'Like wolves to Yellowstone': Tasmanian devils released on Australian mainland

by Holly Robertson

Tasmanian devils have been exinct on Australia's mainland for thousands of years

Tasmanian devils have been released into the wild on Australia's mainland 3,000 years after the feisty marsupials went extinct there, in what conservationists described Monday as a "historic" step.

Aussie Ark, along with a coalition of other conservation groups, revealed Monday that they had released 26 of the carnivorous mammals into a 400-hectare (1,000-acre) sanctuary at Barrington Tops, about 3.5 hours north of Sydney.

Tim Faulkner, president of Aussie Ark, said the "historic" releases in July and September were the first steps in a project akin to the successful move to return wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the United States in the 1990s.

After 16 years of work, including the establishment of mainland Australia's largest Tasmanian devil breeding programme, Faulkner said it was "incredible and surreal" to have reached the goal.

"It's the stuff dreams are made of," he told AFP.

"Our biggest native mainland predator is the tiger quoll—and they're just over a kilo—so to be bringing back something of this enormity is huge."

Tasmanian devils, which weigh up to 8 kilograms (18 pounds) and have a black or brown coat, typically prey on other native animals or scavenge carcasses.

According to government environmental authorities, devils are not dangerous to humans or livestock but will defend themselves if attacked and can cause serious injury.

Actors Chris Hemsworth (L) and Elsa Pataky helped release the animals at a sanctuary in New South Wales

The animals—known for their extremely loud growl, powerful jaws and ferocity when confronting rivals over food or mates—are classified as endangered after a contagious facial tumour disease ravaged the remaining population on the Australian island state of Tasmania.

It is estimated that fewer than 25,000 Tasmanian devils still live in the wild, down from as many as 150,000 before the mysterious, fatal disease first struck in the mid-1990s.

On Australia's mainland, they are believed to have been wiped out by packs of dingoes—wild dogs native to the vast continent—an estimated 3,000 years ago.

'Slice of Tasmania'

Faulkner said it was hoped the project would create an "insurance population" against the face-tumour disease, which has so far proved untreatable, and help restore the native environment.

"Devils present one of the only natural solutions to the control of fox and the cat, and the fox and cat are responsible for nearly all of our 40 mammal extinctions (in Australia)," he added.

Conservationists feed some young Tasmanian devils by hand

"So there's more than the devil at stake here."

Aussie Ark selected the reintroduced devils for their breeding suitability, placing them in the sprawling, fenced area in the hopes of warding off threats to their survival including feral pests, noxious weeds and cars.

"We've put young, healthy devils in, we put them in now which gives them the best part of six months to settle, find their territory (and) prepare for breeding" which usually occurs in February, Faulkner said.

Another 40 are set to be released over the next two years into the sanctuary, which is on land bought by Aussie Ark for its habitat suitability, high number of herbivores and location near a national park.

"The land initially was selected because it's just like a slice of Tasmania," Faulkner said.

He said he was confident that close monitoring as the Tasmanian devils make the "massive transition" back to the wild—where they have no supplied food, water or shelter for the first time in their lives—would ensure the programme's early success.
  

Tasmanian devil populations have been ravaged by a mysterious facial-tumour disease

As part of the "ambitious" rewilding scheme, Aussie Ark plans to eventually introduce more of the animals to unfenced areas, where they will contend with a much greater range of new threats including the country's notorious bushfires.

The Tasmanian devil is one of seven cornerstone species critical to Australia's ecosystem that Aussie Ark plans to reintroduce to the wild sanctuary in the coming years, along with quolls, bandicoots and rock wallabies.


Explore furtherCould Tassie devils help control feral cats on the mainland? Fossils say yes

© 2020 AFP

 Abortion Debate in Malta: Between Progress, Catholic Morality and Patriarchy

When it comes to reproductive rights, Malta remains a conservative bastion in Europe. The pro-choice camp’s assertion of women’s right to abortion is hotly contested by an aggressive pro-life lobby with backing from the state and the church. Raisa Galea explores the contradictions of a debate which is bound to questions of national identity, morality and sovereignty in a post-colonial state grappling with a dual desire for progress and maintaining tradition.

Apart from Vatican City, Malta is the only country in Europe which criminalises abortion under any circumstances. The provisions within the Criminal Code of Malta have practically remained untouched since their enactment in 1854.

