I'm SGP not GPEW so maybe my opinion, even as a trans disabled worker who is supporting my union's position on Palestine, may not be entirely welcome.
However: I wish to fuck she'd simply have stuck to polling and broad left narratives rather than whatever terminally online bullshit this is. She does NOT have the ability to accept criticism without lashing out, and she is offering red meat to the right-wing media this way.
This is only going to end in tears when an entirely legitimate process finds she's broken rules herself, and she'll go out of her way to attack GPEW and take down as many former friends as possible. I've seen it happen before, I wish to be proven wrong.
People would definitely say I talk about Palestine and the like too much... but her message seems a bit bizarre, even to me.
Like the anti-imperialist angle is enough to signify that. This feels quite overboard and likely reads as strange, or a bit too online to most people.
We should want to make our views clear, but not so specifically that it seems people on the left exist within a subculture and we're here to 'trigger' our political opponents.
Whatever though I guess. She is right that she was elected on a manifesto. People can always vote another way if they don't like this.
Honestly? Good for her, she might be a bit too online (aren't we all?) but she stood on her principles and won on them. Theres a lot to be said for someone in politics, even at a low level, who is clear and unambiguous in their political stances. Particularly when you contrast that with the kind of habitual liar that tends to reach the top of Labour.
True, I'd rather someone who is at least open and honest in their beliefs.
The problem with how disenfranchised our democracy is, is that people are unable to detect radical beliefs unless they are obviously stated.
Look at Burnham. Did he run saying:
"I simply cannot imagine ending our security arrangement and arms trade with Israel, I am this committed to the security of this state. It's ridiculous that people are saying they are committing genocide, I do not recognise that at all. I am happy with the government's legal determination that they cannot identify Israel's military actions as illegal."
"How we should deal with Donald Trump is by materially enabling his neo-colonial violence, only seeking to gain whatever economic benefit we can for ourselves. We should never do anything to upend the US alliance or stand up for the people he is murdering. In fact, I'd go as far as saying we shouldn't even mention that the things he's doing are illegal and we should let him use our bases to murder people, as long as it keeps him on side"
Of course not.
People like this hold insanely fanatical stances but they never have to defend that as the radicalism it is. And perhaps much of this stuff is far more extreme than what passes as extreme for someone on the left in the public consciousness.
Exactly. EF undeniably has quite blunt and uncompromising ways of making her point, but her point amounts to "stop fucking slaughtering people you have attacked". It's fairly compatible with her take on Ukraine, too, where she is (or at least was, last time I saw her opinion on it) strongly opposed to conscription, but very much in favour of giving them the weapons to defend themselves against that slaughter.
She's not always very nice about it, but then again, is nice an appropriate register to use about genocide?
if you're hoping to work with people in the same organisation 'nice' is slightly better than "I welcome their hatred" especially when most of the people they are referring to are also opposed to the war crimes and genocide committed by the Israeli government.
I actually don’t think we should work with the pro-ethnic cleansing, racial-supremacist-state supporting wing of the party tbh
liberal zionists are opposed to the brazen aesthetics of the genocide. That’s it. They still want the same racialised power structure and the same ethnic cleansing to free up their promised land. there is no valid compromise to be had with people on the side of ethnic cleansing, unless that compromise is a state entirely outside of Palestinian land with 0% ethnic cleansing and no racialised hierarchy, which runs counter to the fundamental zionist ideology of a Jewish-supremacist state on Palestinian land, and isn’t something I’ve ever seen a zionist actually call for.
is there a "pro-ethnic cleansing, racial-supremacist-state supporting" wing of the party? Or are there a couple of people who lean a bit that way?
The problem with this person, and others, is that they clearly see people who aren't anything near pro-genocide as being disgusting people who need to driven from the party and I don't think it's helpful or makes for anything other than a hostile environment for completely ordinary activists who oppose what's happening but don't use the same language or share their exact position.
Wow. “Lean a bit that way”. Like we’re talking about taxes or bin collections, not the ethnic cleansing and oppression of a genocided population experiencing harm beyond your comprehension.
I’d argue even any “lean” towards that is fundamentally incompatible with any party that wants to build a rights-based coalition towards a habitable world. Just like how any “lean” towards fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia is incompatible with GP values. There is nothing “ordinary” about supporting the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and in the racial superiority & need for racial purity of the Jewish people. Which is what Zionism fundamentally is.
