It's not over for COP26 as the Coalition builds for the future

 

Written by Skye Pepier

The COP26 Coalition has continued to meet since the Glasgow Summit in November last year, and on 19th February there was a whole day of discussion about the future of the movement. The framing for the discussion was that Glasgow last year was just the start of the network’s activity, and that the work needed to build an effective climate movement on these islands should be continued and enhanced. 

There was a tremendous enthusiasm about the action and work that is being undertaken by the Coalition, despite the recognition that the COP26 summit was a failure and did not bring the action on climate change needed from our so-called world leaders. People from all corners of Britain, and the world, including the Caribbean and Africa participated in the COP26 Coalition meetings. 

Despite similar attempts of network building by Green Left, however, including its involvement of the Ecosocialist Alliance, there was a noticeable absence in the COP26 Coalition meetings, of anyone involved in Green parties, of either Scotland, or England and Wales. This doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't Green Party members present - but it was difficult to discover the presence of fellow Green Party members. 

After a brief introduction to the COP26 Coalition, there were discussions around the difference between organising and mobilising a diversity of tactics, as well as regional exercises to build up COP26 local hubs and the wider climate justice movement. 

The day then closed with an online rally for the year ahead, titled 'Movement Building & Collective Strategies', with speakers from Fridays for Future Scotland, Campaign Against Climate Change, Landworkers Alliance, as well as youth activist Aoife Mercedes Rodriguez-Uruchurtu from YouthStrike4Climate Manchester and Breathe.  

Each speaker was able to say something quite different to the others, but without disagreement of any kind, which was a sign of the diversity of the COP26 Coalition movement, and arguably, also its strength. 

So, what is next for the COP26 Coalition? As the UK holds the presidency of COP26 until the start of COP27, it is still important to keep climate change on the agenda, just as it always has, but especially if we want to see continued action while the UK is in its current global position on it. There is also the matter of building towards COP27, despite it being in Egypt, where post-Arab Spring oppression has been brutal. 

The strategy for the COP26 Coalition covers the following areas: 

1. Building local capacity by supporting the 'local hubs' to continue to organise locally and to aim to bring other climate campaigns and campaigners together through taking action and the target mapping. 

2. Continue to hold events, such as mass gatherings, to build up, and share, useful skills and to learn more from each other e.g., on tactics and other ideas. 

3. To continue to put pressure, where possible, on our leaders, for meaningful action on climate justice. 

4. To share relevant experience of organising together as the baton for the summit itself is now being passed to Egyptian climate organisers. 

While many of us in the Green Party will now be looking to the local elections in May, it might be worth also reaching out to COP26 Coalition groups in our areas, to see how it might be possible to work together for an opportunity to strengthen the climate movement. 

The politics of the participants in the meetings of the 19th February feel like a good fit to those that I have already found among Green Left activists (despite being involved for a relatively short amount of time), so there should be no real practical or ideological barriers to connecting our movements more, and I would argue that Green Left is in a fairly unique position to be able to bridge what seems to be a divide between the Green Party of England and Wales, and the broader climate movement, of which the COP26 Coalition is arguably closest to us at the present moment. 

Even if our personal capacity is an obstacle to involvement in the run-up to the local elections, let us somehow at least make a resolve now to connect these struggles once the elections are over. 

The COP26 Coalition Trade Union Caucus also meets online on the 3rd Tuesday of the month and is well worth being explored by any rank and file trade union organisers. 

To find out more about the COP26 Coalition you can visit their website at https://cop26coalition.org/

Skye Pepier is a member of Tower Hamlets Green Party and a Green Left supporter.

Green Party Adopts Contradictory Definitions of Antisemitism: Future Implications

Written by Les Levidow

How does (or doesn’t) antisemitism relate to anti-Israel criticism?  For this political question, a central focus has been the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.  Since being adopted by the UK government in 2016, it has become increasingly contentious. 

The IHRA Definition likewise has been the focus of debate in the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) for several years.  Finally its autumn 2021 conference passed a motion on antisemitism guidance. Its text incorporated contradictory definitions of antisemitism, as highlighted by plenary speeches against the motion. Likewise by reports on the plenary debate from within and outside the GPEW.

Why such contradictory elements?  Together these serve the fantasy parallel universe of the motion’s supporters. According to them, there is no conflict between the IHRA Definition and the Palestine solidarity movement. This narrative helped the motion to gain a 2/3 majority vote at the conference plenary.  Yet the motion got a hostile response from pro-Israel groups.  Let us examine why.

On the one hand, the motion promoted the IHRA Definition as the ‘gold standard’ for mainstream Jewish organizations. Indeed it is, because they identify with Israel and seek to limit or restrict anti-racist criticism.  According to the IHRA’s Israel examples, it is antisemitic to characterise the Israeli state as ‘a racist endeavour’.  Deploying this example, pro-Israel groups have stigmatised the phrase ‘apartheid Israel’ as antisemitic. 

The IHRA’s Israel examples underlie some false allegations against Green Party election candidates by pro-Israel groups, especially the so-called ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’.  More generally, the IHRA’s Israel examples have been designed and used for an anti-Palestinian agenda; this role has been well documented for several years (as in the global survey, The IHRA at Work).

On the other hand, the conference motion gives reassurance that its guidance does not conflict with the GPEW’s policies on Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) (in 2008 and 2014 conference motions supporting the 2005 Palestinian call).  The motion’s Appendix 2 includes caveats, e.g. that it would not necessarily be antisemitic to call Israel ‘an apartheid state’.  And it includes the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which distinguishes between antisemitic and anti-Zionist comments, thus explicitly contradicting the IHRA’s Israel examples.  