Yet, it is a fact that women living in Malta travel abroad to access abortion. As the law recognises induced miscarriage as a criminal offence punishable by up to three and four years of imprisonment – for a pregnant woman and a medical practitioner respectively –  there are no official statistics on the number of women seeking the procedure abroad. The Maltese pro-choice coalition Voice For Choice estimates it to be around 300 a year. Although this number is significantly below the European average (183 abortions per 1000 live births, as reported by WHO Europe), even a possibly underestimated figure indicates that women in Malta are no exception and undergo the procedure despite the blanket ban.

Celebrated by pro-life groups and challenged by the pro-choice lobby, the special status of Malta in relation to abortion is acknowledged by both sides of the divide. As was the case with divorce and spring hunting (both highly contested topics which led to referenda), the abortion debate transcends the limits of a practical, if controversial, matter and enters the domain of identity politics and ideology.

Since the ban does not prevent hundreds of abortions yearly from taking place outside of the country, the major goal of lobbying in favour of the current legislation is to stop abortion from happening on Maltese soil. A key argument against the decriminalisation of abortion is to preserve Maltese national identity as rooted in conservative politics, Catholic morality and family values.

Family values and superior national morality

The abortion debate in Malta is characterised by a dualistic narrative. While the pro-choice perspective argues in favour of recognising a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to ending an unwanted pregnancy, the pro-life camp insists that life begins at conception and equates terminating a pregnancy with murder. The pro-choice campaign is treated with much hostility by various segments of the Maltese population. Activists are verbally assaulted, their arguments dismissed.

Delving into the reasons for such vehement opposition to abortion in Malta, anthropologist Rachael Scicluna suggested that in societies where family ties are strong and conservative views on gender roles prevail, the concept of an embryo is intrinsically linked to the concept of family. Thus, at a subconscious level, abortion could be perceived as a threat to the very foundations of Maltese kin society and, consequently, objecting to its introduction is a way of defending family values and the status quo. While this hypothesis offers an insight into the pro-lifers’ social insecurities, there seems to be another narrative fuelling hostility to abortion: the fear of outsiders’ intentions to dismantle core Maltese values.

When asked to comment on the cases of Maltese women accessing abortion abroad, the pro-life organisation Malta Unborn Child Platform refuted the estimate: “We know, for example, that around 55 women of Maltese nationality undergo abortion in the UK but we do not know how many of those women travel from Malta or actually reside in the UK. There may be also foreign women, residing in Malta, who go for an abortion in the UK.” Thus, the organisation implies that having an abortion is incompatible with being a Maltese woman living in Malta.

[…] upholding Malta’s abortion ban is a way of asserting national moral superiority.

A conspiracy theory involving a sinister foreign plan to force abortions upon the Maltese is circulating in some people’s imaginations and on social media. This is evident in personal attacks hurled at the prominent feminists Andrea Dibben and Lara Dimitrijevic, both of whom are Maltese albeit with foreign-sounding surnames. “Go do Satan’s work in your own country!” and “go back home and kill your babies” are common retorts to their pledges. This conspiracy theory is also propagated by Gift of Life Malta: according to the organisation, having “political allies within and outside of Malta” is part of the pro-choice camp’s strategy.

Asserting that a woman must not be forced to gestate against her will stirs mass outrage among the pro-life camp. Female pro-choice activists are advised to police their own sexuality and assume responsibility for the pregnancy, even if it resulted from rape. One social media commentator responding to an article that reported verbal abuse targeting Maltese pro-choice activists indicated that cases of rape are very rare in Malta and that even in cases of rape which resulted in pregnancy, the woman would be “free to go abroad to kill the unwanted baby”. Although this argument is based on a poorly informed perception of the infrequency of rape in Malta – sexual assault often goes unreported due to a victim-blaming stigma – it nevertheless demonstrates that it is possible to oppose decriminalisation of abortion in Malta while condoning “murder” so long as it happens outside of the country.

Further evidence of the abortion ban being perceived as a part of national Maltese identity in need of protection comes from the church. By stating that “our work in favour of life at all stages underlines our identity as Maltese”, Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Galea Curmi implied that the country’s devotion to the Catholic faith is rivalled by the Vatican alone – the only other state in Europe which criminalises abortion.

President of Malta George Vella also spoke in favour of the current legislation at an event organised by the Malta Unborn Child Platform. His presence at the gathering clearly signalled state support for the anti-choice cause – a national mission that is “on the right side of history”.

