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.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-27 09:51:44 -0400
    I also want to point out that as a delegate for the GRP what you input into national is a representation of what the GRP believes and the disservice Mr Keil has done in that role.

    National committee can become a debate room very easily and too often delegates take their own personal views and beliefs and use their position to further push these believes.

    Definition of delegate-a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.

    Where in Mr Keils statement to national commitee do you see any sense that he is representing us and not his own views?

    I’m tired of the back and forth. Intentions have been made clear and people’s views widely expressed. It’s now up to statecom to decide what the future of the party will be.

    My final point is one I’ve made several times and that is to look at the intentions and moves of those that support this proposal and see that this is not about deaccredidation and never has been.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-27 09:39:12 -0400
    Comrades and Siblings:

    I have made a good faith effort to offer a compromise in an attempt to find common ground. I have attempted to point out that this controversy has harmed our party.

    The title of the proposal is “THE GRP STANDS FOR DISCUSSION RATHER THAN DIS-ACCREDITATION”. I want to offer an amendment to the title, “THE GRP STANDS FOR ENDLESS DISCUSSION RATHER THAN DIS-ACCREDITATION”.

    David K, below, a white male heterosexual, has offered us a summary of areas of where we agree and areas of disagreement (See his comments below.) What is the purpose of sharing such a summary? I submit that it is to encourage further endless discussion?

    I repeat what I believe are important things for us to consider that I posted on 3/25: My new comments are in capitals.

    I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE POSITIVE ENERGY INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING PEACE INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE LIGHT AND LIFE INTO OUR PARTY?)
    I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party. (WILL FURTHER DISCUSSION OF DAVID K’S POST BRING MORE LOVE AND RESPECT?)
    Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.
    I wonder how many of you are looking forward with positive anticipation the upcoming 3 statecom meetings starting on 4/01-April Fools Day!
    Please withdraw this proposal. Please stop this uncivil war.
    Love,
    Mike H
    =======

    I believe we have two choices?

    1. We can continue to endlessly discuss David K’ list and very possibly discover additional questions that we want to endlessly discuss.

    (David K’s list). We differ on:
    - definitions of words like “man,” “woman,” “gender,” and “sex”;
    - whether persons have the right to have different definitions;
    - whether females have the right to define female-only spaces;
    - whether the age of informed consent for irreversible elective medical procedures should be lowered below 18;
    - whether body parts may be designated as “abnormal structures” at the request of minors for the purpose of underage hormone treatment and surgery;
    - theories of gender identity

    2. We can take positive action to end our uncivil war.

    ====. ====

    Our party has been engaged in numerous uncivil wars including the
    a. 2020 presidential campaign and its numerous aftermath
    b. Regional Conventions and the seating of the new statecom reps, especially from the GBC
    c. Covid
    d. Georgia

    Please help me—There must be more.

    Please! Please! I’m getting bored. Would somebody please, please come up with a new controversy-one that would promise to be even more excruciatingly painful?

    Love,

    Mike H
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-27 06:20:13 -0400
    I want to point out to everyone that Georgia put an order forward to ban anyone who is lgbt even if they aren’t a memebe of a national caucus from voting on their deacrredidation.

    It failed miserably with only 11 delegates voting for Georgia’s order and 84 against. Guess who three of those delegates are?

    It’s important to point this out to understand the toxicity that has soaked up all our energy not only in the GRP but national as well from our delegates. Mr. Keil below let you know where he stands on this issue which again I’d showing you his exact intentions which is to entertain and adapt Georgia’s stances not a conversation about deaccredidation.

    What is our future? Will it be the party of David Keil and Matt Andrews or a diverse party with people from all life backgrounds. Look around at your membership, other then me and Maha their are Hardly any people of color involved. Other then me and Sean and maybe a couple others,, The LGBT community isnot represented, the lack of involvement of younger individuals or effort to bring them into the party is minimal, and the list goes on.

    For a party with the name.rainbow in it their isn’t much of a rainbow in membership. And now you have another chapter ready to secede so ask yourselves is this discussion going to be helpful to the party and our mission?
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-27 00:13:03 -0400
    I posted the following to the GPUS NC list.

