The Green Party is a sinister mob. Take it from me, a former deputy leader
After the resignation of Carla Denyer, the Green Party is facing a leadership contest for which the membership has had their opportunity for genuine debate about its policy platform and electoral priorities artificially restricted. No activist or spokesperson who dares to stand up for the rights and protections of women, girls and children – especially, in the context of a decade of trans rights overreach – will escape the wrath of the totalitarian mob within.
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


UPI
34 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.


The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump signals case against Abrego Garcia will be ‘very easy'
President Trump on Saturday said the Justice Department's (DOJ) latest case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year amid Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration — should be 'very easy' for prosecutors. The comment comes after news broke Friday that Abrego Garcia would return to the U.S. to face smuggling charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Asked about the administration's seeming reversal in bringing the man home, the president gave full credit to DOJ. 'The Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine,' Trump told NBC News in a phone call Saturday, adding, 'that wasn't my decision.' But, he told the outlet, 'It should be a very easy case.' The unsealed indictment charges Abrego Garcia with the unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens and a related conspiracy charge. According to the court filing, prosecutors allege that he made more than 100 trips between Texas and other areas in the U.S. over the course of several years to transport illegal immigrants in exchange for money. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday took a victory lap over the case. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country,' she told reporters during a news conference. 'The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring.' 'They found this was his full-time job, not a contractor. He was a smuggler of humans and children and women,' Bondi added. The DOJ chief also noted that once a trial is complete, Abrego Garcio once again be deported to El Salvador. His return to the U.S. comes after the White House fought numerous court rulings for months that ordered the administration to facilitate his return, including one from the Supreme Court. Trump, officials and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele alike rejected the order, arguing the man — who had been living in Maryland under a protective order — was linked to MS-13 gang activity. Asked if he had spoken to Bukele in recent days, the president told the outlet that he had not. The two met at the White House earlier this year. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who faced scrutiny earlier this year over his meeting with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, called his return to the U.S. a 'victory' for due process, despite the charges. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' he told MSNBC in an interview Friday. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law.' Trump responded to the comments by calling Van Hollen a 'loser.' 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' he told NBC on Saturday. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' 'No, he's a total loser, this guy,' the president added.


Washington Post
38 minutes ago
- Washington Post
John Roberts: 1, Stephen Miller: 0
What a climbdown by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. In April, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Trump administration needed to 'facilitate' the release of a man, Kilmar Abrego García, from a prison in El Salvador because it had sent him there in violation of an immigration judge's order.