For Jill Stein and All's Amended Proposal, please see: https://www.green-rainbow.org/2021_spring_unity_proposal_amendment
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.
Background: A complaint against the Georgia Green Party is under consideration in the Accreditation Committee.
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.
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.
Implementation: The text of this proposal as adopted will be sent by a member of our National Committee delegation to the “NatlComAffairs” list.
Financial Implications: none.
Showing 299 reactions
Sign in withFacebook Twitter
The question before us is not whether or not we agree with the GA Green Party. The question is whether the GAGP violated any commitments to the GPUS, and whether there is any basis for dis-accreditation. I am not seeing those arguments being made here so far.
The language of the GPUS Platform is very general. For example, “we support full legal and political equality for all persons regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity, characteristics, and expression.” The platform says nothing about how these rights are balanced with each other or protected in specific circumstances. I would encourage people who have strong feelings about this issue to propose stronger language.
But even if we conclude that the GAGP platform conflicts with the GPUS platform, is that a basis for dis-accreditation? When I joined the GRP, I was told our basis of unity was the Ten Key Values. I wasn’t told I had to tow the party line on every issue. There is a great diversity of political thinking in the GPUS and GRP on many issues. We don’t settle those differences by purging one another or threatening to walk out. If we did, we wouldn’t be a political party for very long.
I was a delegate to the Presidential Nominating Convention in 2020. We were presented over a dozen platform amendments which we had to vote up or down as a package. While I supported or was neutral on most amendments, I disagreed with some strongly enough to vote “no” on the entire package. My main concern was a proposal addressing police brutality which I thought was weak and out of step with the movement. Many other delegates agreed with me, but not strongly enough to vote down the entire package. Is my opposition to a platform plank on police brutality now grounds for my dis-enfranchisement? A document crafted in this manner should not be the basis for dis-accreditation or expulsion.
It’s a very well established legal principle that you can’t prosecute someone with laws that are not written (or were not written at the time they took action). The GAGP had no reason to think their adoption of platform amendments would jeopardize their affiliation with the GPUS.
Disagreeing with the GAGP is not the same as concluding they broke any rules or reneged on any commitments to the GPUS. They did not. If organized groups within the GPUS, even majorities, can summarily disenfranchise individuals or state parties, then grassroots democracy will give way to bullying and fear.
The GRP should stand for discussing how to uphold gender identity rights and other rights without fear of reprisal. The GRP should stand for the unity that is necessary to win demands and win elections.
As a Co-chair of the PVC our chapter is serious about our consideration of seceding & it is not an idle threat.
Why the DNE & David K. thinks it is ok misrepresenting the DNE as an official GP caucus not only here in his comments, but also on the DNE website home page? Why should we trust the DNE to be reputable if they misrepresent themselves this blatantly?
Seen here as it is seen on the Home Page of the DNE website & David K.eil’s comment below:
(To join the Dialogue Not Expulsion Caucus, use this link:)
More misrepresentation by the DNE is the use of The GPUS logo as well as their FULL title “Greens for Dialogue not Expulsion”. As far as I know, they are not officially affiliated with the GPUS. This misrepresentation is openly displayed on the DNE home page as well; not to mention, the majority of the people signed onto the DNE statement are not GP members which also begs the question who are the majority of the subscribers to the DNE? What other organizations or groups are they active in?
Since this proposal wants the GRP to be in alignment with the DNE & therefore with these other people, whom can not be vetted as GP members, how do the authors of this proposal suppose this action of aligning with those who we have no idea about or even who they are, be good for the GRP?
At least some of these signers do not even reside in the US and/or are signed on to the DNE statement with anonymity. For all we know any one of them could be an active member of WoLF (a group David K. strongly defends on the NC listserv) or even some kind of alt-right organization – there is no real way we could vet these other signers of the DNE.
At the very least, the GRP must demand a thorough vetting of the signers of the DNE statement before we sign onto their agenda.
I also have two more questions as to what this proposal would want the GRP to be in association/alignment with.
Did you David Keil, or did you not, comment the following quote on the GPUS FB Page in March of 2020?
& if so, who are these heretics that you seek solidarity with as your first priority if the GAGP is disaffiliated?
The quote in question:
“Time to prepare for a fight for the life of the GPUS. If Georgia is expelled, then all bets are off and the first priority will be solidarity with heretics and exposure of witch-hunt methods. Next priority will be to regroup for a Green Organization that practices the values – - notably democracy, feminism and decentralization.”
To end my comment I include two links. These links are for two very relevant articles as to why the
GRP MUST VOTE “NO” ON THIS PROPOSAL.
You will see that these articles are from legitimate and trustworthy sources (one is written by one of very our GPUS Co-chairs Margaret Flowers).