For those reasons, the motion displeased pro-Israel voices, such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and some Jewish newspapers.  Such voices have had a central role in false allegations of antisemitism, thus helping to shield and disguise a wider UK-Israel partnership (see my article).  For such false allegations, the GPEW motion-guidance provides a weaker political weapon than the IHRA Definition per se.  Hence they predictably criticised the motion. 

Those criticisms disappointed the motion’s proponents. Soon after the autumn conference, the Jewish Greens issued a briefing document for any GPEW representatives who may be asked questions about ‘the pushback from the Jewish community’ (more accurately, its pro-Israel sections).  The briefing attributes the pushback to a miscommunication.  It also says that the conference motion was ‘inspired by a model used by the Community Security Trust (CST)’.  Yet the CST’s 2019 report makes allegations of antisemitism against some individuals using the phrase ‘apartheid Israel’.    

The Jewish Greens’ briefing document downplays the motion’s contradictory content and caveats about anti-Israel criticism.  It makes several requests, e.g. ‘Do not: Suggest that the reason we’ve taken this approach is because the IHRA is inadequate or use language which suggests we are caveating the IHRA.’   Indeed, please don't say the obvious. 

For a consistently pro-Palestine politics that also opposes antisemitism,  the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is the most helpful short guide.  It should be deployed against the IHRA’s Israel examples, as it was explicitly meant to do. Political education should highlight their contrary perspectives. This is crucial for distinguishing between anti-racist Palestine solidarity and antisemitism, as a basis to counter false allegations.

Les Levidow is a member of Green Left within the Green Party of England and Wales. He has been involved in several Palestine solidarity groups since the 1980s, most recently Jewish Network for Palestine (JNP).  He is a member of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), which opposed the IHRA Definition’s precursor when it first appeared publicly in 2006.

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Shahrar Ali

 

Candidate for Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Shahrar Ali talks to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why he is running for the leadership of the party.

Tell me a little about your background and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party? 

I became active in Green politics at the turn of the century around the threat from GM crops. I was part of the successful campaign to stop GM entering the agricultural system in the UK and my work took me to the heart of the European Parliament as a researcher on environmental risk assessment. It was gratifying to be part of the unit which provided parliamentarians with briefing documents which helped inform the votes for successive moratoria on GM crop regulation across the UK. That’s when I got my first taste of Green parliamentarians shaping our future for the collective good. 

I trained as a biochemical engineer before turning to philosophy and taught widely across the educational sector, with a particular interest in offering lifelong education at affordable rates. My educational background is perhaps significant to what I think I can bring to the Party at this time. Both biotechnology and philosophy have at their heart a commitment to scientific truth and rational persuasion. We need more of this in politics right now, and in the Green Party, too. I see my role as leader both to demonstrate rational argument in political debate and to do us proud on broadcast media on big, live platforms and on social media. Here’s an example of my debating with Sadiq Khan and Priti Patel on the BBC [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHe_LsR5Pg] during the 2015 general election, where we polled over a million votes. 

As former deputy leader 2014-16 I was the first BME leader of a UK parliamentary party and this added real credibility to our presentation. That’s not the best reason to vote for me, but it is a significant one, as we are sadly lacking in visible ethnic representation at all levels of the party. I helped launch Greens of Colour and whilst it has been great to see people from more diverse ethnic backgrounds coming into the party we still have much, much more to do. 

If you are elected as leader of the party, what will be your priorities? 

I will boldly make that case for immediate action on the climate and ecological emergency. It’s hard for us to get our heads round the scale of transformation required to overcome the worst of climate degradation, much of which has already been set in train. The prize for humanity is great: our continued existence. The threat of species extinction is too grave to contemplate. The emergency response to Covid-19 has shown that, with political will, much adaptation is possible. We need to harness more of that spirit in pursuit of massive reduction in our carbon consumption. We need to get on a war footing for the sake of the climate emergency. Greens have long advocated a Green new deal, which would require overhaul of the economic system and investment in renewable energy, with Green jobs to match. I say more about what this transformation might look like in my final answer. 

Secondly, we must reach out to new constituencies of voters, especially those who are feeling politically homeless due to leaders promoting, or facilitating, a hostile environment for them. I’m thinking especially of women and ex-Labour members and voters. 

Many women I have spoken to, including in our own party, have felt prevented from organising around campaigns to preserve or protect their sex-based rights. Many brilliant campaigners have in fact resigned. In any arena of equalities, if you’ve got a group of people who feel that they are affected by the claims of another group of people, that requires negotiation not imposition. In addition, in order to negotiate you need to debate, and uncover people’s assumptions, if only to work out that there’s no misunderstanding. That kind of debate and negotiating culture is in increasingly short supply, in society and in political parties. 

A further example is the conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel’s heinous policies with fake allegations of antisemitism – often fuelled by the bogus, politicised IHRA definition. It is monstrous that a lifelong antiracist of the pedigree of Corbyn was hounded out in the way he was. I, too, have had to face down antisemitism smear campaigns and recently won an IPSO ruling against the Jewish Chronicle on five counts. I am now pushing not just for rejection of the IHRA definition by our Party but adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration instead – a well-crafted statement that would help identify and tackle genuine antisemitic incidents. Greens fight racism in all its forms, including anti-Jewish racism, and this is all the more reason to advocate for definitions which are fit for purpose, not counterproductive on their own terms. 

The common thread running through these conflicts, which often become internalised in parties, is the failure to insist on mature, rational debate. Groupthink and cancel culture thrive in such conditions, often reinforced by social media bubbles. Leaders must collaborate to overcome the threat to free speech – by demonstrating it themselves and confronting Orwellian abuse of language. 

Shahrar visiting Calais Jungle camp as Deputy Leader

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow, what are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments? 

