'Well, that's Galloway and his Workers Party told, then' - and Muslims, as I think Adnan Hussain was trying to gently point out (too gently, meaning they'll refuse to listen and take it as a cue to steamroll him). This is the worst Pink News was able to dig up on him:
After pledging support to Your Party, Hussain was criticised for voicing trans exclusionary views.
Controversy erupted when Hussain reshared a post X saying he agreed that Your Party should not “parrot the same neoliberal idea of gender ideology”.
“I agree, women’s rights and safe spaces should not be encroached upon. Safe third spaces should be an alternative option,” he wrote.
In response to criticism by trans journalist India Willoughby, he replied: “There was no hatred expressed, India, it’s a conversation that needs to be had. Agreeing with women on their need for spaces exclusive to them is not an expression of hatred to any other community.
Another person on X then asked Hussain if he believed trans women were women, in which he replied: “They’re not biologically women, hence trans women.”
He later told The Telegraph: “I think if Zarah tried to have the conversation, as Jeremy did, immediately she’d find I’m far from a transphobe or a bigot and believe in equal human rights for all.
“Granted that does include my belief in the upholding of the Supreme Court decision protecting women’s spaces.
“Holding this view does not at all undermine my belief that trans people should be granted all the tools required to create similar safe spaces, or that existing spaces should be modified to accommodate for the specific needs of both women and trans people.
“One group’s rights should not have to come at the cost of another’s. It’s disappointing that I’ve not been approached about this issue directly.”
Hussain has also posted on X: “It’s no secret that Muslims tend to be socially conservative. Is there space on the left to create a broad enough church to allow Muslims an authentic space, just as it does all other minority groups?” The statement prompted several users to ask if this is confirmation he is socially conservative.
*****
Outrageous, right?
I was wondering if there was some hypocrisy in appreciating Sultana stating her opposition to zionism on the one hand while thinking this was needlessly divisive & censorious on the other. Then I thought that both of the issues boil down to freedom of speech & debate. Corbyn's zionist antagonists wanted to shut down pro-Palestinian speech and destroy any chance of debate by making false a/s accusations and pretending their feelings were hurt. In response he made concessions and put mechanisms in place for combatting this highly exaggerated 'threat' - with zero debate or consultation with his popular base. Now Sultana wants to unilaterally declare debate or the mildest form of discussion about trans rights verboten because of trans activists making bad faith statements about their critics and using claims about victimisation, suicide and marginalisation as a weapon to silence rational disagreement, as well as render invisible the concerns of women and the need to protect children from irreversible harm.
Basically, I think she should be free to express her opinion - poorly conceived as it may be - but party policy should be decided in the most democratic way possible by the members, not dictated from on high with this kind of insulting emotional blackmail.
cheers, I
*****
PS: I meant to say I wasn't surprised to see the cringingly unfunny non-entity Nish Kumar being Sultana's yes-man patsy over this. I tried to like him, back in the day, but never quite managed it - to my credit, it turns out!