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.

Can the Green Party change tack to become a real force for change?

Written by David Taylor

There are any number of nautical cliches to describe the present position of the Green Party – becalmed, all at sea, in the doldrums, rudderless etc – as the present leadership seem to have learnt nothing from the missteps and strategic errors of the recent past. 

These include losing members over the alliance with the Lib Dems, supporting adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) antisemitism definition, failing to defend party democracy in the face of attacks by extreme transgender activists and presiding over the Holistic Review which has centralised control so a small group make all the key party decisions. This is by no means a complete list !

The 2019 General Election result caused despair amongst progressives. A triple whammy – Johnson won, Corbyn gone, Brexit done. But morale now seems to be on the rise and the widespread lethargy and indifference fading away. There is even a glimmer of hope in the Green Party as from 3rd - 31st August the leading positions in the party are up for election so party members will have the chance to vote for change. Another bright note could be that the Greens have become the leading party on Brighton Council. But Oh, the irony !

The prize comes due to Labour councillors being suspended or resigning the whip after allegations of antisemitism, such as condemning the oppression of Palestinians or stating the obvious - that Jeremy Corbyn was the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign. If the Green Party leadership had had their way at the 2018 conference, the IHRA definition of anti-semitism would have been adopted by the party and it would be the Green councillors who would have to keep silent on the actions of the Israeli state or be suspended.

In the event the leadership panicked when they saw the way the wind was blowing and remitted their motion. Loud applause from conference for speakers opposing the motion, mainly Jewish members, was followed by a standing ovation for Shahrar Ali after his blockbuster of a speech. A link to his speech can be found here.

The Labour Party experience shows that this issue cannot be dodged. No amount of concessions were ever going to stop the attacks on Corbyn as the object was simply to get rid of him. When he did apologise the apology itself was taken as an outrageous affront and further proof of his pandering to his antisemitic supporters. 

Shahrar Ali says that Israel must “be held to account for its unconscionable actions against the Palestinian people”. He has seen the Green Party become increasingly timid, or completely silent, on the matter while he himself has been subjected to racist slurs and malicious attacks.

Shahrar is standing in the election and says if elected as Green Party Leader he will continue to “speak for the rights of the oppressed against their oppressor in the best tradition of the Green Party” Shahrar looked back to 2015 when he was last a member of the Green Party leadership team and the party won a million and a quarter votes - because it had a vision. He says we need to be bold and unapologetic in talking, not just about reform, but about an ecosocialist transformation of the economy including redeployment of arms manufacturing towards wholesale renewable energy infrastructure.

Shahrar has been working to build solidarity on the ground in minority communities and for Green supporters to get more involved with Black Lives Matter. So the question is – can we move beyond our comfort zone and elect the first BAME leader of a main UK party ?

Theo Simon is standing as Trade Union Liaison Officer (TULO), a post which the GP leadership proposes to abolish. Theo says “the proposal to get rid of the TULO post is a huge political and tactical mistake. Our connection with organised Labour has probably never been more important to build on than it is now, as I believe will become apparent over the coming months. We need to leave our comfort zone and engage with the daily reality of people`s workplace struggles and the rapidly increasing membership base of our unions. We have a dog in this fight ! 

At the 2018 Green Party conference Theo proposed the motion “for a renewal of GPEW`s democratic structure” to address concerns that a unhealthy culture had arisen within the party. He was able to rally co-proposers from every side of the opinion spectrum in the Green Party including Dr Rupert Read, Shahrar Ali, Beatrix Campbell, Judy Maciejowski, long time GP exec member Dee Searle, veteran anti-nuke campaigners Linda & Brig Oubridge, Land magazine editor Dr Mike Hannis and over 60 others.

The motion was prompted by the actions of extreme transgender activists, which have caused many decent and tolerant members to leave the Green Party and has been a toxic distraction from more important matters. It was high time that the problem was addressed before even more harm was done and Theo Simon deserves our thanks for stepping up to the task despite the atmosphere of legal threats and intimidation surrounding the issue.

Theo is described as “a folk musician and general election candidate” - a rather understated summary ! As the 2015 General Election candidate for Somerton & Frome he said he was aiming for a 10% share of the vote. As the previous Green vote was zero this was thought to be just talk but, after a brilliant campaign, he walked the walk and secured over 9% ! I first met Theo when I was involved in booking groups for gigs and we were always guaranteed a sell out with his group Seize the Day.