I have low expectations for yet another conference on the international circuit. The climate and ecological emergency is my priority: I was a founding signatory of Extinction Rebellion in 2018 and a founder member of GreensCAN. We can be absolutely clear about the twin aims of getting Greens elected and campaigning beyond the ballot box to galvanise the scale of social and political transformation required. As Greens we will continue to push for results at COP26 and also to raise awareness outside and beyond COP. 

A review of the party’s Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The "Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

A Governance Review, which was set 8 years ago in 2013, failed to deliver a new constitution by the Autumn of 2018, the end of its remit. The Holistic Review Commission which followed failed to deliver on its promises of “radical reforms” and the Spring 2021 online Special Constitutional conference ended in chaos. 

In my opinion, all attempts to modernise our constitution since 2013 have failed because they lacked any bottom-up approach in the first instance. Our members have simply not felt concerned about such internal matters nor been involved in any of those processes. Yes, conference participants approved all those initiatives, but conference is made up of self-appointed members who may not have read the conference agenda before taking part and are under no obligation to represent their local party or designated group members. Normally, that member right is an asset but sometimes it can land us in a false sense of security about genuine engagement and I think that’s what happened here. I don't think it should come as any surprise really that it has indeed proved almost impossible to draft and implement a new constitution. 

Shahrar addressing Association of Green Councillors

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party? 

In basing my campaign on the three crucial issues of climate emergency, women's rights, and free speech, I am confident that all of us in the Green Party are united in caring about these issues. In expressing my support for women's rights, I am in no way intending to minimise the importance of LGBTQI+ rights. I am convinced that the way forward within the Green Party – and indeed in wider society – lies in mutually respectful dialogue to ensure that everyone's concerns are heard and taken into account. 

It's unfortunately the case that there have been communication problems within the Green Party that have resulted in many people feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously. I want to encourage a culture of openness and mutual respect so that these matters, which naturally elicit strong feelings in people, can be debated in a compassionate manner. Kindness is sometimes overlooked in the heat of the moment, especially in the heat of exchanges on social media.  I hope that, if I am elected, I can help to facilitate our all working together in the Green Party to find our way forward with these complex issues. 

By tackling these communication problems we can move forward together in our united determination to face the environmental crisis that threatens us all.  The Green Party has a great contribution to make: we have to find the way to resolve our differences and pull together. 

Shahrar launching environmental leadership programme for BAME youth

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

We must overcome political cowardice. Outside the global Green parties few politicians have been willing to shout, “Fire!” But as Greta says, the building is on fire. Of course, shouting fire isn't enough. To avoid catastrophe we have to transform our energy, transport and farming systems. That's going to be hard and even with a just transition to a more sustainable way of life it will be uncomfortable for some. But we have to do it. 

The first climate priority for a Green government would be 'stop digging'. We have to stop making the climate problem worse so:

·       No airport expansion

·       No new roads

·       End fossil fuel subsidies

·       No gas boilers in new homes

·       All meetings between government and industry or Trade Unions (other than security matters) to be announced and minuted. 

Second - begin to build the low-carbon alternative - this is at least a ten-year programme:

·       Introduce carbon tax

·       In parallel, supplement taxation with Personal Carbon Allowances (the latter is a policy proposal coming from me to Autumn conference)

·       Expand wind power and energy development and the grid

·       Announce dates from which fossil-fuelled vehicles can't be used on UK roads (probably different dates for cars, vans, buses, HGVs, tractors, etc.)

·       Start major training programme for retrofit workers

·       Start national housing retrofit programme

·       Make Passivhaus the default standard for new buildings

·       Accelerate the development of active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, after full consultation on design with disability user groups)

·       Set target for making company accounts comply with Sustainable Cost Accounting - largest first

·       Expand R&D on low-carbon technologies 

Third - start national and regional discussion of Just Transition measures with local authorities, employers’ organisations, trade unions and community groups. Develop a Just Transition support budget. 

Fourth – start a phased programme of industrial decarbonisation – probably start by expanding steel recycling and closing blast furnaces. 

The bottom line is that every sector will have to change.  There are 50 – maybe 500 – actions needed in a comprehensive, co-ordinated systemic approach.  This is just a sketch for a vast change across government, politics, economics and society.  I would be advocating for and asking Greens to set up citizens' assemblies to help to support the sea-change in thinking and behaviour required.  We need to change what is politically possible if we are do what is scientifically necessary. We need a reality check. 

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm.

Green Party Leadership Election –Exclusive Interview with Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway

Candidates for Co-Leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales, Tina Rothery and Martin Hemingway, talk to London Green Left Blog’s editor Mike Shaughnessy about why they are running for the leadership of the party. 

Tell me a little about your backgrounds and why you are standing for the leadership of the Green Party?

TR Lancashire is ‘home’ right now and has been for a large chunk of the past two decades, but I was born in London and at four-years-old, my family chose to migrate to Australia as part of the Assisted Passage Programme (at the time, commonly referred to as ‘£10 Poms’) before moving to Hong Kong when I was 12. I returned to the UK in my early 20s but went on to live in Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain before returning and settling in Blackpool where my sister and her family are.

My first job was as a reporter at the Hong Kong Standard newspaper and my career from then onwards, was mostly in communications. I’ve found it has always been more difficult to ‘get ahead’ in the UK and as a single-mother, worked as a waitress, hotel cleaner, barmaid, staff trainer and a multitude of other things to get food on the table and money in the meter.

The past decade, however, has been the most life-changing of all episodes in my varied life. Becoming an activist changed more than my income bracket (bare minimum), it enhanced me, broadened my views, nourished my heart and rewarded my life with a genuine purpose that isn’t about earning more, buying more, competing or focusing on interests of self. And activism ensures I’m in the best company of all.

