Green councillor Christina Summers will learn the outcome of an internal party inquiry next week.
Brighton and Hove Green Party issued a statement today about the inquiry into comments made by the Christian councillor and including some frequently asked questions with answers.
The statement said: “Following the formation of a panel of inquiry to examine the issues surrounding the July 2012 Brighton and Hove City Council motion promoting equal civil marriage, in which Green Councillor Christina Summers voted and spoke against the motion, the Brighton and Hove Green Party has today announced a timetable for the conclusion of the Panel’s work.”
Rob Shepherd, a member of the Brighton and Hove Green Party Executive Committee, said: “We’ve heard this morning from the panel of inquiry that it has reached its conclusions and is now writing up its final report.
“Subject to the agreement of the Green group of councillors, the panel proposes to present its findings to the Green group and to Councillor Summers on the morning of Monday 10 September or, if this is not possible, on or before Thursday 13 September at the latest.
“Councillor Summers has already been told this.
“The conclusions of the panel are not yet known outside the panel membership and it would be wrong to speculate on what the report might say.”
The party’s “frequently asked questions” were as follows.
Q1. What’s this all about?
A1. At a full meeting of Brighton and Hove City Council on 19 July Labour councillors, supported by all parties, put forward a motion calling on the UK government to permit same-sex civil marriage in law, which reflected the Green Party’s long-held policy on equal marriage. Councillor Summers, a Green councillor, spoke and voted against the motion. This action in itself did not breach any rules of conduct, even though she was opposing Green Party policy, as she made it plain that she was speaking for herself and not on behalf of the party. However, some councillors felt there may be a conflict between Councillor Summers’ stated position in the council chamber and her earlier stated position (see Answer 5 below) when she stood for selection as a Green Party candidate and for public office as a Green Party councillor, and so called for a Panel of Inquiry to look into the matter.
Her vote had no effect on the motion’s outcome as she was the only councillor who voted against it.
Q2. What is this Panel of Inquiry? Who’s on it?
A2. It’s an internal panel set out by the party’s constitution and it includes representation from the party’s councillors and party officers. Any member of the party is entitled to call for such a Panel of Inquiry and the party is obliged to establish one if there are sufficient numbers calling for it.
Q3. What does the Panel do? Does Councillor Summers face expulsion, as claimed?
A3. The Panel has not yet reached a conclusion but Councillor Summers does not face expulsion from the Green Party: media statements to the effect that the Inquiry may ‘eject’ Councillor Summers from the party are incorrect and misleading. The Panel may decide to take no action but should it decide further action is required, it has a variety of options, including, for example, writing to Councillor Summers or seeking mediation between the councillor and those who’ve expressed concerns. It may also recommend exclusion of a councillor from membership of the Green Group of councillors, effectively making that person an independent councillor, though still a member of the party. As an independent, a councillor would still be able to serve out the remainder of their elected term of office, to vote with or against the Greens as they choose and to stand again as a councillor at the next election. The Panel has no power to remove anyone from the party or to remove anyone as a city councillor.
Q4. If the Panel can’t expel Councillor Summers from the Green Party, what is the point of the Panel?
A4. As explained, the Panel is set up to inquire into the circumstances and make recommendations, with options including mediation and the exclusion of a councillor from the Green Group of councillors. This has important political consequences as an excluded councillor would no longer be part of the administration of the council.
Q5. Why is there an Inquiry just because Councillor Summers spoke against Green Party policy? What’s happened to free speech?
A5. The Inquiry is not about Councillor Summers’ right to voice her beliefs. The Green Party is a fierce defender of free speech and freedom of beliefs. Indeed, Green Council Leader Jason Kitcat highlighted Councillor Summers’ right to freedom of expression in his response at the same meeting[5] and the party has since made a public statement to the same effect[6], so speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry. Cllr Summers is not the first to do so and will not be the last.
Rather, the Inquiry is actually examining the facts around Councillor Summers’ recently revealed opposition to equal marriage in the context of a written undertaking she’d previously made to “upholding and advancing” the values of “equality for all people, regardless of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice … if selected as a candidate and if elected to public office.”
Q6. Is Councillor Summers right to complain about a ‘vicious’ Green response?
A6. The party has very clear constitutional safeguards to guide how we resolve disagreements as well as a strong culture of respecting difference and encouraging debate. The party strives to be fair and transparent in all its workings, including its statements and comments in regard to Councillor Summers. Individual party members, however, may choose to say what they wish in their own blogs, tweets or other comments, provided they don’t claim to speak officially for the party. They are citizens with their own freedom of thought and speech, just as Councillor Summers has freedom of thought and speech. However, the Party will investigate anything that appears to bring the party’s reputation into disrepute.