They would have risen to great heights by now if Theo hadn`t been so committed to the planet and to Social Justice. Whether standing with Palestinians and Jews in Ramallah resisting Israeli occupation, being arrested at Hinkley C protests or dashing down to the Isle of Wight to back the Vestas workers who were occupying the site against the UK`s only wind turbine factory being moved to the USA - he always put the fight first. As for the music – you can hear it on https://seizetheday.org/.

There is precious little time left for the changes needed if humanity is to survive on the planet. This election may be the last chance to put the Green Party back in the game, able to play a significant part in the fight for radical change. If we take this opportunity to elect Shahrar Ali as leader, Andrea Carey-Fuller as deputy leader with proven campaigners like Theo Simon on the team, we may just be able get the Green Party back on track.

David Taylor is a Green Party activist, former election candidate and a branch chair of Unite the union, and a Green Left Supporter

Vote for Change in the Green Party Leadership Contest

I joined the Green party in early 2006, a former Labour party voter and supporter, though never a member, disillusioned with the decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq, and much else that New Labour represented. I had also become increasingly alarmed by climate change, and had discovered ecosocialism, which I thought the Green party was best placed to promote. What I found was, although somewhat disorganised, a decent party, which genuinely seemed to want to do politics differently, ethically and democratically. A sharp contrast to Labour, for sure.

Over the years though the party has embarked on journey away from the principles that I found so attractive. It probably began with the move from principle speakers to leader (or co-leaders) in 2008. I voted against the move, but accepted the result, seeing that it might get us more media attention, which was largely how it was sold to the membership. But the party did seem to be heading off on a different trajectory though, from that point.

In more recent years I started to hear more and more disturbing stories about the inner workings at the top of the party. In 2016, reports emerged of local Green parties being leaned on by the leaders, Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, at that stage, to stand down from a by-election in Richmond, in favour of the Lib Dem candidate. The chair of one of the local parties involved, Kingston, was forced to resign after he revealed details about a £250,000 donation made to the Green party on the condition they did not stand in Richmond. This was used to pile pressure on the local parties.

In 2018, a story was published on the Left Foot Forward website, accusing Shahrar Ali, a former co deputy leader of the party, and a candidate at the time for leader, of antisemitism. The piece was written by the new editor of the site, and recently resigned Green party member, Josiah Mortimer. It featured a selectively edited video of a speech made by Shahrar Ali, which was eventually restored to its full, complete length. Was this an attempt to smear Shahrar Ali? It certainly looked like it.

In 2019, I was shocked to hear that a senior member of the Green party, at the behest of the Campaign Against Antisemitism group, had used the party’s internal complaints procedure, against Shahrar Ali. The complaint was eventually dismissed, but why did this prominent member use the internal complaints system like this? A question unfortunately never answered by the member concerned.

I got to thinking that something wasn’t really right with what was going on and started to dig deeper into things as best I could. I found that people who knew about the machinations of the party’s leadership, were only willing to speak to me about it anonymously or privately. 

I contacted a former employee of the Green party, about the antisemitism complaint brought against Shahrar Ali. She did not want to go public with what she knew, but agreed with me privately when I suggested to her that ‘there is something rotten at the top of the party.’

Later in 2019, a member of one of the local parties involved in the disastrous Unite to Remain electoral pact with the Lib Dems (and Plaid Cymru) I was in touch with, told me that the national party had side-lined their party from the decision to not stand. The local party did not want to be associated by the Unite to Remain pact. Shades of the Richmond by-election.

I watched with dismay as Natalie Bennett in 2019, was given a peerage, as part of Theresa May’s resignation honours. The decision was made by the small group around leadership, with no say from the wider membership. If I’d had a vote, I probably would have voted for Natalie, but that is not point, this is all part of the undemocratic nature of the party’s hierarchy. 

London Green Left blog has also learned that Rashid Nix, the equalities and diversity co-ordinator on the Green party executive (GPex), is taking two senior London Green party members to an Employment Tribunal for racial discrimination. As well as an internal victimisation case. This after the two members concerned walked out of a judicial mediation meeting between both sides of the dispute.

Whilst waiting for the internal process to begin, a story was published on, yes you guessed it, Left Foot Forward, written by Joe Lo. Both Lo and Mortimer were writers for the Bright Green website prior to Left Foot Forward. The piece looks like a crude attempt to smear Nix’s name. A tactic we have seen before used against Shahrar Ali by the same website.

Finally, someone did go public. Dee Searle, a former GPex member, who has now left the party, wrote a piece for this blog which sheds a shocking light on what goes on at the top of the Green party. It says that a small clique around the leaders and Caroline Lucas’s office, take all the decisions, are democratically unaccountable and has ‘become more ruthless and less tolerant of genuine discussion.’ I urge you to read this post, and also the comments below it where others corroborate what Dee Searle has written from their own personal experiences.

