The Green Party is a sinister mob. Take it from me, a former deputy leader
I should know. In 2024, I won a landmark gender critical protected belief discrimination case against the Party, the first of its kind in politics, after I was unlawfully removed as front bench spokesperson for justice.
But let's start with the positives. It's true the Green Party has made progress in recent years. When I served as deputy leader, we managed to get 1 million votes in the 2015 general election. In 2024, under today's leadership, we achieved nearly 2 million votes and quadrupled our number of MPs to four. Year on year, we've increased our councillor share, too.
Yet these gains have been snail's pace compared to the seismic shifts in political landscape precipitated by the Farage machine. On Brexit, we lost the argument and the referendum. Devoid of either introspection or serious analysis, our then leaders resorted to writing off 52 per cent of the electorate as xenophobic or easily duped. Last week, Reform gained control of ten councils, dwarfing our own electoral achievements.
Not content with marginalising 52 per cent of voters, Green politicians have sought to alienate another 51 per cent. That's the logical consequence of a political movement which resorts to identitarian flag-waving and is in thrall to queer theory luxury beliefs. In the days following the Supreme Court judgment, the Green Party leadership demonstrated utter contempt for the rights and protections of women and girls.
On BBC's Any Questions, parliamentarian Siân Berry – who prides herself with having a science background – described sex in humans as 'not entirely binary'. On BBC Radio 4's Today, Co-Leader Adrian Ramsay refused to answer Nick Robinson's direct question, 'Are Transwomen Women?' four times. The view that trans women are women has been the policy of the Greens since 2016. It offers up a Stonewall campaign slogan as a literal truth, and conflates sex and gender identity. For his refusal to pronounce this holy dogma, officers of the Young Greens rewarded him with calls for his resignation.
The trio of car-crash interviews was completed by Carla Denyer who, following an appearance on BBC Sunday with Laura Kuennsberg, went viral for all the wrong reasons. She claimed that 'non-trans lesbian women' would be prohibited by the ruling from allowing 'trans lesbians', i.e. men, into their spaces.
There is no such thing as a male lesbian, and a space set up for same-sex attracted women is not for men. These rights for women are protected under the Equality Act.
The trouble with Denyer's resignation is it leaves the door open for an even more fanatical successor. With Carla, perhaps especially when she was on the ropes in an interview, you could still tell what she was thinking. For good or ill, that transparency helped electors decide, while others in the party feel they can get away with avoiding tough interviews or concealing what they really think.
Denyer's Deputy, Zack Polanski, who reportedly once set himself up as a hypnotherapist for breast enlargement, has recently launched his campaign to be Leader. I would challenge him on how a party can remain credible for telling the truth on climate science but continue to tell lies about what constitutes a biological woman. The Party is so negligent about equality law, they've retained gender self-identification as a criterion for eligibility to satisfy quotas for the leadership contest
I've long advocated for speaking and engaging with electors and politicians with whom we may strongly disagree. I regard it as fundamental to democratic politics that we should seek to persuade those not already won over to our policy proposals. The opposite betrays a deeply cynical approach to human beings, in which we have nothing to learn, even from those whom we would presume to govern. Government without consent descends into totalitarianism.
Not content to find themselves on the wrong side of a claim for unlawful discrimination against me, the Green Party is looking at a second lawsuit. I currently find myself excluded by the Green Party following a series of complaints all premised on my belief that sex is real.
Greens who share my temperament have been kicked out of the Party. Currently in exile, we may be disqualified from standing for leadership, but we do retain our resolve for a better kind of politics. The Green Party only claims to do politics differently. By God, they do, but not in a good way.
Shahrar Ali was Deputy Leader of the Green Party 2014-16 and a candidate for Leader in 2021 standing on a strongly gender critical platform. @ShahrarAli
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
14 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Kim Davis End Of Same-Sex Marriage Jokes
The internet is collectively roasting Kim Davis. A little context: Kim was the Kentucky county clerk who made headlines for refusing to give marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015. The courts ordered her to cut the crap, but she refused, citing her Christian faith, and was thrown in jail. Memes and jokes abounded, and it become a whole thing. She was even mocked by SNL in a parody film trailer called God Is a Boob Man. So, why is Kim trending again? Well, a decade after making a fool of herself in front of the whole country, she's back for more. According to ABC News, she's appealing the jury verdict that ordered her to pay $100,000 for emotional damages and $260,000 for attorneys' fees. Additionally, Kim argues that the First Amendment — which protects the right to practice your religion — means she shouldn't face any consequences for denying those marriage licenses back in 2015. Furthermore, she wants the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision overturned and called it "egregiously wrong." In the fall, the Supreme Court justices will privately choose which cases to take on, and they'll review Kim's case at that time, per ABC News. That's already a lot, but the internet is really coming so hard for Kim because of her personal marital history. Naturally, people had a lot to say about all this: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. And finally: Note: The photo of Kim in the original tweet was replaced here due to photo rights. What do you think about all this? LMK in the comments below!
