‘Brazen attempt at vote buying’: Trump bashed for requiring federal food aid to include letters from him taking credit


October 1, 2020 By David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement

U.S. President Donald Trump greets people while distributing food after Hurricane Florence in New Bern North Carolina, U.S., September 19, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture is spending billions of taxpayer dollars to buy fresh food from America’s farmers to give to needy families across the country, because of the coronavirus pandemic. But the Trump administration is now requiring those federal food aid boxes include a letter, signed by President Donald Trump, directly taking credit for helping to feed America’s families.

Food bank operators and non-profit executives and experts are furious.

“In my 30 years of doing this work, I’ve never seen something this egregious,” Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Food Banks, tells Politico. “These are federally purchased boxes.”

Politico calls it “the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election.”

“These guys should be handing out food and instead they’re talking to campaign attorneys because of these damn letters,” says Eric Kessler, founder of Arabella Advisors, a philanthropy consulting firm. Politico describes him as a “longtime player in Democratic politics.”

“It’s a brazen attempt at vote buying targeted at the neediest,” Kessler adds.


The letters are not subtle.

“As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” the letter, in English and Spanish, reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”

They are signed in Trump’s famous big black marker scrawl.

The White House – not the Trump campaign – this week is promoting the program, and very clearly giving President Trump all the credit, on social media.


Today, @USDA announced that the Farmers to Families Food Box Program has delivered more than 100 million boxes of food across the country!

President @realDonaldTrump has authorized $1 BILLION for the next round of food deliveries! pic.twitter.com/H047Ajoh2t

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 29, 2020


The $1 billion are taxpayer funds.

Some food banks are complaining they have had to consult attorneys to ensure including the mandated letters does not break the law or jeopardize their non-profit status.

“We are a nonpartisan organization,” Greg Trotter, a spokesman for the Greater Chicago Food Depository told Politico. “While the content of the letter is not overtly political, we think it’s inappropriate to include a letter from any political candidate just weeks from an election.”

The letters first came in mid-summer, in a program heralded by Ivanka Trump. But back then they were not mandatory – not a requirement of participation.


2K+ Farmers to Families Food

were given to families in need thx to @MilitaryProduce,GAFoods & Cornerstone Chapel.

Special shoutout to @MilitaryProduce for getting 93% of Farmers to Families

to Opportunity Zones.

the

from @realDonaldTrump reinforcing CDC guidelines!

pic.twitter.com/hEwpFg5sys
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) August 14, 2020


Democrats say the letters are unlawful.

One major Oregon food bank has decided to stop participating in the federal program, at least in part because of Trump’s letter.

“There “are real questions as to whether food assistance organizations can ethically distribute such a message with an election looming in mere weeks,” Susannah Morgan wrote in a statement.

KARMA IS A BITCH REDUX

Bob Murray, Who Fought Against Black Lung Regulations As A Coal Operator, Has Filed For Black Lung Benefits 

TAX AVOIDER WANTS BENEFITS PAID BY TAXPAYERS 

West Virginia Public Broadcasting 

By Dave Mistich
Brittany Patterson
Published September 30, 2020 

Sydney Boles
Ohio Valley Resource Bob Murray speaking at an event in October 2019.

Robert E. Murray, the former CEO and president of the now-bankrupt Murray Energy, has filed an application with the U.S. Department of Labor for black lung benefits. For years, Murray and his company fought against federal mine safety regulations aimed at reducing the debilitating disease.

“I founded the company and created 8,000 jobs there until the move to end coal use. I am still chairman of the board,” he wrote on a Labor Department form that initiated his claim obtained by the Ohio Valley ReSource. “We’re in bankruptcy, and due to my health could not handle the president and CEO job any longer.”

According to sources, Murray’s claim is still in the initial stages and is being evaluated to determine the party potentially responsible for paying out the associated benefits. The Labor Department is required to determine a liable party before an initial ruling can be made on entitlement to benefits. If Murray’s claim were to go before an administrative law judge, some aspects of the claim would become a matter of public record.

The Ohio Valley ReSource confirmed the authenticity of Murray’s claim documents by inputting associated information — including his last name, birthdate and a case ID number — into an online portal maintained by the Labor Department.

In his claim, Murray, who is now 80 years old, writes that he is heavily dependent on the oxygen tank he is frequently seen using, and is “near death.”