It saddens me deeply, that this is what the party has come to, but members have perhaps one more opportunity to free the party from its controlling clique, and put the party back on a decent pathway. This year’s leadership and deputy leadership elections are that opportunity. Please use your vote wisely.

I will be first preferencing Shahrar Ali for leader, and Andrea Carey-Fuller for deputy leader, who I know to be decent people, and great campaigners, but whoever members decide to vote for, please do not vote for the incumbents. The Green party needs to change, and it is in your hands if we are to have a party we can be proud of, once again.  

Voting is from 3 to 31 August.

Interview – Shahrar Ali Candidate for Leader of the Green Party

Shahrar Ali the Green Party’s Home Affairs spokesperson talks to Green Left’s Mike Shaughnessy about why he is standing to be Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.

Tell me a little about your background and why you joined the Green party?

I joined the Greens some 18 years ago now – after doing a stint in the European parliament as a researcher and being mightily impressed with the work of Green Group MEPs. I was drafting briefings on science and technology options for policy and researching into environmental risk of GMOs. I had already been campaigning to halt the spread of GMOs into the environment in the late 90s and it was great to be able to make a small contribution towards adoption of a precautionary principle and successive moratoria across Europe. 

My background is in education and I have been a lifelong advocate of affordable lifelong learning – having taught at WEA, City Lit, Birkbeck and as a founder member of a philosophy school set up to help buck the stem of private HEI colleges. I currently work in medical education and have been part of a team involved in some of the challenges of providing student medic support in COVID environments. 

It’s fair to say I really took to the policy, ethos and campaigns of the party – having stood in some 20 plus local, regional, parliamentary and European elections. I’ve written two popular election books in Green politics and was Deputy Leader of the party 2014-16, at the time of the Green surge. However, I feel deeply frustrated, as I know others do too, at our lack of organisational focus and electoral progress.

If you are elected as Leader, what will be your priorities?

Climate Justice.

Ten years is the time remaining for the Green Party to play a meaningful role in securing the transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to a net zero carbon economy by our target date of 2030. Globally, it is the poor and those least responsible for climate change who are most suffering their harmful impacts – deforestation, disease, malnutrition, food insecurity – today. 

We should be front and centre of this battle for the future of our country and of our planet and all the beautiful species and nonhuman animals we share it with. Yet our political communications do not convey how we can achieve our own 2030 net zero target and our leadership team appear subdued. 

My priority number one would be to fix this by helping to consolidate and energise the party internally and externally. As the Party’s primary spokesperson I would be bold and unapologetic about our vision and the system change required to do what’s scientifically necessary to avert climate catastrophe. 

Shahrar Launching the UpRising Environmental Leadership programme in 2018

What can the Green party do to get more support from BME communities? 

We need to be reaching out by all necessary means – vocalising and campaigning to combat the daily oppression and lack of opportunity faced by BME communities. I have been campaigning for years for the rights and wellbeing of these communities against successive governments’ hostile environment policies – from Guantanamo, the Windrush scandal and Islamophobic Prevent to stop and search and racist van slogans. 

·       I’m a regular speaker on anti-racism demonstrations for the party, especially against the rising tide of xenophobia. 

·       In 2015, I launched the Party’s first BME manifesto in an attempt to broaden our appeal. 

·       I’m active in building BAME community leaders such as the launch of UpRising’s environment leadership programme. 

As the first BME deputy leader, I well understand the impact that having an ethnic visible face has and can continue to have on the increased credibility of our party. I’ve had many conversations with voters who felt they could vote for us as a result. The single most important thing we could do to reach out to those communities would be to elect a BME leader – now. 

Nor can we be seen going round the media studios singling out Muslims by calling for the banning of halal meat that resulted in public condemnation from the Muslim Council of Britain and our own Greens of Colour, two weeks before the election. 

At a time when Black Lives Matter has taken on momentum and systemic racism is being confronted like never before, it simply is not enough to present our solidarity with a white face. We have to mean it in action, on the ground, in our Local Councils and our neighbourhoods. I believe that local party members should be given the training and support they need to get more involved with the Black Lives Matters movement and mobilise for the delivery of the concrete anti-racist policies BME communities are campaigning for. 

What is your opinion of the electoral pact between the Greens and Lib Dems at last year’s General Election? 

This was a total disaster. If it wasn’t bad enough to cause wholly avoidable conflict internally, we also upset core Green voters, nationally. One of our co-leaders was a benefactor of a pact and this was cited as a reason for “Green Party losing members over their alliance with Lib Dems”. 