    A. We agree on the following:
    - solidarity with trans people against harassment, violence, or discrimination;
    - support for the rights of all people to present and identify as they wish;
    - opposition to sex stereotyping that discriminate for gendered behavior and dress;
    - no demonization of categories of people as alleged sexual abusers or abusers of children

    B. We differ on:
    - definitions of words like “man,” “woman,” “gender,” and “sex”;
    - whether persons have the right to have different definitions;
    - whether females have the right to define female-only spaces;
    - whether the age of informed consent for irreversible elective medical procedures should be lowered below 18;
    - whether body parts may be designated as “abnormal structures” at the request of minors for the purpose of underage hormone treatment and surgery;
    - theories of gender identity

    Anyone who disagrees with an item in list A, please name the item.

    Delegates have demonized other delegates by claiming to find lack of agreement on these items and by claiming that some delegates bizarrely reject the “right to exist” of others.

    Irresponsible claims that our differences are about items in list A have brought us to the brink of an ideological purge and a split. Responsible leaders of this party need to step in here.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-26 10:37:16 -0400
    I wanted to make sure everyone is able to read it and leave you with a few questions Was the process unfair?

    Do you belive that Georgia’s stances align with our party and GP values in general?

    If the Women’s caucus of the GP also agrees with the LGBT+ Lavender caucus complaint are they also anti women?

    My second suggestion is to look at Mr Keils own words

    “. I joined the editorial board of the SP’s magazine ‘The Socialist’ in 2011, helped start a local of that party in 2015, was elected in that year to its national committee, and resigned from the party in 2018 over the lack of discussion of “sex and gender” and due process.

    Ask yourselves

    is this a coincidence that someone who left another party due to sex and gender stances is now trying to guise his own admitted beliefs into a stance against deaccredidation.?

    Would you say that someone who admittedly has been focused on issues around this topic of sex and gender since at least 2018 prob longer isn’t passionate about this specific topic?

    Deaccredidation is a real issue that I and several members would love to work on but right now as has been pointed out several times is that we are taking Mr Keils Personal mission to inject his stances into left wing parties and allowing it to divide us under the guise of deaccredidation
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-26 10:07:18 -0400
    Again I post the Lavender caucus complaint for everyone to read. Also signed by the Women’s Caucus, Diversity Caucus, and 17 other states. It

    https://www.lavendergreens.net/nlgc_dispute_with_georgia_green_party?fbclid=IwAR1iGxbpt4PVU2PbFKemuboPQ5A3fa6QaVUX44weOeqxjGjNl3ahBbEECl0
  • David Spanagel
    commented 2021-03-26 09:37:38 -0400
    Thus far I have stayed aloof from this entire discussion – honestly feeling (even after reading all of the links that Elizabeth so helpfully provided) that I have no way to gain meaningful insight into a situation whose original antagonists are so remote from my circle of contact.

    Individuals who I respect deeply in the state party have lined up on either side of this particular dispute, and are evidently digging themselves into positions that are harder and harder to reconcile. That is a recipe for disintegration.
    My own cis-male gender identity puts me at such a disadvantage (with respect to taking a legitimate position on the merits or harms of anyone signing the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights) that my instinct is to abstain on any proposal whose effect would either validate or censure that act in itself. I am even tempted to call upon all cis-male StateCom delegates to join me (on April 1) in refraining from speaking either for or against the proposal, so that our women and transgender colleagues can fully have the floor to share their views and concerns about the divisive issue that provoked the problematic situation in Georgia’s Green Party in the first place.
    My heart, however, stands in total solidarity with brother Mike Heichman’s most recent plea, which I repeat here in part:
    “I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party.
    I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit.
    I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party.
    I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party.
    Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.”
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-26 09:33:37 -0400
    “Amendments” proposed in this forum have been rejections of the no-expulsions proposal and demands to withdraw it. There is currently no negotiation over amendments, as far as I know. We have six days until this proposal comes up formally for vote. Those who oppose it may wish to ask for an emergency counter-proposal.

    We have been hearing (falsely) that even to propose non-expulsion is actually the same as upholding the views that the Georgia state party; that is, to incur the penalty of expulsion. Thus many are openly campaigning already to purge the GRP.

