Challenging GPEW Deputy Leader Election 2022: Institutionalised Smear Campaigns, Rule Breaches & Hostile Environment for Gender Critical candidate

Unfortunately, I feel I must speak out against the legitimacy of the Deputy Leader contest. I have raised my concerns with the ERO and was told that the results would not be announced today (7 Sept 2022) and that this would give him extra time to consider my representations and consult with other officials.

I have challenged the result on a number of grounds, including material breaches of the rules by the candidate who was announced today as the winner, Zack Polanski. Best laid plans on announcing a result should not take priority over the integrity of our internal democracy.

Let me start with a little background about what I have had to endure in recent leadership contests, before summarising my concerns about this year’s election.

Survivor of multiple smear campaigns

I have had to face down negative campaigns in three previous leadership election campaigns. In 2018, a member who actively campaigned for Siân Berry was subsequently suspended from the Party, following their false allegations of “transphobia”. This was the year of the Challenor scandal. I was the only candidate to speak out against the Party’s collective safeguarding failure and subsequently had to fight off a series of vexatious complaints alleging “transphobia”.

In 2020, I received a torrent of abuse following my determination to speak plainly on the importance of free speech and plain talking on sex-based rights, including for providing a straight-forward definition of woman. Here’s the kind of thing I said in hustings:

“I'll be reaching out to people who currently classify themselves as politically homeless and far from us navel-gazing I want us to be externally facing. There are lots of women voters who feel politically homeless and we have got to be articulating their voices and concerns, including within our own party. It is absolutely shocking that women in our party find themselves unable to convene meetings, internally or externally, without fear of being trampled over and deplatformed.”

This elicited coordinated face-palming from two of the candidates (see 44.40 at 2020 hustings video).

In 2021, I stood again in the leadership by-election following the resignation of both co-leaders. A great deal of vitriol ensued. My polling in these last three elections was 18%, 24% and 21% of first preferences, respectively. Following the 2021 count, I was commended by the CEO in the following terms:

“I just wanted to say congratulations on a well fought campaign and for the positive and calming approach you displayed to the count today. I appreciated it.”

This was certainly a reference to my help in overcoming the logjam at the start of the count over questions of electoral impropriety and whether the count carried sufficient confidence to proceed. I had plenty of reason to feel aggrieved at the conduct of the election, as I’d already made clear in an open letter to Siân Berry.

This background is to serve as a reminder that I have always accepted election results even though I was not the victor and even though I may have had ample reason to feel aggrieved by members misconduct or even the Party’s treatment of me.

It is an interesting fact that when I was elected deputy in 2014, it was only after I insisted on a recount which resulted in a small pile of ballot papers (all of which had my votes on them) being found, without which I would not have won. In 2016, I was nearly cheated out of a lead candidate position on a regional list selection, were it not for a miscount being finally corrected after the then ERO had been found to have given faulty instructions to the Electoral Reform Services Ltd. I am not saying this is evidence of corruption, but it is very strange that I have faced two strongly-evidenced instances of nearly being cheated out of rightful positions.

Breaches of Election regulations and Candidate misconduct

So it is with a heavy heart that I must explain why I have challenged the Deputy Leader result of 2022. This election, I had to suffer and endure an unprecedented volume of vicious personal attacks. Some of these attacks were actively staged and propagated by Zack Polanski, a candidate in the election, across hustings and social media.

I believe there have been multiple breaches of the election rules or the code of conduct, and other irregularities, sufficient to cast grave doubt upon the integrity of the result. I set out three problems here:

1. No Disclaimer

2. Allegations of GDPR Breaches

3. Multiple breaches of Election Rules and Members Code of Conduct

1. No Disclaimer

Polanski failed to put a disclaimer on his Twitter profile to say that his candidacy did not constitute official GPEW communication. Given that he was also a national spokesperson and elected representative it was doubly imperative for this candidate to make clear that his statements, including personalised attacks, did not carry the authority of the party. The ERO was alerted to this breach at any early stage but no correction was forthcoming.

