Green World
www.greenworld.org.uk
The official magazine of the
Green Party | GW96 Spring 2017 | Price £2.00
Shining a light on
criminal justice
in the UK
We consider the Green
way forward
SNAP ELECTION | CONFERENCE ROUNDUP | BREXIT UPDATES | TONY JUNIPER CALLS FOR A NEW GREEN MESSAGE
editorial
GW96
Green Party, The Biscuit Factory, Unit 201 A Block, 100 Clements Road, London, SE16 4DG | 020 3691 9400 | www.greenworld.org.uk
Contents
News and openers
04 Conference roundup and vox pops
06 Local and mayoral election priorities
08 Snap election call for alliances
09 A Green alternative to the cuts
10 Trade after Brexit
11 Green gains in the Dutch election
Focusing on the future
Shining a light on UK criminal justice
13 A Green criminal justice system
Charley Pattison outlines the Green way forward
14 UK prison system: Crowded out
Only an end to overcrowding can deliver a safe prison system
15 Decriminalising solidarity with migrants
EU legislation deters those offering humanitarian aid
16 Brexit and the justice system
What impact will leaving the EU have on justice in the UK?
17 Yarl’s Wood: ‘Crimmigation’ in action
Greens call for an end to the detention of migrants
18 Whistle-blowing – behind the scenes
How Jenny Jones learned she’d been illegally hacked by police
19 Using the justice system for intimidation
Anti-fracking Nana Tina Rothery on her recent court case
Other features
20 Opinion: Reinventing the green message
Tony Juniper says it’s time Greens took a different approach
22 Reviews
Inventing the Future and Weapons of Math Destruction
Credits
Editor: Libby Peake,
[email protected]
Produced by: Resource Media Ltd
Create Centre, Smeaton Road
Bristol, BS1 6XN
Advertising: [email protected]
Editorial Board: Rebecca Johnson (convener),
Diana Korchien, Francesca Gater, Christopher
Ogden, Emily Blyth and Dee Searle (GPEx rep)
GPRC Reps: Nicole Haydock, Sandy Irvine,
Rachel Featherstone
Thanks to contributors: Caroline Lucas, Alice
Kiff, Jill Stein, Sheng I Che, Regina Asendorf,
Marie Thérèse Seif, Tika Dhoj Bhandari, Clare
Calascione, Darren Hall, Will Patterson, Julie
Howell, Sarah Thin, Anthony Slaughter, Pippa
Pemberton, Rachel Collinson, Simeon Jackson,
Elise Benjamin, Siân Berry, Oliver Dowding,
Keith Taylor, Jean Lambert, Molly Scott Cato,
Jonathan Bartley, Charley Pattison, Mark
Day, Andrew P Kroglund, Helen Joseph, Tim
Kiely, Sarah Cope, Jenny Jones, Joe Salmon,
Tina Louise Rothery, Tony Juniper, Derek Wall,
Ken Pease
Cover: nobeastsofierce/stock.adobe.com
Books for review to: Book Reviews, Green
World, Green Party, The Biscuit Factory, Unit 201
A Block, 100 Clements Road, London, SE16 4DG
Printing and distribution:
Printed on 100% recycled paper by Pensord,
Blackwood, Caerphillly
Suggestions for GW97 due: 12 May 2017 (tbc)
Please note: views in Green World do not necessarily express the views of the Green Party.
Products and services advertised in Green World are not necessarily endorsed by the Green Party.
Copyright-free except where indicated.
Caroline Lucas
Green MP for Brighton Pavilion
I
n just a few weeks’ time, Britain will go to the polls in a generationdefining general election. The future direction of this country is at
stake. Do we turn ourselves into an inward-looking Little England,
with a decimated welfare state and walls built to keep people
out? Or do we build a better country that welcomes people from
elsewhere and leads the world in eradicating poverty and providing
people with the best public services possible?
The Green Party’s policy platform on 8 June is clear. We oppose the
extreme Brexit that the Tories are pursuing and we also have a bold set
of ideas to make Britain into a fairer, greener country. In every corner of
this country, Greens will be standing as the only party giving voters a real
alternative to the tired old parties. Where others are looking to the past
we’ll be focusing on the future – and especially standing up for young
people in Britain who have been monumentally let down by the political
establishment. That’s why we’re proposing the abolition of tuition fees,
the reinstatement of EMA (education maintenance allowance) and the
protection of freedom of movement – because young people today
deserve a fair deal.
We’re aiming big at this election, and nowhere more so than in Bristol
West. At the last election, our vote there grew an enormous 23 per cent,
and this year we’re looking to go one better by winning the seat. Our
brilliant MEP, Molly Scott Cato, is standing in Bristol West and Jonathan
and I will be joining her on the campaign trail whenever possible. Of
course, I’ll be focusing on Brighton – where we’re expecting a strong
challenge from the other parties – and we’re also focusing efforts on
Bath, the Isle of Wight and Sheffield Central, too.
To make this the best ever campaign for the Green Party, we need
your help. Whether it’s knocking on doors, delivering leaflets or giving a
donation, everyone has a part to play in helping us win a historic victory
and gain extra MPs. We don’t get the big money or the media coverage
that the other parties enjoy, so we really do need our members’ help.
Thanks to everyone who is able to get involved in the coming weeks;
this party would be nothing without our members, and I look forward to
campaigning alongside many of you.
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 3
Green Party News
Congress roundup
Greens from around the world descended on Liverpool this spring to discuss
progressive ideas and global cooperation at Congress 2017. Young Greens press
officer Alice Kiff reflects on some of the highlights
All images courtesy of the European Greens. © Riccardo Pareggiani (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
T
he hundreds of Global Greens visiting Liverpool this spring
(some in the UK for the first time) were met with the full
spectrum of British weather, from hail to rain, sunshine
to greyness. But no matter the weather outside, the conference
centre on the scenic Albert Docks was teeming with ideas,
excitement, discussion and global cooperation.
For the first time ever, the party’s Spring Conference took place
alongside the Global Greens Congress (which takes place once
every five years) and the annual European Greens Congress. In the
week that our government triggered Article 50 and our freedom
of movement and global relationships were put at risk, there
was certainly a sense that a gathering of like-minded progressive
activists from six continents was especially powerful.
Our Global friends came bearing stickers, t-shirts, hats, and
locally-made wares, which livened up the many stalls around the
conference hall. Seeing what Greens from across the globe are
campaigning on – from the Australian Green Party’s fight to protect
the Great Barrier Reef, to the Green Party of Korea’s battle against
nuclear weaponry – was an amazing way to understand what the
green movement means to activists around the world.