Nor can we be proud of an election result in which the Green Party once again failed to achieve any significant breakthroughs, and lost our deposits across vast swathes of the country. Compare and contrast this record to the party’s record when I was last a member of the leadership team. In 2015, the Green Party won over a million votes, and kept our deposits in 123 seats. In 2019 the Green Party won 800,000 votes but only kept our deposits in 31 seats. 

What I really can’t fathom is, how, after the disastrous failed experiment of Progressive Alliances in 2017 we tried a variation on the theme some two years later. Our current leadership supported these initiatives through conference both times; and here’s a reminder of just how badly we managed to squander our hard-won political capital. 

It is likely that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism will brought back to the Green party’s autumn conference for adoption. You have been a vocal critic of this definition, can you explain why? 

Anybody who looks at this definition with intellectual honesty, and studies the history behind it, will see it for what it is: a cynical attempt to restrict legitimate criticism of Israel which would also have a chilling effect on free speech and is actually beginning to succeed in that. 

Greens are anti-racist to their very core, fight anti-Jewish racism to the last, and should have no truck with this definition, especially because of the prevalence of anti-semitism smear campaigns against known lifelong antiracists based on adoption of this definition. 

Our leadership have not exactly covered themselves in glory regarding the means by which they would seek to adopt this definition and I believe that is because the grassroots members understand as I do. You can hear this for yourself if you playback my speech to 2018 conference where we averted a late motion by the leadership to adopt something like the definition. 

The final agenda to the planned Spring 2020 conference, which had to be cancelled due to lockdown, had a motion, to the contrary, which would have seen the Party firmly reject the IHRA definition and another from Les Levidow reaffirming our support for BDS (which the definition would prohibit). The leadership-sponsored motion was ruled out of order, as was a wrecking amendment to my motion. I have already begun the process of submitting my motion to next conference so we can state our opposition to the IHRA and move on. 

I have survived numerous attacks upon my character. Members rightly condemned such attacks at the last leadership election. Still I was subjected to an antisemitism complaint from the CAA sponsored by a party member and that, too, was dismissed. 

We must not repeat the mistake of the Labour Party, either under Corbyn or Starmer, of capitulating to this definition. It has resulted in internal strife then injustice against anti-racist campaigners. The Campaign Against Antisemitism, whose staff member boasted about destroying Corbyn’s election in the most despicable terms (“slaughtered”), is currently the subject of a Charity Commission investigation referred by myself, “Charity faces election bias investigation”. We must clean up our politics. 

In all my actions around this topic, I’ve been driven by the urgency of wanting to hold Israel to account for its unconscionable actions against the Palestinian people. Year after year Israel has added to its international violations, lately with their annexation plan, and I have seen the Green Party become increasingly timid, or completely silent, on this matter. As Leader, I will continue to speak for the rights of the oppressed against their oppressor in the best tradition of the Green Party.

How do rate the government’s handling of the Covid 19 pandemic? 

Where to begin with the missteps and mishaps? Late lockdown; no PPEs for NHS and Care Homes staff; moving frail elderly into Care Homes without testing them – resulting in 25,000 early deaths. No plans for a safe return to schools; no testing capacity to meet the needs to regularly test all key workers; no Test and Contact Tracing programme at community or local level. 

In other words: criminal negligence on an unprecedented scale. Not to mention misplaced loyalty in Cummings! 

As we know Covid deaths disproportionately impact BME communities and the real issue is structural inequality – see my BAME life chances, inequality and death. 

We should have been far bolder about the opportunity for making system-wide change during lockdown – about our overconsumptive lifestyles, about UBI and economic overhall.

How do you think the Green party should position itself electorally in the immediate future? 

I’ve not seen our report from the last election results to enable us to have a better informed conversation. Why isn’t it published yet? If elected, I will make sure that all our members are sent a copy to discuss and learn from it in their local parties. There is not enough accountability nor transparency in the Green Party and we all deserve better. 

Still our electoral positioning is clear: true Green. With Corbyn gone and Starmer in post, our socialist credentials will shine through more brightly. Our environmental appeal is across the board. Let’s not sell ourselves short. 

On electoral reform, Molly Scott Cato is justifiably furious with Labour’s refusal to consider scrapping FPTP. Local party members can make the case for PR by targeting Labour Party constituencies and affiliated organisations as of priority. Labour will struggle under FPTP as it would need to secure an additional 124 seats – and that is not taking into account any potential boundary changes which will favour the Tories even more than they are now. 