Q7. Was it necessary to summon Councillor Summers before the Panel?
A7. Councillor Summers was not summoned or called before the Panel. She was invited to meet with Panel members, should she wish to do so, and to say whatever she wished to say in the meeting. She accepted this invitation and attended in mid-August 2012 with her pastor. What she and Panel members said is confidential to the participants.
Q8. How did the Green Party manage to select an electoral candidate with views on a specific issue so different to Green Party policy?
A8. We have a robust and democratic selection process open to all local party members, who have an opportunity to scrutinise candidates’ views and ask them questions before voting by secret ballot. Candidates are also asked to sign a commitment to uphold and advance the party’s stated values (see Answer 5 above). The process was followed during Councillor Summers’ selection, as for all candidates.
Q9. How has the Green Party allowed a Green councillor to speak and vote against equal rights?
A9. The Green Party is proud of its commitment not to follow the tradition of ‘whipping’ that’s maintained by the other parties, and the Green Party thereby offers its elected representatives the freedom to express their views and vote with their consciences. (Imagine the outcome for, say, the UK decision on the Iraq War had the other parties had a similarly enlightened policy in Parliament.) Councillor Summers was free to speak and vote against party policy provided she made it plain (as she did) that she was speaking for herself and not the party and that she put forward the party view as well. But, as explained, it is not these actions that are at the heart of the Inquiry: it is, rather, the question of whether there is a conflict between Cllr Summers’ stated position when she stood as a candidate for office and her subsequently stated position in the council chamber.
Q10. Why should I continue to support the Green Party after one of its councillors has opposed equal marriage?
A10. The Green Party was the first mainstream UK party to support equal marriage, when other parties were still uncertain about introducing even civil partnerships for same sex couples. The party remains as committed as ever, and one individual’s lone position does not alter the policies or commitments of either the Green Party or the other Green councillors who voted in the council chamber for equal marriage.
Q11. What does this issue say to people of faith? Are people of faith welcome in the Green Party?
A11. The Green Party has many practising Christians and people of many other faiths in its membership, including several Brighton and Hove Green Councillors and members of the national party leadership. As explained above, the party has a long tradition of welcoming differing views. Not all people of faith hold the same views on policy matters. The Green Party continues to provide a welcoming home to people of faith as well as to those who do not follow any faith.
Q12. Will Councillor Summers get a fair hearing? Opposition parties are using phrases such as ‘witch-hunt’ and ‘kangaroo court’.
A12. It’s to be expected that opposition parties (and some media) will seek to make political capital out of the Inquiry but, in fact, the Inquiry process is a long-standing one, laid down in the party’s constitution and designed to ensure a fair hearing for everyone affected.
Q13. Why doesn’t the Green Party simply respect Councillor Summers’ views and allow her to get on with it?
A13. The party has made it clear that we respect her right to hold her views, though they are not the policy of the party. However, as explained in Answer 5 above, this is not the issue.
Q14. How does Councillor Summers square her commitment to equalities and her opposition to equal marriage?
A14. That is a question for Councillor Summers, though she has told the media: “I do not agree that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is disagreeing with equality at all” and in her council speech she affirmed her support for same-sex civil partnerships while opposing same-sex civil marriage.
Q15. If Councillor Summers is so opposed to a long-standing Green Party policy, why is she a member in the first place or why doesn’t she now just resign?
A15. That is for Councillor Summers to answer.
Q16. How long will the Inquiry last?
A16. The Inquiry Panel has made it clear that it would like to resolve matters as soon as it is able but it must also act responsibly, according to the constitution, and its meetings are subject to the availability of the Panel members and anyone invited to meet the Panel. This is why the process, which began in late July 2012, is lasting weeks, rather than days. However, it is expected to report in the first half of September 2012.
If her ‘party’ does eject her she should , if not must, stay as an independant member of the Council. She was elected by her ward and can still represent their wishes even without the whip.
Cllr Summers is Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and has not sat on its last two meetings. Indeed, the Greens seem to be playing musical chairs as the last few meetings have seen a lot of different faces at each of them – all substituting.
To me it messages inconstancy and lack of commitment by those councillors who normally sit on that committee. And in the case of the missing Cllr Summers, fears that she is being shunned and made to feel an outsider – already.
What utter nonsense that Q&A is – what’s that about when you are in a hole stop digging?
What this episode really highlights is the superficial level of support that the Green party really has.
Being a ‘traditional’ christian conflicts with the Green parties policies in many areas. Yet such a person was attracted to the party, joined, supported, was elected and reresented the Green party.
Clearly she was not (even after having been elected) fully aware of what she had joined. Maybe, like many, she thought (or maybe still think) that the Green party is still the old ‘Ecology Party’ it started out as. Whereas it is now a hard left organisation, with a thin veneer of of ‘environmental’ concerns.