Furthermore, the president expressed doubt about the moral authority of the European Court of Justice, where “you’re frowned upon if you do not accept abortion”. Considering that Malta’s political crisis and high-profile corruption remain a subject of international scrutiny, Vella’s statement is indeed politically loaded. Outsiders – immoral “baby-killers” – are in no position to criticise the only remaining bastion of Christian values in Europe. In other words, upholding Malta’s abortion ban is a way of asserting national moral superiority. And it could be the authorities’ effective means of diminishing international criticism, undermining verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights, and, by extension, even brushing off demands for constitutional reforms altogether.

Between “progress” and “tradition”

As a local activist and Men against Violence director Aleksandar Dimitrijevic pointedly observed, official demands to reform laws against abortion by the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner receive little support from rule of law advocates in Malta. Civil society groups striving to bring Maltese legislation in line with the rest of European liberal democracies, and who are usually so attentive to international assessment, ignore calls for abolishing the abortion ban. What could be the reason for such a selective commitment to human rights as defined by international legal bodies?

Contemporary politics in Malta has been a trade-off between “progress” and “tradition”. For the past few decades, the young independent republic sought to establish itself as a modern European state while, at the same time, remaining under the tight grip of the Catholic church. An ambiguous compromise between embracing progress and preserving traditions has been reached on the basis of two criteria: profit-making and national pride.

“Progress” came in a financially lucrative form: free-market economics, construction boom, luxury megadevelopments, and “blockchain island” fantasies. A prominent hotelier pompously encouraged his compatriots to “always accept progress” – unless, it seems, this progress is unprofitable and undermines the authority of the church, the guardian of conservative traditions. Thus, a progressive stance on reproductive rights barely enjoys a fraction of the state’s enthusiasm for “progressive” elite property developments.

Reproductive rights remain a bone of contention in the rivalry between perceived national uniqueness and questions about EU integration.

Matters of national sovereignty and upholding traditions hold a special political significance in the post-colonial state. Reproductive rights remain a bone of contention in the rivalry between perceived national uniqueness and questions about EU integration. Guarded by the Church as an inherently Christian value, a ban on abortion is thus construed as an essential Maltese tradition. In the context of a post-colonial country, independent from the British Empire for a little longer than half a century, the ban is also a manifestation of national sovereignty and unwillingness to bow down to external power.

What about Malta’s LGBTIQ legislation? Some may argue that by becoming the first country in Europe to ban gay conversion therapy in 2016 – and by legalising same-sex marriage a year later – the Maltese state has declared its commitment to progressive social policy. Seen from a different perspective, however, this was rather a win for national pride. The reform gave even conservative locals a reason to savour international recognition and be proud of Malta leaping ahead of the curve compared to the rest of Europe. “We made history” – the rainbow message projected onto the Office of the Prime Minister rendered Malta a champion of the cause in the European Union. Since 2016, the country has been ranked the most progressive in Europe (and later, in the world) on LGBTIQ rights.

In the case of abortion, it is precisely the blanket ban that makes Malta “special” in the eyes of its citizens, and distinct from other formally secular European states. Defending the country’s role as a citadel of superior morality besieged by “baby-killers” could be a seductively heroic narrative. Also, portraying the abortion ban as an untouchable tradition may function as compensation for the loss of natural and architectural heritage sacrificed on the altar of economic progress.

[…] portraying the abortion ban as an untouchable tradition may function as compensation for the loss of natural and architectural heritage sacrificed on the altar of economic progress.

Institutionalised stigmatisation of women

“Does our president consider his citizens who have had an abortion murderers?” This was the question posed by Voice For Choice in response to the president’s pro-life endorsement. This is certainly one of the most pertinent questions of the debate. Another question: if abortion is murder, why does the punishment for induced miscarriage range from eighteen months to three and four years of imprisonment? Is this not too mild a punishment for murderers?

As noted by Maltese feminist lawyer Desiree Attard in her doctoral thesis, the Criminal Code itself implies that “a woman’s life is more valuable than that of the fetus.” As per Article 242, the punishment for performing an abortion that results in the death of the woman is life imprisonment. This disparity in punishment – four years versus a life sentence – means that, unlike a woman, the law recognises that a fetus is not a person.

If the legislators did not equate abortion with wilful homicide in 1854, what makes this an acceptable argument in 2020? Such contradictions further reveal the deeply ideological basis of the pro-life argument, whose goal is to preserve the conservative status quo by denying women an established human right and exerting control over their bodies.