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

When we are interviewed about the economy we should be talking about an ecosocialist transformation, not simply reform. When we are asked about jobs we should be talking about redeployment of arms manufacturing towards wholesale renewable energy plant production. When we are asked about injustice, we should be making the link to the millions of families in the UK living on the bread line and the starving populations of the world who are dying as we speak, due to agricultural intensification, capitalist injustice and climate degradation. 

As a party of radical and transformational change we are simply not conveying these messages. We have become much too timid and risk averse. I will be bold and unapologetic instead. 

Let’s move beyond our comfort zone and elect the first BME leader of a main UK party, too.

Green party members will be voting from 3-31 August.

Website

www.electshahrar.co.uk

Facebook 

https://www.facebook.com/ShahrarAliGreenParty 

Twitter 

https://twitter.com/ShahrarAli

Weaponising alleged antisemitism in the Green Party

The leadership undermines its pro-Palestine policies, but members push back

Written by Les Levidow

Summary

Since 2016 a systematic campaign has been weaponizing alleged antisemitism in order to protect the racist Israeli regime from criticism, especially from the global campaign of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).  This has been conflated with antisemitism through the so-called ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism’, which serves a racist agenda.  The Green Party leadership has colluded with this agenda in several ways – by concealing official support for the BDS campaign, promoting the IHRA definition within the Green Party and abusing its disciplinary procedure to retaliate against a prominent critic.   A pro-Palestine re-orientation will depend on members holding the leadership accountable for its collusion and pushing it instead to promote BDS as anti-racist.   

Weblinks are provided for numerous sources below.

Introduction: Green Party policy undermined

The 2005 Palestinian call for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) has been the focus of the global movement of Palestine solidarity.   Its many supporters include the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW, henceforth Green Party).  It has voted for ‘active participation’ in the BDS campaign, e.g. conference motions in spring 2008 and autumn 2014.  BDS was featured in the Green Party’s magazine and was promoted by its former Leader Natalie Bennett.  Some members established a BDS Facebook page. 

Yet the Green Party’s pro-BDS policy has nearly disappeared.  It is absent from the International Policy webpage, hidden in the autumn 2014 motion on Israel’s Ground Invasion, and absent from 2019 election statements, which have been deceptive in this regard.  Meanwhile the leadership has been accommodating the pro-Israel lobby, amidst its smear campaign falsely accusing Israel’s critics of antisemitism. 

Since 2016 this high-profile smear campaign has been weaponizing alleged antisemitism in order to protect the Israeli regime from criticism and from BDS.  The allegations have been targeting critics in the Labour Party and more recently the Green Party (the focus here).  A key weapon has been the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, whose examples conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. 

Since 2017 the Green Party leadership has been promoting the IHRA definition.  Moreover, a prominent member has sponsored a complaint from a racist pro-Israel campaign group against another member who led opposition to the IHRA definition.  By undermining the Green Party’s pro-Palestine policies, the leadership has provoked internal unease and revolt.

This article next explains the conflict between BDS versus the IHRA definition, as the context for the leadership’s collusion, Green Party members’ push-back and ways forward.

IHRA definition: weapon against BDS

Not coincidentally, the smear campaign escalated shortly after the Labour Party elected a new Left-wing, anti-imperialist leadership in 2015.  Pro-Israel activists trawled members’ social media posts going back several years, including anti-Israel comments.  Despite that intensive trawl, complaints about allegedly antisemitic comments have amounted to only 0.1% of the Labour Party membership.  Just imagine how this ‘antisemitism problem’ compares with any other UK organisation, e.g. the Conservative Party.  The accusers have been largely absent from opposing other forms of racism. 

Weaponizing alleged antisemitism is psychological warfare protecting the UK’s alliance with the Israeli regime.  This agenda generates fear that a unitary ‘Jewish community’ faces an ‘existential threat’ from pro-Palestine policies and politicians. The UK government encourages and exploits this fear to justify the UK’s pro-Israel policies as necessary for ‘social cohesion’. 

Such allegations and fears invert political reality, namely: the anti-racist Palestine solidarity movement opposes Israel’s institutional racism.  The 2005 call for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) says:  ‘The Palestinian BDS campaign… aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and to end international support for Israel’s regime of settler colonialism and apartheid.’  This racist regime systematically violates international law, inherently denying basic human and civil rights to the Palestinian people. 

Efforts to counter BDS as ‘antisemitic’ gained a weapon from a US pro-Israel lobby group, the American Jewish Committee (AJC).  As a general mission, it attempts to counter ‘the one-sided treatment of Israel at the United Nations’.  Since 2004 it has promoted a so-called Working Definition of Antisemitism including 11 examples, 7 about Israel, 4 of them designed to stigmatise Israel’s critics as antisemitic.  To make a long story short, skipping a decade-long conflict over the definition:  In 2016 the AJC’s guidance appeared on the website of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Let us examine two examples often used as political weapons.