I recently returned to education after a 40-year break (it wasn’t my strong point when I was younger) but am struggling to justify any time given to anything that isn’t dealing with the climate crisis: what point will a university degree be on an uninhabitable planet? Much will depend on what happens next. 

When Jonathan and Sian made their intentions to step-down known and it was clear we would be electing new Green Party leaders, I was disappointed to discover that those I hoped were going to stand, had decided not to. I am a little surprised myself that I decided to run for leadership, but I trust my instincts. I considered options on standing alone but I have enough self-awareness to know that I thrive best with balance and co-operation. Martin became the natural choice as a partner. Over the past seven years as a member, it was him that I would approach with questions because I knew I would always get an informed, honest answer from a man of integrity and experience. I’m truly honoured he agreed. 

MH I have 50 years of political experience gleaned as an agent in elections, as a candidate in many local elections, general elections and Euro elections – including as lead candidate, as an elected member of the ruling Labour group on Leeds City Council, the second largest local authority in the country, for 12 years. The time on Leeds City Council led to positive changes for local people, to regional roles, and a UK role as Chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities. It is difficult to summarise all that I have done in a few words.

I left Labour for various reasons, but largely because I was not New Labour – I stayed where I was and the Party moved away from me.

In the Green Party I have almost 20 years of experience in local, regional and national parties. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of this experience, At local and regional levels I have filled most roles, written constitutions and strategies, supported local parties. Nationally I spent four years on the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) and over five years on the Standing Orders Committee (SOC).

I have an understanding of the Party, good and bad, through this experience, and am very conscious of the need to have Leaders who will bring the Party together to tackle the climate emergency we are facing.

If you are elected as leaders of the party, what will be your priorities?

MH It is easy to say Climate, Climate, Climate, but we need to make clear the part that the Green Party and engaged Leadership has to play in achieving this, but also in addressing the social justice agenda of the Green Party.

Our priorities will be first of all COP26, the lead up to it, the message we need to put across, and the ongoing work to turn the word-shop into a workshop.

That will involve our regions and local parties pushing the message as part of our electoral strategy, and we are committed to working with the regional and local parties where the campaigning and electoral work is actually done.

Beyond that we need to be engaging with communities, particularly those that are estranged from the political processes, we need to be addressing the near absence of people of colour, of working class members, of those communities most affected by poverty, of those disabled by impairment.

That has to be our electoral strategy, and we are prepared to engage on that.

TR Clearly working to save all life on earth and preserving and enhancing the natural systems that will nurture it.

How we do this will be a priority job and that starts with unifying our Party. Processes, procedures, conference, dispute resolution, discipline and communications are areas that are not providing solutions and we need to work on that.

A really important part of the job for me and one that I’d thoroughly look forward to, would be visiting and working with the regions and local parties within them. I believe that strengthening and supporting regional offices so that they can provide professional help with media, campaigning and membership would make a huge difference and ensure our Party is stronger throughout England and Wales, rather than in small pockets.

Strong regional parties would broaden our perspectives and help us fine-tune our responses to local elections and campaigns. Access for local media too will be enhanced if we can develop relationships and be relied on to respond promptly and professionally.

Conference is where the most important decisions are made, yet only a miniscule percentage of members ever attend. Strong regional parties would be part of the solution to this; we could revisit the idea of reforming conference voting and looking at regional conferences with online voting facilities and greater regional input.

The groups within our Party too are struggling to build around the issues that they want to ensure are heard. The success story is the Young Greens and we need to look at that model and why it works well at getting issues raised and policies to conference. Auto-enrolment is a key differentiator: when joining the Party, members who fulfil the criteria (young/students) automatically become members of the Young Greens, receiving a welcome email and regular updates. None of the other groups benefit from this.

When I was Chair of Green Party Women, we couldn’t even get access to a mailing list of women within the Party in order to reach out. New members fill in details about themselves that could be used to auto-enrol (with an opt-out) them into Greens of Colour, Green Party Disability Group, Green Party Women, LGBTIQA+ Greens and Green Seniors. Not only would this enrich the groups but new members would very quickly feel that they are welcome, heard and seen.

And then there are allies outside the Party both locally and nationally that we could be building relationships with, in order to tackle shared concerns for specific actions, events or goals. During the 1000 days of protest by the anti-fracking movement at Preston New Road here in Lancashire, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Reclaim the Power, the Unions, academics, celebrities, environmental and religious groups came to join residents and help get us through this gruelling but necessary action. The ability to stall progress, increase costs, impact reputation, and upset supply chains is what prevented progress on shale gas extraction long enough to cause share prices in the company operating to see its share price plummet from pounds to pennies and the earth shake enough to prove us right and bring a moratorium.

We need to keep gathering power behind our aims and along with a strong, united Party, we need to draw on the power of the Unions, environmental groups, NGOs and others to unite around what does unite us. The more we work alongside others both inside and outside of our Party, the more we are ‘being the change we wish to see.

Tina (left) campaigning against fracking with Emma Thompson (right).

Emma Thompson said: “Please read Tina’s manifesto - it explains so fully and clearly why Green politics are the only possible future and why they are central to all the system changes that we urgently need to make.  Women will be key in this movement towards a cleaner, juster planet and I am proud to support Tina who is one of the world’s greatest activists. She is not interested in power for its own sake and will serve you and the planet with stunning dedication and humility. I wish her and Martin Hemingway success as Co-Leaders of The Green Party.” 

The COP26 conference is taking place in November, in Glasgow. What are your expectations of anything significant being agreed by participant governments?

