The GRP stands for discussion and Green Unity

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 307 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-04-02 08:42:13 -0400
    Comrades,

    Imagine that all of the time and energy that we have spent in our uncivil war had instead been used in the defense of our trans siblings.

    We spend so much time and energy fighting with each other and so little time and energy doing positive work in our communities.

    Yesterday’s StateCom meeting was another example of this.

    We now have a larger and more diverse leadership of our party.

    What are we going to do with this?

    I repeat my request to the co-sponsors that they withdraw their divisive proposal. Instead, let’s use our power in behalf our positive vision and program.

    Love,

    Mike Heichman
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-01 19:52:31 -0400
    I agree with the sense of David Rolde’s comment immediately below. I don’t think proposals can be changed at the last minute at the request of one member; i.e., other than as an emergency request.

    Again I’m concerned about the language used in this discussion. Concern about language is valid because democratic deliberations don’t include the types of communication that I cited earlier. One participant claimed that incivility would be a “point of pride.” Democratic discussion is respectful and excludes name calling, threats, ad hominem attacks, and personal attacks.
  • David Rolde
    commented 2021-04-01 17:10:54 -0400
    I would like to suggest a couple changes to the text of this proposal. The proposal implies that the Georgia Green Party has contradicted the GPUS Platform. As I pointed out in my post on this board a couple days ago, the GPUS Platform has a long section (The Women’s Rights platform near the beginning of the Social Justice section) that is clearly based on women’s sex-based rights, so it can’t be contradictory for the Georgia Green Party to recognize women’s sex-based rights. I believe that the Georgia Green Party’s 2020 positions on sex and gender issues are not in contradiction with the GPUS Platform.

    So I would like the first paragraph of the ‘GRP Stands for Discussion and Green Unity’ proposal to be changed.

    How about: “The Green-Rainbow Party affirms the right of its members and those of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall. Accordingly, we oppose the petition for punitive action against the Georgia Green Party (GAGP) being considered by the GPUS Accreditation Committee. The GPUS Lavender Caucus alleges that the GAGP’s 2020 platform’s positions on sex and gender are in contradiction to the GPUS Platform. Others believe that the GAGP is not in contradiction with the GPUS Platform which does recognize women’s sex-based rights. Regardless of whether the GAGP is in contradiction with part of the GPUS Platform or not, GAGP should not be disaccredited because of this disagreement with other Greens over sex and gender issues”

    In the third paragraph I would like the phrase “self-identification” to be changed either to “gender identity” or "self-declared gender identity. " It should be clear that respectful discussion includes respect for all participants’ self-declared gender identity.

    ~ David Rolde
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-01 15:16:58 -0400
    In my opinion, the text and implementation of this proposal falsely CLAIMS, that if we can all agree to disagree, and have the conversation, of which nature can be seen by scrolling down these comments, we would achieve unity in the party.

    I have found the contrary to be true and in fact, I have actuality found this unity they seek in the act of NOT agreeing to disagree and refusing to entertain a conversation/debate on human rights with a faction who stands in defense of the GAGP.
    (faction is used here as defined in the Cambridge Dictionary: a group within a larger group, especially one with slightly different ideas from the main group)

    Since the submission of their proposal, I have connected with, gotten to know personally, and have had detailed ideological conversations with GPUS members all over the US; that until this proposal, I did not even know their names.
    I found the unity the authors of this proposal seek through a deep and broad understanding of the GPUS platform and our 10 key values without having to agree to disagree on aspects of said platform and values because our differences were not outrageously different but different as in how two people are different but the same.

    In my defiance and resistance of the desired actions of this faction, I found a unity that did not lead me to question my conscience and overall belief system, or my membership in the GRP & affiliation to the GPUS.

    So in the spirit of this comments, please withdraw this proposal.