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Federal judge blocks Trump administration's broad birth control mandate exemptions
The Trump administration's religious and moral carve-outs to an ObamaCare requirement that all employer health plans cover contraception at no cost were blocked on Wednesday by a federal judge. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in Philadelphia issued a summary judgment that the rules were arbitrary, capricious and an overreach of the authority of the agencies that wrote them in 2017. Under the rules, essentially any for-profit or nonprofit employer or insurer was allowed to exempt themselves from following the birth control mandate on moral and religious grounds. The rules also let publicly traded companies obtain a religious exemption, but not a moral one. The Affordable Care Act required employer health plans to cover at least one of 18 forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Religious groups and employers sued, and the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled 5-4 that the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights of closely held corporations whose owners had religious objections. Subsequent agency actions tried to find a balance, but the Trump administration in 2017 issued a blanket exemption. The rules didn't require employers to apply for an exemption because the administration said that would be a violation of their religious rights. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and dozens of other states sued to halt that broad expansion of exemptions and accommodations. That lawsuit reached the Supreme Court in 2020, where the justices upheld the Trump rules on technical grounds but did not address the underlying merits of the case. The case was sent back to the lower court, where a religious group, Little Sisters of the Poor, joined the lawsuit alongside the federal government in asking for summary judgment. Beetlestone, an appointee of former President Obama, wrote that the Trump administration's religious rule did not accomplish what the agencies purportedly wrote it to do, which was to resolve a conflict between the contraceptive mandate and RFRA. But the rule exemptions to organizations that are 'unlikely, if ever, to be capable of maintaining a religious objection, raising further doubts as to any 'rational connection' between the Rule and remedying potential conflicts with RFRA,' Beetlestone wrote. The Little Sisters of the Poor will appeal the ruling in the coming weeks, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit that represents the order.
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Number of LGBTQ+ Wanting Children Goes Up: Survey
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center polled LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ individuals about their marriage and family aspirations. Newsweek compared this data from 2025 to data from a 2013 Pew Research Center study to reveal how marriage and family aspirations have changed for the LGBTQ community. Why It Matters There are currently widespread concerns over Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case which guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, potentially being overturned in the U.S. Crowds watch outside of Stonewall National Monument as people take part in the 2025 NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025 in New York City. Crowds watch outside of Stonewall National Monument as people take part in the 2025 NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025 in New York like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisit the case as the court has shifted to the right. This shift on cultural issues was defined by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the courts were to overturn same-sex marriage nationwide, the issue would likely return to the states. The data from the Pew Research Center comes as countries all over the world face declining birth rates. In the U.S., the fertility rate (the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime) is now projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast. This is below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. What To Know The recent Pew Research Center poll, published in August of this year, polled both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ adults. The poll found that 59 percent of adults under 50 who had never been married say that they want to get married someday. A third of LGBTQ adults under 50 who do not have children said they wanted children someday. This figure was higher among non-LGBTQ people, 47 percent of whom wanted children. The number of LGBTQ adults wanting children has risen, though, compared to the Pew Research Center's 2013 study. That study found that about three-in-ten (28 percent) of these LGBT respondents say they would like to have children someday. 2025's data represents a 5 percent increase. The 2013 study also polled individuals on marriage desires, but used different criteria. It found that a total of 60 percent of LGBT respondents were either married or intended to marry one day. Newsweek spoke to experts about this data and what it represents. Dr. Garry J. Gates, an expert on geography and demography of the LGBT population who co-authored The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, told Newsweek over email, "Unlike marriage more generally, child-rearing for LGBTQ people can often be more complex and expensive than child-rearing among their non-LGBTQ counterparts. Same-gender couples who want to parent likely face expenses associated with adoption, surrogacy, and reproductive technologies that many different-gender couples don't encounter. "Surveys suggest that increases in the age of first marriage in the US are often associated with a desire for greater economic certainty before committing to marriage. So it's clear that economic factors affect the timing & possibly the desire for marriage among many. It's not surprising then to find that economic constraints associated with child-rearing for LGBTQ people could result in a lower desire to have children," Gates said. Newsweek also spoke with Abbie Goldberg, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Clark University. "I'm actually not that surprised," she said of the findings. "Is the expectation that marriage would become more attractive over time? If so, I don't know that this is true, or why it would be true; LGBTQ+ Americans who were critical of marriage as an institution in 2015 might remain so." "The key feature—consistent in the Pew data—that seems to drive marriage is the desire to be a parent. If we don't see steeply rising rates of LGBTQ+ folks who want to be parents, then perhaps we also won't see similar rises in marriage aspirations," Goldberg said. Pointing to the factors influencing attitudes among LGBTQ+ people toward marriage and childbearing, Goldberg said "Compared with older generations, LGBTQI+ Gen Z report more mental health issues, including feelings of hopelessness and anxiety, which arise from a variety of sources including rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and attacks on their rights, financial and housing instability, employment uncertainties, climate change, and lack of access to affirming health/mental health services." What People Are Saying Dr. Garry J. Gates, an expert on geography and demography of the LGBT population who co-authored The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, told Newsweek over email: "These findings suggest that views on marriage are becoming less associated with sexual orientation or gender identity. In short, marriage equality worked. In the case of child-rearing, very specific economic constraints that are more prevalent in LGBTQ populations likely play a large part in observed differences in the desire to have children. Abbie Goldberg, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Clark University told Newsweek over email: "Much of my research suggests that marriage is attractive to LGBTQ+ people in part because they wish to protect current or future children. Beyond that, we see the typical reasons: desire for legal protections, love and companionship, and societal acceptance/symbolic value. Perhaps, as some of my recent data suggest, LGBTQ+ Americans right now are more fearful than ever that the right to marry could be taken away—and, if they are leaning toward marriage mainly for the legal protections, the fear that they could lose those protections could be a partial disincentive to hold back." What's Next There are ongoing concerns over the Supreme Court moving to overturn gay marriage. It currently faces a choice about whether to take a case, filed by the former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Supreme Court may decide whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months, but it has not indicated which way it is leaning.
