UPDATED: Green councillor expelled for gay marriage vote (From The Argus)

Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

John Fallon wrote:
Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.

DC78 wrote:

Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.

Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?

Heathen Earth wrote:

pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?

Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!

tartanesque wrote:
She signed a pledge with the Green Party supporting gay marriage - as did all party members - then reneged on it. Quite right that the party should expel someone for that reason. If she didn't believe it she should never have signed in the first place. Perhaps a question of seeking power at any cost? She lied. Shame on her.

DC78 wrote:

Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.

DC78 wrote:

John Fallon wrote: Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.

Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line. In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government.
The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.

oknotko wrote:

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government.
The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.

They are Libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist eco-fascists?
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you just talk in derogatory terms you heard once.

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service.
Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.

kopite_rob wrote:
Just goes to show why party politics should be removed from local level councils. Too tied to political values and not what is needed or wanted at local level.

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

gusset snatcher wrote:
Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality.
Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.

Heathen Earth wrote:

pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?

Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!

Heathen Earth wrote:

pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?

Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service.
Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.

So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK?

So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views!

Fight_Back wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Fight_Back wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?

It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Fight_Back wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?

It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.

Worldwide, every culture has its sets of beliefs and some amount to ritualised religions. Marriage between opposite sexes within their elaborate kinship systems (all different) hallmark all the ones I know about.

Marriage was not invented and is not owned by Christianity. But it is an institution that most people around the world have formalised within a religious format.

The West is loosening this with its register office marriages, civil partnerships, etc. But actual marriage is still not universally accepted as being something you can provide for other than man plus woman.

Fight_Back wrote:

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?

It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro

ng wrote:

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.

So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK?

So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views!

Well?

gusset snatcher wrote:
Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Heathen Earth wrote:

gusset snatcher wrote:
Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality.
Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.

You may well think gay people adopt because it's 'trendy', but the children they do adopt are quite obviously the result of hetrosexual relations, including marriage, and unwanted by those very same hetrosexuals!

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

anubis wrote:
We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest!

What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge.

People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’.

Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t!

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Eggs from a female human have been fertilised without a sperm so there is
No need to begat anyone.
Just a 240 volt socket and a lab in Italy.
We are all doomed but remember god made it possible.

true-brightonian wrote:
The fact that Cameron is a huge fan of gay marriage should raise alarm bells. Once upon a time the gay rights movement was radical. Now they just want to get married and settle down? Don't they see that marriage is just another form of social slavery?

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.

DC78 wrote:

John Fallon wrote:
Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.

Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line.

In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.

leobrighton wrote:
I think the fact that she made a written statement when standing for election and then go against it later is good enough reason. Honesty before election should be paramount and the Green party have made the right decision.

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs?
If not, she should have stood down earlier.
The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate.
She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Get over yourselves and wake up.
I bet hardly any of you posting on here go to church so why are you so obsessed with marriage.
Once pensions stop being handed to spouses after death even fewer will
opt for marriage. And wake up, three in four marriages end in divorce and more women are ending marriages in the UK than at any other time so it's not always about sleeping around, it's about women getting freedom and financial independence and as one of
My recently divorced female friends said: my husband was like our teenage son, playing on the X Box of a night. There was little difference between our son and him and that killed the sexual attraction.
As for being a swinger, you lot really are showing why marriage is so
Outdated. People swing in marriages you fools.
The UK is no longer a Christian country, churches are empty. We must be one of the few countries selling Off places of worship.

Point wrote:
What a disgrace, NEVER AGAIN will I vote green, it is paramount to communism their spokesman said " A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry.

"Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter.
So are they saying they will pick and choose what their counsellors will be able to vote against before an internal inquiry.
This is a disgrace against freedomm of speech and I hope every siongl;e religious group will openly stand against them..How long before the elections???

voiceofthescoombe wrote:
Every other council member voted for this pretty meaningless thing.
So yes she desrves a slap.
She may be a devout christian the people of brighton are not.
Niether are the people of the UK claiming we are a Christian country is pushing the idea till it breaks.

Roy Pennington wrote:
time for a proper "conscience clause" in the contract between a Party and its members.

Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.

gusset snatcher wrote:
Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin

oknotko wrote:

Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.

No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.

Point wrote:

Maxwell's Ghost wrote: Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.

Is this fellow for real

Martha Gunn wrote:

oknotko wrote:

Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.

No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.

Whoops oknotko - yet again!
The Church and State are NOT separate in this country. In France yes, in the USA and in many other places. But not in this country.

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

DC78 wrote:

Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent.

Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go.

Her free speech remains and always has been intact.

Dr Wombleface wrote:
Christina Summers was quoted on the BBC website as saying "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice". She's wrong, but what's the difference between that and discriminating against homosexuals? Not much in my book.
Anyway, if Christians are against gay marriage, why are there so many gay vicars?