With the blessing of both the state and society, the “pro-life” camp turns fellow women citizens into outcasts who must suffer in silence.

Apart from being legally incorrect, equating abortion with murder means regarding women who have undergone the procedure as murderers. This is no less than a means of institutional oppression and ostracisation of women. Both the endorsement of the anti-choice perspective by the president and the common perception that links it to Maltese identity and national morality celebrate Malta as a conservative patriarchal state.

Society and the state force Maltese women into shame for accessing a healthcare service available to women in the absolute majority of countries worldwide. Such marginalisation, reinforced stigma and cultivation of guilt are detrimental to women’s psychological and social wellbeing; they cause loss of self-esteem and induce fear of abandonment. With the blessing of both the state and society, the “pro-life” camp turns fellow women citizens into outcasts who must suffer in silence.

This is an edited version of an article first published on Isles of the Left

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/abortion-debate-in-malta-between-progress-catholic-morality-and-patriarchy/

 Politics for Change: Black Lives Matter in Europe

The murder of George Floyd in the US earlier this year exposed police brutality and galvanised action across the world. It has also demonstrated the deadly consequences inherent in the structural racism that plagues societies on both sides of the Atlantic. How can we ensure that this wave of anger translates into a politics for change? We spoke to Alice Bah Kuhnke, Vice-President of the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, about fighting structural racism in Europe and the role of democratic debate and the EU in this process.

Green European Journal: The murder of George Floyd sparked virulent protests all over the world, even though this wasn’t the first time that police brutality against African Americans has been highlighted. What makes this case different?

Alice Bah Kuhnke: It’s true. Unfortunately, George Floyd or Breonna Taylor are not the only people to have been killed by police brutality. This begs the question of why this indignation is only coming now. Since the death of George Floyd, there have been many outcries, demonstrations and local and even regional reactions. This time it is indeed different. I don’t have the answer as to exactly why, but it’s worth looking at the specific context in which the murder took place. It was so terribly visible on video and was shared millions of times on social media. In this day and age, news and information travel fast.

We also have to consider the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has made many people all over the world more vulnerable than ever. Confined to their homes, people have had more time to follow the news and social media more closely than usual. These are some of the circumstances that have raised international awareness of the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Everybody got to clearly see the ugly face of police brutality, while simultaneously being confronted with their own Covid-19-related vulnerability.

Everybody got to clearly see the ugly face of police brutality, while simultaneously being confronted with their own Covid-19-related vulnerability.

Do you think this will be a defining moment leading to lasting political change, or is it a momentary wave of anger and indignation?

That is still to be determined. It’s up to us to decide what will come out of this moment. I hope that we are mature enough to not only grieve and condemn the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, but that we look beyond to understand that this isn’t just about police brutality and the murder of two African-American people; these acts were consequences of the structural racism in our societies. If we understand that, we will be able to translate these murders into a politics for change.

In America the Black Lives Matter movement has put forth a range of demands such as defunding the police and removing statues of people associated with racism. Are these the kind of policies you would associate with a “politics for change”?

The United States has its own context. You can’t compare the structural racism and its consequences in the US with Europe or the rest of the world. That’s important to understand because we cannot just copy-paste the demands and policy proposals from one country to another. That would be oversimplifying things, although some of the demands of Black Lives Matter in the US can also have an important impact in a European context.

Let’s take the demand to remove statues of people associated with racism. In the United Kingdom, a statue in Bristol of the slave trader Edward Colston was removed by protestors and replaced by a sculpture made by the Black Lives Matter movement [it was subsequently removed by Bristol Council].

First off all, racism and discrimination aren’t going to disappear because a statue has been torn down. If that’s what people think, then we are in big trouble because the problems are so much wider and deeper.

Let’s be very clear on this: people can’t just go out onto the streets and pull down whichever statue they don’t like. We don’t live by the law of the jungle. We live in a democracy where we have necessary democratic processes. We need to have discussions about what should change. I believe every responsible politician in every municipality in every EU country should invite their local citizens to an assembly to discuss the statues in their city and ask: are these the statues that we want? Are these the heroes that we need and how should we interpret them? Then, after these discussions – long discussions that should take several months – there should be a meeting where a democratic decision is taken on whether we take the statues down, put them in a museum, or keep them. That’s how we do things in a democracy. The idea that whoever is the strongest in the street at a given moment can tear anything down is deeply authoritarian. 

Authoritarian tendencies are not solely confined to the far right but are also present in left-wing movements.