    Elizabeth Humphrey
    PVC [GRP] Co-chair
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 14:00:48 -0400
    Sorry
    ..
    That was supposed to say
    “What people pee through”
    Yes..you read that correctly
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 14:00:45 -0400
    Sorry
    ..
    That was supposed to say
    “What people pee through”
    Yes..you read that correctly
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 14:00:41 -0400
    Sorry
    ..
    That was supposed to say
    “What people pee through”
    Yes..you read that corrected.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 13:59:32 -0400
    Speaking of the NC and “dialogue”, what kind of “Civil Dialogue” does Mr. Keil and Mr. Andrews want to have? Convesations about “what people per through” like was happening on National? Or civil dialogue about why its okay to strip GENDER from the list of protected statuses in GA?
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-04-01 13:55:01 -0400
    Thank you Jamie & Carole. Well said.
    Also let’s not forget that Juan was also the first Puerto Rican, openly HIV positive person to achieve ballot status in MA PERIOD. Juan broke historical barriers making ballot history for the state of MA as well as for the GRP.
    Using an emotional wedge issue to goad people into valid emotional reactions and then attacking them for being emotional seems to be a pattern I am seeing here and on the NC .
  • Carole Oyler
    commented 2021-04-01 13:49:31 -0400
    The title to the proposal is confusing

    The definition of unity according to the dictionary is:  Unity is being together or at one with someone or something. It’s the opposite of being divided.  From what I know the following entities are UNITED with the Lavendar caucus:

    1.  Women’s, diversity and Youth 

    2.  17 State/local parties

    3.  Here in the GRP the most active chapter, the River Valley

    With what or who are the writers of this proposal proposing unity?  Certainly not 1, 2 or 3 above.

    This quote is relevant to this proposal

    If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

    Desmond Tutu

    And just for everyone’s enjoyment on this dreary NE day..warning there are what some would deem inappropriate  words in the lyrics.

    https://youtu.be/jSZWslqjfPE
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 13:17:23 -0400
    Juan got more votes than anyone on the entire slate (I may be mistaken, but I think even more or close to Jill Stein’s vote) and this is what gave the GRP its ballot access for our 2020 campaign. He has done more than many memebers I know and this disrespect towards one of our star candidates is what is REPREHENSIBLE.
    Any member has the right to add input to statecom. This isnt a website for the elite few. Juan’s community is UNDER ATTACK. He is part of the LBGTQIA+ community that is being attacked by a bunch of hetero cis white males and a couple white women. No one said “feminists” are white supremacists. We identity as feminists silly!
    This is a broken record and the divisive intentions of this so called proposal are VERY VERY VERY CLEAR at this point Matthew Andrews.
    We have told you over and over what is wrong with this proposal. But you are losing so now you go after our STAR CANDIDATE. Gross! If his opinion is that you are evil pos, well maybe then thats just his opinions and feelings. Opinions and feelings can’t be hateful according to you right?
    Or maybe it’s just a one way thing and only applies to your opinions and feelings about trans people.
    Eh?
    Withdraw this proprosal!
  • Carole Oyler
    commented 2021-04-01 13:10:19 -0400
    *juan
  • Carole Oyler
    commented 2021-04-01 13:09:58 -0400
    Matt 

    I’m new here but even i know it was because of Juan and jamie I could check of Hawkins/Walker on my massschusettes ballot this past election.

    IJuan ran a sucessful statewide campaign
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-01 12:52:13 -0400
    Juan, you have spoken more than anyone else on this forum, and you aren’t even a member of State Committee.You haven’t even been an active member recently, as far as I can tell. You have barely bothered to actually address the proposal itself. I find your complaints about “tone policing” reprehensible after comparing feminists to white supremacists. You even sent me a private message out of the blue calling me an “evil pos”. How many people have you done this to? I never mentioned it out of respect for civil dialogue. It seems like you think David’s desire for civil dialogue can be disregarded because of how he appears to you. It also appears that you think you have a free license to be as belligerent as you want. Please check your own privilege. We all have an equal right to be respected in the GRP.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-01 12:05:33 -0400
    Tone policing can clearly be defined as, “when someone (usually a privileged person) in a conversation or situation about oppression shifts the focus of the conversation from the oppression being discussed to the way it is being discussed. Tone policing prioritizes the comfort of the privileged person in the situation over the oppression of the disadvantaged person.” 2
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-01 11:54:08 -0400
    We have said more then o ce that is a deep fundamental belief that trabs rights are human rights and can not align with a party that wants to entertain that discussion. That is not a threat, a threat is meant to cause harm of which none of us have wish harm upon one another. Your names won’t be forgotten when it comes to electing new delegates and new positions take that as a promise not some underlying dark motive and yes their is no unity with transphobia.