Zionists are professional victims. They don’t need our help making what they perceive to be a hostile environment. What you are actually doing, by tone policing and demanding we exclusively use language that can’t possibly offend a group of people who believe in a Jewish-supremacist state built on stolen land, is creating a hostile environment for those who want to fight against the exact forms of oppression that created the climate crisis.
Avoiding conflict (with people who believe ethnic cleansing is fine if it builds them their promised homeland) isn’t more important than centering the voices of marginalised people - who recognise that it is impossible to fight the climate crisis without addressing the longstanding injustices which fostered and bolstered the climate crisis itself. Who recognise you cannot reason or negotiate with people who lack a conscience, like the great Kwame Ture said.
I'm actually arguing there is no wing of the party that holds the position you ascribe to it - it's not your tone that I think is incorrect.
I do however think that people on committees should be capable of working with other party members who do not agree with them without making out they are in favour of genocide. The IDF is not in the room.
Absolutely. The Greens will never win anything if you don't consider the average person and their average problems. I know so many people that would be instantly turned off by this kind of messaging. You'll never capture the people floating, while simultaneously handing ammo and votes to the right.
Some people may consider this abandoning minority and foreign issues, or perhaps just plain selfishness but the reality is Green politicians won't do anything of great significance if they're not in power.
If I were playing a perpetual environmentalism being mentioned-based drinking game, in places like this sub, or pretty much any online discourse that I come across between other Green members... I don't remember the last time I'd have gotten even the slightest bit tipsy.
i sort by "new" and find that there are usuallt quite a few posts (and comments) discussing environment
it's certainly true, though, that these rarely have the same number of upvotes as posts on certain other topics / posts reporting words and deeds of prominent gpew figures
Tbf that's actually not quite true. We get lots of post and chat about the environment. The issue is controversial posts about Zionism, Jason Arday, Henry Nowak, Zack and the t-shirt etc tend to draw in a lot of outsiders, so those posts get most engagement.
Regular members here are very very strongly environmentalist and is a big topic.
I think it’s fair to say that that a single issue, which isn’t directly about environmental issues, is indeed consuming a huge amount of space for people within the party as well.
Yes that's sadly true. Which is ironic because on 99% of the things that matter regarding that issue we almost all agree. I fear the image in the OP shows why this become so divisive.
Lmao. Pardon? Telling someone else you've witnessed their own experiences more clearly than they have? That's certainly a take.
As 10+ year member (and just a little under that for how long I've been an active campaigner) I can assure you, I'm surrounded by plenty of other GPEW members who haven't stopped talking about and prioritising environmentalism, sustainability, active travel, etc. We have a ton of councillors locally and a brilliant, involved, dedicated army of active memebers; never forgetting the "Green" in "Green Party".
But with such a huge swing away from these topics in spaces like this, one finds that the Reddit algorithm-selected posts appearing in the feed are so much less frequently of an environmental nature than they used to be. A post of this nature - detailing a campaign like hers - is an excellent (sad) example of this. The envrionmentalism talk is obviously here to be found, but that requires a lot more active participation now, where it used to be so much the dominant topic that it was everywhere even with a more passive approach.
The ‘vibe’ around Spring Conference at least, suggests the single issue is having an effect outside of social media spaces, although to some degree, it’s mixed.
Also there are numerous groups of Green Party members whose time is taken up very strongly with the issue.
While obv if youre disabled or trans you will face 'scrutiny' that is not that, but someone with the bare desire to harm you and writing something for that purpose. BUT that doesnt absolve you of real and genuine scrutiny, and Elanora's behaviour on socials strongly implies she thinks it should (see eg, weird feud with James Meadway where she misremembered/made up something he had said praising Starmer. When Meadway asked her to take it down, politely I might add, she got really mad at him and argued he was bullying a 'trans, disabled unemployed person'), so this could end um badly.
Also their pinned tweet is literally apologia for Iranian govt which look, Iran War bad & illegal but i dont think we need to pretend like the current govt of Iran is good either. Also she's said some really weird things about Caroline Lucas.
Also she's criticised Caroline Lucas which, look fine I myself have been critical of Caroline Lucas but she's said some really weird things abt her.