Indeed, and as Greens we must strongly defend democratic processes in which everybody is heard, including minorities and people with different opinions. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are in the streets wanting to take a statue down, that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Politicians need to be brave enough to say that and argue in favour of democratic processes. I often hear that people have had enough of talking and that now is the time for action. That’s wrong. Democracy is about conversation – not only about talking but also listening, especially to minorities and those who see things differently. Enabling such processes is our responsibility.

Democracy is about conversation – not only about talking but also listening, especially to minorities and those who see things differently.

But what about the civil rights movement, civil disobedience and Martin Luther King? Aren’t civil disobedience and direct action also part of a democratic conversation, particularly when democratic processes prove unresponsive?

Green parties across Europe are all closely connected to green grassroot movements. Both on our own initiative and in support of broader agendas, Green representatives and supporters will always be found at demonstrations and publicly criticising injustice in any undemocratic society. As a politician, I see myself as a representative of their beliefs and political wishes.

Having said that, one has to push for change within the common juridical framework that is put in place by all of us, the people, through democratic decisions. Even if you want to change the framework – or the system, if you prefer – you have to start changing it from within. The process sometimes seems slow, but during my years in politics I have repeatedly seen ideas and wishes turning into concrete actions. With politicians in our political institutions who are driven by wishes that correspond with the people, change is possible. That is why the best way to change things is to vote for a political party and politician who you trust will represent your beliefs and fight your battles.

What’s the situation with anti-racism protests in your home country, Sweden? What challenges is Sweden facing in particular?

When it comes to racism and discrimination, Sweden is facing similar challenges to those in countries like Denmark or Germany. Most hate crimes committed are racially motived, and people of African descent are more exposed to physical violence than the rest of the population. Structural discrimination in Sweden is visible in different areas of society: in the workplace, in the education system, in political institutions, and in our everyday lives. The result of this is unequal life chances, where some are privileged with better opportunities than others. In the end it is all about power – the power to shape our lives and the society we are part of. 

One problem is that we are lacking proper statistics and data on structural racism. Such information is necessary for politics to be able to deal with the issue.

One problem is that we are lacking proper statistics and data on structural racism. Such information is necessary for politics to be able to deal with the issue. Most of the information available comes from civil rights organisations and NGOs. So there is first and foremost a need to strengthen data collection and awareness raising. Of course, we know there is racial discrimination on the labour market, when it comes to housing or even just entering restaurants and bars. This has been amply documented by NGOs and journalists. But not enough is being done about it because there is structural racism within agencies and the whole of society.

You once said that the Swedish Greens need to “go where the far-right extremists go”. What did you mean by that?

For many years in Sweden, it was considered a God-given truth that you shouldn’t debate with extremists. That you should just ignore them instead of giving them the floor to let them express their hateful views. That was a mistake. The idea that we shouldn’t debate with certain people is filled with conceit. I understand the arguments behind it, but I think Greens need to engage and let people also hear our arguments and points of view. We need to be brave and take that debate head-on, not shy away and let the extremists carry the debate to wherever they want to take it.

People of colour are also underrepresented in politics. What is necessary to ensure that people of colour are better represented in political institutions?

This is an incredibly important issue because our democratic system depends on one central factor – trust. If the parliamentary system and its representatives don’t have trust, then they don’t have anything. Trust is the most important, most valuable factor in politics and in maintaining democracy. When people can’t mirror themselves in their parliamentarians, they will never feel fully represented, and trust can erode. This is particularly true for the European institutions, which are mostly run by older white men. This make-up doesn’t represent the EU in its entirety. It is a huge problem which is actually undermining democracy, something we can’t afford to do.

When people can’t mirror themselves in their parliamentarians, they will never feel fully represented, and trust can erode.

However, it’s important to recognise that there’s no quick fix for this. It takes years to change an institution and its make-up. As Greens, we also need to look at our own parties and organisations. Looking at the Green Party of Sweden, for example, I see that we have a problem with regards to diversity from the top down to our youth organisation. We ourselves must do our homework. We need to make sure that young people – no matter how well-off their parents are, where they live, which schools they go to – want to join political parties and become involved in politics. That means we must be better at reaching out to all people. 

The German Green Party, long considered a party of white academics, is planning to adopt a diversity statute which aims to ensure that minority groups are represented on all political bodies with a minimum rate equal to their representation in the general population. What do you think of such a proposal?