    It’s very disheartening how you continue to pick apart specific wording while ignoring the passion and emotion behind it. On this last day, I hope statecom members see past Mr Keils clear and consistent Manipulation of our words and instead see our stance and where we are coming from. Fighting for human rights isn’t pretty David and we are a party, not a classroom where to be lectured about how we express ourselves. Tone policing is classist

    Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.1
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 11:51:52 -0400
    Sorry. J meant. Delegate Keil. Withdraw the proposal.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 11:51:07 -0400
    Dont be sad, agentdegatedelegate Keil.Wiltdeaw the proposal. You know very well from your experience in the Socialist Party and other orgs that this is a wedge issue and is disruptive and DIS-unifying. You know from your year long crusade in multiple committeea and from the months on National Committee that your obsession with this issue has been destructive and harmdul. Can you blame members for being appalled that this is on the table in the GRP in the year 2021? Don’t be sad, David. Be proud that thwre so so many comrades this dedicated to human rights! Withdraw the proosal and join us United on the right side if history as we fight for trans rights as human rights.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-01 11:41:50 -0400
    I’m sad to see that threats of “leaving the GRP,” strange assertions like, “Your names will not be forgotten,” and proclamations of “no unity” are part of our discourse on the last day of discussion. I’m asking members of the State Committee who haven’t commented to do so, also addressing what appear to be efforts to disrupt the serious GRP consideration of this proposal.
    — David Keil, Metrowest chapter, StateCom member
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 11:35:53 -0400
    The GRP is already united on this. I ask one more time to read our statement of unity from 2018, the year I PROUDLY ran under the GRP banner:
    This is who we are. This is what we stand for

    This is just a reminder about who we are and what we stand for.

    Circa 2018

    “The Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts supports a vote of YES on statewide ballot Question 3 to uphold the 2016 law forbidding discrimination based on gender identity in places of public accommodation.
    The Green Party Platform Section II (A) (5) recognizes “the rights of persons who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, intersex, trans-sexual, queer, or transgender” to be free from discrimination in “all areas of life.” Our history of being the first national political party to oppose discrimination based on gender identity stems from the Green Party’s Key Values of ‘Social Justice’ and ‘Respect for Diversity’. Based on these values, our platform further states that “the foundation of any democratic society is the guarantee that each member of society has equal rights.

    Respect for our constitutionally protected rights is our best defense against discrimination and the abuse of power. Our Key Value -DIVERSITY - commits us to the principle that all people deserve dignity, self-definition and self-determination” and that “we must consciously confront the barriers that include racism, sexism, homophobia, class oppression, and ageism, along with many other ways our culture impedes us from working together.” Our platform further states that “we support affirmative action to remedy discrimination, to protect constitutional rights, and to provide equal opportunity under the law.” With this in mind, the Green Party sees measures that discriminate against gender identity as harmful to all, and calls for any such discriminatory measures to be remedied with action. One of the actions we call for is to vote YES on Question 3.

    The law which Question 3 addresses rightly added the words “gender identity” to a long list of protected categories of people who must not be discriminated against in places of public accommodation. The list includes religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination, sex, sexual orientation, and disability. The revised law has been in effect since 2016. There is no justification to now remove “gender identity” from this list and to blatantly legalize discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people.

    Some who want to overturn this law claim that banning discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people enables and encourages pedophiles and sexual predators. This is a patently false claim. The law specifically excludes pedophiles from the category of sexual orientations that are protected from discrimination. Laws against rape and sexual assault and other sexual crimes are still in effect and are not changed by this anti-discrimination law. Since the non-discrimination law was extended to include gender identity in 2016 there have been no incidences of the horror that opponents promised would ensue.

    Some worry that adding legal protections for people based on gender identity will erode protections based on sex that have been won for women through many decades of struggle. We believe that this worry is unwarranted as the anti-discrimination law in question continues to forbid discrimination based on sex as well as discrimination based on gender identity. The new law merely added gender identity to the list of factors on which we must not discriminate. The new law did not legalize discrimination against people based on any of the factors already included in the old law.

    In summation, we urge everyone to vote YES on ballot Question 3. Every person deserves the right to use public bathrooms, and everyone deserves to be free from discrimination and have their identity respected in all areas of life."