I trust the authors and/or publications have researched the recent increase of attacks on the transgender community and the direct connection of the group WoLF to the alt-right as well as WoLF receiving $15,000.00 in funding directly from the alt-right .
about GA and their anti-trans platform amendments and endorsements. This complaint was supported by the Women’s Caucus, the Youth Causus, the Diversity Caucus and 17 state parties and locals while MA was kept in the dark and only told bits and pieces for a whole year until now. The Accreditation Committee has not yet made any recommendations to the National Commitee. If it should get to the National Commitee, the GRP still does NOT have a vote as our delegation will vote the way they want despite how the party feels as we have already seen in the past and can document. Delegate Doyle even told a member that she is willing to hear how membership feels but she doesnt have ti listen and vote that way. You are wasting all of our time for your personal agenda when we could he investing our energy into the other proposal on the table. And I as a ciswoman feel very unsafe around YOU and I feel unsafe in any space or party a party that is not safe
for my trans, intersex, and gender non-conforming siblings. I also feel that Biogtry has no place in the Green-Rainbow Party and we must stand for something or fall for anything. I’m not falling for it, David and neither is the majority of the GRP membership.
Some are rejecting the proposal to StateCom in strong terms. What specific positions of the Georgia party do you object to, and for which you think that state party should be expelled? What unsatisfied concerns do you have related to trans rights? Do you favor expelling members of the GRP who disagree with you?
We may differ about some details, such as whether women’s rights are sex-based, whether women are allowed to say so, how to define the word “woman”, and whether all-female sports, showers, locker rooms, and other spaces should be allowed. Some opinions of Green Feminists are expressed at http://www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/documents/Green-Feminists-Response-to-LC-Complaint.
In reply to Jamie, the Dialogue Not Expulsion Caucus is not an accredited identity caucus, but rather was formed by Greens based on opposition to expelling state parties and members over political differences.
I hope that we can exchange ideas within the same party. My chapter is MetroWest.
The complaint against the Georgia state party is available at http://www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/documents/national_lavender_green_caucus_files_complaint_with_accreditation_committee_to_disaccredit_georgia_green_party.
Replies to it from groups such as Green Feminists and the Dialogue Not Expulsion Caucus are at
Our state party’s unity is fragile and important. I hope that members won’t try to expel other members over political differences, and that chapters will not disaffiliate if the state party opposes political expulsions.
We all agree with each other on the stated values of feminism and grassroots democracy, and we all oppose discrimination against or harassment of women or trans people.
I.e someone says they are welcoming to latinos and to come to their meeting and at this meeting I find out The group is considering supporting a affiliated groups anti latino stance.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too as Elie seems to imply in his statement below. I urge you all to look around your fellow grp members and ask yourself is this going to cause more harm.or good to an all ready fragile.party
We recognize that human rights are not debatable and no amount of dialogue will change that or alter that reality within a democratic institution that believes in the 10 Key Values. In fact, the thought of stripping rights away from identity groups is something we have always fought against and is something we are committed to always fight against.
Our party has lead the charge for human rights and has already recognized trans, intersex, and gender non-conforming folks the right to self determination. Our party already supports Gender identity as a protected status. This is not up for debate. Furthermore, “opinions” that support stripping rights away from an identity group or any one, are opinions expressing “bigotry”, and are “hateful”, racist and xenophobic and we believe the GP or any state party affiliated with the GP should not be used to give bigotry a platform.
We recognize that discussions to educate, and attempts to remedy and mediate the dispute regarding the Georgia green party have been ongoing for a year to no avail. This lengthy conversation continues to be harmful and traumatizing for our trans members as they are subjected to listening to the opinions of people who feel their rights should be stripped away and have their existence denied on a daily basis, sometimes incessantly, resulting in forcing trans members out of National committees and caucuses, while some members are so traumatized they consider leaving the party altogether; a party that had offered them a safe space and home by already recognizing their human rights to exist and for self determination, only to allow them to be subjected to what GA and its very few allies have instigated and manifested.
We stand firmly and clearly with our trans, intersex, and gender non-conforming members.
The fate of the GA GP is in the hands of GA GP leaders and the National Accreditation Committee. The GRP does not have a vote. The PVC trusts the process and the technical decision making of the large and very diverse National AC. Should GA GP be dis-accredited, the PVC supports GA members re-affiliating a state party that adheres to the democratically created GP platform and 10 Key Values; which both support trans rights as human rights.
We believe existing, long fought for rights for women and other identity groups will only be made stronger by defending trans rights – Divide and Conquer. We recognize that our trans members did not introduce this issue of all consuming and divisive “dialogue” to the party, GA GP did when they violated our core tenants of human rights for all humans. Period.
The PVC has always been a safe and welcoming place for LGBTQ+ people and ALWAYS will be.
PVC Members have had serious and unanimous discussions around seceding the chapter from the GRP if this proposal passes. We believe passing this proposal will create an unsafe place and hostile atmosphere for trans people.
We are adamantly and strongly opposed to this proposal and we are indefinitely committed to protecting human rights for all people. Trans rights are human rights.