North American Coal Corporation is named as one potentially liable party in Murray’s claim for the benefits. According to documents associated with his claim, he states that he was employed by the company from May 1957 to October 1987 — where he ascended through its ranks, first as a miner before taking on the role of president.

Later, he served as president and operator of Ohio Valley Resources, Inc. and a subsidiary from 1988 to 2001. He founded Murray Energy in 1988.

He states in his claim for benefits that he worked underground while supervising operations throughout the years.

“During my 63 years working in underground coal mines, I worked 16 years every day at the mining face underground and went underground every week until I was age 75,” Murray wrote in his claim.

Reached by phone, Murray declined an on-the-record interview for this story. Murray said he has black lung from working in underground mines and is entitled to benefits. Additionally, he disputed that he ever fought against regulations to quell the disease or fought miners from receiving benefits.

Murray also threatened to file a lawsuit if a story was published that indicated he had fought federal regulations and benefits.

But Murray told NPR in October 2019 that he had a lung disease that was not caused by working underground in mines.

“It's idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. IPF, and it is not related to my work in the industry. They've checked for that,” Murray told NPR. “And it's not — has anything to do with working in the coal mines, which I did for 17 years underground every day. And until I was 76, I went underground twice a week.”

History Of Fighting Safety Rules

Like other coal operators, Murray’s companies have disputed the claims made by miners who seek black lung benefits. The coal magnate, who for decades ran the largest privately owned underground coal mining company in the United States, has also been at the forefront of combatting federal regulations that attempt to reduce black lung, an incurable and ultimately fatal lung disease caused by exposure to coal and rock dust.

In 2014, Murray Energy spearheaded a lawsuit against the Obama administration over a federal rule that strengthened control of coal dust in mines.

The Obama-era standard reduced the acceptable amount of coal dust exposure for miners, increased the frequency of dust sampling, and required coal operators to take immediate action when dust levels are high.

The reforms were the first in more than four decades to tighten exposure standards to coal dust and came at a time that evidence was mounting that Appalachia was seeing a deadly resurgence in the most severe form of black lung, after reaching historic lows in the 1990s.

“It’s ironic that Murray’s company fought hard to block the 2014 respirable coal dust rule we put in place to prevent the black lung disease,” said Joe Main, who served as assistant secretary of the Mine Safety and Health Administration under President Barack Obama.

MSHA, as it is known, is the agency within the Labor Department tasked with implementing and enforcing mine safety rules, including those aimed at reducing black lung.

Murray Energy’s lawsuit claimed that adhering to the new rule would have been virtually unachievable with available technology and would cost the industry billions. Murray’s suit failed, but Bob Murray tried again to block implementation of the dust rule, this time by influencing the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

Murray, a staunch Trump supporter, has been a major player in shaping the current administration’s energy policy agenda and has funded groups that deny the existence of climate change. Early in Trump’s term, the coal magnate delivered a detailed action plan aimed at helping the declining industry. Among the requests: overhaul the “bloated” MSHA and “revise the arbitrary coal mine dust regulation” which Murray claimed would cost the industry “thousands of jobs.”

The coal industry’s biggest players and lobbyists, including the National Mining Association, have fought tighter regulations. Wes Addington, executive director of the Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, a nonprofit law firm that has for years represented miners in black lung benefits cases, said Murray was at the forefront of that fight.

“Today, in 2020, we're seeing more miners with more advanced black lung than the country has ever seen. And yet, the industry over the past 10 to 20 years, has consistently fought against any regulation that would try to limit the amount of dust that miners breathe,” Addington said. “Murray Energy has been part of that fight, along with a number of the largest coal companies in the country.”

Black Lung Claims Process

To qualify for black lung benefits, miners must prove both that they have the debilitating disease and that they are totally disabled due at least in part to a breathing impairment caused by black lung.

The diagnosis is usually done through X-rays and other tests and certified by a medical professional. To get federal benefits, a miner will first assemble and submit a claim to the Labor Department. The agency will review the claim and make a determination as to whether there is substantial evidence to prove both the presence of the disease and that it has disabled the miner. If the claim is approved, the federal government will begin paying out medical benefits, also called interim benefits, from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, a federal pot of money that pays for some benefits and is funded by a tax on each ton of coal mined.