The Greens support religious equality only as far as it is needed to appear ‘right on’ – which is why the left bang on about religious ‘hate’ crimes against believers, but are silent on honor killings, forced marriage, nad female genital mutilation – all in the name of those same religions.
After all what has ‘Green’ got to do with ‘gay’ anyway.
I fully support the principle of civil partnerships – and remember arguing in favour of them (and not exclusively for same-sex couples) decades ago
However I also believe ‘same-sex marriage’ is an oxymoron – each part of the phrase contradicts the other. Mariage is about a man and woman
establishing a base on which to have and raise their children. Marriage is not for the couple it is for their family.
The Green parties viscious intolerance of views other than their own are now becoming clear for all to see – this is a good thing, and will inform voters at future elections.
Interesting post, Paul. You are absolutely right to highlight the fact that the Green Party is an entity that formed itself out of the old Ecology Party – and maybe we could do with having it back, except that the new Green Leader spoke of ‘human ecology’ in her conference speech. That will be an extrapolation straight out of the world of Academe and adopted.
You go too far and you are wrong on the religious front. The Green oppose genital mutilation, etc. and you just missed hearing about it. Alas I too see a lot of ‘right-on’ posing around a lot of their ‘policies’.
You perhaps hit the nail most firmly on the head in saying marriage is for families. In every culture through time, marriages (arranged and otherwise) have been made with the conjoinment of families (and fortunes) in view. Children have been about continuing and consolidating and keeping things going as much as the biological urge. Survival.
In modern times this has been less so, but recessionary forces and global insecurity may make people less independently minded, even if the smaller housing situation thwarts urges toward reformings of family solidarity and living near or together. The days of 3 generations under one roof were cost effective but you needed SPACE!
I agree with you that marriages that are not about any of that – 2nd, 3rd, 4th and in later post-menopause years should be called civil partnerships.
Interesting post, Paul. You are absolutely right to highlight the fact that the Green Party is an entity that formed itself out of the old Ecology Party – and maybe we could do with having it back, except that the new Green Leader spoke of ‘human ecology’ in her conference speech. That will be an extrapolation straight out of the world of Academe and adopted.
You go too far and you are wrong on the religious front. The Green oppose genital mutilation, etc. and you just missed hearing about it. Alas I too see a lot of ‘right-on’ posing around a lot of their ‘policies’.
You perhaps hit the nail most firmly on the head in saying marriage is for families. In every culture through time, marriages (arranged and otherwise) have been made with the conjoinment of families (and fortunes) in view. Children have been about continuing and consolidating and keeping things going as much as the biological urge. Survival.
In modern times this has been less so, but recessionary forces and global insecurity may make people less independently minded, even if the smaller housing situation thwarts urges toward reformings of family solidarity and living near or together. The days of 3 generations under one roof were cost effective but you needed SPACE!
I agree with you that not all marriages are about any of that – 2nd, 3rd, 4th and in later post-menopause years, say – and should be called civil partnerships if children and the conjoining of two families are not the aim.
How do gay couples with children fit into this notion that ‘marriage is for families’? Would they be allowed to marry, unlike infertile heterosexuals? Would a straight couple who failed to produce kids within a certain timeframe face a ‘downgrade’ of their marriage to a civil partnership? And finally, who would police all this?
All in all, not very sensible.
Clive,
Its very simple – every thing could carry on unchanged.
For a long time I have tried to find a same-sex couple who actually want to get ‘married’ – so I can ask what they actualy expect to get from it.
Many people have said that they know loads, but when pressed they admit they only know people who want same-sex couples to have the ‘right’ to get married, noone who is crying out to actually get married…
The whole thing seems to be an agenda being pushed by ‘right on’ ‘minority rights campaigners’ – with little to do with the minorities own priorities. If the ‘gay community’ had been given a blank sheet and promised x hundred hours of government time, is this really issue they would have chosen?
I doubt it. But it is a convenient totem for the (mostly straight, mostly un married, often homophobic) lefty campaign industry to try to justify their existance.
Like the electoral reform campaigns, having lost AV,they just jumped on the next easiest thing to keeping going on… for electoral reform society and unlock democracy etc that was useless, pointless house of lords reform.
AGW is discredited (will that be drought or storms that we are in danger from this week? Or doesn’t any one know?) and even shutting down the whole UK will make negligible difference compared to chinas growing output, so thats AGW campaigns on the skids.
Labour are admitting that even they couldnt justify their massive spending I the current climate, so that’s uncut on the skids.