Amelia Womack and former leader of Green Party of
Wales Alice Hooker-Stroud chaired the Global Greens
Welcome and Keynote addresses, featuring speeches
from Greens from Mauritius, Australia and the UK. There
were many highlights in the Global Greens Congress that followed
– on Thursday, Young Greens of England and Wales enjoyed getting
to know the Global Young Greens (GYG) in a GYG get-together,
and as a result of our strong links, two England and Wales Young
Greens were elected to the GYG steering committee! On Friday, our
former leader Natalie Bennett joined Green leaders from around
the world, including USA presidential candidate Jill Stein, for a
panel on electoral reform and proportional representation. Hearing
from panellists from Japan, Korea, Australia and the States was a
4 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
reminder that the battle for fair votes extends well beyond what
we experience here in the UK.
We did, however, have to put a bit of time aside for our own
politics! On Friday, our Co-Leaders’ speech brought a great audience
to the auditorium, and, as well as calling for action and rousing
hope, it identified some of our great successes since we convened
in Birmingham last year – such as winning a council seat from UKIP,
and electing our youngest-ever Green councillor.
The power of young people was as strong as ever, as the Young
Greens launched the People Not Numbers campaign to empower
refugees and migrants, with a panel on Friday featuring two MEPs
and three Young Greens who are migrants.
On Saturday, our MEPs joined colleagues from the Greens group
in the European Parliament to discuss the view from Brussels, and
how Greens are pushing for change across the Channel.
At another fringe on Saturday, our Co-Leaders were joined by
friends from Compass, the Guardian, and Richmond Green Party to
discuss one of the most contentious issues in the party right now.
No, not Jonathan’s choice of tie. Progressive alliances, of course.
The forum certainly gave some food for thought and it might have
swayed a member or two, as the Leaders’ motion to seek electoral
alliances in selected constituencies in future general elections (as
a step towards proportional representation) passed at a voting
plenary session later that day.
These plenary sessions are an integral part of Conference, and
we were proud to see some important motions get voted through,
such as Natalie Bennett’s Environmental Protection Act emergency
motion, which will ensure that the party fights for legal protection
of our environment post-Brexit.
Want to be a part of our Autumn 2017 Conference? Keep
checking greenparty.org.uk/conference to stay in the loop.
GW96
Congress vox pops
Inspired by Tony Juniper’s call for a new green message (see page 20), Green World
asked delegates at the Global and European Greens Congress in Liverpool how they
felt we should be convincing others to join us in the fight against climate change
Dr Jill Stein, US Green Party Presidential Candidate: Greens have to remember that we can tackle climate change
and improve the economy at the same time. In my experience, there are absolutely no challenges with this
message, apart from getting to the microphone, where we as Greens are kept away because our message
is so compelling. But a Green New Deal, that would provide emergency jobs – essentially a job for everyone
because there’s plenty of work to do in order to achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030 – revives our
economy, it stops climate change in its tracks, it makes wars for oil obsolete, and the best news is it pays for
itself in health savings alone. It’s a win-win-win. It’s all about standing up for what we need, what we deserve
and what we as Greens are leading the charge for.
Sheng I-Che, Trees Party Taiwan Co-Chair Person: Nothing is better than education, because education, especially
in the fields of science and technology, will make sure that people know climate change is real and that is
not a fiction. The best way to change politics so that this happens, and so that policies like carbon taxes are
instituted so that those that pollute the most pay the most, is to participate in politics. In Taiwan, before there
was an environmental protection party, the other parties focused on economics and other issues, but when
we participate, others start to talk about the environment, too, because they also want to earn the votes of
people that care about the environment, so that’s a way in. The best thing, though, would be if Green parties
were elected in every country and could directly change policies!
Regina Asendorf, Green member of Lower Saxony’s parliament: It is difficult to counter all the lies about climate
change because it happens over hundreds of years, and people don’t think about things in hundreds of years
– they can barely remember the weather from yesterday. So, we have to explain it with simple examples that
people can see now – like the fact that flowers in Germany are now blooming two weeks earlier than they
did just 30 years ago, or like the fact that my children want to go sledging but there is not enough snow in
winter anymore. We must also avoid being too intellectual, which is something Greens sometimes do.
Marie Thérèse Seif, Political Board Member, Green Party of Lebanon: Our message about climate change,
especially for COP23, is that, to reduce emissions of CO2 around the world, every country must work with
their governments to determine how to implement the emission reduction goals. We must work with
students in schools, with ministers, with the government and with the countries like the USA, China and
India that make the most emissions. Our message in Lebanon is that the world is not for us – we get it from
our ancestors to give to our children.
Tika Dhoj Bhandari, Nepali Greens International Secretary: I think sometimes we ignore what is going
on around us and blame other countries or politicians for not doing the right thing. Instead, we should
think how we as individuals can support the reduction in climate change and how we can improve our
surroundings. We need to talk to everyone about their responsibilities, because many people are unaware
of how their activities affect global warming. People should know about how the overuse of resources and
energy affects climate change.
Clare Calascione, Bristol Green Party: I think that, rather than talking about what is predicted to happen, we
should tell people human stories about what is happening now. Stories that have moved me I would hope
would move other people too, like the story of Lake Chad, which used to be the size of a sea but has receded,
meaning people that depend on the lake have to walk 30 kilometres or more to get their food and water. Or
the European story of reindeer herders in Lapland, who can no longer depend on rivers being frozen at certain
times of year so they can cross with their herds, as they have done for thousands of years.
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 5
Green Party News
Local elections, local priorities
Up and down England and Wales, thousands of council seats, as well as some mayoral
posts are up for grabs this May. Green World asked some of the candidates in key areas
what issues they will be campaigning on – both before and after the elections
Will Patterson, Greater Manchester Metro Mayor candidate
In the Greater Manchester election, Greens are focused on doing devolution differently.
The future of Greater Manchester’s green spaces is at the heart of the election campaign
for all the parties – the consultation on the combined authority’s Greater Manchester Spatial
Framework closed in January, and residents remain outraged about the proposals to sacrifice
large tracts of green belt land for big-ticket, high-value housing.
So, our campaign focuses on three issues. Firstly, climate and the environment, defending
our green spaces and protecting communities from the climate chaos that Greater Manchester
saw in the 2015 Boxing Day floods. Secondly, tackling inequality, in particular the lack of focus
on the real housing needs of the city region: social, affordable and supported homes are all in
short supply. And third, democracy: I’m campaigning to open up the combined authority through
the introduction of citizens’ forums, and with calls for a directly-elected Greater Manchester Assembly
to replace the closed-door devolution of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
Powys, by Pippa Pemberton, Wales Green Party candidate for Caersws ward
We are suffering from a swathe of austerity-related service cuts in Powys. We get cut
twice – first by Westminster, and then by the Welsh Government, which has cut
Powys’s budgets more than any other council in Wales, year after year after year. Our
rural services cost more to deliver, spread out across a county that covers a quarter
of the land area of Wales, but the council has less and less money in the budget to
keep our populations safe, healthy and educated.