    Expulsion of the GaGP would launch a series of political expulsions in the GPUS. Rejection of the no-expulsions proposal by the GRP would tend to confirm that dissenting views are not accepted in the GRP, with all the consequences that would follow.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-26 09:24:41 -0400
    Elizabeth, standing up for human rights and defending our values is not “vitriol”. Interjecting this well known wedge issue that solits the party and interjecting anti-trans ideology into the party to.cahnge we we are and what we stand for IS VITRIOL and an ideological attack ob out party from as the DNE website shows INTERNATIONAL AND OUTSIDE FORCES. Accusing people who are defending themselves and defending trans rights and our values of “Vitriol” is PROJECTION AND GASLIGHTING. It’s just plain gross!
    Sponsors, Withdraw this proposal or accept Mike H. and Juan’s ammendements
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-26 09:19:05 -0400
    I concur with Jamie and stand with Mike Heichman, Juan Sanchez and Jamie Guerin.
    Withdraw the proposal or accept Mike H.‘s amendments with Juan S.’s wording.
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-26 09:10:53 -0400
    Not to mention that identity caucuses are who we are supposed to consult about their own issues. That’s their point. Here we have the Lavender (LGBTQ+) Caucus standing with the Women’s Caucus, the Youth Caucus, and the Diversity Caucuses (and 17 state parties and locals)
    And the GRP , in a couple memners perceived superiority, wants stand against them ALL and be the only entity besides the DNE ,which is an entity OUTSIDE of the GP consisting of people from other parties, countries and other groups 65 being “anonymous supporters” (how non transparent and unsafe is that?), to align with GAGP’s anti-trans ideology and bigotry
    Embarrassing!
    This ideological takeover must be stopped!
    Withdraw this proposal or accept Mike Heichman"s amendments with Juan Sanchez’s wording.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-26 09:04:16 -0400
    & YES, my last comment could be interpreted as “vitriol” & “hyperbolic” BUT Matt, if that is how you or anyone else interprets my comment, you argument would have to be as well…
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-26 08:57:24 -0400
    Matt,
    What kind of mental gymnastics are you performing to get to an argument like this one?

    “How would we feel if the situation were reversed and the GAGP demanded the GRP make changes to its platform to remain in the GPUS? What if 48 other states did the same thing? As an association of state parties there’s no mechanism for meddling in another state’s platform, and that’s probably a good thing for our sanity. Let’s not try it. The GAGP is accountable to GA Greens, not us, and not the Lavender Caucus.”

    If the GPUS and 48 other states were demanding we change our platform to include anti-trans or ANY exclusionary IDEOLOGICAL differences, I would be the first one to submit a request to statecom to disaffiliate ourselves from the GPUS.

    Then I would start planning to leave the US all together because when the GPUS has been TAKEN OVER IDEOLOGICALLY, I know the time to stand & fight is over & it is time to run & hide…
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-26 07:45:09 -0400
    I don’t understand why telling people that hate has no home in the GRP makes them feel like they are being purged.

    If the case was reversed and we did what Georgia GP did I would be the first to condemn the GRP and ask for change fyi because we are supposed to hold the party accountable to its values.

    Decentralization doesn’t mean we get to pick and choose which one of the 10 key values we choose to.acknowledge. it doesn’t mean we can take a stance that clearly goes against what the GP stands for. In reading the lavender caucus complaint it is very clear as to what the process was and how we ended up at the point of disaccredidation.

    Discussions, Investigations, mediations, etc have all occurred and so have the votes 20 yes to move forward with the complaints and 20 votes yes 2 days ago to agree to the rules to send to SC.

    Multiple times it was offered to our delegates to offer amendments to give accreditation committee more options and that was not done which in my opinion is a disservice.

    Also in speaking with national delegates throughout the country it has been made clear to me that we are the only state party entertaining this. We are the only state party who seems to be confused as to what the GP stands for and theyve expressed how it’s no surprise as per national delegates from.other states 2 of our delegates have been on the side of Georgia not only on the disaccredidation issue but have aligned themselves with Georgia’s stances.

    It’s crazy to me to talk about unity when I had to defend my sex life, whether or not I believe women are I ndanger in locker rooms, whether or not I stand with women, and the list goes on.