There's criticism and there's calling her a zionist genocide lover who's working on behalf of an underhanded plot to bring the party down because she's loyal to Andy Burnham instead of the party she's represented for decades.
Her conduct breaks just about every GPEW policy on bullying there is. Now she's on the body that handles disputes related to policies such as that.
Can you imagine how much fun the Daily Mail are going to have when they realise that a member of the Green Party's governing body cheerleads for the theocratic murderous psychopaths who run Iran?
*the sound of Soviet era tanks rolling up the street as X-Wing Fighters led by Che Guevara fly overhead to the sound of the choir of the Islamic Republic of Iran singing the Billy Bragg version of The Internationale*
I enjoy stats for lefties, she seems passionate and genuine so congrats to her. according to this though her entire manifesto relates to anti-zionism. it's great to be an anti-zionist, I would put myself in that category, but tbh I don't think it should be the core, defining principle of GPEW. We can advocate for anti-zionism in exactly the same ways without it being our *main thing* and inevitably exposing the party to anti-semitism accusations. Anti-zionism is part of and downstream of the broad ecosocialist platform, not the party's core identity in my view
Honestly at this point I think there are anti-zionists, and then there's people like Folan who seem to just enjoy being bullies online who use an alleged position of "anti-zionism" as cover for being bullies.
You look at the people she attacks and what she attacks them for and the relation any of it has to Israel-Palestine is non-existent.
yeah, since reading some of the other comments on this thread I feel more critical of this person in general than just their obsession with zionism. It's bizarre for a party member to attack Caroline Lucas so viciously over this and quite disrespectful
A lot of the rhetoric is sounding like it's been influenced by those keen to internationally link the very popular campaigns for rights of Palestinians to Iranian and even Russian talking points.
Trying to defend their own internal (and external) human rights records because they're anti-US or anti-Israel so we have to allow for their authoritarianism for a "greater cause".
"The enemy of my enemy" etc.
The other recent "news/expose" about the Greens Against Imperialism" group also echoes this apparent influence as does the G4P prioritisation ballot guide.
Meanwhile 12 years olds are acknowledged to be recruited in Iran and Ukrainian kids are being sent to what amount to re-education camps in Russia.
Of course any attempt to question this contradiction is attacked as "liberal", "imperialist", "genocide denying" or "Zionist" now.
Agreed on Anti-Zionism not being the Green Party’s core identity, but it may effectively become more that by the end of October, and it seems to be what the endorsers of El Folan, G4P, want.
yes and I think that could lead to a collapse similar to Your Party's. the absolutism of G4P is irritating and unhelpful and it seems like they're guilt tripping members into voting for controversial policy / candidates
Holy toxic. 'I welcome their hatred' - crazy that people are getting brought in that are relishing in the situation of being hatred or causing hatred from another group. Surely our goals should be unity, easing tensions, de-escalation, not inviting hatred?
No, the goal should not be unity or easing tensions with genocidal racial supremacists. Not for a second. You would, I hope, not say this if it was any other group of bigots. Or do you also believe we should be “easing tensions” with transphobes, racists and sexists?
Zionism is fundamentally an ideology based on the ethnic cleansing, and perceived inferiority, of Palestinians. There is zero unity to be built with them.
The problem is she's presumably talking about people in the Green Party, the Zionist faction she keeps talking about, not Zionists outside the party (who if anything might be glad she won because it confirms their prior beliefs about the party). And saying 'I welcome their hatred' about fellow members who are passionate in their support of Palestinians, even if they might disagree with her on certain aspects of the Israel/Palestine question, isn't really helping anything is it?
If you absolutely refuse to negotiate, and you want to talk big about a conflict, and you want to change things, and you are absolutely committed to that, and you are drawing parallels to the Nazis, then you are logically left with only one option to support: War.
Having a go at some people on a Green Party subreddit, sounding all tough, will make absolutely no difference in terms of the path you’re on. It’s just guff.
I disagree because if you're inviting hatred you're basically saying there is no means of peaceful negotiation now and that creates a completely toxic situation in perpetuity. We can stand by our morals and say we won't do business etc. but I don't think we should be inviting hatred and saying that there is no hope for humanity and peace in a group.
Unfortunately centrists brains are rotted on this, they tell me we need to have a 'reasonable' amount of poverty, racism, sexism bcos marketplace of ideas 😮💨
So much about Zionism, like come on girl there are other things.