TR Absolutely no expectation at all. Too many talks, too many promises, too many treaties that amount to nothing more than a vague nod from the wealthiest countries, whilst those already experiencing the worsening impacts of climate change, and least responsible for it… are literally left out to dry, flood, endure flames, famine and flight.

There need to be penalties and polluters should pay – not with readily available money, but time-served. Agreeing the law of Ecocide would be a good start followed by a choice to act together to save all of us. Cooperation is going to have to become the way, rather than winners and losers.

The Green Party, as the only Party genuinely dedicated to the environment and life on earth, needs a powerful presence both at the talks in Glasgow and in towns and cities throughout the UK. This is a rare opportunity to truly unite not just as members but alongside Unions, environmentalists, NGOs and deeply concerned others to show we can work together to achieve a clear goal: to make COP26 face up to reality, move on from talking, include the voices of the affected and take action to stop any more tipping points becoming inevitable.

How do you think the Green party should position itself politically in the run up to the next general election?

MH We are the Party of reality. We have to address the reality of damaging climate change. We have to address the reality of environmental damage in other ways, water quality, air quality, land degradation.

We have to address the issues of inequality, and this means addressing the economic system that places emphasis on growth rather than fairness and justice.

There are issues in education, in health and social care, in community provision that have to be addressed – the Green party has to lead on this because the Conservatives do not care, and the Labour Party has given up – as Starmer says the ambition of Labour is to work more closely with business.

TR As the opposition! We are the ONLY Party that tells the truth on climate, that holds the government to account and doesn’t shy away from being honest for the sake of votes. There is no other Party like us.

I doubt any of the other Parties would have a fraction of their policies on climate if it weren’t for Caroline Lucas bringing it to parliament, our Councillors working to declare climate emergencies or our members relentlessly informing their MPs.

Other Parties pander to what will win voters, which may sound like the right thing to do, until you realise the consequences of all that they left out.

A review of the party's Instruments of Governance was called for and approved by Conference some 6 years ago. The " Holistic Review Commission" was set up in 2018 which aimed to deliver radical constitutional reforms. In your opinion, what are the reasons why after all this time and effort, it seems almost impossible for the party to adopt a new constitution?

MH I have been closely involved in the process which has been held up by the failure of those addressing the process to recognise that they had to operate within the terms set by the ballot. I have proposed various constitutional documents that would have done what the ballot said was wanted, but those involved wanted to go further than the ballot permitted.

My perception is that the process involved centralisation of power within the Party, and this process is something about which we have serious concerns.

We are a membership led party, not a leader led party, and this is important to both of us.

Conference is the Supreme Body of the party. Given that its participants are self-appointed. What constitutional changes will you propose to address the widely acknowledged democratic deficit created by this anomaly?

MH This is an issue for the Party to discuss. Only a minority of the Party are engaged with Party issues. Many see their Green Party membership as an add on to active campaigning in other areas.

We need to address the make up of the Conference audience. When we hit 20,000 members we should have moved to delegate conferences, but as membership has grown that threshold has been kicked down the road.

We have probably reached the point where that decision has to be made so that those voting at Conference represent the breadth of membership rather than those that can attend, or that can ‘pack’ conference. We will be supporting the party in moves to reform of conference, both in terms of simplifying and opening up the policy proposal process, and in the reform of participation.

Martin marching at Kirby Misperton fracking site

Identity issues, especially around gender recognition, has been hugely controversial in the party recently. What will be your approach to healing the division which has opened up in the party?

TR Not just controversial, but the cause of deeply damaging division, huge upset and anger within our membership. It’s a matter of urgency that we put a plan in place and enact it, before more harm is done to individuals and Party reputation. How can we expect people to vote us into government, if we can’t even address our own internal disputes? Why would the voters trust us?

We’ve lost valued members which is such a failure really; some because they disputed another’s views/policies and many more because they felt the Party had begun to shift the focus and priority away from the impending climate catastrophe. I think we also need to be aware that for many members – the cause of these disputes is not clear, the terminology unfamiliar and the subject matter and implications, not well known.

I recall when Sian wrote her letter referring to the problems surrounding trans and women’s rights – some members asked what problems this was even referring to. Such a tiny percentage of members are engaged with the internal politics, the making of policy, conference etc – most are out campaigning or getting involved with local environmental groups and just trusting that as The Green Party, we’re getting on with the politics of being green.

We have procedures to handle disputes and clearly these are not adequately resourced, supported or working. There is a process issue, and it’s with process and professionalism that we’ll address it. Martin’s suggestion of a ‘Members’ Assembly’ is an excellent one. We cannot stifle the discussions - they just spill out onto social media and that’s no place to solve anything so we must make space, time and support for them.

MH We will be asking GPRC under its party well-being power to constitute a members assembly. Not one that requires particular groups have representatives, but in the best tradition of such assemblies that selects participants at random from the entire membership; that checks on current views on a set of questions, that seeks expert informants from different positions on the spectrum of the debate, and concerned with different aspects of the debate, and that seeks to produce a document that agrees what that policy means in detail.

Members can choose to accept the outcome or not, but we need to find a position that the majority can be happy with, and seek to give the issue a rest.

What is your vision for Green party over the next few years?

MH We need to position the Green Party in two ways, and this has long been our difficulty.

We need to be the leading party on acting on the environmental issues that people identify as part of our ‘Unique Selling Point’. One of our problems has been getting away from this identification of the Green Party as a single issue party.

What we need to be building at the same time is our identity as the party of social justice and fairness. The Party that represents the excluded and the left behind as well as those parts of the middle class that identify with this agenda, as well as with the overarching climate concern.