Road safety is one of the key issues in our campaign targeting the rural seat of
Caersws. Ysgol Carno, a Welsh language primary school, has a 40mph road directly
outside it. And we have an extremely dangerous narrow historic bridge in Caersws
(pictured), where lorries share a single lane with pedestrians and cyclists. The bridge
splits the village from the recreation ground, home of the famous Caersws football team,
and at least one school child has to cross twice a day to get to the school bus.
We desperately need new Green voices on Powys Council, to find new and innovative ways of
delivering cost-effective services that support the needs of all our residents, and to challenge the lazy thinking
that has left the council reeling from one disastrous service cut to another.
Vale of Glamorgan, by Anthony Slaughter, Wales Green Party candidate for the
St Augustine’s ward
Road safety and air pollution are both important issues to local
residents, and the local Green Party campaign is strongly focused on
‘Safer Streets and Cleaner Air’.
Key to this campaign is a push for 20mph speed limits on all
residential roads in the town. I was a leading organiser of a very popular
‘20’s Plenty for Penarth’ campaign several years ago and have been
meeting with groups of residents who are very keen to see this policy
adopted by the local authority.
Air pollution is another serious problem locally with the main road
entrance to Penarth suffering serious congestion throughout the day
(pictured), and the surrounding area has been designated an Air
Quality Management Area. Local Greens are calling for cleaner, less
polluting public transport as part of the solution to this problem.
6 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
GW96
Durham, by Sarah Thin, Green Party candidate for Neville’s Cross electoral
division in the Durham County Council
Key to our campaign is the development of the Durham Future City Plan,
which will set out an alternative vision for the future development in
Durham city according to residents’ needs and desires, rather than profits
of housing developers that have tended to dictate planning policy in
Durham in recent years. Unregulated conversion of family homes to
houses in multiple occupancy for students has left ghost streets over
the summer months, created many issues relating to refuse collection
and noise, and has skewed the local economy and provision of services.
Poor planning and traffic management have also led to high levels
of air pollution in parts of the city that now pose a severe threat to
residents’ health. An important part of our campaign has been raising
awareness locally of the serious health impacts that this can have.
Our plan will put forward a positive, sustainable alternative to the
council’s failed strategy.
Julie Howell, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Mayor candidate
The key issues for Cambs & Peterborough include the desperate need
for additional social housing. This applies not only to people who
want to live in and around our cities but to those who grew up
in our villages but cannot afford to remain there unless social
housing is built. However, we will not build housing at any cost
and will be mindful to protect our green areas, their biodiversity
and our natural heritage. We are also keen to break up the love
affair between Cambs & Peterborough residents and their cars
by making bus and rail services more feasible and desirable
alternatives and cycling routes more accessible. Finally, we are
concerned that the mayor will have far too much power and so
we are calling for the establishment of a proportionallyrepresentative assembly similar to the one in London that will hold
the mayor to account.
Darren Hall, West of England Metro Mayor candidate
My first challenge is helping people understand what a ‘metro mayor’
is, and the second is to get them to vote! With a £1-billion remit that
covers housing, transport, adult education and economic investment,
it is an important opportunity for the Green Party to show how our
vision and values can be turned into practical, positive action
that will make a real difference to people’s lives. For example,
building affordable homes to high environmental standards,
powered by renewable energy, that all but eliminate residents’
power and heating bills will pave the way for other innovative
policies to be adopted by the mainstream. Or creating smaller,
more flexible public transport owned by social enterprises will
offer communities the services they need. Lastly, and perhaps
most importantly, we must take the opportunity to incorporate
bigger-picture issues such as climate change and biodiversity,
offering compelling reasons to think, and act, longer term – something
that UK politics desperately needs.
Go to www.metromayor.org.uk for more info.
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 7
Green Party News
Call for alliances in key seats to save UK
Green World
F
ollowing Theresa May’s snap general
election announcement just as Green
World was going to print, Green Party
Co-Leaders Caroline Lucas and Jonathan
Bartley wrote to the leaders of Labour
and the Liberal Democrats urging them to
unite to stop the Tories ‘wrecking Britain’.
Lucas and Bartley are calling for a meeting
between party leaders to discuss ways
to prevent a Tory majority at the general
election and deliver a fairer voting system.
In their letter to Jeremy Corbyn and Tim
Farron, the Co-Leaders listed a ‘crumbling
NHS’ and a ‘bleak future for young people’
as reasons for parties to work together.
They also said that working together is key
to stop Theresa May carrying through an
‘extreme’ Brexit inspired by the Tories, UKIP
and the DUP.
The call from the Green Party comes
after senior figures in Labour – Lisa Nandy,
Clive Lewis and Jonathan Reynolds –
called on their party to consider standing
aside at the Richmond byelection last
year. In that election the Green Party
stood aside, helping a pro-Europe Liberal
Democrat candidate who opposed
Heathrow expansion defeat Tory Brexiteer
Zac Goldsmith, who had triggered the
byelection to show his opposition to the
government decision to expand Heathrow.
The Green Party expects to stand in seats
in ‘every corner of the UK’ in the general
election on 8 June – but in keeping with
recent decisions, party leaders are asking
Farron and Corbyn to explore options for
alliances in seats with a good chance of
defeating the Conservatives.
The Co-Leaders will make further
announcements in the coming weeks on
their plans, but say that any agreement
between parties must be made at a local
level by ordinary members who share an
interest in preventing the government
enacting hard Brexit policies that would
harm our environment, democracy and
rights.
Commenting on the momentous
decision ahead for the electorate, Caroline
Lucas said: “Britain is at a crossroads – and
this election will dictate the very future
of our country. The Green Party will be
standing on a unique policy platform –
opposing the Tories’ Brexit and putting
forward big ideas for a fairer economy and
the protection of our environment. Our
call for a meeting between party leaders
isn’t about the Greens standing aside –
it’s about giving people in this country
the best possible chance of defeating
the Conservatives and bringing in a truly
democratic voting system.
“For the sake of our NHS, our welfare
state and our environment we need
progressive party leaders to ditch partisan
politics just for a moment and think about
how we can best stop the Tories from
wrecking our country for generations to
come.”
The Green Party is fundraising to
make sure more Green MPs are
returned in June. To contribute, go to:
tinyurl.com/nyv5yyh
Let’s serve youth right
Siân Berry, London Assembly Member
I
n the London Assembly, I’ve been trying
to get the mayor to help councils save
youth services as part of my work
on the budget and the police and crime
committee. This is a serious and growing
problem that threatens to damage young
lives in our city, cutting down on their
opportunities to learn skills and have fun
in positive ways outside their increasingly
crowded homes.
Using Freedom of Information requests,
I’ve found that councils in London have cut
more than £28 million from youth services
since 2011, cutting more than 400 youth
worker posts, and closing over 30 youth
centres. My view is that the mayor has a
strategic goal to reduce youth crime, and at
8 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
Mayor’s Question Time, he has agreed with
me that positive and early prevention is
best, so I’m very disappointed he didn’t take
up our budget amendment to help councils
prevent even more cuts this year.