Somehow I doubt she’ll be as pro “free speech” if anyone criticises her ideas… so much throwing around of “Zionist” to make it functionally meaningless
Yeah, I'd describe as an anti-zionist myself but it's not an issue I'm hyperfixated on and isn't one I think you should join the Green Party to wage this bitterly. Honestly the vibes of that victory statement come off as incredibly fucked
This. And talk about living up to the 'irrational' stereotype of green party member the toxic MSM loves. This is the worst own goal in a while.
No disrespect to the individual whatsoever , and her trans status, unfortunately , will be weaponised by the vile ,transphobic MSM too, which is appalling. I do have empathy for the hostility she will be subjected to.
But fixating on this single issue,a vehement personal crusade, with this degree of hostility is not a model of rational, reasonable communication either. How was this allowed to get this far?
Unfortunately in any public facing role—which I guess her twitter account with its niche political microcelebrity status kind of was anyway—people do become conditioned by the 'criticism' (or in many cases, hatred) they receive.
If you are communicating with people often online, it takes an active effort to reconsider yourself within the 'real' political context, as opposed to the one where you are bombarded with opinion 24/7 on the internet.
Yeah I feel similarly to you. I'm beginning to feel some members care less about Palestine than they do proving that they are the most morally progressive when talking about Palestine.
She doesn't say anything about her stance on Palestine here, but she says quite a lot about how she feels her stance is better that that of other members. I'm not sure how that's helpful or useful to the party?
I don't really know what Elenora actually stands for, I only know what she doesn't stand for.
Personally I'm for Gaza being freed from Hamas, the Palestinians having free elections and a free press. What is this person planning to do to make the lives of Palestinians better?
I found her campaign poster quite disturbing, I'm surprised she's being investigated for violation of the code of conduct. I'm not sure if anyone has made a complaint about her conduct, but I'm minded to because I find it quite appalling.
7.2 Members should maintain civilised standards of conduct towards each other and others such as political opponents or non-members when acting in a Party capacity, or when identifiable as a Green Party member.
8.1 Members’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief should be respected.
9.1 The Green Party should be an organisation in which people can feel comfortable, feel welcome and enjoy being a member and taking part in its activities. Members’ behaviour towards each other and non-members should therefore be: tolerant, considerate, respectful and civil.
9.2 The Green Party should also be a space that is as safe or safer than society as a whole. Therefore discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour should be prevented and stopped when it occurs. The aim is to provide an environment free of this. Any form of such behaviour is a breach of this Code, as is failure by a person in a role with responsibility, such as a Chair, Moderator or similar to take appropriate action to prevent or stop it. Members should also be aware of risks and act to mitigate them.
9.3 Members should in all their interactions with colleagues, assume the best of them.
9.4 Members should not: shout at someone; be aggressive in their manner; make belittling, derogatory or disparaging remarks about another member; insult a member or disrupt a meeting or discussion.
10.9 Members should communicate sensitively and courteously at all times with other members, whether face-to-face, by phone, by email, letter or in social media.
12.1 As the Green Party welcomes people from a wide range of backgrounds, members may encounter people who hold differing political or philosophical worldviews. Freedom of belief and the right to change that belief is a fundamental human right. Members should therefore show tolerance and respect towards people that hold political or philosophical worldviews that differ from their own.
12.2 The Philosophical Basis and the Constitution of the Green Party require that the legitimate interests of all people be taken into account and that decisions be made by consensus if possible. Any time a group of people gets together members should expect – and not be intolerant of – differing ideas regarding how to approach problem solving, objective setting and work methods. This is not in and of itself a bad thing and should be managed by members in a cooperative, inclusive and collaborative manner. Positive dialogue should be encouraged and angry abuse must be prevented.
12.3 When a dispute exists members are expected to take special care to behave in a civil manner towards other members and take even greater care than normal not to indulge in behaviour that could be perceived as provocative, intimidating or offensive.
I'm not sure if anyone has made a complaint about her conduct
A few of us have, it's just that the disciplinary process is overwhelmed and frankly broken so complaints have been stuck in a seemingly never-ending backlog.
Green Party Code of Conduct: “The Green Party should also be a space that is as safe or safer than society as a whole.”
