrong when they adopted two platform amendments and signed the Declaration on Women’s Sex Based Rights. What oversight powers does the GPUS have over affiliated state parties? As you can see below, the rules are extremely general and lax. The first point states they must accept the four pillars of the international Green Party movement or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles. No details are spelled out over how these pillars or values must be interpreted on any particular issue.

The most specific requirements are very practical, such as supporting national candidates and making a good faith effort to achieve ballot status. In fact, the term “good faith” is used four times in this list of ten criteria. So this is clearly an important concept to interpret. The American Heritage Dictionary defines good faith as “The sincere intention to be honest and law-abiding…” and also, “Good, honest intentions, even if producing unfortunate results.”

The only reference to a state platform is to require that it be submitted when applying for accreditation. There is no reference to reviewing its content.

Furthermore, the committee’s rules require only a simple majority to approve new states, while recommendations to “de-accredit” a state requires a 75% vote. (https://gpus.org/committees/accreditation/accreditation-committee-policies-procedures/)

It is clear these rules are not designed to be tools of political discipline. Nothing here should lead the GRP or GAGP to believe that policy positions we adopt will be vetted by the GPUS for approval.

So even if the GAGP is politically 100% wrong, we cannot look to the GPUS accreditation process to force them to change their position. This doesn’t mean we have to sit back and do nothing either. The policy we are suggesting the GRP adopt advocates “education, democratic discussion, and debates.” I hope we can agree that persuasion is Greener and better for the Party than discipline.

In Solidarity,

~Matthew Andrews

II. Criteria for State Party Membership in the Green Party of the United States.

1. Acceptance of the four pillars of the international Green Party movement [ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, non-violence] or the Ten Key Values as guiding principles.

2. Organized and run in accordance with these values.

3. A statewide organization open to, and reflective of, a statewide membership.

4. Agrees to support national candidates selection by Green convention.

5. Makes good faith effort, where reasonable, to achieve ballot status.

6. Makes good faith effort to run state and local candidates.

7. Has applied to GREEN PARTY for accreditation, and has included written by-laws, platform, and other documentation with that application.

8. Has a history of networking with other environmental and social justice organizations.

9. Evidence of commitment to, and good faith efforts to achieve, gender balance in party leadership and representation.

10. Evidence of good faith efforts to empower individuals and groups from oppressed communities, through, for example, leadership responsibilities, identity caucuses and alliances with community-based
organizations, and endorsements of issues and policies.