    You can think critically about whatever you want Matt No one is stopping you from.thibkibg and researching whatever you want but I will make clear and tell you that I thibk you’re wrong and that your critical thinking and feelings on this issue along with those of others is causing the party so much harm.

    Again I will say if you thibk me saying hate has no home here is a bad thing or trying to silence people maybe you should look internally and ask yourself why?

    “We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” ~ Robert Jones Jr.

    That is where we find ourselves here. Is critical thinking/discussion which leads to oppression and denial of humanity and right to exist worth alienating our brothers and sisters? We are a political party not a college philosophy class where everyone’s deep thoughts about every topic needs to be discussed especially when it’s as divisive as this.

    Georgia GPS actions is what created this issue, Matt. Everything that has happened since is in direct correlation to that. It’s not the calls of leaving that have caused this issue, it’s Georgia’s stance and the GRPs entertaining of that stance that has gotten us to this point..
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-26 07:36:23 -0400
    Nice try, Matt. However what we have been saying all along still holds true. We had this “discussion” in the green party 11 years ago and concluded thats our party supports full human rights for trans people and support gender identity as a protected status. We also had this conversation and reaffirmed this again in 2018 in the GRP. I will refer you once again to your very own statement for YES ON 3 in this very website. 2018 was also the year the Socialist Party secretary states that David Keil “resigned from their party before he could be recalled” for anti-trans ideology that he constantly pushed upon that party which destroyed his local that to this day has not yet been re-built. Weren’t you also in that party around that time with him? In His local? You know I have and save receipts. David’s fear of being “purged” is now taking up all the air in the room. He has convinced by deception and manipulattion multiple people that a conspiracy is happening to purge bigots. All this nonsense for his irrational fear of something he is forcing and bringing upon himself. The narrative y’all is pushing is inaccurate. This is not a conspiracy of a purge. There is a IDEOLOGICAL TAKEOVER attempting to completely change who we are! You don’t want a discussion. That discussion already happened like I already said and it has been happening for the past 16 months pertaining to GAGP specifically. There is no discsuion. We just go round and round at this point. You don’t want dialogue, You want to wear us down and verbally beat us into submission until we Accept anti-trans ideology into the green party and into the GRP. Stop this wrecker business! Call for David Keil to resign. Accept Mike Heichman and Juan Sanchez’s ammedments, which finds a way for the GRP to do what you want and stand by GAGP or Withdraw this proposal and resign yourself. The pioneer valley chapter has made it very clear that we don’t want to be a part of a party that accepts the anti-trans ideology that you and the DNE campaign are pushing . We reserve the right to not be a part of this party should this proposal pass as is.
    Amend, withdraw, resign! (Do you like that slogan?l
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-26 07:26:07 -0400
    Thanks for the suggestions Bigmike. I will bring your suggestions to the attention of the other sponsors.
  • Matthew Andrews
    commented 2021-03-26 07:06:35 -0400
    How would we feel if the situation were reversed and the GAGP demanded the GRP make changes to its platform to remain in the GPUS? What if 48 other states did the same thing? As an association of state parties there’s no mechanism for meddling in another state’s platform, and that’s probably a good thing for our sanity. Let’s not try it. The GAGP is accountable to GA Greens, not us, and not the Lavender Caucus.
    Mike Heichman’s proposal sends us directly into a discussion about the politics of sex and gender based rights. I thought opponents of our motion opposed having that conversation? I think it’s necessary to postpone that conversation until we re-affirm our commitment to civil dialogue and organizational unity. How can I freely express my opinions when others are being asked to resign from the party for their past remarks? How can I freely express my opinions while some are calling for GAGP to be dis-accredited?
    Assigning blame and making ultimatums is what created this crisis. My hope is that dialog will show that both sides have valid concerns and reveal we actually agree 95% and can work together on that basis.
    I am happy to consider amendments that improve our motion and help us win more votes from State Committee members. I hope we can also satisfy others who have been active in the GRP, but I’m not going to line up behind purges, or hand my right to think critically about these issues over to the Lavender Caucus.
    Our proposal is already simple and modest. It does not take a position on the GAGP platform. At the moment it looks like our proposal has majority support. The adoption of this proposal doesn’t exclude the possibility of adopting other proposals on the matter.
  • Thomas Grzybowski
    commented 2021-03-25 23:02:54 -0400
    I also support the sponsors withdrawing this proposal. Alternately, I will accept the amendment which Mike Heichman proposed together with the language that Juan Sanchez suggested. I remain fully in alignment with the national Green Party US ruling on this matter.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-25 21:57:49 -0400
    Jamie and Juan,

    Thanks for your comments and support. I urge that those who oppose the current statecom proposal come together and come up with an agreed counter proposal. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there would be an agreement before 4/01.