I’m working with young people and youth
charities to keep up the pressure, and it’s
been heartbreaking to visit closed youth
centres and to see projects offering skills
and social activities shut down. With young
people low on the priority list for most
politicians, I think it’s something we Greens
have a duty to do – speaking up for our
young people and bringing their voices to
the attention of the other parties.
This isn’t just a London problem, and we
can all help in our local areas. Unison has
been doing UK-wide research and found
as part of its cuts project ‘The Damage’ in
2015 that nearly £400 million and 3,650
youth workers had been cut from youth
services in councils across the country
since 2012.
Find out more about my work on my
website: www.sianberry.london
GW96
A Green alternative to cuts Plastic-free
Norfolk
Rachel Collinson, Green Party Spokesperson for Business, Innovation and Skills
I
t was 2015. The shock of the general
election results was giving way to
despair. However, a resurgent local
Green Party had just saved our deposit in
West Ham for the first time.
Debt Resistance UK’s Joel Benjamin then
contacted me with a special mission. With
the help of financial journalists and experts,
he’d uncovered a financial scandal. He
needed a Newham resident to ferret out
details. I was intrigued.
It turned out that Newham Council had
taken out over £500 million in so-called
LOBO (lender option borrower option)
loans. The annual repayments on these
dreadful financial products are over £50
million – coincidentally, the same amount
that the council must slash from its budget
by 2019. And the same as 80 per cent of our
council tax payments!
A LOBO is not really a loan – it’s a
derivative product packaged as a loan
so that bankers can get around local
government borrowing rules. Councils (and
they are mostly Labour councils) are locked
in for up to 70 years! To exit before then,
Newham would have to pay over £1 billion.
One whistle-blower told us he would rather
shoot himself in the face than take the
LOBOs he was selling.
Barclays has now converted its LOBOs
into fixed-rate loans because of our
campaign, but this isn’t enough. We don’t
know the details yet – some problems could
remain.
Most importantly, a ‘no-win, no-fee’ legal
firm wants to help councils challenge the
banks in court for mis-selling. Join with us
and let’s get billions back from the banks!
If you want to check whether your
council has these loans, go to:
lada.debtresistance.uk
Councillor Simeon Jackson
G
reen Party councillors at both
Norwich City & Norfolk County
Council have been successful in
highlighting the problem of single-use
plastics on their respective councils. The
councils approved motions put by the
Greens to take the lead by ending the sale
and use of disposable products such as
bottles, cups, cutlery and drinking straws
in all council buildings by the end of 2017,
and using reusable or fully recyclable
alternatives.
This is significant because plastic items
that are used only once, like throw-away
plastic cups and cutlery, do not degrade
and so will end up clogging up landfill and
the oceans for centuries to come. Norfolk’s
Green councillors are now encouraging
other institutions, businesses and citizens
to adopt similar measures.
Protecting homeless and boat dwellers
Elise Benjamin, Chair of the Association of Green Councillors
O
n New Year’s Eve 2016, a group
of housing and homelessness
campaigners including local
Greens occupied an empty car showroom
in Oxford and turned it into a temporary
homeless shelter. Unusually, the squatters
secured a lease to occupy and stayed
for two months, with some homeless
residents finding jobs and homes, and one
applying for university. Green councillors
visited and actively supported the squat,
and Jonathan Bartley (pictured, below)
spent time playing pool with homeless
residents (on a donated pool table).
In February, homeless residents and
supporters also backed up a Green city
councillor budget amendment to reopen a homeless hostel. The amendment
was voted down by Labour and LibDem
councillors, but the squatters organised a
petition to support the Green amendment,
presenting it at the annual budget meeting.
Under the council constitution, the budget
amendment petition has to be discussed at
the next council meeting in April.
*
n other news, Greens recently scored a
major victory in Oxford, protecting the
rights of people to live on boats.
Following a campaign by Green city
councillors in 2015, Oxford City Council
watered down its City Centre Public Space
Protection Order (PSPO). Despite strong
public opposition, the Labour council then
proposed a Waterways PSPO. With housing
costs making Oxford the least affordable
place in the UK to live, many residents
live on boats. The PSPO, which sought to
I
criminalise the activities of boaters, and
others using Oxford’s Waterways, was
opposed at the outset by the Greens, with
Green Councillor David Thomas taking a
lead, working with representative groups
and comedian campaigner Mark Thomas
to try ensure the draft order never made it
into law.
Council officers are now recommending
that the ruling Labour administration drop
its plans. This is a major success for the
Greens, who have claimed from the outset
that the PSPO is disproportionate, unwieldy,
discriminatory and unnecessary.
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 9
Green Party News
What is a ‘meaningful’ Brexit vote?
Keith Taylor, Green MEP for the South East
W
hat is a ‘meaningful vote’ when
it comes to the UK-EU exit
deal? The issue was raised by
the Lords who passed an entirely sensible
amendment to Theresa May’s Brexit bill
(which was sadly rejected) calling for MPs
to be given a real choice about the terms on
which the UK leaves the EU.
The government has presented MPs
with a Hobson’s choice: accept the Tory exit
deal or crash out of the European Union
without a deal. But, as the cross-party Lords
recognised, MPs ought to be given the
ability to reject whatever deal Number 10
strikes with Brussels without the UK having
to leave with no deal at all.
To have a clear idea of what a
‘meaningful vote’ looks like, we must
address the question that the so-called
‘Dublin case’ seeks to answer: can the UK
unilaterally revoke Article 50 now that it’s
been triggered?
I’m a plaintiff in the case alongside Green
Party of England and Wales Co-Leader
Jonathan Bartley, Green Party Northern
Ireland Leader Steven Agnew, and the
Director of the Good Law Project Jolyon
Maugham QC.
Getting the legal clarity is important
because the ability to revoke Article 50
means that two years from now, no option
is off the table – including the option to
remain in the EU if MPs, and the people
they represent, believe the exit deal is not in
Britain’s best interests.
If ‘taking back control’ is to mean
anything, it should mean the people have
the final say on the deal negotiated on their
behalf. As Greens, we are clear on the need
for a ratification referendum at the end of
the two-year negotiation process. The EU
referendum should have been the start of a
democratic process, not the end.
The danger of ‘going it alone’ after Brexit
Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London
T
rade has been a big focus of the
Brexit vote. As Greens argued during
the referendum campaign, the
negative impacts of leaving the EU are not
just political, they are economic, social,
cultural and environmental. Trade, too, has
always been about much more than the
economic bottom line.
Greens are not anti-trade, but we have
consistently opposed trade deals like
the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA) between the EU and
Canada and the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) between
the EU and US because of the negative
social, environmental and employment
impacts of these agreements, and also
because they amount to a power shift in
favour of multinational corporations at the
expense of the public good. They include
provisions for private tribunals operating
outside existing legal systems where these
companies can sue elected governments.