This is a great ambition and I’m proud that my sister party is setting such a goal. But this kind of proposal also demands a lot of work to ensure that competent people occupy these positions. That is key and here Greens can do better. Of course, being black can impart competence on certain issues, as can being a migrant. We need to understand that and take the time to identify the right people.

Apart from representation, what changes are needed to overturn structural racism in Sweden and the wider EU?

We need to use every tool at our disposal, including legislation at all levels. In a European context, a first step would be to unblock the anti-discrimination directive, which has been blocked in Council since 2008. Here, I have been appointed rapporteur. This directive aims to expand protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation outside the labour market. In most member states, intersectional discrimination is not covered by national legislation. The directive remains a shameful symbol of the lack of political will to legislate on anti-discrimination from the side of the Council and the member states. It must be unblocked immediately. To this end, I expect the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to act and do her utmost to mobilise the Council during the German Presidency. The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and the worldwide protests that followed, send a clear message to politicans: the people demand action now.

The [anti-discrimination directive] remains a shameful symbol of the lack of political will to legislate on anti-discrimination from the side of the Council and the member states. It must be unblocked immediately.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/politics-for-change-black-lives-matter-in-europe/

 

 

Anti-Racist Politics in Practice: Greens and Black Lives Matter

Waves of protests against racism have spread globally in 2020. Sparked by police killings in the US, the movement has forced a conversation about racial inequality, representation, and colonialism into the public debate. Green parties are vocal advocates of racial justice, but does the rhetoric match the reality? Samir Jeraj spoke to Green activists of colour from across Europe to hear their perspectives on what Green parties need to do to build racial justice in the years and decades to come.

The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May, compounded by the rising number of deaths of people of colour from Covid-19, led to “Black Lives Matter” being echoed around the world. There has been a reckoning for many communities and institutions on their past and present actions on racism. Statues have fallen, experiences of racism in every organisation, profession and community have been shared. It remains to be seen whether there will be lasting change.

Green parties have traditionally been defenders of liberal values of racial equality and supporters of anti-racist struggles. But they too have their challenges with racism: strong rhetoric and policy about racism in society is often matched with lacklustre action. Compared to how Green parties successfully support, work with and integrate gender equality, LGBT rights, and even migrant rights movements, their work on racism falls short. Within parties, a very liberal denialism persists, often betrayed by the assumption that good people trying to do good things could not possibly be racist. But you only have to look at how racially and ethnically representative Green parties are to see there is a problem.

Within parties, a very liberal denialism persists, often betrayed by the assumption that good people trying to do good things could not possibly be racist.

Bringing practice in line with policy in Sweden

“Anti-racism politics is the reason why I wanted to become a member of the Greens in Sweden,” explains Aida Badeli, the co-chair of Young Greens Sweden. The traditionally left-leaning country is being challenged by Black Lives Matter activists on its record on race equality in employment, criminal justice, hate crime, and its role in colonialism and slavery [read more about structural racism in Sweden]. Nearly one in five Swedes voted for the far-right Swedish Democrats in the 2018 parliamentary elections.

In Aida’s experience, the Swedish Greens frequently discuss racism and discrimination. “The policy stuff for the Green party is really good,” she admits. However, the party remains “quite white” organisationally. She contends that this underrepresentation leads to people of colour being exoticised and makes the challenges faced by party members a low priority. “Representation matters,” she says, but she would also like to see the Swedish Greens take a more public and active role in anti-racism.

Within Green parties, people of colour can often feel isolated and unsupported, particularly when they are in a more public role: “I get threats and things like that and I often feel quite alone,” recounts Aida. She would like to see the Green party recognise that people of colour, particularly those in politics, are more vulnerable and need support, and to actively recruit and attract more people of colour.

Connecting social justice with racial equality in Germany

German Greens released a 10-point plan against racism which Sarah Heinrich, a Green Youth activist and federal executive member, thinks is “pretty good”. It calls for police reform, the creation of an anti-racist commissioner in the government, and instituting anti-racism education. However, Sarah feels this response does not link racial injustice with social insecurity enough: “We have to understand that to really better the situation of people of colour in Germany, we need more social security: better jobs, higher wages, lower rent. Because they are the ones who often live in precarious situations.”

Racism in Germany is on the rise. Statistics from the Anti-Discrimination Agency show a 10 per cent increase in cases in 2019. The country has also been rocked by far-right extremist attacks, such as the killing of ten people by the National Socialist Underground over a period of seven years, and recent revelations about far-right influence in the military and police.