How to keeping the ‘protesting class’ busy? Oh same-sex marriage…
… none of which deals with my point that defining marriage purely in terms of procreation is, to say the least of it, problematic.
A lot of the impetus from this reform comes from the government and seemingly from the very top. So much for all the stuff about ‘right on minority rights campaigners’. And I do personally know people who would like to take advantage in any change in the law.
Paul, one of two friends in a civil partnership uses the term marriage and divorce for their relationship, but in a jokey way. Civil Partnership is gay marriage, getting ‘hitched’, and carrying forward serious and binding responsibilities of formalised partnership intended to legally protect each other and be for life.
Clive, you don’t explain what is problimatical about leaving things as they are.
What do you see as ‘problimatical’ about that?
Cameron is desparate to be seen as one of those ‘right on’ people – he has ireversibly alienated core conservative support, and needs a support base, and that is ghe ‘right on’ tendency, to whom he is trying to prove himself.
Like so many, you say you know people desparate to marry a same sex partner – so how about getting an answer to my question? What do they expect to get out of a christian ceremony, conducted by a priest, talking about it being a ‘foundation of family life into which chikdren are born’?
Paul: we are not talking about Christian marriage in a church, but civil marriage, as has existed since 1837. Churches will be under no obligation to marry anyone they don’t want to marry – as is presently the case.
The problem with the status quo is that it doesn’t treat everyone equally. And attempts to define marriage as being about procreation don’t work. Nor is marriage the preserve of churches – that horse bolted a long time ago.
Well. According today’s news the Greens do not brook any opinion that does not tow the party line, presumably on any subject…
May as well stop all debate – have a one party – one person ‘council’.
After all if no ‘difference of opinion’ is allowed the what’s the need..
So Clive,
You cannot cite a single practical difficulty with leaving things as they are. You simply think it is a ‘rights’ issue… which is ultimatel what everyone else I have challenged has admitted.
Make civil, partnerships available to any couple, leave marriage as it is, primarily for those who hope to have children together.
This is like a scene from Life of Brian – where a gay male character insists that men be given the ‘right’ to get pregnant, regardless of the fact they don’t have the anatomy for it.
The whole campaign sems to be driven primarily by people who hate straight peope, hate marriage and have chips on their shoulder about anyone who is not ‘like them’, and wil back any cause that they think will anger, upset or chalenge those they already object to.
Clive .. The world IS NOT equal.. Never has been .. Never will be..
As a society we MUST protect and nurture the smallest social and political entity. THAT IS THE FAMILY.
That’s two people of different sexes that come together in marriage to have childred and drive soicety forward..
We must make that union special and valued and NOT dilute it’s place in society.
I’ve NO PROBLEM with Civil Partnerships but that NOT the same.
I’ve NO PROBLEM with Religious marriage even though I’m not a beliver.
I DO BELIEVE that Marriage needs protecting.
Hoveman: of course the world is not equal, but that does not mean we should not try to make it more so. If everyone down the centuries had taken your attitude then we’d all still be landless, rightless, forelock-tugging serfs.
Children should be brought up in a supportive, loving environment. Marriage can play a part in achieving that, though one does not necessarily imply the other has to be present. I do not believe that allowing two people of the same sex to get married will affect any of this one jot. I suppose we will just have to disagree on that.
Paul: It is a rights issue, with the practical consequence that same sex couples can’t get married. Still no reply from you on the issue of whether marriage is purely for procreation, or about something else. Not sure if your last paragraph of is directed at me or not: I can only assure you that I hate very few people, all told.
Getting back to Christina Summers, I do find it extraordinary that such an example of bad faith, lack of loyalty and political grandstanding should generate so much sympathy. Or perhaps it’s just the case of ‘the Greens did it, therefore it must be bad’?
Over and out.
Complete and utter bull…..
Read about a Scottish cardinal who is against gay marriage. He asks, if you change the meaning of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to include same sex unions, then you open this one change up to challenges for others such as several men marrying one woman or vice versa, etc. on equality grounds.
An aubergine is equal to a marrow in that they are both vegetables but they are not equal in any other way.
Clive you seem to miss the point – this isn’t about me.
The current system evidently does work, you can cite no issues other than a ‘fairness’ one that makes no practical difference.
I disagree that there is even a fairness issue – couples don’t have ‘rights’ individuals do. An individual whether LGBT or straight is treated exactly the same.
What is more interesting is that Ms Kitcat left the chamber immediately before the vote to avoid supporting this policy. The agreement I have seen demands support for equality – if councillor summers is out, then so must be Ms Kitcat… or is it a matter of ‘who you know’…
Apparently Ania Kitcat’s name was on the Green amendment to the Labour Notice of Motion on gay marriage and left the chamber because of the babysitter at home. That was what was said and done at the time.