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
Those opposed to this proposal are not demanding that all green party members think the same or have the same opinions personally and individually. We are disagreeing that differences of values and aspects of the platform should be acceptable without first applying a democratic process to decide if all state parties agree to be associated with those differences as members of a national federation of state parties.
An example of why we are opposed to this proposals affirmation:
Members or even an entire state party BELIEVING in some aspects of the Democratic Party Platform &/or DNC values is not the same thing as giving a GP platform to those DNC differences rendering the GPUS no different than the DNC.
How could we call our party anything different than the DNC or continue to keep the trust of our membership and constituents’ trust in our candidates not to flip flop or compromise our values which we proclaim and promise to be different from either of the two major party duopoly or from all the parties on the US political stage for that matter?
We are walking a dangerous path if we compromise party platform and values that were constructed by democratic process by all the state parties participation, based on one member’s or one state’s differences of ideology in a federation of multiple state parties. One compromise leads to another, ultimately leading to no value that can not be compromised based on this argument of manipulating the meaning of free speech and decentralization and use of semantics.
Let me ask what exactly does this mean written in this proposal?
“The Green-Rainbow Party affirms the right of its members and members of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall ”
What is the definition of “overall” in this statement that the sponsors hold as true?
Does “overall” mean 9 out of 10 or 6 out of 10 key values, etc..?
Does it mean aspects equaling over 50% of the aspects of the GPUS platform?
What are the values we will not be held accountable for abandoning and what 50% of the aspects of the platform will we amend on our platform or be OK with on other GP state party platform amendments?
And with what other aspects will we be affirming it is OK to amend state platforms with?
Where are those aspects different from GPUS coming from, the DNC, the Libertarians, Republicans or maybe just ideological organizations such as religious orgs?
Because all those parties and organizations have different aspects to GPUS platforms and values. Which aspects and sources are OK to compromise on and which aspects and sources are NOT OK to compromise on?
Affirming to accept any differences of platform and ideology; broad sweeping, un-named,and based on the vast possibilities of individual member &/or state differences of ideology with no consequences to affiliation with the GPUS would mean we affirm the GPUS should be rendered powerless in what values and aspects of platform it is affiliated with, which in turn renders all other state parties powerless in our association to that one member or state party’s ideology and platform.
Then why do we even have a GPUS? Some might say that even having a national party is a centralized party.
Why not just have separate state parties, using the same name, fending for themselves with their separate ideology and platforms; free from responsibilities to other state parties’ democratic input of what the GP should be and stand for, also rendering the state parties paralyzed to run a GP candidate for POTUS on the national political stage.
Why not? Because that would be ridiculous.
A democratically run, decentralized organization that upholds freedom of speech and thought, does not mean it must be an organization absent of democratically agreed upon responsibilities to be a part of that organization.
There is a stampede to purge the Green Party of dissent on sex and gender issues. This stampede is evident in the discussion of the current proposal, which argues for coexistence rather than taking sides between the Georgia party’s positions and those who criticize them.
The stampede to purge the Green Party US is beginning to swamp democratic discussion in the Green-Rainbow Party.
It is true, as Maha Visnu Gray says, that “productive and educational discussions on difficult but critical subject matters will not take place within Green Party spaces.” As an example of Green Party spaces, this discussion thread has been dominated by name calling and demands that there be no discussion or dissent.
Mike predicts, “you will lose big time.” We’ll see. Indeed, a “big time” defeat for this proposal would tell everyone that the GRP is not a place where members can voice their ideas about sex and gender freely.
It is fair to ask if a purge of the GRP is being prepared, perhaps unwittingly. Are those resisting it being asked to cooperate with their own silencing?
The results of the vote on this StateCom proposal will tell us for how long dissent will be tolerated in the GRP.
MAHA VISNU GRAY
(Tuesday, March 16, 2021)
At the conclusion of my two-part Green Round Table yesterday (Monday, March 15, 2021) a number of things became clear to me:
1) I know little about LGBTQIA+ and Women’s issues and must immediately rectify this.
2) I must proactively expand and develop the GRT, as productive and educational discussions on difficult but critical subject matters will not take place within Green Party spaces.