An IHRA example of supposed antisemitism is ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour’.  Such a claim is indeed meant by the epithet ‘apartheid Israel’, which thereby is supposedly antisemitic.  The example is racist in at least two ways:  It stereotypes global Jewry as a nation needing collective ‘self-determination’ through the Israeli state. And it denies the Palestinians’ national narrative of dispossession by a racist settler-colonial project.

That taboo on ‘apartheid Israel’ has been designed and deployed to suppress Palestine solidarity events. In December 2016 the full IHRA guidance document was adopted by the UK government.  In February 2017 the Department for Education warned all universities that they must apply the IHRA criteria and that ‘antisemitic comments’ may arise during Israel Apartheid Week 2017.   Accommodating the government, some universities denied or cancelled permission to student groups for pro-Palestine events.

Another IHRA example of supposed antisemitism is ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’.  Indeed, such comparisons  have been drawn by many Jewish groups and Holocaust survivors, e.g. under the slogan ‘Never Again for Anyone’.  In particular, they have drawn comparisons with the racist 1935 Nuremberg Laws, under which German Jews lost their entitlement to German citizenship, voting rights, the right to marry a German, or to retain Government office.; this was a major official step in dehumanising German Jews.  The Israeli state has likewise dehumanised Palestinians, especially non-citizens in the West Bank and Gaza.  Such analogies have been published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in English and Hebrew. Are all those voices antisemitic?

In response to false allegations around the IHRA examples, many universities have imposed bans, bureaucratic obstacles or speech restrictions on pro-Palestine events.  Public venues are regularly bombarded with allegations that a forthcoming event would contravene the IHRA definition.  Often administrative staff cancel the booking in panic, thus pre-empting any debate or scrutiny of the allegations.  Such pressures have intensified since 2017.  Activists have no recourse to any formal procedure for defending the right of free assembly and expression. 

Given its weaponization role, the IHRA definition has been opposed globally by all pro-Palestine groups.  The Jewish-led UK campaign, Free Speech on Israel, detailed grounds to oppose the Israel examples above (among others).  According to a joint statement by Jewish pro-Palestine groups around the world, the IHRA definition ‘undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism’.  Numerous BAME groups and Palestinians have denounced the IHRA definition on similar grounds. 

But their voices have been marginalised by a political agenda associating all Jews with the Israeli state.  This agenda further equates antisemitism with ‘offence to Jews’, i.e. pro-Israel Jews, while marginalising the many Jews who regard this equation as offensive.  Politicians defer to the pro-Israel lobby, thus conveniently avoiding any responsibility to judge what is or isn’t antisemitic.

Green Party autumn 2018 conference: members revolt against pro-IHRA leadership

After the UK’s Conservative government adopted the IHRA full definition in December 2016, many politicians did likewise.  Having slandered Ken Livingstone as antisemitic, John Mann MP sponsored an EDM supporting the IHRA definition; signatories included Caroline Lucas MP.  When local authorities voted for motions supporting the IHRA definition, they were supported by Green Party politicians such as Caroline Russell and Sian Berry (now co-Leader). 

Jewish members of the Green Party sent email messages denouncing those politicians’ actions and encouraged other members to do likewise.  The politicians gave scant responses, denying any contradiction with BDS or anti-Israel criticism. 

The Green Party’s internal conflict eventually erupted at the autumn 2018 conference.  Prominent politicians endorsed a pro-IHRA motion.  It was countered by an anti-IHRA motion, led by Shahrar Ali, who has been a Home Affairs spokesperson, Deputy Leader and frequent candidate of the Green Party.  Delegates gave considerable applause to speakers on both sides, both including Jewish members.  Some opponents displayed Palestinian flags to highlight the issue at stake. 

The pro-IHRA leadership was unnerved by this revolt.  A new procedural motion proposed to remit the original ones, apparently for fear that the pro-IHRA motion would be defeated.  Conference voted to remit both.  

The pro-Israel Jewish Chronicle reported the outcome as a ‘failure’, implying that the obstacle was antisemitism.  It reproduced the title of my Green Left magazine article, ‘Palestine solidarity under racist attack’.  My article included a cartoon (below) mocking the racist agenda of false allegations; strangely, this too was reproduced by the Jewish Chronicle. 

When an anti-IHRA motion was put forward for the subsequent conference, the Standing Orders Committee ruled that the IHRA definition may come up again only if the two contrary motions were reconciled in a single motion – obviously impossible.  This ruling protects the pro-IHRA leadership from further debate, defeat and embarrassment.  As a substitute for political debate, the leadership has abused the disciplinary procedure, as explained next.  

