Motion #02
The current Safe Spaces Policy, Constitutional Clause (5.xxii) and Code of Conduct clause referring to Safe Spaces (CoC 9.2), use undefined terms to limit speech and behaviour that are subjectively interpreted as bullying, harmful or oppressive.
Different groups within the party can be marginalised or excluded at different times and in different ways. An action designed to protect one group may further marginalise another. Unless the party creates a ‘hierarchy of oppression’, members must recognise that all groups with protected characteristics have the right to advocate for their own group; these fundamental party rights are detailed in para 206 of the ruling in the case Ali v Reason and Nott (Ali -v- Reason and Nott ( judiciary.uk)).
This means a group may legitimately say things that are perceived as offensive by another group as part of robust debate aiming to serve everyone’s needs. For example, secular members may offend religious groups or vice-versa.
Fundamental party rights “guarantee (amongst others) the rights of members of a political party to advocate for or against policies and positions adopted or proposed to be adopted by their party; criticise the beliefs or conduct of other members insofar as they are inconsistent with the policies and positions thus advocated, even using language which their opponents might find offensive; and to advocate and organise within the party to promote members who support the said policies and positions and against members who do not” See S Ali v Reason and Nott [para 206].
Our current Safe Spaces policy and similar party phrases within other policies specifically list a variety of forms of discrimination that will not be tolerated in the Party. This is right and good. Whilst the aims of these policies are laudable, their lack of definitions and failure to recognise fundamental party rights allow them to be weaponised to silence reasonable voices within the party. For example, there are no definitions or worked examples of what constitutes “hurt” within the Safe Spaces policy.
The Code of Conduct puts a duty on Chairs or Moderators of meetings to prevent or stop “discriminatory, oppressive or abusive behaviour”, again without defining any of those categories or giving examples. There is no recognition that perceptions about which words or behaviours may meet those thresholds can differ considerably, nor that political debate and policy making by definition requires thorough exploration of sometimes contentious ideas.
The Code of Conduct policy states “Oppression is defined as the marginalisation of one social group for the benefit of another more powerful group”. Party policy can only be debated and changed if all groups are permitted to fully debate their position without having their vocabulary removed due to the perception of some individuals that the language is offensive or exclusive.
A prior example from Conference:
Girls in areas where cultural practices include breast ironing or female genital mutilation are not seeking to oppress any other groups in their society and neither are party members who seek to advocate on behalf of these girls. At previous conferences, debate of these issues has been blocked, as members using language specific to these forms of female oppression have been silenced by use of Inclusion cards and claims that non-binary or trans members felt excluded, marginalised or oppressed. This is despite the fact that the language used was not “intended to hurt another physically or emotionally”.
Discussion of issues specific to female members or females generally has been acrimonious in recent years but the Party has other areas of likely policy motions with potential to become equally contentious, e.g. on Israel and Gaza, where hurtful things may be said with no intention to harm or oppress others. The Safe Spaces policy itself says that the party is “committed to putting first the needs of those whose safety is compromised” but this is an unnecessarily vague statement and perceptions of safety and any compromise of that safety will vary between people. If we return to the action of chest ironing, whose safety is compromised? The girls subjected to this hideous practice, or another group who felt uncomfortable during a debate and perceived their safety to be compromised?
Our current Safe Spaces Policy and Reference to Safe Spaces in the Code of Conduct use loose terms without definitions. These ambiguous standards are being misapplied resulting in stymied debates and the silencing of some voices within the Party, including by suspension. There are nine protected characteristics listed in Equality Act 2010, each describing a different form of vulnerability. Sometimes, the needs or desires of one group will conflict with the needs or desires of another group and the Party must find a way to enable each group to advocate freely within the boundaries of the law.
In order to facilitate this, the party should use the expertise it already has to hand in the form of an experienced, employed EEDI Manager. Working with the E&D committee, he should create a ‘best practice’ document that can be adopted in the interim by GPRC and then ratified by Conference.
Last updated on 2024-11-02 at 12:44