    PEACE! JAMIE GUERIN
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 11:34:00 -0400
    Please excuse my typos. Juan and I are both working on phones. My dyslexia and tiny keyboard without spell or grammar checks is not accessible for me. I hope, however, my message has been consistent and clear. I ask again to withdraw this disunifying proposal. Real lives are at stake with this national and global campaign we are seeing against or trans siblings. An injury to one is an injury to all. Let’s unite to defend human rights like we all assumed we were signed on to do when we joined this party. If defending human rights makes me “uncivil” then I wear thatas a badge of honor and will be looking FABULOUS wearing that badge on the right side of history. I ask state committee to put on your Thursday best and stand on the right side of history with me. Just a little reminder that there is no background regarding the processes of disaccreditarion here, nor are you given any information of what is in the GRP’s power, the US Green Party’s power, the AC’s power to do in this regard. I ask you to take a long look at what you are actually being asked to sign onto (background info and info about the provess/procedures and the timeline of what has already happened is IMPERATIVE) and by deafualt what you will be signing rank and file GRP members onto if you vote yes. If given the actual details about this like the PVC has!
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-01 11:13:17 -0400
    The women’s Caucus, Diversity Caucus, Youth Caucus have signed with the Lavender Caucus in their complaint as have seventeen other state chapters. The Accreditation Committee accepted the complaint unanimously.

    I guess they are all expulsionists along with me and the only people who truly care about the party are those who side with this proposal. Anyone willing to do their research can see that this is a very small group trying to force this wdge issue nationally and state wide.

    Mr. Andrews must have missed where I said my stance on Georgia is my Stance on Georgia and we have to look at each case differently . Their is no one solution for every case that may come before the AC but it is they who the GP Federation has given that power to…Not state parties or individual members on some crusade.

    We have a women’s Caucus that the federation has given the purpose of representing women. They stand against Georgia.

    Qe have a diversity Caucus that the federation has given the purpose of representing representing beautiful diversity of the GP and recruiting diverse members, they stand against Georgia.

    We have a youth Caucus tasked with representing our younger Greens and recruiting young people. They stand against Georgia

    And we have a Lavender Caucus tasked with representing members of the lgbtq+ community such as myself who also stand against Georgia.

    They must all be confused expulsionists by Matt’s characterization of me
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-04-01 11:12:12 -0400
    Friends, this proposal is what is DIS-unifying us despite that it claims to he a call to unity. Most of us can see very clearly how this proposal has beeb destructive and divisive. Likewise, the HYJACKED GAGP (rank and file members cannot access their website or get call backs about participating in democracy or cancelling their dues) is the DIS-unifying force on National. Pretty much the ENTIRE National party besides David ans Hugh’s very tiny DNE faction is UNIFIED against the anti-trans ideology of GA.
    There is anti-trans legislation coming or in the statehouse of 24 states. 24 states! Our party is UNITED in standing against this as the Green-Rainbow Party was in 2018 and as our sibling state MAINE has had their statecom REACH CONSENSUS to take a firm stamd AGAINST the anti trans legislation and here we are bow being asked to support GAGP’s right to support it (specifically their platform amendments hr3, hr4, and their signing of the declaration)
    Let the GRP be united with the rest of the party and the rest of the civilized world to stand once again AGAINST bigotry and transmisogyny and ask GA to remove those specific amendements and endorsement. Let’s stand UNITED with the WOMEN’S CAUCUS, THE LAVENDER CAUCUS, TJE YOUTH CAUCUS, THE DIVERSITY COMMITTEE and the majority of the Green Party on this, or seal out fate as signing into the small faction with a handful of people who have seized the GAGP….
    Or LETS DO WHAT MANY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN BESEECHING the sponsors to do and WITHDRAW THIS PROPOSAL so at the very least the GRP and it’s committed members and activists do not have to wear the stain ans tarnish of GA and their anti-trans ideology.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-04-01 10:54:23 -0400
    Juan’s definition of unity is to gang up with the expulsionists against Georgia. Voting yes on our resolution will be a clear call to return to the things that unite us. Once we have firmly re-established civil dialogue, I hope we can return to building the party and discussing controversial political issues in a constructive manner. Only until we find a way to have a civil dialogue with fellow Greens about these issues will we have a chance with the public. Let Greens in Georgia hold the GAGP accountable.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-04-01 06:52:58 -0400
    Standing up for Georgia would show the complete opposite of unity. It would put the GRP as the only state to stand with Georgia anti trans rhetoric. The National party through caucuses and other state chapters have shown unity against Georgia on this ISSUE. Again I’ll remind you we are the only state chapter discussing this, why? Are we to belive that we are the only Greens who care about unity or that someone who recently joined the GP somehow cares about unity more then long standing dedicated members locally and nationwide.