Leadership retaliates against Shahrar Ali, members again push back

In retaliating against Shahrar Ali, the leadership instrumentalised the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), which has been promoting a racist Islamophobic, anti-Palestinian agenda.  It has made false allegations of antisemitism against many of Israel’s critics, especially Labour Party members, including many Muslims and Jews.  Indeed, it throws such allegations at Jewish pro-Palestine groups who criticise pro-Israel groups for weaponising alleged antisemitism (as in this article).  One Jewish target of its false allegations, Tony Greenstein, led a petition asking the Charities Commission to deregister the CAA as a Right-wing lobby group with no charitable aims.

The CAA also promotes Islamophobic stereotypes, featuring a scary dehumanised image of ‘antisemitic Muslim males’ (2016 report, page 8).  They ‘are more likely to sympathise with terrorism, violence and extremism’; those terms are left undefined.  In the UK political context, so-called ‘extremism’ encompasses anyone opposing the racist Prevent programme or supporting resistance to the Israeli regime.  

Eventually the CAA launched false allegations against a prominent Green Party member, Shahrar Ali (see above).  They cited his denunciation of Israel’s attack on Gaza at a 2009 rally outside the BBC, as well as his  speech opposing the Party’s adoption of the IHRA definition at the 2018 Autumn conference.  Under pressure from pro-Palestine members,  the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC) refuted the false allegations, followed by a similar 2018 press release.

In 2019 the CAA escalated the attack by sending the Green Party a formal complaint about allegedly antisemitic comments by Shahrar Ali.  The complaint was sponsored by a prominent Green Party member who has chosen to remain anonymous.  As a plausible motive for this collusion, it was retaliating against him for have led the pro-IHRA motion at the 2018 conference.  The Disciplinary Committee could have simply rejected the complaint on numerous grounds, especially its racist agenda.  Instead it initiated an investigation, asking Shahrar Ali for a response to the allegations.

In October 2019 his supporters launched a petition which quickly gained over a hundred signatories from Green Party members including many elected officers, local candidates and Councillors.  It said, ‘To take up this complaint would be to collude in an anti-Palestinian agenda that would also discredit the Green Party. It is astonishing that the Party could fall for such a tactic, unwittingly or through lack of political courage.’  The petition concluded with these demands:

We call upon the Green Party to withdraw this politically motivated and internally damaging complaint and to work alongside Shahrar Ali to respond, as appropriate, to politically motivated attacks in the best tradition of the Green Party.

The Green Party must also, as a matter of urgency, instead investigate the hostile environment which misuse and abuse of process risks engendering internally.

Some members of the Green Party Executive Committee (GPEx) received, circulated or signed the petition.  Some proposed that its next meeting discuss the conflict, possibly to suspend the disciplinary procedure against Shahrar Ali.  But the meeting declined to add such an agenda item, on the spurious grounds that GPEx does not consider individual cases.  The leadership evaded the generic issue of the racist accuser and its false allegations, thus colluding with them.

The Disciplinary Committee decided instead to take up a subsequent complaint that Shahrar Ali allegedly brought the Green Party into disrepute for publicly sharing the petition supporting him; again the complainant chose to remain anonymous.  Thus the disciplinary procedure escalated the leadership’s retaliation for Shahrar Ali’s prominent role against the IHRA definition.  The complaint inverts reality, namely: that the leadership has been discrediting the Green Party by colluding with a racist agenda and then bureaucratically persecuting an anti-racist critic, while evading political debate over its shameful role. 

General Election 2019: Green Party leadership promotes IHRA definition, while members again push back

In the 2019 General Election, the Green Party’s pro-Palestine policy was again softened and concealed.  The Manifesto’s section on global justice says: ‘Seek resolution in line with international law and the principles of self-determination to long running conflicts, illegal occupations and human rights violations.’  Indeed, that has been a key aim of the Green Party supporting ‘active participation’ in the BDS campaign –absent from the manifesto.

The leadership further colluded with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and its racist agenda.  As political background, the Board has consistently supported Israel’s attacks on Palestinians, especially its Gaza massacres in 2008-09 and 2014.  After Israel killed numerous civilians at the Gaza border in 2018, the Board’s statement blamed Hamas; in response, hundreds of Jews denounced the Board for placing no responsibility on Israel.  

Jeremy Corbyn criticised Britain’s failure to call for an independent investigation as ‘morally indefensible’.  In response, the Board pleaded self-defence by Israel, as grounds to denounce his modest demand for an investigation.  The Board also has led false allegations of antisemitism.  This consistently racist pro-Israel agenda indicates its political aims when intervening in the 2019 general election. 