3) The DNE document, which I signed, is deeply flawed (as I now understand it), and I must not only immediately work to remove my signature from that document but craft a statement of my own that is true to my personal beliefs.
While my education on LGBTQIA+ and Women’s issues will continue unabated and in earnest the principles outlined in this statement I hold as my own. As a lifelong student, teacher and proponent of Vaisnava philosophy these principles have always been a natural expression of my belief system.
To avoid making the same error I did with the DNE document, I carefully perused the relevant principles of the Green Party platform to ensure they reflected and represented my true and core beliefs. Taken directly, word for word, from our Green Party platform these principles are an accurate statement of beliefs I’ve always held.
Civil Rights and Equal Rights
One of our key values is respect for diversity. We are committed to establishing relationships that honor diversity; that support the self-definition and self-determination of all people; that consciously confront the barriers of racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, class oppression, ageism, and ableism, and the many ways that our culture and laws separate us from working together. We support affirmative action to remedy discrimination, to protect constitutional rights, and to provide equal opportunity under the law.
- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
In keeping with the Green Key Values of diversity, social justice and feminism, we support full legal and political equality for all persons regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity, characteristics, and expression.
1. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity.
2. The Green Party recognizes the full civil rights of sexual and gender minorities. The existing civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. We will work to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the existing civil rights act.
3. The Green Party will be inclusive of language in local, state and federal anti- discrimination law that ensures the rights of intersex individuals and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, characteristics, and expression as well as on sex, gender, or sexual orientation. We are opposed to non-consenting intersex genital surgery.
4. The Green Party affirms the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex. We affirm the right of choosing non-binary and gender fluid identification. We therefore support the right of individuals to be free from coercion and involuntary assignment of gender or sex.
5. We will pursue legislation where offenders must pay compensation to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA) people who have suffered violence and injustice.
6. The Green Party will end all Federal military aid to national governments whose laws result in the death, other harm, or imprisonment of its citizens and residents who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA).
7. The Green Party will enact a policy that the U. S. Government recognize all same sex marriages or legal equivalents such as civil unions, in processing visitor and immigration visas.
8. The Green Party would end security surveillance and covert infiltration of organizations that promote rights for sexual and gender minorities.
I believe and stand for the principle that all civil and human rights should be available to all human beings, everywhere and for all time. I have no issue recognizing/calling a transgender woman a woman, if that person identifies as such; and particularly if that identity, in itself, doesn’t infringe upon, deny or abridge the rights of any other person.
I believe and stand for the principle that when and where the civil and human rights, of any person, are being infringed upon, denied or abridged, by any other person, then and there immediate redress and rectification must be made.
I believe and stand for the dual principle of Sva-bhava (to know one’s own unique and innate nature) and Sva-karma (the right to live the life and pursue the activities born of that unique and innate nature).
I believe and live by the principle of Ksatriya-dharma (the leader’s duty to ensure all living beings have the space, opportunities and safety to live their Sva-bhava and Sva-karma).
These are the principles I have always believed and for which I will always stand.
Maha Visnu Gray
Co-chair, GRP Massachusetts
I have my own beliefs and opinions. I have stated some of them at the two meetings that Maha had sponsored. The proposal calls for discussion rather than dis-accreditation. There are other choices. I believe that there is minimal support for this proposal. If it goes forward, it will overwhelmingly be defeated. We have discussed this national issue which has brought tremendous pain and suffering to many members of our party. I don’t think that there is anything important to add to this discussion. I don’t believe that hearts and minds will change. The sponsors of this proposal have the power to continue this discussion and keep the proposal. The pain will continue. Pursuing our positive party work will continue to suffer. Your upcoming statecom will be infected. ( I’m so happy that I decided not to be on StateCom.) Are you looking forward to the next statecom meeting? If this proposal is discussed, it will continue to be painful. And you will loose big time.
OR….The sponsors of this proposal have the power to withdraw this proposal. Pain will subside. Relationships will improve. There will be more time and energy working on essential and important party work.
I worry about the viability of our party.
I respectfully request that you withdraw this proposal.