Greens continue to oppose these deals,
but, astonishingly, many Labour politicians,
as well as Lib Dems and Tories, continue
to support them. They proved this again
10 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
recently by voting for CETA in the European
Parliament.
If the UK government is determined to
replace EU single market membership
with a close, comprehensive UK-US trade
deal with Trump, the impacts could be
severe. If such a deal includes an
investor-state dispute settlement
mechanism, this gives US corporations
significant power and leverage over the
UK, with a permanent threat to progressive
legislation from huge compensation
claims. The manifold problems include
threats in a number of areas often
presented as nothing more than ‘non-tariff
barriers to trade’. These include threats
to the precautionary principle, farming
systems with high levels of environmental
and animal protection, or restrictions on
GMOs. Hard Brexit could help present a
Trump trade deal as ‘necessary’ and this
could be the fall-out.
A trade deal with India is presented as
an ‘opportunity’ arising from Brexit. But
India’s central demand in any such deal is
the opening up of Britain to Indian migrant
workers, something the UK government
has consistently
resisted and
which goes
against the
(shameful)
anti-immigrant
stance of May’s
government.
Will Britain
ensure our
trading
partners meet
International
Labour Organisation standards or safeguard
human rights, as is currently the case with
the EU’s international trade deals? Or
will a Britain outside the EU reject these
important safeguards as barriers to non-EU
trade agreements pursued at any price?
Jean’s ‘UK Trade After the Brexit Vote’
explores these and related issues in
more detail. See jeanlambertmep.
org.uk/trade-brexit or email
[email protected] for
free hard copies
GW96
The politics of hope: Dutch Green gains
T
he mainstream media have had
one story about Europe over the
past several years: the rise of the far
right. What they have been missing is the
collapse of the social democrat left, and in
many cases the parallel rise of the Greens.
The first evidence of this was when
the former leader of the Austrian Greens
became president of that country last
autumn. And now we see a similar pattern
of a huge upsurge of support for Green
values and policies in the Netherlands
general election.
The Netherlands has an extremely
proportional system and a great deal of
movement between different parties,
but the big winners on the night were
the Greens, who saw their vote increase
fourfold. Much credit should be given
to their charismatic leader, Jesse Klaver
(pictured), who has been compared with
both Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama.
He wears his mixed-heritage ancestry as a
badge of pride and has used it to develop a
message of hope, inclusiveness, and global
solidarity that was diametrically opposed to
the message of hate coming from the
far right.
The political landscape is changing, and
people’s attitude to globalisation is now
defining how they vote. There is a clear
divide that runs along generational lines.
Broadly, older generations feel challenged
by the rapid change and the fact that
migration and travel are now in both
directions and no longer just the preserve
of the wealthy westerner. Meanwhile, most
young people embrace the reality of the
global village and recognise their place as
citizens of a world they share and need to
protect. As climate change and other transborder issues dominate the politics of the
21st century, we may see more elections
where the choice is between the far-right
populists and the Greens.
Although you may not have heard this
through your media channels, while the
Green vote quadrupled, the vote for Geert
Credit: Christiaan Krouwels, CC BY 3.0 nl
Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for the South West
Wilders’s far-right party was actually no
greater than it had been in 2010. So please
tell your friends: it’s the Greens who are
on the move, and our message of hope is
inspiring people across the continent.
Defending the NHS from May and Trump
Jonathan Bartley, Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales
T
he image
of Theresa
May arm in
arm with Donald
Trump symbolised
all that Britain has
given up by voting
to leave the EU. It
also represented the
desperate future
that may lie ahead
for those who will suffer most from climate
change, for migrants and refugees, for
women, for the LGBTIQA+ community – and
even for our National Health Service.
President Trump has advertised openly
on more than one occasion that he is after
one thing. Not, as the Prime Minister would
like us to believe, a respectful relationship
of equals, but an exploitative, abusive one,
with the vastly more powerful partner free
to take whatever he wants, whenever he
wants it.
As the Conservatives march across
the bridge of NHS privatisation built by
Labour, May’s bid to draw closer to the
new US President leaves our health service
increasingly vulnerable to US corporations
that want a piece of the action.
The NHS is a £120-billion pie, of which an
£8.7-billion slice (7.6 per cent of the total)
currently goes to private-sector providers.
There are a lot of contracts to go round
already. There’s little reason to imagine the
number won’t increase.
After the Prime Minister spoke to
Republican politicians at their annual
retreat in Pennsylvania, Senator Todd Young
of Indiana said he was “always looking
for opportunities to open up foreign
markets”. Indiana’s two largest companies
are healthcare giant Anthem and Eli Lilly, a
$20-billion pharmaceuticals provider.
One of the biggest battles we will face
in the coming years will be over trade with
the US.
In March, Caroline Lucas challenged
the Prime Minister over the controversial
trade deal between the EU and Canada,
the Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (CETA). Its Investment
Court System allows companies to sue
governments that pass policies that
interfere with their profit-making. It may be
a blueprint for Britain’s future negotiations
with the US as the Prime Minster pursues
her vision of the UK becoming an offshore
tax-haven economy willing to engage in a
race to the bottom on trade.
Putting forward a plan for good trade
between countries must be front and
centre of the progressive case to defend the
NHS against further privatisation.
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 11
GW96
A Green criminal justice system
In these troubled times, creating a safer, more just society is increasingly important, and
Greens know how to do it. Justice Spokesperson Charley Pattison explains how a Green
justice system would focus on prevention and prioritise rehabilitation over punishment
A
s a criminal barrister, I both prosecute and defend,
riding the creaking, rusty seesaw that is the criminal
justice system to find the balance between justice for
victims, and fairness for alleged perpetrators. But most would
agree that it is preferable for the overall process to start before
someone has done something sufficiently serious to merit the
court’s intervention. This article aims to identify some of the
preventative measures that should be adopted as part of a
Green justice system that would operate more effectively within
a more humane, supportive society prioritising prevention of
recidivism as much as punishment.
Criminal justice does not operate in a vacuum, and without
joined-up thinking about the real causes of offending,
crime will not reduce. A Green criminal justice policy should
“Without joined-up thinking
about the real causes of
offending, crime will not
reduce”
meaningfully target the inequality that is at the root of much
offending, and give credibility and value to the throwaway
sound-bite ‘tough on crime’. Policy must be generated through
consultation with early-intervention schemes, social workers,
mental health and education professionals, housing charities
as well as the lawyers and politicians. Those who commit
acquisitive crimes to fund drug or alcohol dependency, for
example, need intervention at an earlier stage, when adult
education and consequential thinking programmes are not
just another part of a suspended sentence order, but part of
a recognition that all members of society had different starts
to life.