    Mike H
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-25 21:53:29 -0400
    Responses to David from Mike Heichman

    David, you wrote,

    1." I’m afraid that Mike appears to be proposing to support the expulsion of the Georgia party if it fails immediately to meet the demands already made a year ago that it change its platform. "

    The last couple of years, outside of the GBC, I have talked and worked with you more than anyone else in the party. We talked earlier today just before I submitted my “compromise” proposal. I said that you were present when I spoke at both of Maha’s meetings and have read everything that I have written about this controversy. We both know that I have never said or written anything that said that I have or do favor the suspension of Georgia. To be clear I have also never expressed an opinion that Georgia should not be suspended. That is my current position.

    2. You wrote—My comments below are in CAPITALS.

    “Our problem in the GRP is that there are two groups with different perceptions:

    1. The group making the StateCom proposal sincerely considers the expulsion proposal to be the launching of a purge in which all state parties and members of the GPUS who have views deemed “transphobic” will be expelled; hence the expulsion of Georgia would in that view lead to the end of grassroots democracy in the entire GPUS, including the GRP."

    ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR ALL OF THE SPONSORS OF THIS GROUP? I THINK THAT “the laughing of a purge” THIS IS NONSENSE.

    2. A group opposed to the StateCom proposal sincerely considers it to be a motion to uphold the positions of the Georgia GP, whose positions it views as transphobic and intolerable for any state party or member; hence in that view the adoption of the StateCom proposal would convert the GRP into a transphobic group.

    I DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO READ THE MINDS OF ANYONE OR EVERYONE IN THIS GROUP. MY POSITION IS THAT I WOULD RATHER THAT THE SPONSORS OF THIS PROPOSAL WITHDRAW IT, WHICH I HOPE WOULD LEAD TO MORE PRODUCTIVE ENERGIES AND COLLECTIVE WORK.

    HOWEVER, I DO NOTE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL DOES SUPPORT GEORGIA’S POSITION. IT’S LIKE BEING OPPOSED TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND BEING SILENT AND IGNORING THE CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

    I BELIEVE THAT MY PROPOSAL IS A COMPROMISE. IN EXCHANGE FOR BLAMING GEORGIA FOR THIS NATIONAL GPUS CONTROVERSY AND CALLING FOR THEM TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION, THE BALL WOULD BE SENT BACK TO GEORGIA, WHERE IT BELONGS, AND IF IT TOOK POSITIVE ACTION, THE GRP WOULD GO ON RECORD OPPOSING EXPULSION, WHJICH IS WHAT YOU WANT.

    Mike H
  • Jamie Guerin
    commented 2021-03-25 20:40:03 -0400
    I support the sponsors withdrawing this proposal. However, if they choose not to despite the multiple requests and the overwhelming display of lack of support for this proposal, I will accept and support the amendment Mike Heichman proposed with the language that Juan Sanchez suggested.
    I, Along with a whole lot of other people, would also support a future proposal that gives the Accreditation Committee more options to work with , as was suggested that David Keil draft up propose several months ago if his concern was actually the disaccredidarion of state parties be they active parties, or paper parties that have been compromised in some way.
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-25 20:32:15 -0400
    I’m afraid that Mike appears to be proposing to support the expulsion of the Georgia party if it fails immediately to meet the demands already made a year ago that it change its platform. Or is this a proposal to advocate withdrawal of the complaint against the GaGP so as to allow more time for negotiation?

    Our problem in the GRP is that there are two groups with different perceptions:

    1. The group making the StateCom proposal sincerely considers the expulsion proposal to be the launching of a purge in which all state parties and members of the GPUS who have views deemed “transphobic” will be expelled; hence the expulsion of Georgia would in that view lead to the end of grassroots democracy in the entire GPUS, including the GRP.