Then the Labor Department turns to the coal company deemed to be responsible for the miner’s disease to pay for the benefits. Advocates that work on black lung benefits say, more often than not, the coal company or its insurance carrier will fight the claim, which often pits miners against their former employers in court.

“You often see doctors who testify for coal companies raise an argument about, perhaps the miner was overweight. Perhaps the miner has been exposed to animal manure if he grew up on a farm, and perhaps that is causing his breathing trouble today — after working for 15 or 20 or 30 years in the mines,” said Sam Petsonk, a West Virginia-based attorney who has represented former Murray miners seeking black lung claims.

Petsonk, who is also the Democratic candidate for West Virginia Attorney General, said litigation involving claims for black lung benefits can drag out often for many years and in some cases for decades. In some documented cases, miners have died before their claims were settled.

Davitt McAteer, former MSHA assistant secretary, said the tactic of attorneys representing mining companies named in black lung claims is to slow down or stall the process.

“If you’ve black lung, you're dying. There's no two ways about it. And you may live for a while, but you're going to die soon,” he said. “And all I have to do is — if I’m the lawyer on the other side — wait around, wait him out and they’ll die. And they did. And then, the claimant goes to the widow and you wait her out, too.”

According to Murray’s claim for benefits, his wife Brenda is listed as a dependent. If Murray’s claim for benefits is approved, his wife would receive the benefits for the rest of her life, regardless of whether the claim is approved before or after his death.

If a coal company goes bankrupt or if no responsible party is determined, benefits may be paid from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which currently covers expenses for some 25,000 miners and their dependents. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office found the trust fund is expected to be $15 billion in debt by 2050.

Bankruptcy

Murray Energy’s bankruptcy last year added to the burdened fund. In October 2019, the coal operator filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company cited billions of dollars in liabilities and a weak and struggling market for coal.

“Although a bankruptcy filing is not an easy decision, it became necessary to access liquidity and best position Murray Energy and its affiliates for the future of our employees and customers and our long-term success,” then-CEO Murray said in a release issued at the time.

The proceedings, which concluded in September, provided a rare glimpse into the private company. Creditors argued Murray and his nephew and now CEO of the company, Robert Moore, viewed the mining company as a “family piggy bank” and cited a “disturbing pattern of self dealing and abuse of corporate resources.”

They documented multi-million dollar cash bonuses for both Murray and Moore, as well as the use of the company's aircraft for personal purposes among other allegations. Murray Energy denied those claims.

According to court filings, Murray Energy could be responsible for as much as $155 million under the Black Lung Act and general workers’ compensation, but testimony from the Government Accountability Office shows that the company only offered $1.1 million in collateral.

As is common in coal bankruptcies, Murray and its successor company were relieved of any obligation to pay existing black lung benefits by the bankruptcy court. Those benefits are now being paid by the federal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

Under the final bankruptcy agreement, Murray has been removed from company leadership, although he remains on the board.

Other Violations

Murray mining operations have also had a number of high-profile mine safety incidents over the years, including the disastrous collapse of a mine in 2007.

In August 2007, nine miners and rescuers died after the Murray-owned Crandall Canyon mine in Utah collapsed. The Labor Department fined the company $1.85 million for violating federal mine safety law. In 2012, the agency settled with Murray for a reduced amount. The settlement included acknowledgement by Murray Energy for its “responsibility for the failures that led to the tragedy.”

Murray later told NPR “this settlement is not an admission of any contribution to the August 2007 accidents.”

Murray was also sued by the Labor Department after miners complained the CEO personally told workers in a meeting in late 2013 to stop making complaints to federal regulators. Under federal law, miners have the right to speak anonymously to government inspectors about mine safety concerns. In 2019, Murray lost an appeal in the case. The court upheld a decision that Murray must personally apologize.

This story was edited and produced by the Ohio Valley ReSource.