Here is the relevant section from the Executive Election regulations published July 2022:

4.2.5 Election materials.
Any campaign materials distributed online should bear the following imprint, written in at least an 8 point typeface:
“Promoted and Produced by (Candidate name) as part of their campaign for election to the post of (insert position here). This is not an official communication from the Green Party of England and Wales.”  (p. 11)

2. Alleged GDPR Breaches

2.1 In the run up to the opening of ballot, I received communications from an officer who raised the alarm about suspected GDPR breaches by Polanski and his campaign team to the ERO. The officer did not wish to be identified, but they did give me permission to go public, and so I give a brief summary of their allegations:

a)       Polanski’s election team contacted them using data they could only have had as officers and this was unethical and unfair on other candidates.

b)      They were being asked to promote Polanski’s candidacy using their own contacts, which would have been known to have been extensive as a result of their previous party roles, which again would be unethical.

c)       That Polanski has made similar breaches in a previous selection campaign.

There has been a potential breach of 4.2.7:

Paid assistants working for the Party are not permitted to campaign for candidates in the election. (p. 11)

Candidates are encouraged to campaign through the official mailings and using online channels available to all candidates. (5.1, p. 12)

A current party employee was named here by a former party employee. If access to membership data has been misused for the purpose of campaigning for a candidate this could clearly have been of the order necessary to have affected the outcome of the election, particularly on a small turnout where access to scores of members, through go-betweens, could easily affect the voting numbers. This campaign tactic is one of devolving access to members’ data through a sort of plausible deniability, by asking others who do have access to data to make use of it for the same ends.

2.2 During the election, a party officer, also an elected representative, misused a local party What’s App group to rally members to vote for their favoured candidates, with an explicit invitation to contact them for advice on voting choices. They also circulated links to a controversial pledge response sheet from LGBTIQ+ Greens, with a clear imputation that any candidate who had not responded should not be worthy of their consideration either. The reality is that I had taken the trouble to produce a nuanced and comprehensive response.

These communications are potentially in breach of the following regulations:

The ERO regards it as an overriding concern that as far as possible a level playing field is maintained between candidates. Any publicity opportunities, except hustings organised by properly constituted groups in the Green Party, or otherwise approved by the ERO, and other materials specified as permitted, that will draw the attention of members beyond the candidates local party to a particular candidate will not be permitted. All candidates, and in particular members who are already in elected positions must consider themselves in ‘purdah’ from the date that candidates names are published until the close of voting. (p. 9)

The fact that the member was also an elected representative compounds this infraction of the rules, in broadcasting preferences using a channel which is outside the candidates’ local parties and to which not all candidates would have had access. This is a clear breach and it should be established the extent to which groups like this have been abused. This particular group had scores of members on it.

3. Multiple breaches of Election Rules and Members Code of Conduct

On 15 July 2022, a member wrote to the ERO to complain about the conduct of Polanski towards me at the national party hustings of 13 July. Whilst considering that Polanski should have to make a public apology for his behaviour, they go on to say:

“I have come to the conclusion that that [a well-publicised apology] would not be enough.

The effect of Zack Polanski's words, spoken to over 200 voting members on the night, and potentially seen, in the recording, by hundreds or thousands more voting members, cannot be overestimated [example of transcribed words below left]. We cannot know how differently Shahrar's contribution might have gone, had he not been subject to this underhand attack.

Along with a repeat of the slur on twitter by another GPEW member (who even created a graphic/meme of the quote) [below right], this has now skewed the election to such an enormous degree that the election can no longer be seen as fair and unbiased.” (member complaint to ERO, 15 July)

The following section of the Rules are relevant here:

The ERO has no redress against members who are not candidates in the election. A candidate should not be disqualified due to the actions of another member, unless it is clear that member has acted with the approval of the candidate. However, if, in the opinion of the ERO, the actions of a third party may have materially affected the result of the election, the ERO may declare the election void. (6.1, p. 13)

The member has directly quoted Polanski following the attack he made upon me in the hustings and tagged Polanski. He did not retract his words and may reasonably be taken to have approved the actions of this member in using his words, which would constitute a breach of 6.1 and potential grounds for disqualification.

Polanski cannot claim to be unaware of these rules as they are expressly stated as a condition of nomination, and he has agreed to abide by them, as follows:

4.1 Rules of Conduct

By submitting their online nomination forms, candidates agree to abide by these rules. If candidates, or their supporters acting with their approval, are found to have violated these rules the ERO and/or the Standing Orders Committee may make a formal report to the Regional Council. If the ERO considers any violation has materially affected the result (i.e. led to the election of one candidate rather than another) the election may be ruled void. (P. 9)

The situation is worse, again, as Polanski has arguably breached the Code of Conduct for Party members. This was explicitly referenced by then ERO on 15 July in the following terms (excerpted by me):

Dear Candidates

As you will recall I wrote to you on Saturday [13 July] drawing your attention to the Party Code of Conduct and its binding nature. I particularly directed attention to some parts of the code for example:

Section 9:

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.