    2. A group opposed to the StateCom proposal sincerely considers it to be a motion to uphold the positions of the Georgia GP, whose positions it views as transphobic and intolerable for any state party or member; hence in that view the adoption of the StateCom proposal would convert the GRP into a transphobic group.

    Exiting this crisis would require that we find some common ground that would allow us to overcome these conflicting sincere perceptions and find ways to work together. Those not in the above two groups would need to step in and find ways to address the concerns of both groups.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-25 19:42:00 -0400
    Mike Thank you so much for taking time to put this together.

    My suggestions for steps that would fix this situation is that Georgia GP remove hr3 and hr 4 from their platforms and remove their name from signing The women’s declaration on sex based rights. This would allow me at least to feel comfortable with standing with them against deaccredidation. We can then move from this and have a real dialogue on disaccredidation and what that looks like and how we as a party can help strengthen that internally and to help National come up with ideas.
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-25 18:05:13 -0400
    Comrades,

    I have been advocating for the cosponsors to withdraw this proposal because it has been damaging to our state party. It has made it difficult for many of us to contribute to our party and move it in a positive direction.

    I am fearful that what I’m going to say and propose next. I do not want to add to the agony and division. However, I believe that it is possible that a compromise proposal might work. Maybe both sides can get something positive that they would like and hold their nose about the other part of the proposal.

    I’m not going to come up with the exact language. There are members of this party that can do a much better job than me.

    1. I believe that a major goal of the co-sponsors of the statecom proposal is for our party to go on record opposing the expulsion of Georgia.
    2. I believe that many members of our party are furious with the Georgia State Party and the damage that they have already done to our national and our state party. In my 1-1 discussions with some of those who don’t want Georgia expelled, no one has said that Georgia does not deserve some blame.

    Therefore…

    1. The GRP condemns (or another synonym—castigates, censures, denounces) the Georgia State Party for actions harmful to our national party (GPUS) and our own state party.
    2. We call on the Georgia State Party to take the following steps:

    (Other members add the steps that Georgia should take to avoid hostile action.)

    3. If Georgia will take these appropriate steps, the GRP will go on record and request that Georgia not be expelled from the GPUS.

    I pray that this proposal will be helpful.

    Love,

    Mike Heichman
  • David Keil
    commented 2021-03-25 14:06:59 -0400
    A quick response to Mike Heichman. My understanding is that some members are considering compromises that would change the wording of the proposal we are discussing here. Mike V. has suggested friendly amendments that are helpful. I know that those proposing the motion will consider adding or deleting text, within the overall goal of accepting that members have diverse views and insisting that members not be expelled for ideological differences.

    Mike H. also suggests taking a break from discussing the controversial, divisive issues of sex and gender. I agree with that. We have had plenty of discussion of it in two Green Round Tables and on this discussion page. There is no proposal for StateCom to take positions on sex and gender. That seems wise at this time, so that we can take a break.

    We are all tired and perhaps many are even disgusted with others. It is not a good time for members or chapters to leave the GRP or for anyone to encourage it. Let’s remember that we’ve got work to do, everyone joined for good reasons, and in the kind of situation we’re in, our positive features aren’t always on display.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
  • Michael Heichman
    commented 2021-03-25 12:57:23 -0400
    I am a founding member of our party. For a number of reasons, including this uncivil discussion, I am 98% out of the door as an active member of our party. I’m an active member of the Boston Education Justice Alliance and the Boston May Day Coalition and working with my other comrades, doing important work. Outside of requesting that Adcom endorse the May 1st BMDC event and selecting a speaker and attending Maha’s discussions, I’m no longer an active member of my party.

    It looks like I won’t be the last person out of the room and shuts out the lights.

    David, I have previously participated in the discussions, including a number of 1 on 1 conversations with you. In our recent conversation, I encouraged you to discuss with your co-sponsors and take a step toward compromise. Instead of moving in this direction, more fuel is being sprayed on the fire.

    Yes, you and your co-spoonsors are clear. You don’t want Georgia to be expelled from the GPUS. And you want more discussion. I have to ask, discussion where and for what purpose? I am not active with the GPUS—maybe it would be productive for our national party. I doubt it. A daily enema might be more helpful.