As part of Green criminal justice, we also need a new
approach to financial and environmental crime. The attitude
that it is too expensive to investigate serious financial and
regulatory crime is unacceptable, when the effect of these
crimes can cost the UK millions of pounds and can cost the
lives and health of many. If prosecutorial policy, for example,
deems it within the public interest to take to the Crown Court
a person who has stolen a joint of meat and some hair gel (as I
have had to prosecute), shouldn’t we also see those who have
breached environmental and financial regulations in the dock?
This is arguably a challenge of policing and shifting public
perception of what criminality means.
* The racial categorisations are StopWatch’s and are the only available statistics on stop
and search. The Green Party recognises that they are inappropriate in today’s Britain.
An important task for Green criminal justice is to address
inherent inequality in the way police forces carry out their very
difficult duties. In London in 2015/16, according to StopWatch
statistics, black people were stopped and searched at almost
four times the rate of white people, and mixed-race people
were searched at almost twice the rate of white people.*
Searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act (a suspicionless power) saw black people searched at
almost 21 times the rate of white people, but with only three
per cent of searches leading to an arrest. The effort and energy
of the police force would surely be better spent supporting
the rehabilitation of the victims of crime by being more visible
and creating stronger relationships with the communities that
they currently label as ‘criminal’.
Whatever crimes people have committed, rehabilitation
– to prevent recidivist offending – is a priority in creating a
properly functioning criminal justice system. My anecdotal
experience of dishonesty offences and violent crime is that
whilst initial progress is made, people struggle to maintain
the momentum beyond their license period or community
order. Under a Green system, offenders who have served their
sentences would be assisted with the transition into work, or
with childcare. Rehabilitation of offenders is as much a part of
housing and education policy as it is criminal justice policy, as
without stable accommodation and the realistic prospect of
employment, people will not develop the self confidence they
need to be more productive members of society.
Under a Green criminal justice system, moreover, we would
not pursue the ‘stack it high and sell it cheap’ method of prison
administration. Continuing to imprison people with significant
mental health problems whilst simultaneously cutting funding
and privatising security is fostering a chaotic, drug-fuelled
and unproductive prison system that crosses the line between
punishment and a breach of human rights. It must be right
that we are striving towards a system that is people focused
and not just another manifestation of the vast inequality
within society.
A Green criminal justice system would see
environmental crimes prosecuted
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 13
Criminal justice
UK prison system: Crowded out
Only an end to overcrowding can deliver a safe and effective prison system, says
Mark Day from the Prison Reform Trust
“The system is wasteful
and chaotic, undermining
effective rehabilitation and
resettlement”
any... People just mill around growing increasingly frustrated as
they try to get staff to help them with admin or any issues.’
Three years of austerity have brutally exposed the vulnerability
of a system stretched far beyond its safe and decent limit.
Over that period, the proportion of prisons rated ‘of concern’ or
‘of serious concern’ by the prison service has doubled and the
number now stands at 31 establishments. The number of prisons
rated ‘exceptional’ has plummeted from 43 in 2011/12 to only
eight in 2015/16. The Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke
has pointed to a ‘toxic mix’ of factors including shrinking prison
budgets, declining staff numbers, a dilapidated prison estate, an
increasingly vulnerable prison population, and the impact of a
sudden influx of new psychoactive substances.
Behind recent trends lies the deeper malaise of a justice
system in which we send far too many people to prison for
too long. England and Wales continue to have the highest rate
of imprisonment in Western Europe. At 85,000, our prison
population is nearly twice what it was in 1993. Sentence lengths
in the Crown Court have risen by a scarcely believable 30 per cent
over 10 years.
14 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
As a result,
overcrowding
still cripples the
system’s ability to
provide a decent
and constructive
public service.
Twenty thousand
people still share
cells designed for
fewer occupants,
often eating
their meals in
the same space
as the toilet they
share. Inspections
regularly find
a third or more
of prisoners
unoccupied during
the working day because a prison holds more people than it
should. Every day, prisoners are bussed around the country to
extraordinarily remote locations just to make sure that every
last bed space is filled. The system is wasteful and chaotic,
undermining effective rehabilitation and resettlement and the
precious ties of prisoners to their families and communities,
which reduce the risk of reoffending on release.
This is a political not an operational failure, shared by all
governments of the last two and a half decades. It is to the
credit of the current Justice Secretary Liz Truss that she both
acknowledges her personal accountability for making prisons
safe and has found the money for an additional 2,500 prison
officers to back that up. A new Prisons and Courts Bill, which
had its second reading in March, has promised to put safety and
rehabilitation at the heart of the statutory purposes of prison,
as well as to strengthen the independence and oversight of the
prisons inspectorate and ombudsman in monitoring treatment
and conditions.
These are welcome developments that may help to arrest
the dangerous recent decline in standards. But without a
comprehensive strategy to control the numbers in prison, and
so to end overcrowding, the government cannot hope to turn
around a failing system that is constantly forced to play catch-up
with ever-increasing demand. An uncrowded prison system is
not only a necessity for maintaining safe and decent conditions
in the long term, it is also vital for delivering the improved
resettlement outcomes to which this and many previous
governments have aspired.
© Edmund Clark, www.edmundclark.com
I
n the past few years, a series of increasingly alarming
government statistics, inspectorate reports and news stories
have pointed to a prison service under growing strain. In 2016,
standards of safety and decency fell to a new low with record
numbers of deaths, self-harm and assaults. Inspectors consistently
find too many prisoners spending pointless jail time locked in
their cells instead of engaging in purposeful activity. Surveys of
prisoners highlight worrying levels of boredom and frustration and
a lack of engagement from prison staff. A number of recent highprofile disturbances have raised questions about the systems and
resources in place to maintain safe and secure regimes.
A letter sent by a prisoner to the Prison Reform Trust’s advice
and information service highlights the impact of deteriorating
treatment and conditions: ‘I feel that I must bring your attention
to the appalling, and worsening, conditions and regime operating
in [this prison]. On a Friday, Saturday and Sunday prisoners are on
average only getting 45 minutes a day out of cell. On a Sunday
this includes having to queue for kit change and medication.
Showers, cell cleaning, admin and phone calls also have to be
done in that time... Exercise is almost never available and there is
no interest or will from senior or wing management to facilitate
Mark Day is head of policy and communications at the Prison
Reform Trust. www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk
GW96
Lessons from Norway:
Decriminalising solidarity
Justice built on rehabilitation with migrants and refugees
M
any countries experience rampant prisoner recidivism,
which is the rate at which formerly imprisoned offenders
re-offend. In the United States, 43 per cent of former
inmates re-offend within one year of their release, and the figure
for the UK is also very high. In Norway, by contrast, a mere 20 per
cent of released prisoners re-offend within two years.