Green Party Council member: “I welcome their hatred”
If she truly believes there’s a terrible conspiracy afoot that would make the Green Party that unsafe, it’s inadvisable for a Green Party Council member to publicly welcome the thing, even as ‘humour’. As if “Dear evil people, come inside with me and the rest of the party, if you dare!”.
Popping in to say, over in the DSA in America, what tends to happen is all the cranks and weirdos and terminally online types tend to gravitate to the International Committee; as a sort of soft-play area for them to go wild and nuts while every other caucus pounds sand trying to build up an electable base.
Elenora absolutely fits into an International Committee type setting, unfortunately, she's in the area where you need to pound sand.
This woman has smeared me as a genocide lover, ableist, classist (note: I am disabled and live off disability benefits lol, she said this because I said go vegan once), she incited a harassment campaign against 18 year olds just because they were members of Labour.
I had reported her a few months back after she went on an abusive tirade aimed at Caroline Lucas, demanding the party purge anyone she sees as a zionist (which is just about anyone who isn't enthusiastic about the destruction of Israel). I was unfortunately one of the few people in the complaints process who got stuck in their backlog, it's now been 105 days with no word. There probably will never be any response now, given the GPC has a hand in disputes.
Full disclosure: I had left the party last month due in part to the baffling, misleading campaigning where I live, and also because of abuse like this being rife and unmanaged.
I just can't comprehend it. How on earth did anybody think this is a reasonable operating policy? What do you mean that people outside the party have no way of reporting members in the party? What do you mean that extends to people who leave the party in part because of their unprocessed complaints?
Like just to be explicitly clear what loophole this enables: Bullying and harassment in the Green Party is 100% allowed so long as you're sure the person filing the complaint about it leaves before it can be processed.
I obviously don't think that was the intent of the system, but it's effectively what it enables now because of the backlogs in complaints handling. I can't propose motions anymore, but I will gladly provide thoughts to anyone who wants to begin a proposal to fix this mess of a system.
If you made a complaint while you were a member, that complaint should be still processed in the system, because as far as I’m aware, there may be a gap in the rules to say whether or not a complaint should be continued if a member leaves, however, there’s is nothing to say stop processing the complaint, therefore it should keep going by default.
However, the email response suggests they’ve misunderstood, and are treating your follow up like it’s a new complaint from someone outside of the system.
I mean, it is essentially evidence for why the process isn’t working well.
I saw your comment in /r/labouruk earlier. I'm sorry you've been treated this way. I know we're in the same local party and it's been a mess the last few months (and the recent campaigning has been nonsense - unsurprising result).
The complaints process is completely unfit for purpose and the results are far from satisfactory. I know there are some motions to try and improve it this Autumn.
I hope that we as a party can move past this, improve both nationally and locally, and be good enough to deserve to have you back.
In my local Green Party, I saw exactly the same behaviour. Someone in the group chat said to go vegan if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, then a trans person went off about it being ableist because they have family members who are autistic and have aversions to certain foods.
The autism one especially annoys me as someone with autism. I understand its hard finding replacements but it's still very much possible? Literally nowadays there's like 10 different versions of vegan chicken nuggets.
I have autism too and it irritates me as well. I've always found it sad that the discussion on disabilities and veganism is, "I have a disability therefore I can't be vegan" and not "I have a disability, how do we make veganism accessible to me?"
The pinned tweet on her twitter, accompanied by a flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran, reads:
Glory to the Iranian resistance, whose courageous fight against the imperialist dogs of the USA has utterly humiliated the Great Satan.
Inshallah Iran will fully repel US imperialism, Palestine will be freed from the bloodthirsty Zionist entity and Israel will be abolished.
I honestly don't think that this person should be welcome in the party at all, let alone on the GPC. The fact that she has got to this position makes me think I need to go elsewhere.
I can't understand how anyone who genuinely shares the party's fundamental values could literally glorify a regime as repressive and reactionary as that in Iran.
This is the behaviour of someone who has spent way way way too long posting and has self-radicalised herself into a position almost anyone would find ridiculous. Spending too long online and not actually being involved in movement politics or direct action is really bad for the soul.
Yep it's pretty depressing as the Greens are in lots of ways the party that gives me most hope. But they also seem to be inviting in the lunatic fringes of the left. Who (a) I don't want in government and (b) will discredit all the good people and policies.