    I for one stand by my convictions and if that means leaving the GRP and doing the work in a different capacity then so be it but because this is bigger then me and bigger then us we are discussing human rights.

    Their is no unity with transphobia.

    Jamie posted to look at the archives and it’s all there. Since you’ve had so much time.to recruit people to the dne and push your beliefs we were hoping you’d also have the time to show us the past few months of emails you and miss Thompson have partake in and not just bits and pieces. Or if members want to see what we are talking about they can look themselves.
  • Jordan Stewart
    commented 2021-04-01 06:34:22 -0400
    It is incorrect to say that the anti-transness of some people in the party is without evidence. The proposal and GA Greens statements on trans individuals is textbook transphobia…

    Stop defending oppressors…

    REMOVE THIS PROPOSAL or be complicit in GA’s transphobia. Your names will not be forgotten.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-04-01 06:31:35 -0400
    Today is the last day to discuss the proposal to the State Committee that the GRP advocate unity of the Green Party US.

    Without evidence, members have made charges of intimidation and “anti-trans” activity by sponsors. Threats have been made to “secede” an entire chapter from the GRP.

    In the interests of integrity of the State Committee voting tonight, there is time today to withdraw these threats and accusations.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-31 17:49:45 -0400
    Here is a statement today from our Sibling Party in Maine

    “Maine Green Independent Party opposes discrimination in all forms, including discrimination against transgender people. With legislation being proposed in various states across the nation, including Maine, to ban transgender students from participating in sports, we felt it was important to take a stand.
    The state committee of the Maine Green Independent Party voted with consensus, to oppose LD 926—Maine’s bill that would codify institutional discrimination against transgender women.
    LGBT community will continue to liberate transgender people no matter the new ways they come up with to demonize us whether it be the bathroom bills of the past or these new bills to kick us out of sports. Many who oppose the inclusion of trans athletes erroneously claim that allowing trans athletes to compete will harm cisgender women. This divide and conquer tactic gets it exactly wrong. Excluding women who are trans hurts all women. It invites gender policing that could subject any woman to invasive tests or accusations of being “too masculine” or “too good” at their sport to be a “real” woman. In Idaho, the ACLU represents two young women, one trans and one cis, both of whom are hurt by the law that was passed targeting trans athletes.
    Further, this myth reinforces stereotypes that women are weak and in need of protection. Politicians have used the “protection” trope time and time again, including in 2016 when they tried banning trans people from public restrooms by creating the debunked “bathroom predator” myth. The real motive is never about protection — it’s about excluding trans people from yet another public space. The arena of sports is no different.
    On the other hand, including trans athletes will promote values of non-discrimination and inclusion among all student athletes. As longtime coach and sports policy expert Helen Carroll explains, efforts to exclude subsets of girls from sports, “can undermine team unity and also encourage divisiveness by policing who is ‘really’ a girl.” Dr. Mary Fry adds that youth derive the most benefits from athletics when they are exposed to caring environments where teammates are supported by each other and by coaches. Banning some girls from athletics because they are transgender undermines this cohesion and compromises the wide-ranging benefits that youth get from sports.”
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=AzxEHGU2R7A&feature=share
  • Jordan Stewart
    commented 2021-03-31 16:56:48 -0400
    This proposal should be withdrawn. We should lead the way in ensuring ALL women are treated with respect and dignity. If state party leadership in GA aims to undermine women, they are not Greens. While it is true individual Greens can think however they want, state parties that take such radical anti trans actions should be called out, not entertained.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-31 15:50:27 -0400
    Witch hunt? Like the 5 or so people on National who decided a year ago to go on a singular focused and obsessive crusade against trans people? 2 out of that handful are 2 of our very own GRP delegates. This is the only reason why we are having this conversation right now here in MA.
    They already went through the whole process on National over the past year and Hugh Esco of GA has doubled down on his anti-trans platform.
    Withdraw this proposal Matthew Andrews.