Sarah wants social and anti-racism policies to be a greater priority alongside climate justice but is concerned that they would be undermined by going into coalitions with centre-right political parties. “To gain trust from people of colour in Germany, the Greens should stop thinking that Conservatives are good coalition partners,” she explains.

Institutional racism on the agenda in the Netherlands

Niels van de Berge, an MP with GroenLinks, is one of the people leading the party’s response to Black Lives Matter. Early on, he invited representatives from the movement into parliament. That led to a debate with the prime minister on institutional racism in the Netherlands. Racial profiling is widespread, ranging from the police to the tax office, private companies and banks who refuse people of colour mortgages. Young people of colour in particular struggle to access jobs and opportunities. The Netherlands also has its history of colonialism and slave-trading which underpins present-day institutional racism and is yet to be reckoned with.

“We’ve been trying to put [institutional racism] on the agenda for years,” says Niels. In the past, there had been strong resistance to discussing racial inequality: “people found it unnecessary. There were even people saying ‘institutional racism doesn’t exist in the Netherlands,’” says Niels. All of that has changed since the death of George Floyd, and he sees real momentum to tackle institutional racism. A cross-party meeting was held with representatives from the Black Lives Matter movement on what policy changes should be made, and GroenLinks will be working with them on their manifesto for the 2021 elections.

Ambitions and challenges for the European Greens

Carrie Hou worked as a digital campaigner for the European Green Party (EGP, the Green party at the European level), the first woman of colour to be employed by the organisation according to management. She had a background in anti-racism campaigns in Australia and came to Brussels to lead on digital organising for the 2019 European elections. Carrie was drawn to the job in part because the call for applicants was “hopeful”, “race-conscious”, and “class conscious”. She had never been a Green party member, having found the group at her university very white, middle class, and inaccessible.

In Brussels, a large multicultural city, Carrie was one of few people of colour working for a Brussels-based European institution. “A lot of us [people of colour] come from families where financial insecurity is such an intense thing,” she explains. This means huge pressure to find jobs and careers that offer security, and political campaigning is not one. “You have more emotional anxiety about something that most white people would really happily go into.”

Carrie found herself targeted by far-right and racist activists in her job. While her employers and co-workers responded sympathetically, she feels it was all very reactive. It also placed the burden of coming up with suitable policies and procedures to ensure her safety on her rather than on management: “I was both the victim, but I also had to be the one who was presenting solutions.” She feels this contributed to her burning out at the end of the campaign, describing it as “frustrating” and “telling” that institutional processes and policies were not in place.

A spokesperson from the EGP stressed their “strong political ambitions” on diversity and equality. They said, “These are political issues for which we are recognised as being the most forward-looking and progressive party, and our supporters and voters are expecting us to deliver.” They added that the EGP has a strong history of respecting workers’ rights, and added that the party tries to facilitate flexible working arrangements so that more people in different circumstances can work for them.

The impossible double hat on UK Greens of Colour

The UK has a long history of racist policing. Black Lives Matter protests have focused on both the number of black people who have died in police custody and from the pandemic, as the high number of deaths from Covid-19 reflects the deep racial inequalities in health, housing, and employment.

Asking a black woman to read over a motion in less than 24 hours, in the middle of an emotionally gruelling situation, does not address Black Lives Matter

Following the death of George Floyd, Azzees Minott, chair of the Greens of Colour group of the Green Party of England and Wales, was asked to work on the response to Black Lives Matter at a national and European level. This, she explains, meant having to comment and provide feedback with little notice or time. Asking a black woman to read over a motion in less than 24 hours, in the middle of an emotionally gruelling situation, does not address Black Lives Matter she says, adding “I’ve had to make this point several times.” She feels that self-reflection on how to put anti-racist values into practice is often missing, even when responding to Black Lives Matter.

Swiss Young Greens take the lead

Zurich has seen demonstrations with thousands of protestors. Racial profiling is a common concern and a significant part of the 30 per cent increase in racist incidents in 2019. Police brutality is also an issue in Switzerland. In 2018 Mike Ben Peter, a black man, died while being restrained. The Young Greens are campaigning to stop police reports from mentioning nationality, which they believe feeds xenophobia and stereotypes about particular communities.