TR Government. Hear me out…

The reality of climate change is finally too blatant to ignore and as the impacts grow, people are realising what the other Parties have done, and it’s going to be unforgiveable. Supporting industries that are breaking our life-support system, subsidising them with our money, inflicting the same on other countries like some sort of climate-colonialism, subjecting us and our children to a life of hardship as resources dwindle, weather becomes unpredictable and tipping points take us to a future we can’t begin to conceive; all our governments that were aware of what scientists were proving, failed to act and this is criminal.

It’s also ever-more apparent that the Greens are the only Party sounding the alarm for decades and acting in all the ways possible (under a FPTP voting system) to at least act on the impending crisis. The others are liars.

One MP, more than 400 councillors, thousands of activists and tens of thousands of members are not in this for popularity, we’re in it to face reality and reality is dawning.

Voting opens on 2 September 10am and closes 23 September 10pm. 

Why I resigned from the Green Party

 Written by Andrea Carey-Fuller

It was with great sadness that I resigned my position on the Green Party Regional Council and left the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), having been a member for 8 years, in May 2021. I come from a human rights background acting as an advocate standing up for the rights of vulnerable groups of people. I had quite a high profile in Lewisham - having worked collaboratively with other groups of people on the Stop TTIP campaign and the Save Tidemill campaign. I stood in Lewisham local elections 3 times, and in the General Election 2019 (Lewisham Deptford). I was the London Federation AGM Coordinator for about 5 years, and worked on education policy for a year. 

Until I stood in the General Election in 2019, I had no idea of the toxicity bubbling underneath the Green Party regarding Trans Rights Activists (TRA's) viewing anyone who stands up for women's rights as being 'Transphobic'. When I pledged my support for A Woman's Place manifesto (among a host of other pledges such as support for the Future Generations Bill etc) in the last General Election I was shocked that people in my own party piled on me on Twitter calling me a bigot and transphobic!  

This harassment and bullying from within then continued and reached epic proportions when I stood for Deputy Leader on a platform of increasing engagement in the party, the need for a Women's Rights policy, and encouraging members to vote in more Greens of Colour. 

When I put myself forward as a candidate for GPRC London Rep, the online abuse started again and the Elections Coordinator for the London Regional Green Party (Stephan Liberadzki, complicit with Colin Boyle the Coordinator)) tried to avoid counting the vote (as I had won by a slim margin) and attempted to re-run the election again to get a different result!  

They both ignored my complaints about lack of due process and had allowed Danny Keeling who identified as a man in the 2019 General Election to put his name forward for the female rep role. I found out shortly after this that Stephan himself had called me transphobic on Twitter during the GPEX Elections 2020 as well! Colin’s view of the abuse and harassment was that it was “fair comment”! 

As a GPRC rep I saw how the complaints system was being abused to continually suspend 'Gender Critical members.' This view that Women's rights is 'Transphobic' is being continually touted by the current leadership of Sian/Jonathan/Ameila/Liz Reason (Green Party Executive Chair) and the CEO Mary Clegg. It was Sian Berry and Caroline Russell who spoke against my motion at Conference to have a women's rights section (supported by Baroness Jenny Jones) put under the Green Party's Rights and Responsibilities, declaring the motion to be "transphobic and trans-exclusionary."   

Following Conference, our Co-Leader Sian Berry, was crowing on Twitter that she had defeated the Women's Rights motion as if this was a good thing! This action on Sian's part was both undignified, and irresponsible. I have known both Sian and Caroline Russell (both of whom I used to have high regard for), for a number of years as I have worked alongside them in London on various campaigns. 

By wrongly repeating 'Trans Activist' rhetoric and mantras about women's rights being transphobic they continue to fuel division, and incite toxicity within our party - making it an unhealthy place for any member who dares to support women's rights as set out in the UN Convention against the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.  (Ratified by the UK Government in 1986 - see: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm) 

It states that parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. It affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. It also states parties also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and the exploitation of women." 

I had already raised the issue of increasing levels of harassment and toxicity towards women and anyone who supports women's rights within the Green Party at the GPRC meeting in March saying that we need to have  "a full, frank and open discussion about the ever-increasing levels of intolerance towards Green Party members who speak up for women's rights.” 

This conversation about the divisions and toxicity within our party is long overdue as it is currently tearing the party apart. GPRC, GPEX and the CEO have a shared responsibility to ensure that the Green Party of England and Wales is adhering to UK law - both the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as well as the Equality Act 2010 - which sets out protection for sex-based discrimination. 

In these laws, women are defined and are supposed to be protected by their biological sex - hence the term sex-based rights. There is no discrimination against Trans Women - because they have their own protection set out in the Equality Act under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.  

Prior to Conference I alerted members to the LGBTIQA+ group claiming that the Women's Rights motions were against Green Party values - this was untrue, and used as a propaganda tool to create yet more hatred against women's rights whilst gathering support for the E03 Self-ID motion which impedes upon women's rights to single-sex services, and also the E05 Recognise Trans Parents Motion which ignores Article 12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child which again the UK ratified in 1990. 

Under our Rights and Responsibilities policy RR201 - GPEW states "Accepting interconnectedness means that individuals and groups share rights to equitable status, treatment and freedoms. The Phiilosophical Basis of the party (PB303/304) states that the “legitimate interests of all people are of equal value.” The Green Party rejects all forms of discrimination whether based on race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, social origin or any other prejudice. The Green Party promotes the implementation of policies which protect human rights and rejects all forms of exploitation for any purpose whatsoever.' CEDAW is one of 9 UN Conventions that make up Universal Human Rights. 

Under the Equality Act 2010 there are 9 Protected characteristics and the Green Party only has policies for 8 of them: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; sexual orientation; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief (limited to Traveller's rights), but, nothing on sex (based rights for women linked to CEDAW/or the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against women). 

