I am very alarmed by the tone of this discussion. It’s hard to know where to begin. Greens must have the right to organize as the Dialogue Not Expulsion group is doing, without needing permission from the GPUS. Referring to this group as a clique is disrespectful.
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.

I agree with Jamie Guerin, David Gerry, Juan Sanchez and Carole Oyler & I concur with Lois.
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 .

https://www.leftvoice.org/life-after-stonewall-the-struggle-against-terfs-and-the-far-right

https://popularresistance.org/the-attacks-on-the-rights-of-transgender-people-are-rising-fight-back/

David K, I request that you cease referring to the Dialogue Not Expulsion clique as a caucus. It is misleading Greens into thinking it is a party caucus people are elected to. Obfuscation has nothing to do with dialogue.

David Kiel, your project and blog containing the “dialogue not expulsion” grouping is not made up of Greens. There are some Greens who you have convinced to sign on to your document, but many of those names are people that are NOT members of the Green Party, not recognized by any members of the state parties they are portrayed to represent, and many are not even in the US. Stop misrepresting. Their is presently not a vote on the expulsion of GA. The Acrredidation commitee simply accepted a complaint from the Lavender Caucuse
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.

With all due respect Elie, the Pioneer Valley statement is not an idle threat. We are quite serious.

This is to welcome members’ interest in the issue raised by this proposal. I think that it is important that the GRP and the GPUS opposes discrimination against, and mistreatment of, trans people, and that we share key values of feminism and grassroots democracy.

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.

This party is not welcoming to the LGBTQIA+ community. If we were there would be more involved. Where is U. Carson a FORMER member of StateCom.

THe GRP does NOT stand for discussion rather than dis-accredidation in this instance. If you polled your members you would realize this. Isn’t that what delegates should do, represent the members? Georgia stopped on the discussion end, even though they were given ample opportunity to restore this situation. Georgia has made it abundantly clear that trans rights are NOT human rights. Is that how the writers of this proposal feel too?

Full Stop, David! The “Dialogue Not Expulsion” clique is not a “caucus” (that word has a meaning and this ain’t it) and not even an entity of the Green Party even thought your manipulations make it seem as so. You will not force anti-trans ideology into our party. Our platform is very clear about where we stand on trans rights and we support trans rights and gender identity as a protected status. This discussion already happened. Many of us will not be a part of a party that allows this bigotry so please stop forcing this division.

The proposal to the State Committee is for the GRP (MA) to oppose the expulsion of another state party for taking a political position. The question is whether dissenting ideas justify expulsion.

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
http://www.dialoguenotexpulsion.org/documents.

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.

Elie, with all due respect, I would like you recognized that what you are referring is not “Jamie Guerin’s statement” (although I am in 100% agreement with it). That is a statement that was democratically arrived at, without opposition, by the Pioneer Valley Chapter, what many know to be the strongest chapter in the GRP. We are deeply committed to this party and to our values ,and are very serious about not allowing it to become a place where human rights are debated away. I’m not sure why you find any of this to be funny.

Being welcoming is different from allowing for discussion aroubd discrimination. If we were welcoming we wouldn’t be entertaining this order.

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

Yes I.will not stand with a party that is anti trans so if thateans splitting the party then fine. I’d rather not be associated with bigots like Mr yarden who who as a cisgenderr hetero man really has no leg to stand on here. Who decides what kind of party we are and what kind of party we want to be? Will it be your most active chapter/members or Grp Stalwarts who’ve done more to harm.then grow the party.

As someone completely familiar with my own inability to conform to social norms, I glory in my deviance, and that of people who I feel closest. Chelsea Manning is a redem[tive figure. The Green-Raimbow Party has always welcomed transgender people and take them at their word. What is comical about Jamie Guerin’s statement is that it threatens those would keep the GPUS united, and seek the opportunity to so with breaking up the Green-Rainbow Party. No discussion needed. I say, " go for it!" There are other designations you might wish to use like “G” or Unenrolled, But the “J” will remain Green-Rainbow. The silliness of the comments is ensured by the idle threats. Elie Yarden GBC

The Pioneer Valley Local strongly urges a No vote on the proposal entitled “The GRP Stands for Discussion Instead of De-Accreditation” ( https://www.green-rainbow.org/197640/the_grp_stands_for_discussion_rather_than_dis-accreditation ) Our chapter recognizes the very clear Green Party platform supporting trans rights, protected status for gender identity, and the right to self determination for LGBTQ+ and all people. Our chapter recognizes the Green-Rainbow Party’s very own position on trans rights which was reaffirmed in 2018 in our endorsement of YES ON 3 ( https://www.green-rainbow.org/yes_on_question_3_2018 ). We believe this is a core value and is definitive of who we are as a party and as a member of the Green Party federation.
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.

Human rights are never up for discussion. As a gay man and a brown man. As someone who is Hiv Pos and has been a candidate twice for this party under the impression of how welcoming this party was it saddens me to see the GRP not take a stronger stance against this. Many things can be up for discussion/debate. The rights of our brothers and sisters of all backgrounds should not be one of them.