The Swiss Green party has relatively few BiPoC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) members, which Maimuna Barry, a party member, believes makes it easy to avoid the issue internally. “Just because you are in a left-wing and ecologist party, it does not mean that you do not have racist structures in you.” Maimuna wants to see more interest from the Green party in anti-racism: “I want them to learn and listen to the few BiPoC’s in their party and encourage them to run for parliament. I want huge change.”

Confronting political underrepresentation

Green parties in Europe are taking some steps to address underrepresentation in their parties. The Green Party of England and Wales set up a fund in 2019 to support projects to improve representation of people of colour.[1] However, there are still challenges for the Green Party of England and Wales, an issue underlined by the fact that a former Equalities Spokesperson is in the process of suing the party for racial discrimination.

GroenLinks is working to recruit, encourage and support people of colour to become parliamentarians in next year’s elections, and has had some success in electing a diverse range of candidates in local government. While Niels believes the party fairs better than other parties in the Netherlands do, he feels they still have a long way to go to achieve greater representation and “stronger and more outspoken” participation in the anti-racist struggle.

[Green parties’] practice of anti-racist politics does not reflect the values of equality and equity which the movement is founded on, even if their policies do.

In response to the specific issue raised about the lack of people of colour in the EGP staff, the spokesperson said the party recognised the “structural obstacles” that prevent minorities from participating in politics, such as discrimination and financial barriers. They added that, “no one has found the perfect solution yet, but at least, and probably compared to other parties at least we consider it a real problem and are trying to break these obstacles step by step.”

One challenge is that political parties depend on large amounts of unpaid labour, hours of volunteering in campaigns and administering branches. Those in a position to do this boost their network and personal capital to advance a political career and have their ideas listened to, almost like how unpaid internships work in other industries. In politics, unpaid labour is an institutional barrier to people who cannot donate that time, which means they are less likely to be members, elected representatives or hired in jobs.

“For a person of colour, you need to think about what in society stops them joining your party, or working for your party, or doing voter outreach for your party,” says Carrie Hou. Until this changes and inclusive structures are put in place, it does not matter if a large number of people of colour join because they will leave again, and Green parties will be stuck in a cycle of a mostly white political and administrative leadership.

Breaking the cycle

Progressive parties in many countries have conceded racist arguments on immigration and crime while failing to address the underlying roots of racism, and others have maintained a complicit silence.

Green parties in Europe have a problem and they need to admit it. Their practice of anti-racist politics does not reflect the values of equality and equity which the movement is founded on, even if their policies do. People of colour in various Green parties have described different versions of this problem, whether it is about removing barriers to participation, putting things in place to ensure an environment that welcomes and supports people of colour, and making anti-racism a long-term priority rather than a value asserted reactively.

“Green parties must not lean back and think, ‘Well, we are left-wing, we can’t be racist’” cautions Maimuna Barry. She feels that her party has done relatively little to support Black Lives Matter, and the broader anti-racism struggle. Maimuna believes that Green politics is reduced to climate change and overlooks the fact that to protect the climate, “we need social justice and to smash racism.”

‘What the Green party needs is an institutionalised, procedural and structured way of tackling racism within the party at every single level […]’

Carrie Hou says, “What the Green party needs is an institutionalised, procedural and structured way of tackling racism within the party at every single level,” adding that a wealth of knowledge and examples of institutions doing this successfully already exists. It just requires the will to make it happen and the humbleness to admit there is an issue.

The constant messages and engagement that immediately followed the death of George Floyd have now dropped to nothing. “What happens after the images of protest stop being shown on the news? What do you do then?” asks Azzees Minott. She asserts, “That is the true test of how far we’re going to get.”

Azzees believes allies can play an important and positive role by actively supporting people of colour, making use of their skills, and sharing them to create change. “Allies in the UK and abroad fail to realise that, as much as racism is a structural, systemic and institutional matter that needs challenging, many problems come from individual behaviour.” She thinks we all need to ask ourselves individually “are my actions in good faith and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement?” and move into sustained action rather than responding intensely when something horrific happens and then do nothing after, which actually perpetuates the problem of racial inequality.

Anti-racist activism will rise with horrific and traumatic events such as the death of George Floyd but too often recedes as the old structures and cultures of oppression reassert themselves. The rise of far-right parties, hate crimes and discourse is built on top of these structural inequalities. People are more concerned than ever about racial equality, and while the protests may stop, now is the time to commit to a long-term fight for racial justice.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The author is a board member of the fund.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/anti-racist-politics-in-practice-the-greens-and-black-lives-matter/