    Continued discussion for our state party has been very harmful. A daily enema would be more productive. As for me, I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of being engaged in this shit!

    Personally, I have been harmed. My attempts to get assistance from the state party over the Corona Virus has been unsuccessful. I will continue my boycott of GBC meetings. I have no faith that Adcom has the psychic space to play a positive role. I had attempted with success to persuade ComCom to make a proposal which would attempt to engage our general membership to support the political direction of our party as spelled out by the Feb. 2021 StateCom meeting. There was not enough support for this proposal at the previous meeting of Adcom and I don’t believe that it will be on tomorrow night’s agenda.

    Of course it’s not on the agenda. It’s a positive proposal to engage our membership. Who in our leadership has the energy and space for this. Instead, we choose to engage in this shit.

    In the words of the great African-American philosopher, Rodney King, “Why can’t we get along?”

    Every time I read this discussion. Every time I participate in this discussion. My faith that my party will survive this uncivil war gets smaller.

    I repeat my post from just a few hours ago:

    Michael Heichman commented 4 hours ago · Flag
    3/25/21

    I wonder how much this controversy has slowed down the positive energy and work of our party.
    I wonder how much this controversy has moved us into 2 warring camps at the expense of deepening our comradely spirit.
    I wonder how many of us will believe that this controversy was worth it when there is no light and life left in our party.
    I wonder how much love and respect still lives in our party.
    Sisters, Brothers, Siblings, I repeat my request that the sponsors of this proposal withdraw it before the upcoming statecom meeting.
    I wonder how many of you are looking forward with positive anticipation the upcoming 3 statecom meetings starting on 4/01-April Fools Day!
    Please withdraw this proposal. Please stop this uncivil war.
    Love,
    Mike H
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-25 11:44:02 -0400
    Also to try and peg People into certain camps such as what Mr. Keil did with Mike H below is what’s divisive. Those who stand against your order are saying that hate has no home here including several women. I want to stand for Mike H as he is someone who has dedicated years of his time knowledge and passions to the GRP and is truly worried about the repercussions of entertaining this discussion. No one can question Mike Hs dedication to the GRP. To try and twist it into where he may stand on the issue as opposed to what he said is quite the word spnning however it seems a pattern of people trying to read in between lines or read in more into what people have said repeatedly and I believe has been made clear.

    I know some ppl like to write things while leaving out details or to put a twist that will benefit their cause but I ask all of the GRP members to look at Mike Hs questions and genuinely answer them as they are important or my questions or JamiezElizabeth’s and everyone else’s questions you’ve consistently evaded.which would bring a lot more clarity for everyone because the constant back and forth instead of being honest about your motives is disrespectful to all of us.
  • Juan Gabriel Sanchez-Sanchez
    commented 2021-03-25 11:05:04 -0400
    Yes their are certain beliefs and ideologies that aren’t welcome in the GRP. If I was racist, I wouldn’t be welcome or if I was a white supremacist I wouldn’t be welcome.

    I’m glad that message us becoming clearer and clearer to you David Hate has no home In the GRP if that makes you feel unwelcome or unwanted or qe are trying to “Purge” you for your hateful views then by all means sit with it own it and feel it because that is the point that I’m trying to get across.

    If you chose to not express hateful views we wouldn’t be here. If you abd others who put up this proposal actually cared about the party you would withdraw this proposal. By your admission below your anti trans crusade has been going on for years and you’re using the issue of disaccredidation to try and grow that garden here.

    I for one do not welcome it. I am only speaking for myself.
  • Elizabeth Humphrey
    commented 2021-03-25 10:53:16 -0400
    Matt, thank for your many “Mansplanations” of this issue you make clear I know nothing about. hmmm…
    But since you so kindly point out from your superior experience and intellect, what you think I should be doing – quote from you comment directed to me personally below:

    “If you think your interpretation of the 10 Key Values has majority support, use it to carry out the activism you want to see”

    I point out to you, that by my comments here and doing the research into this well known “wedge issue” of trans-rights that has been inserted into leftist orgs and groups all over the US & abroad; I am doing exactly that which you so kindly “schooled” me to do…