9.3 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.

It is highly arguable that Polanski has breached the Code with respect to 9.1, 9.3 and 9.4 in his behaviour towards me at the national hustings. He made belittling, derogatory and disparaging remarks about me and did not assume the best of me.

Even if this was to be read as a final, final warning to any and all candidates, Polanski went on to ignore the warning by further continuing to act in a harassing way towards me, in continuing to make derogatory comments about me in hustings and in public and to encourage others to do so by amplifying attacks upon me on social media.

One of the most overt attacks was made during the LGBTIQ+ hustings on 20 July, which I subsequently called out. 

I also made representations to the ERO on 21 July and, on 30 July, directly challenged Polanski to retract his misrepresentations.

There were further anomalies in the conduct of the election:

• Absence of an ERO for a crucial period between their removal and replacement by SOC, during the ballot period. No ERO at Count.

• Inconsistency of advice or practice between special interest groups in their publication and promotion of candidates’ responses to questionnaires or pledges, most notably, between LGBTIQ+ Greens and Green Party Women (who felt prohibited from publishing candidate responses received).

• Interference from a third party, particularly officers and elected representatives of the Scottish Green Party, making unfounded allegations of a candidate, publicly, encouraged and amplified by candidates and their supporters. Story here.

For all these reasons, I am challenging the fairness and integrity of the result. This is not an action I take lightly, but the integrity of our internal democracy is of the utmost importance; as is the capacity for candidates with gender critical views to feel they can stand for election or selection without fear of horrific abuse.

Hostile environment

This is the kind of abuse I have had to endure on Twitter in recent weeks and some in the Party have stated their belief that it was deserved. That is the kind of intolerant fanaticism we are dealing with in the party. I’ve never known it to be so extreme or so hostile to reason.

It is known that I am currently taking the Party to court for discrimination on grounds of gender critical protected belief, following their removal of my national spokesperson role in February 2022. The party has been actively facilitating this hostile environment against me, continuing to cede to authoritarian bullies and reinforcing misrepresentations and innuendo from transphobia smear campaigns against me.

On the day of the opening of ballot, 1 August, the party chose to give credence to yet more complaints from members seeking my expulsion for “transphobia”. Chief among the allegations was my questioning the legitimacy of Stonewall’s approach to LGBTQ education for children. The clear implication is that debate is not welcome in this party, especially during a deputy leadership contest in which reasonable disagreement could be had about the direction the party is taking, and that I should STFU. Despite this hostile environment, I am putting a motion to conference again to seek our disaffiliation from Stonewall.

That is the backdrop against which, despite the Party’s boast that I still remain a member, with all the rights that I am meant to enjoy, the reality is that they have made it impossible for me to meaningfully exercise those rights. As recently as June 2022, an officer abused their privilege as a host to a regional zoom meeting questioning my right to participate in a meeting by directing a series of private messages to me in the chat, in quick succession. Their behaviour was unacceptable and harassing, This individual also stood in the recent GPEx elections.

Knowing One’s Friends

Finally I want to thank all those members and supporters who have stood by me through thick and thin. Some of you also voted for me, despite the intensity of the attacks and determination to stigmatise me as hateful, which has become institutionalised. Under these circumstances to still command 24% of first preferences demonstrates that many of you understood the imperative for mature open debate, whether on the right of women to self-organise for their sex-based rights or the existential climate emergency. I stand for the human rights of all, equally.

I also stand for the integrity of our internal democracy. Therefore, I cannot pretend that the outcome of the election was fair, nor in accordance with our election rules or that the conduct of one deputy candidate was in accordance with our members’ code. The double-standard is breath-taking. I would never have got away with even half this level of misconduct towards another candidate. Nor would I have wanted to and nor should I have. Our internal democracy is already broken enough, when only 12.5% of 50,000 members feel motivated to vote (compare this to Conservative party’s 82%). To let multiple breaches of our rules go unanswered, too, is surely the final straw for any pretence that we are a party of principle and better than the other parties.

I await news from the ERO, who has given every indication that he took my concerns seriously.