The Board sent political parties ‘10 commitments for GE2019’, especially to ‘Adopt, promote and implement the full IHRA Definition of Antisemitism’. An honest response from the Green Party might have read as follows:  ‘Our autumn 2018 conference debated the IHRA definition, ultimately voting to remit both the pro-IHRA and anti-IHRA definitions for future consideration’.  Instead its response said, ‘The Green Party is likely to consider adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism at a policymaking session of its party conference in the future’.

The questionnaire also asked political parties to ‘Promote peace projects that unite communities and resist boycotts that divide communities’.  The Green Party weakly responded, ‘Non-violent protest actions, such as boycotts against specific policies (for example, against Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories) are a legitimate tool for bringing about change.’  This response concealed the Green Party’s official support for BDS.    

The Green Party’s response was circulated to Parliamentary candidates as guidance with this encouragement: ‘Candidates who sign the [IHRA] definition are welcome to promote this on social media, as some already have.’  By anticipating its future adoption and omitting BDS, the guidance misled candidates about the Green Party’s policies and debates.  Some candidates expressed unease to other members, thus alerting them to the deception.  

Soon dissenters consulted numerous members.  Together they drafted more honest responses to several questions from the Board of Deputies.  This alternative version deleted the prediction that a future conference would consider the IHRA definition; and it added a link to the Green Party’s policies strongly criticising Israel.   But the leadership’s response was unsatisfactory.

Its strong support for the IHRA definition facilitated yet more ‘antisemitism’ allegations.  In November 2019 the Campaign Against Antisemitism announced the results of trawling social media posts.  The CAA denounced several Parliamentary candidates of the Green Party (and again Shahrar Ali) for statements contravening the IHRA’s Israel examples, as grounds to demand their expulsion. As reported in the Jewish Chronicle,  several candidates had drawn analogies between Nazi Germany and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, or they suggested that ‘complaints of antisemitism were being used to defend Israel’.  Anyone making such statements would be in the good anti-racist company of Israel’s Jewish critics, among others (see earlier section).

A Green Left statement countered the false allegations against Green Party candidates.  It reiterated previous criticism of the IHRA’s Israel examples as an invalid basis for identifying real antisemitism.  By contrast, the Green Party leadership may have difficulty in defending its candidates while supporting the IHRA definition.

In parallel the Palestine Solidarity Campaign had sent all Parliamentary candidates a questionnaire. Of 290 candidate responses across all parties, 138 of them were from the GPEW.  This had the highest response rate, giving pro-Palestine answers to nearly all the questions.   The questionnaire was not mentioned in the Green Party’s email briefings to candidates.   

Conclusion: hold the leadership accountable

As this article has shown, since 2017 the Green Party’s leadership has been undermining its pro-Palestine policy.  It has been concealing support for BDS and promoting the IHRA definition, a key weapon against BDS. The leadership has colluded with a wider racist agenda, especially from the Board of Deputies and so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism, against the Palestine solidarity movement. 

In such ways, the leadership has been discrediting the Green Party -- yet pursues such an allegation against a prominent critic.  A formal collective complaint would be warranted against members sponsoring or making such false accusations, but they choose to remain anonymous.   These bureaucratic manoeuvres evade political debate.  Many members have revolted against the leadership’s approach. 

Now the stakes are being raised by efforts to ban BDS.  The US Federal government and many state governments have legislated for financial penalties against any academic institution giving a platform to BDS.  US president Donald Trump signed an executive order effectively defining Judaism as a nationality, thus equating the Israeli state with Jewish national self-determination (as in an IHRA example).  This will further stigmatise pro-Palestine activities as antisemitic.

The UK government has a similar plan to counter the BDS campaign.  A new law will prohibit public bodies from working with anyone involved in BDS. In particular, it will ban local authorities from any boycott against foreign countries, e.g.  against companies violating international law there.  The government’s arguments again smear the BDS campaign as antisemitic by equating Jews with Israel, as in the IHRA definition.

Given these higher stakes for the BDS campaign, how will the Green Party leadership respond?   By further colluding with a racist agenda and retaliating against anti-racist critics?  Or else by defending its pro-Palestine policies?  A pro-Palestine re-orientation will depend on members holding the leadership accountable for its collusion and pushing it instead to promote the Green Party’s BDS policy as anti-racist.

Les Levidow  is a Member of Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), Camden branch and Member of Steering Group, Jewish Network for Palestine (JNP). He is a member of Camden Green party and a Green Left supporter.