Intellectuals and experts agree that the Scandinavian approach
to criminal justice is quite effective. Norway runs its system
under a ‘guiding principle of normality’. This principle drives the
government to foster prison environments that resemble life on
the outside as closely as possible. Thus, prisoners retain their full
range of rights, other than absolute freedom of movement, while
they are incarcerated.
This principle of normality and rehabilitation, rather than
punishment, along with the preservation of civil rights for
inmates has produced a prison system that, from the outside,
probably would be considered to be among the best in the world.
Some of the more well-known corrections facilities, Bastoy and
Halden, are often visited by foreign delegations in order to learn
about a more humane prison policy.
The Norwegian corrections system sticks closely to the ideal
of normalisation. Its sentencing laws ensure that when the state
detains a person, isolation is brief. Its prisons are structured and
operated to ensure that the prisoner’s brief isolation from the
world is as normal as possible.
The Norwegian system is based not so much on punishment,
but more on rehabilitation. Broadly speaking, the Norwegian
system considers the criminal as a symptom of a diseased
environment. It seeks to remedy the offender’s attitudes by
normalising their circumstances.
There are, of course, challenges, and the Norwegian Green Party
would like to see the system improved further. The Norwegian
criminal justice system has failed when it comes to preventing
deaths amongst drug users, for instance, as well as with some
aspects of drug law enforcement. The Norwegian Green Party
wants to improve the penal system further, making possession
of drugs for private use legal, more in the line with some other
European countries, like Portugal.
Helen Joseph, from Social Platform
E
U legislation states that anyone who intentionally assists an
undocumented migrant to enter or transit across the EU, as
well as those who profit financially by helping them to reside
in the EU, is breaking the law and may be sanctioned. Adopted
in 2002 and known as the Facilitation Directive, the legislation
identifies what is meant by facilitation of the entry, transit and
residence of undocumented migrants. In many cases, this means
organised smuggling rings, or employers and landlords seeking to
exploit undocumented migrants’ vulnerable position.
However, the directive does not rule out imposing similar
sanctions on individuals or organisations that offer humanitarian
assistance to undocumented migrants. This could include the
provision of emergency shelter, food and medical attention, even
if these services are delivered without the aim of making a profit.
It is because the directive gives member states the ability to
criminalise humanitarian intervention that Manuel Blanco faces
10 years’ imprisonment in Greece. Manuel, a Spanish fire chief, is
the founder of a non-governmental organisation called PROEMAID, and along with his colleagues, he had been volunteering and
saving lives on the Greek island of Lesbos. But in January 2016,
Manuel and two of his colleagues were arrested; because they
had been pulling drowning migrants to safety, they were accused
of people smuggling.
It is not just Social Platform that wants to decriminalise
solidarity: more than 134,000 people have signed an online
petition (available at act.wemove.eu/campaigns/criminalisinghumanity) calling for the EU to revise the Facilitation Directive
to ensure that humanitarian actors are protected. We want the
wording of the text to be changed from saying member states
‘may decide not’ to prosecute humanitarian assistance, to saying
they ‘shall not’. In reality, the change requires political will from
member states to re-examine how they enforce the directive
at national level. The European project is facing turbulent
times, with populism on the rise, a rightward-shifting political
landscape, and the continuing need to provide refuge to people
fleeing war, persecution and poverty. Now is the time for the EU
to show its mettle and defend its values.
Social Platform is the largest network of European rights- and
value-based civil society alliances working in the social sector. It
promotes social justice, equality and participatory democracy.
www.socialplatform.org
© Oscar Vifer
The inside of Halden Prison, considered by
many to be the most humane in the world
By Justis- og politidepartementet, CC BY 2.0
Andrew P Kroglund, International Secretary, Norwegian Green Party
For more information in English, visit:
kriminalomsorgen.no/information-in-english.265199.no.html
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 15
Criminal justice
Brexit’s impact on criminal practice
T
he decision to leave the European Union was one of the
most significant constitutional decisions in our recent
history, and the ramifications across all areas of law will
be enormous. There are significant areas of overlap between
EU instruments and criminal practice in England and Wales –
how might they be affected?
Laws affected by EU directives, which require the creation
of certain statutory instruments by member states, would
probably be the area least affected, as existing legal
frameworks relating to cybercrime, bribery, human-trafficking
and terrorism are likely to remain unchanged. However,
there remains a need for continued, meaningful cooperation
between policing and judicial authorities across Europe.
Judicial cooperation is an area that would be affected,
though, as the UK will need to have discrete bilateral
agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
with other EU member states, as it does with, for example,
the USA. For EU member states, the relevant procedures
for judicial cooperation are covered by a number of EU
instruments, in particular the 2000 Convention on Mutual
Assistance on Criminal Matters (MLAC). This governs how
“We need to negotiate up to
954 agreements in two years
to replace effectively all the
instruments currently in use”
member states cooperate with requests for everything from
the temporary transfer of persons in custody to the use of
video or telephone conferencing, and even the formation of
joint investigation teams from different jurisdictions.
As a member of the EU, the UK also benefits from
participation in a number of information-sharing networks,
in particular the European Criminal Records Information
System (ECRIS). This is a decentralised IT system based on the
interconnected criminal records databases of each member
state over an encrypted network. From this, the criminal
records of suspects from foreign jurisdictions are available
on request. Becoming particularly important after the Paris
attacks in November 2015, its usefulness has been recognised
explicitly by the UK government, which noted in March 2016
that it has ‘allowed the police to build a fuller picture of
offending by UK nationals and allowed the courts to be aware
of the previous offending of EU nationals being prosecuted’.
Brexit would deny us automatic access to these systems.
16 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
© lazyllama/stock.adobe.com
Tim Kiely from the Society of Green Lawyers reflects on how Brexit could impact on the
UK’s criminal justice system and judicial cooperation with other member states
Brexit will have many ramifications
on the UK’s criminal justice system
Possibly the biggest changes in criminal practice would
be in the field of extradition, though. Following Brexit, the
European Arrest Warrant (EAW) would cease to have effect
in the UK. This means it would no longer be possible for
authorities in England and Wales to arrest immediately
someone fleeing prosecution in another member state.
Moreover, many member states have specific legal or
constitutional provisions prohibiting the extradition of their
own nationals, except to an international criminal court or
another EU member state.
Some models have been proposed as replacements. There
exist, for example, protocols between the EU and Norway
and Iceland broadly mirroring the provisions of the EAW
and MLAC, but both Norway and Iceland are participants in
Schengen, which may be regarded as politically unacceptable
in the UK (from a number of sides).
Moreover, the UK will probably have to re-negotiate
separate intergovernmental instruments with every
remaining EU member state (as the USA does), meaning there
is a lot to accomplish following the triggering of Article 50.
Using the UK’s re-negotiations of 35 of the bilateral measures
contained in the Maastricht Treaty as the basis of his
estimations, Cambridge law professor J R Spencer calculates
that we would need to negotiate up to 954 agreements
in two years to replace effectively all of the remaining
instruments currently in use.