We are not Georgia, We are the Mass GRP leaders in the Green party movement. Our members have been candidates for president, Vice President, statewide/local positions and have held all kinds of titles and positions within the National Green Party.
We have been leaders on a wide variety of issues and years ahead of other parties in our stances thus creating a environment where people like me feel welcome.
As long as we stay true to what our role as a party is, remember our purpose, and continue to renevision how to create a more inclusive left wing party I don’t see Deaccredidation on the table ever.
I’m asking for the GRP to stop discussing this issue. You have your beliefs and have made them clear. I have by beliefs and have made them clear. Others have made their opinions clear. This national controversy has brought much pain to our state party as well as others. I believe that further discussion by our party will bring very little light. Instead it will continue to bring more anger and pain. Please withdraw the proposal and let’s move forward.
“I would encourage putting that energy into our society’s acceptance of all people and respecting all rights (human, animal, and nature). Thank you for the thoughtful responses of Sean, David Kiel, Margaret Elizebeth, Juan, and Jamie (and anyone i forgot).
Thank you for your time. have a good day! peace, Maureen Doyle "
Peace be with you too Maureen
Let’s go to the “wheat” of the debate. Each of the aggrieved parties clarify how their position is most consistent with our 10 Key Values and the opposing perspective in in violation of same. This can hopefully lead to a better understanding of all points of view in relationship to our foundational Values.
Let’s. Remember that the nihilistic forces of our economic and imperialist system continues grinding forward. Closed door, my way or the highway thinking gives THEM comfort and solace.
philadelphian jew (for those who require fixation of personal identity)
weber of GBS
We’re divided by an effort to expel a state party for some of its political positions, and by differences over a motion to StateCom to oppose such expulsions. The motion says that the GRP “affirms the right of its members and members of other state parties to differ with aspects of the Green Party US platform while accepting the platform and Ten Key Values overall.” Why are we even debating this?
Opposition to the motion, centered in one chapter, is vehement. In my opinion, defeat of the motion would place in question the right of members to dissent and would encourage a fracturing that we are seeing nationally and in Massachusetts.
A group in the GRP is so insistent on expulsion for political differences that it has discussed walking out if this unity proposal is adopted. Members have implied that supporters of the motion should be excluded from the GRP. Please re-think this, fellow members! One of our values is grassroots democracy.
The differences over gender and sex are not over whether to solidarize with trans people, but how. The proposal to StateCom is not about sex and gender, but about democracy and unity.
There is concern about transphobia, and also about misogyny and patriarchy. Why not consider more educational sessions with speakers and Q&A? Shall we invite trans people or activists, and radical feminists, from Massachusetts, to meet with us?
I agree with Carole that multiple options are needed for resolving conflicts — not just dis-accreditation. Certainly motions to issue statements disavowing actions of state parties are in order, and indeed that would have been appropriate in cases like Rhode Island and Alaska. Those complaining have chosen to propose expulsion, however.
In response to Lois, I agree that chapters and co-chairs have the democratic right to choose their affiliations. But let’s try to arrive at coexisting in the same party even when some of our ideas are different. How can we avoid shattering and get on with our work as decided at the winter StateCom?
That was a typo. The word is ssupposed to be “mothered”
Should GA do that, this complaint goes away. Should y’all remove this proposal, that does nothing but asks the GRP to align with the anti-trans bigotry of the GAGP, be withdrawn, the faster we can get on with the work we need to do in the GRP in the midst of a society that is on the verge of collapse.
The rest of your talking points are coming from alt right propaganda! No trans woman I know, and this is my community as a pans/ace sexual minority, so I know many trans people in real life and I have smothered one for a while (and by the way the medical info your side is spewing is FALSE and based on pseudo-science. I know a child who had to wait a very long time, and go through rigorous medical evaluations and therapy for years in MASSACHSUETTS before they could even get REVERSIBLE hormone treatments 2 years after becoming a legal adult ), feels uncomfortable about me talking about and naming my body parts or mentioning my period. The transwomen I know don’t even feel any desire to participate in conversations about my periods, not are they trying to bumrush the red tent circles or get you to stop taking about these things. I also know trans people who love the Vagina Monologues. You are generalizing trans people based on unreasonable fear…which is the definition of PHOBIA
You are always welcome to start a private club that does genital and internal exams at the door if that’s what you want. In most cases trans women don’t even want to be in these spaces with you.