We all know that women continue to be discriminated against based upon their sex - only 26% of women in the House of Lords & 34% of female MP's (hence the 50:50 campaign to aim to have 50% of female MP's in Parliament: https://5050parliament.co.uk/) which I was the GPEW representative for (and resigned from after the Conference motion fell); 3-4 women are killed by men in the UK every week; 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime; 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault during her lifetime; in 2018 6,500 women and girls reported FGM; women and girls are subjected to trafficking for sexual exploitation, and there are only 5% of female CEO's in the top 100 UK companies.  

GPRC need to do something about this before more and more women (and men) feel they can no longer in all conscience stay in the party - one of the latest resignations is of Cllr Dom Armstrong who has made this statement on Facebook here: 

https://www.facebook.com/Cllr-Dom-Armstrong-404663170083504/

If you have been sitting on the fence on this issue, or if you have been put under the spell of the Trans Rights Movement (which make no mistake about it is being funded by Big Pharma who have a vested interest in the drugs used as part of the Transition process) then I would urge you to listen to evidence given this week by:

Graham Linehan at the Communications and Digital Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBDcsAzm88s 

I look forward to supporting a kind and open discussion about these issues to try to find some resolve for the party going forward. 

The final straw for me was a report to GPEX by the CEO in May 2021 - stating that "women's rights infringe upon Trans rights." I spoke with a couple of colleagues before the GPEX meeting to bring this to their attention - because even as a GPRC colleague I would have been barred from raising this issue in a GPEX meeting! I emailed Martha James one of the Co-Chairs asking her to question this report which was wrong in law (Equality Act/CEDAW/HRA) and this would have been a valid and objective reason for the intervention given that GPRC have a duty of care to ensure that the `Party is in line with UK Law!  

A couple of GPEX members made representations regarding the invalidity of the statement the CEO had made but Liz Reason allowed it to go to a vote and the majority of people on GPEX voted in favour - against both the law, but primarily as they saw it, against Gender Critical members and in particular women in the Green Party/Green Party Women. 

I left the Green Party because I could not bear to be part of this unjust, punitive system a minute longer! When I didn't agree with the continuation of suspensions and voted against most of these suspensions bar two - one related to harassment and one related to a member using sexually explicit materials at some meeting (both of these in my view are the real kinds of cases which justify suspension), a complaint was put in about me and efforts to get me removed from GPRC.   

I complained to GPRC and the CEO, but nothing much was done and no action has been taken to support Women Rights under the Equality Act either - in fact by letting GPEX hold this 'vote' in support of Mary Clegg's statement GPEX has cemented the Trans Rights focus of the GPEW. 

The Automatic suspension system is not fit for purpose, there is no right to reply, if you make any representations against your suspension your rep can choose whether to speak for you or not!; it is a system that supports injustice and allows prejudice to be supported.  

I will still keep campaigning on the Environment, Climate Change, social justice and women's/children's rights issues which are close to my heart, and I wanted to thank everyone who supported me when I was in the party trying to bring about positive change. 

I can only hope that the new leadership will bring equality and unity to all members in the party. 

Andrea Carey-Fuller is a former member of the Green Party of England and Wales and Green Left.

The Labour Party's antisemitism crisis: what mistake to avoid in the Green Party?

Written by Les Levidow

Amidst internal conflict over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, some Green Party members have said that we should avoid the Labour Party's mistake on antisemitism.  Indeed, yet ‘the mistake’ has contrary meanings. On the pro-IHRA side, some apparently accept the dominant storyline that the Labour Party tolerated widespread antisemitic behaviour. The anti-IHRA side instead means that the Labour Party pursued many false allegations of antisemitism.  

So, which was the real mistake around ‘the antisemitism crisis’?  And what was its underlying politics?

As this article argues: The socialist anti-imperialist Corbyn leadership posed a threat to the British ruling elite, especially its partnership with the Israeli regime. Hence the leadership’s diverse enemies jointly reinforced false allegations of antisemitism from the pro-Israel lobby. These allegations conveniently displaced the racism problem away from the settler-colonial Israeli regime onto its anti-racist critics. For this racist pro-Israel agenda, the IHRA mis-definition of antisemitism has been a key weapon in the Labour Party and plays a similar role in the Green Party, as promoted by the leadership.  

For the full version of this argument, see my May 2021 journal article, ‘Bad Consciences: projecting Israel’s settler-colonial racist aggression onto Labour Party antisemitism’.

Denying and projecting racism

Like other settler-colonial regimes, the Zionist one has subordinated, dispossessed and expelled the indigenous people. These aims formed the basis of the Israeli state in 1948. It has denied its own racist aggression and projected this onto the Palestinians, increasingly since Israel’s 1967 expansion to the West Bank and Gaza. In recent decades Israel has further promoted itself as a front-line defence against ‘Islamist terrorism’, whereby Israel’s regional counter-insurgency role protects the West from mortal threats. This narrative should be understood as paranoic, i.e. denying unsavoury parts of one’s self or nation, splitting off these parts and projecting them onto one’s victims. 

This paranoic narrative has complemented the securitisation agenda of Western states, supporting allies abroad as ‘counter-terror’ forces against threats to the West. This paranoiac displacement has a long history in UK state-sponsored domestic practices over many years, such as ‘inter-faith’ events suppressing pro-Palestine dissent and the Prevent programme targeting it as ‘extremism’. So-called preventive measures have pursued ‘extremism’ through pervasive surveillance identifying pro-Palestine views. Thus Britain’s domestic practices have internalised Israel’s racist paranoiac projections.