Dave Mistich
A native of Washington, West Virginia, Dave Mistich joined West Virginia Public Broadcasting in October of 2012, as the Charleston Reporter. After bouncing around a variety of newsroom roles at WVPB, he now focuses on state-level politics and government, as well as breaking news. Dave plays on the world's best-worst softball team, Chico's Bail Bonds. He can be reached via email at dmistich@wvpublic.org and you can follow him on Twitter @davemistich.
See stories by Dave Mistich

Brittany Patterson
Brittany Patterson covers energy and the environment for West Virginia Public Broadcasting and the regional public media collaborative the Ohio Valley ReSource. You can reach her at bpatterson@wvpublic.org and find her on twitter @amusedbrit
See stories by Brittany Patterson

Pesticides and food scarcity dramatically reduce wild bee population

by Amy Quinton, UC Davis
Study finds that blue orchard bee reproduction dropped nearly 60% when exposed to pesticides and when food is scarce. Credit: Clara Stuligross/UC Davis Study

The loss of flowering plants and the widespread use of pesticides could be a double punch to wild bee populations. In a new study, researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that the combined threats reduced blue orchard bee reproduction by 57 percent and resulted in fewer female offspring. The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.


"Just like humans, bees don't face one single stress or threat," said lead author Clara Stuligross, a Ph.D. candidate in ecology at UC Davis. "Understanding how multiple stressors interplay is really important, especially for bee populations in agricultural systems, where wild bees are commonly exposed to pesticides and food can be scarce."

The study found that pesticide exposure had the greatest impact on nesting activity and the number of offspring the bees produced. Pesticide exposure reduced bee reproduction 1.75 times more than limiting their food.

In field experiment

The team conducted their research by exposing the blue orchard bee to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, the most widely used neonicotinoid in the United States. It's also among the most frequently applied insecticides in California.

Nesting female bees were set up in large flight cages containing wildflowers at high or low densities treated with and without the insecticide. The insecticide was applied based on label instructions. Bees can be exposed to insecticides by consuming pollen and nectar from the treated flowers. Similar research has been conducted on honeybees in labs, but there has been no comparable research on wild bees in field or semi-field conditions.

Fewer females, fewer bees in the future

The two main factors that affect bee reproduction are the probability that females will nest and the total number of offspring they have. The research found that pesticide-exposed and resource-deprived female bees delayed the onset of nesting by 3.6 days and spent five fewer days nesting than unexposed bees.

Co-author Neal Williams, a pollination ecologist and professor in the Department of Entomology and Nematology at UC Davis, said that's a substantial delay considering bees only nest for a few weeks. The production of female bees is also crucial to determining the health of future bee populations.

"In the bee world, males don't matter so much," said Williams. "Male numbers rarely limit population growth, but fewer females will reduce the reproductive potential of subsequent generations."

The study found pesticide exposure dramatically reduced the probability that a bee produced even a single daughter. Of all nesting females, only 62 percent of pesticide-exposed bees produced at least one daughter compared to 92 percent of bees not exposed to pesticides.

Study authors said the research can help farmers make decisions about how they manage the environment around orchards. It reinforces the need for growers to carefully think about the location where they plant flowers for bee forage, to prevent flowers from becoming traps that expose bees to pesticides.

Explore further  Two pesticides approved for use in US harmful to bees
More information: Clara Stuligross et al, Pesticide and resource stressors additively impair wild bee reproduction, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2020). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1390

Journal information: Proceedings of the Royal Society B


Provided by UC Davis

Antarctic Peninsula at warmest in decades: study
Tourists visit Yankee Bay in the South Shetlands, Antarctica in November 2019

The year 2020 is the hottest in the Antarctic Peninsula in the past three decades, a study by the University of Santiago de Chile out Friday found.


Between January and August, temperatures reached between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius (35.6 and 37.4 degrees Fahrenheit) on the peninsula, which is the northernmost part of mainland Antarctica, according to researchers at the Chilean Air Force's Frei Base on King George Island.

Those temperatures are "more than 2 degrees Celsius over typical values," climatologist Raul Cordero said in a statement released by the Chilean Antarctic Institute (INACH).

"In the far northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, the average maximum temperature so far this year has been above 0 degrees. This had not happened for 31 years," Cordero added.

He called that fact "alarming," since it could indicate that the rapid rate of ocean warming observed in the area at the end of the 20th century is resuming.

The high Southern Hemisphere winter temperatures are in contrast, however, with those registered between August and September, which reached -16.8 degrees Celsius, the lowest since 1970.

The Antarctic Peninsula is the northernmost part of Antarctica, where there are scientific and military bases from several countries, including Argentina, Chile and Britain.


Explore furtherAntarctica registers record temperature of over 20 C

© 2020 AFP

'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/