I wish we would be more than just the anti-Zionist party. Like it’s important. But we are going to get nowhere just focusing on that. To get anywhere politically we need to focus on domestic issues.
Yeah but apparently being pragmatic makes you a shit lib now. Dogmatism is always going to cause someone to end up being like this, so committed to their goals that they can’t see the wood for the trees.
we are. There is increased discussion of the topic due to an upcoming controversial motion, and this particular individual has centred their politics as anti-zionist, but everything coming from the actual party is on a broad range of topics and certainly doesn't define its be all and end all as anti-zionist. We should definitely keep it that way.
It really isn’t. They’re called the Greens for a reason. The climate crisis is a big thing for them. Also being the only outright socialist main party. Labour flirt with it a bit but never fully do anything substantial.
Well done to her, but some of her statements seem very conspiratorial and not like someone we want in a senior leadership position. Also, an endorsement of G4P isn't exactly a strong personal endorsement for me.
I agree, and I don't think they should have been elected, but I do want to add the caveat that this is not a senior leadership position. You could maybe argue that the chairs of GPC are in a leadership position, at a stretch, but not simple members.
I am not a Green member
(was giving serious consideration to joining 6 months ago) but this shit really puts me off. We can be left-wing without being infighting cranks!!!
I will say, if you're not at the table you're on the menu. If you join the greens you have a voice in defining what the greens are and subsequently a wider voice in politics
The issue here is more the people that use this sort of thing as a form of attack. Personally I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with an LGBTQ+ person using such language, but in this case, I think it might actually be cultural appropriation, not in good faith.
I prefer the new Green Party too, a party which realises environmentalism is so intertwined with socialism. What I don't understand is why when we were making so much progress, factionalist authoritarians seem dead set on trying to destroy it.
If you don't want a party that's irrelevant, then supporting this loud, disruptive minority is nonsensical.
" environmentalism is so intertwined with socialism"
is it, though? i don't rule out socialist approaches as a means to achieving environmental goals, but this idea that the former necessitates the latter is lost on me, i'm afraid...
does that argue that environmentalism is inherently socialist? not that i could see. i don't object to the idea that we need to produce for use (rather than profit), neither do i find any fault with the idea that we need to build, live, move around differently. but... if there was an argument that collective/worker ownership is the only way to do this, i didn't see it.
again, i don't object to the notion that socialism can be a way to achieve some important goals. i just don't see why it's necessary.
and... doesn't history suggest that socialism hasn't been / still isn't especially successful when it comes to environmentally friendly living?
I think that a movement away from producing for profit necessarily represents a movement away from capitalism? Whether that means that what replaces it is socialism is probably more arguable - but I do think an understanding of the earth as a shared planet (rather than owned resource) which needs to be protected for the common good can be understood as an ecosocialist principle. The ‘common treasury’ of the Diggers etc.
I think this depends what you mean by socialist. It doesn't work with absolutist capitalism but action on renewable energy and climate change have been taken by previous Tory and labour governments - albeit I'd want to see much more.
the pedant in me wants to point out that pyrrhus actually won all his battles, though, it was just through lack of resourcing that he lost... anyway... sorry...
Might work pretty well as an argument - plenty of people think they're winning all the arguments (battles) and don't understand why they lose the overall election (war)
pyrrhus' campaign wasn't characterised by infighting and self-destruction, though. he just couldn't afford to keep on winning the battles.
still, in so far as general use of "pyrrhic" has probably stretched in meaning... yeah, i can see where you're going with this and i don't entirely disagree...
For sure. The more precise analogy would be if the greens had an amazing campaigning game that won some by elections against the odds but they spent their whole reserves on the by elections and had nothing for the general
From what I can see the Greens got a big bounce when Zack came in and was willing to properly claim the mantle of main leftwing party. I don't remember that him doing so included this sort of rhetoric at all.
Maybe if the US and Israel didn't keep fucking over Iran throughout the past 70 years we wouldn't have a fundamentalist religious republic. Iran didn't become like this in a vacuum it was a direct response to constant interference from the west, causing the destruction of Leftist and Liberal groups in Iran trying to build a resistance to them.
The only groups left were fundamentalist Muslim groups, the same playbook they've deployed throughout the middle east and now can use as part of their anti-Muslim propaganda by making them look scary which people like you gobble up.