The whole transracial argument that you keep bringing up has already been debunked to you on the NC listserv several times as well. That’s not a legit comparison for so many reasons that i would have to write a novella to break it down and it has already been broken down to you.
Are you really tokenizing Jimmy Cooper and saying that the movement for human rights and equality for trans people is a BIG PHARMA creation? Yeah, you are really saying that.
Don’t worry, Linda. I will be here to respond to every single comment that you make even though I have a lot of party building work to do and would rather not be doing this AT ALL. This attack has been introduced on my community by y’all so I have no choice. This is why I ask your small faction to withdraw the proposal, that interestingly enough your name is not on even though you have been one of the major players spearheading this on National with David K. and Hugh forcing transpeople to resign from committees and caucuses. If you want to twist that into smearing and trying to shut you up, by all means. Twist away. I’m here for it.
This conversation and dialogue has been going on for over a year and now we have cisgender, white, straight, men talking about the “tone”. Unbelievable!
It comes down to this: are we going to be a party of intersectional feminism, or not.
If we are not going to be a party of intersectional feminism, I and many others are no longer safe here. If you do not feel safe around intersectional feminism, well please do some soul searching.
Withdraw this proposal so we can get some work done!!!
But I have serious questions about only the legal implications in sports and affirmative action provisions and leadership etc. because I don’t understand and never get an answer about how this differs from transracial people who also self ID.
The black and Latinx community have totally rejected self ID for transracial people who feel exactly the same as transgender people. Most people of color reject self ID for transracial people so what’s the difference? Why don’t they get called bigots and nazis and slurs? Is it because transracial people don’t yet have a powerful movement backed by Big Pharma? I ask and ask and never get an answer. If Rachel Dolezol joins the Green Party is she welcome in the black caucus? She IDs as black. I’m not arguing I’m asking..
There are protections for many medical issues
and procedures for kids. I’m concerned that young people aren’t in a position to make life changing decisions that lead to sterility. Am I a nazis for asking?
Is anyone else concerned like Glen Greenwald that all of a sudden so many kids think their problem might be they are trans instead of typical adolescent angst and problems?
Are we concerned that detransitioners support groups are forming on line to support people who feel they screwed up and made a mistake about transitioning?
Why are trans women uncomfortable with women claiming their right to name our body parts? Why was the vagina monologues shut down by trans activists?
Are the statistics wrong saying 80 percent of young people who think they may be trans outgrow it?
None of these questions in anyway insult or
demean trans people? Any new culture change raises questions and it is not a reason for hysteria and driving comrades out of the party.
I feel that these kind of issues are totally different from the right wing that does hate trans people.
Jimmy Cooper has worked and represented the GA party for years, is trans, and doesn’t think
GA comrades are transphobic. Should he know better than people who don’t work with them every day?
If you want to influence GA these are the kind of answers you need to deal with.
That is if you want to influence anybody or
Just smear them to shut them up.
He showed us exactly what it is that he wants to discuss-Not deaccredidation but the issues surrounding women around gender identity eveb though the GRP jas made its stance clear. If you look at the 10 key values it’s clear where the GP stands.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, all of which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
When you review the women’s declaration on sex rights you can clearly see it breaks this value. It’s purpose is to remove gender identity completely.
RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious, and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have traditionally been closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms and the preservation of biodiversity
Again if you read the women’s declaration on sex rights you will see it violates this value.
I’m here to fight for all women not just biological women and I’m here to support all children and families in whatever decisions they choose are best for their families. If the GRP does not stand for that and this order continues I will run a media campaign exposing the GRP as being anti LGBTQ and a letter to the editor campaign as well so yall have a choice.
If you are worried about de-accredidation why did you not instead propose an amendment to the bylaws giving the AC more options like was suggested to YOUR comrade several months ago? Many people would have supported that. Bevause this isnt about states. Its about interjecting and forcing us to accept tour ideology. Admit it! How’s that slogan for you?
Withdraw this bevause we all have actual work to do