Moreover, state practices have essentialised Jews as a pro-Israel ‘Jewish community’ being victimised by pro-Palestine antisemitism and so needing special protection.  Within the Western elite, this philosemitic narrative has constructed Jews as heroic colonists in the Middle East and pro-Israel model citizens at home. Jews’ essentialization has gained a broad appeal for various reasons. Many Western Jews identify with Israel, while also needing to feel morally special. Their sensibility is offended by reminders of Israel’s institutionally racist practices,  provoking a bad conscience; the offence is projected onto the putative antisemitism of Israel’s critics. 

Elite philosemitism for a UK-Israel partnership

Those practices reinforce a homogeneous social identity, as a basis to demand universal deference to a single pro-Israel ‘Jewish community’, especially as a test of antisemitism. Instrumentalising that narrative, UK politicians justify their pro-Israel commitment along two lines: as crucial for ‘social cohesion’, i.e. reassuring Jews about British support for Israel, as well as ‘national security’, i.e. needing Israel as a front-line defence against the Islamist threat. This elite philosemitism  has helped to shield the UK’s pro-Israel commitment from criticism.

Along similar lines, over several decades the Labour Party leadership has made great efforts to contain and stigmatise pro-Palestine dissent.  The New Labour leadership promoted a more aggressively pro-Israel policy within the ‘war on terror’ securitisation agenda since 2001, complemented by the Prevent programme since 2006. Together these efforts stigmatised Israel’s opponents as security threats, e.g. as ‘extremists’ or ‘radical Islamists’. 

Sponsored by dominant Western states, the IHRA was established in 1998. It has served to sanitise Nazi Germany of its racist colonial legacies and its Western capitalist complicity. This framing helped to legitimise Western states as anti-racist forces and to instrumentalise Holocaust memorial education for this political purpose.

As the IHRA’s next step, its website posted the Working Definition of Antisemitism (with all the examples) from a US pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee. This document provided an extra weapon for false allegations of antisemitism by conflating this with anti-Zionism. As the wider context, Palestine solidarity activists had been highlighting how Israel’s institutionally racist character was driving its systematic violations of international law. They could be falsely accused of antisemitism by deploying the so-called IHRA Definition.

False allegations undermining the Corbyn leadership

Together those practices provided a ready-made framework to contain the Corbyn-led Labour Party during 2016-19. When the membership greatly rose to support a pro-Palestine anti-imperialist leadership, this rise jeopardised the Labour Party’s century-long role within the elite pro-Zionist consensus. Members’ pro-Palestine voices aggravated and offended the bad consciences of Jewish Zionist members, who resented the offenders.

Given the Corbyn leadership’s diverse enemies, they jointly mobilised an elite pro-Israel strategy to stigmatise and silence pro-Palestine voices: In the dominant narrative, the Labour Party was tolerating ‘endemic antisemitism’,  creating an ‘unsafe space for Jews’. According to the pro-Israel lobby, moreover, the leadership posed ‘an existential threat to Jewish existence’. The racist aggression of Zionist settler-colonialism was denied, split off and projected onto pro-Palestine critics.   

Antisemitism was more broadly equated with ‘hurt to the Jewish community’ or simply ‘offence to Jews’. Pro-Israel Jewish organisations demanded and gained a monopoly voice to speak for ‘the Jewish community’. The pro-Israel lobby demanded that the Labour Party create a ‘safe space for Jews’, i.e. for a racist Zionist identity beyond debate. 

The Labour Party’s disciplinary procedure increasingly targeted pro-Corbyn anti-racist members (including Jewish ones) who were falsely accused of antisemitism.  The procedure in turn often accused them of ‘behaviour bringing the Labour Party into disrepute’; this euphemistically evaded the political issue. At the same time, the procedure delayed any action against the real antisemitism of other members; hence the pro-Israel lobby could more easily claim that the Party was tolerating antisemitic behaviour.

The British elite strategy conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism as perceived by pro-Israel Jews, thus inverting racism and anti-racism. The inversion has been put sarcastically by Hajo Meyer, a Holocaust survivor: ‘An antisemite used to be a person who disliked Jews. Now it is a person whom Jews dislike’, especially Israel’s critics.

IHRA mis-definition serves a racist pro-Israel agenda

Given that political context, let us return to the initial question: What mistake of the Labour Party should be avoided?  At recent Green Party of England and Wales conferences the leadership has supported a motion that would incorporate the IHRA Definition into the disciplinary procedure.  According to the motion, it’s irrelevant how the Definition has been used by other organizations. Such a claim is politically naive, disingenuous or both. 

The IHRA mis-definition has already been the basis for external organisations to make false allegations against some pro-Palestine Green Party members, who then had to undergo the disciplinary procedure.  This has ominous analogies with the Labour Party’s procedures. Adopting the IHRA Definition has obvious consequences, namely: to encourage more false allegations of antisemitism, to reinforce them internally and to deter criticisms of Israel’s racist character.

More generally, the IHRA Definition has been widely cited worldwide for false allegations against pro-Palestine events, speakers and comments. In response to such allegations, major institutions have suppressed or severely restricted pro-Palestine events. Such incidents have been well documented, e.g. in a journal paper on the UK, and in the Jewish-led global report, The IHRA Definition at Work. 

In all those ways the IHRA mis-definition helps to protect Israel’s institutional racism from criticism, thus serving the pro-Israel commitment of the British ruling elite. By promoting the mis-definition, the Green Party leadership has shamefully colluded with this racist pro-Israel agenda since 2017. Let’s reject it and so avoid the mistake of the Labour Party. 

Author: Les Levidow is a member of Green Left within the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW). Since the 1980s he has participated in several Jewish pro-Palestine groups, including many Jews who have faced false allegations of antisemitism by the pro-Israel lobby. His current focus is Jewish Network for Palestine (JNP), loosely connected with the US-based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).