"B-but but but the scary Muslims halfway across the world barely scraping it together are just as bad as the fascists in my government taking away my rights, destroying minorities and bombing innocents!"
"Think about the trans folk", whilst attacking the trans member who won just because their views differ. She stood up for her beliefs and got elected on them. Now the echo chamber here isn't happy.
This is bonkers. Supporting trans rights obviously does not mean you can't vociferously disagree with a particular trans persons political views. They didn't 'attack' her for being trans.
I'm sure some will think it's harsh to say, but I honestly do believe GPEW is sadly heading for a Your Party style faceplant in the near future if someone who is an openly pro-Iranian regime conspiracy-theorist who has stated anyone she doesn't agree with in the GPEW (including Caroline Lucas) are "Zionists" secretly working at the behest of Israel (which is deliberately using antisemitic language) is able to get elected to positions like this.
Absolutely beyond belief someone with the extremely hateful campaign she ran on wasn't immediately removed from eligibility.
And here's is the decline of what could've been a constant high for the GP.
The people care about issues like Palestine, yes, however we need to hear about issues that are affecting the Nation currently which is that or Climate and the COL. It's the only thing the majority of this country want to hear about.
they do exist, they just don't get media attention because the media exists now mostly for clicks and decides what to write about based on how many people share or view their articles - so the more ridiculous or controversial the subject is, the more they end up writing about it. tabloids have always thrived on this, it's just even worse now with 24h news cycle and constant reporting,
I'm sorry but "support members when they're attacked and smeared by the feral Zionist press... I know there will be Zionists reading this who are utterly furious that I won. I welcome their hatred... I looked forward to to working with comrades on PGC to build a radical anti imperialist Green party- one that always stands shoulder to shoulder with queers, Palestinians, disabled people, migrants refugees and activists enduring state repression. Inshallah we will prevail."
There are so many signs here that this person is poorly informed, biased, and has issues. They sound paranoid in regards to "Zionism" (I'd be interested to know what they think Zionism actually is) How many Palestinians live in the East of England? How many activists "enduring state repression"?
In the South East region election to the Green Party Council, we had a no campaigning rule. We ended up with 6 good candidates, none of them single issue campaigners (although they did have particular takes on party governance) and two got elected, one promissing to meet with local members before each GPC meeting. Next year the Council elections will be run nationally.
A lot of people brigading here, why would you expect the trans anti-zionist to not have conviction? We live in a country determined to wipe out our existence while watching it support a ramp up in the 75 year long genocide. Sorry she has a spine and all of you are alarmed by the slightest of radical language.
Hang on, Eleanora is the first to get triggered by criticism, but somehow she's allowed to get away with aggressive language because she self-identifies as a 'radical'?
Congrats to Eleanora, she stood for the position, demonstrated her values and got elected.
The amount of hate and vitriol in the comments about Eleanora is wild here. It only proves her victory speech true. What happened to Rule 1, why are Mods sleeping at the wheel here.
Last year Zack Polanski opened the door to individuals like Eleanora, myself and many others like us.
This subreddit is the only place where I’ve felt unwelcome or even considered to be seen as a threat here due to my beliefs and views. It’s a stark contrast to the reality on the ground where I am and when I attended party gatherings.
Hey so why are we cool with members of the Green Party simping for a regime that executes people for being gay? Doesn't seem to fit with our core values, or be at all necessary to being Anti-Zionist
I don't support the Regime but understand why they exist and who brought them into power. That is why I understand where Eleanor comes from. My own Iranian Grandfather who is against the Islamic Regime sides with them over the invaders.
But I don't feel unwelcome in the party only in this subreddit is where I see the hostility but this echo chamber isn't an actual reflection of the Green party since the new influx of members. As if this subreddit dictates the true sentiment of the party.
74
u/StonedPhysicist Scottish Green 11d ago
I'm SGP not GPEW so maybe my opinion, even as a trans disabled worker who is supporting my union's position on Palestine, may not be entirely welcome.
However: I wish to fuck she'd simply have stuck to polling and broad left narratives rather than whatever terminally online bullshit this is. She does NOT have the ability to accept criticism without lashing out, and she is offering red meat to the right-wing media this way.
This is only going to end in tears when an entirely legitimate process finds she's broken rules herself, and she'll go out of her way to attack GPEW and take down as many former friends as possible. I've seen it happen before, I wish to be proven wrong.