Will's blog wrote:
The Greens normally let their councillors vote however they like on council motions. The leadership has put a knife in to make an example.
Still, look on the bright side, she hasn't been sent to a camp and air brushed out of the group photo. (yet?)

Somethingsarejustwro
ng wrote:
They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.

fascinator wrote:

Somethingsarejustwro

ng wrote:
They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.

Do you know them all?

tonybee wrote:
LOL @ Pete of Queens Park's post
re Jason Kitkat & The Dictators !
Sounds like a failed pop group whose
one & only record was "GREEN & RED STARS "...................

.......
To all the IDIOTS who voted Green - see what IDIOTS u have landed us with, Next time get a grip & vote properly.

Angryoldman wrote:
Maybe she would feel more at home in the BNP

Point wrote:
Am I right in saying the other Green member to leave the chamber before the vote was Jason Kitcat's wife?

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).

pperrin wrote:
Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action.

I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...

pperrin wrote:
Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action.

I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).

Point wrote:

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).

I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..

anubis wrote:
We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest! What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge. People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t!

feistyfaerie wrote:
Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results!

Hang on a minute...
Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way?
Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.

Valerie Paynter wrote:

Point wrote:

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).

I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..

There is, alas, a cruel logic to this notion that Ania Kitcat should be summoned by the Inquisitors on the 'panel' that evaluated the question of how to deal with naughty Christina who stepped out of line.

She is, however, said to have been a signatory to the Green Party Notice of Motion Amendment to the basic Labour Notice of Motion. Does that equate to actually voting for the Administration to Lobby Govt to create gay marriage?

Jezreel wrote:

feistyfaerie wrote:
Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results!

Hang on a minute...
Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way?
Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.

Youv'e missed the point feisty. Parties have a mandate from the electors based on their policies and sometimes on their manifesto.

If a councillor is elected for a party he/she sticks to policy other than when there is a free vote. This maverick broke the mandate and voted against her own party.

Nor is it just her own party. She was out of step with everyone except God (according to her) Though when I discussed this with God she was all for it.

Valery Pointless wrote:
I hear that that Councillor Summers doesn't much like abortions either. Which is a shame, in retrospect. I have written a stiff letter (ON CARDBOARD!) to Dr Kitcat to see if we can have that decision overboard. It's time to jump ship.

Point wrote:
My final word on the matter, a cllr with morals and a backbone. quickly make her the Mayor, replace the dope we have now..

Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

JaseBHA wrote:

Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.

It's not that the Green way is the only way - if she didn't agree with it and wanted to go some other way, she did not have to sign the declaration or stand for them. And 'Point', if she had morals, she wouldn't have reneged on the commitment (or would not have signed it in the first place if she didn't believe in it). It's the Greens, for Pete's sake, not Uncle Joe's Communist Party. If you don't agree with the pledge, don't sign it.

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .

General Dreedle wrote:

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:

martyt wrote:

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.

are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?

No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.

There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).

Good idea. Come on Tim Ridgeway, get her on the phone and ask her to state her public position.

Jezreel wrote:
Just wondering. Where is Valerie Paynter coming from? I have declared myself as a practising Christian opposed to bigotry and fundamentalist intolerance. Valerie, perhaps you would illuminate this discussion be saying where you stand on issues such as abortion, gun laws and gay relationships

Jezreel wrote:

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .

Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once.

Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party.

More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst

Bob_The_Ferret wrote:
A witch hunt! A witch hunt! We all love a witch hunt. Long live the inquisitors!

championshipgull wrote:

Jezreel wrote:

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .

Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once.

Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party.

More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst

Jezreel says...
10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12
What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs.
Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so?

This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google.

championshipgull says…
I did a bit of a Google to find out what Christians believe and my findings are very different from yours. Most christens believe the earth was created in 6 day. Not a literal day but a thousand years so the earth was created in 6000 years.
The Christian sites I looked at believe man is responsible for climate change or it is part of a cycle and I found several Christian organisations that are helping both Palestinian and Israeli. So I think you are wrong on all 3 counts or giving out misinformation. Which posses the question do you know how to Google yourself or are you not reading your bible.

As regards your response to my comment no one on the council is “spouting obnoxious racist views” which makes your point invalid and in both the headline and the article above if you have read it, its states that the councillor has been expelled.

Oh and I found this on a evangelical Christian site http://www.godandsci

ence.org/
Did Noah take dinosaurs on the ark?
No. There weren't any dinosaurs to take along at that point in time, since they had died 65 million years ago. In fact, since the flood was likely local in extent, Noah probably did not take Polar Bears, penguins, or giraffes.
So Jezreel you just are plane wrong on all counts.

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.

Valerie Paynter wrote:
She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice.

When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel.

It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel.

This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers.

Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon.

If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her.