It is obvious that there is a strong demand to retain as
much of these frameworks as possible. Green Party members
both in and out of the legal profession must therefore remain
vigilant in publishing these findings and pressing upon the
government how important it is that they form a key part of
both our Brexit negotiations and any subsequent legislation
that the UK enacts to administer criminal justice in a
post-Brexit landscape.
GW96
Yarl’s Wood: ‘Crimmigration’ in action
Sarah Cope reflects on her experiences at the Yarl’s Wood detention centre and calls for
migrants to be treated like human beings rather than criminals
Green Party protestors join in the call to close down Yarl’s Wood (most images courtesy of Samantha Pancheri).
Sarah Cope is pictured speaking, above
Y
arl’s Wood, a privately-run detention centre in the
Bedfordshire countryside, holds around 400 women,
couples and families with adult children awaiting
immigration decisions. The centre is run by Serco, which won the
£70-million contract in 2007.
The detention centre is located at the rear of a huge business
park (located alongside an indoor skydiving centre and a pet
crematorium, amongst other mismatched businesses), and is
effectively hidden away from view from local residents.
Yarl’s Wood was described by the Chief Inspector of Prisons
in 2015 as ‘a place of national concern’: undercover cameras for
Channel 4 revealed male officers describing detainees in the
most sexist and racist ways imaginable, and three officers
were in court last year over the alleged rape of a detainee in
their care.
I work with Women for Refugee Women, whose ‘Set Her
Free’ campaign is focused on ending the detention of women
seekin asylum. Alongside Women for Refugee Women, I wrote
the Green Party’s policy calling for scrapping immigration
detention back in 2014.
I also volunteer with a group called the Yarl’s Wood
Befrienders. This non-campaigning group, set up by the Bishop
of Bedford when the facility opened in 2001, trains and then
matches people up with detainees who have requested a
visitor.
As a befriender, I have met women from across the world
seeking asylum for issues such as their sexuality, female genital
mutilation and domestic abuse. The UK is one of the only
countries in Europe to impose no time limit on detention, and
I have seen what huge harm this does to both the physical and
mental health of the women.
Not only that, but the healthcare available in Yarl’s Wood
is extremely poor, provided by mismanaged private firm G4S.
Women complain that their health issues are repeatedly
ignored. Indeed, in March 2014, Christine Case, a Jamaican
woman, died in Yarl’s Wood of a heart attack. She had been
given paracetamol for her chest pains by the healthcare centre
and sent away.
Women are sometimes taken out of Yarl’s Wood by Serco
guards for hospital appointments, but there has been
controversy recently about the practice of taking women in
handcuffs. Serco claims it carries out a ‘risk assessment’ and
decides whether or not handcuffs are necessary.
A hopeful moment came last year, with the publication of
the Shaw Report, an independent review commissioned by the
Home Office after years of criticism about the treatment of
immigration detainees, including incidents of death, self harm
and sexual abuse in Britain’s 10 immigration removal centres.
Written by Stephen Shaw, former prisons and probation
ombudsperson, the Shaw Report noted that, at 30,000, the
numbers of detained immigrants was too high and needs to be
reduced ‘boldly and without delay’.
Shaw argued that there should be a ‘presumption against
detention’ of victims of rape and sexual violence, people with
learning difficulties, and those with post-traumatic stress
disorders, and also called for a complete end to the detention
of pregnant women in immigration centres such as Yarl’s
Wood, where 99 pregnant women were detained last year.
The Shaw Review’s recommendations for how detention
needs to change await implementation. The campaign,
demanding that migrants are treated like human beings rather
than criminals, continues.
Sarah Cope is the Green Party’s Women’s Spokesperson. She
wrote the party’s policy on ending immigration detention
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 17
Criminal justice
A behind-the-scenes look at
whistle-blowing
Prevent strategy prevents
justice and risks radicalisation
Jenny Jones, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Joe Salmon, Leeds Green Party
18 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
T
he Prevent programme is the government’s main strategy
for combating terrorism. Since its launch in 2006, it has
been heavily criticised. This criticism has been fairly wide
ranging, coming from, for instance, the parents of children
referred to social services for innocently wearing a T-shirt
saying: ‘I want to be like Abu Bakr al-Siddique’ (Abu Bakr alSiddique was a key figure in the first years after the death of
Mohamed, and not the same as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
– just like Harold Wilson and Harold Shipman are not the same
person). Community groups that oppose Prevent, like CAGE and
MEND, have been joined by the NUT and even by the former
head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, and Dal Babu, a previous
superintendent of the Metropolitan Police.
There are two key problems with the Prevent strategy
that critics of the programme have repeatedly brought to
the attention of the UK government. First, the programme
has a very simplistic understanding of the radicalisation
process, based on the discredited theory of radicalisation that
holds that exposure to an extremist ideology or ideas cause
people to become terrorists. To that end, anybody exposed
to such ideas falls under suspicion and even the discussion
of extremist ideas, necessary to counter them, is legislated
against. The UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, has noted
that this “creates unease and uncertainty around what can
be legitimately discussed in public” and risks “promoting
extremism, rather than countering it”.
The second major problem with the Prevent programme,
however, is its narrow focus. Aside from dangerous ecoterrorists like Caroline Lucas (who was labelled an extremist by
police during a Prevent training session for teachers in 2015),
the strategy is mainly focused on Islamic terrorism. In the UK,
terrorist threats also exist from right-wing extremism, for
example. The Prevent programme did nothing to prevent the
killing of Jo Cox, and currently does nothing to scrutinise the
vocal hate groups like the EDF and similar organisations.
By continuing with the Prevent programme in its current
form, the government is like a doctor trying to treat a bacterial
infection in a community by applying leeches haphazardly to
a handful of random people in the street, inevitably using an
inappropriate approach on the wrong people.
By Chatham House, CC BY 2.0
Y
ou may
have seen
the frontpage article in
the Guardian
about the whistleblowing letter that
I received from a
police officer
The front page of the Guardian from
who used to
22 March 2017
work in the
National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit.
I thought it might be interesting to give you a behind-the-scenes
look at what happened in the month between the letter and
the headline.
First, I had to verify the authenticity of the shocking claim
that my files and those of hundreds of campaigners were
shredded by the domestic extremism unit to cover up illegal
hacking of our personal email accounts by the police. The
letter contained a list of personal emails and phone numbers
collected by a hacker in India, employed by the police. My
lawyer, Jules Carey of Bindmans, contacted six of the 10
and established that the information was legitimate. The
tone of the letter also felt right, and Bindmans handed it to
the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to
investigate. I then held a follow-up meeting with the IPCC
deputy chair, who was already investigating the shredding
of my files, as disclosed by a different whistle-blower several
months before.
By this stage, I had already handed over a redacted
version of the letter to two trusted journalists at the
Guardian and the BBC. There were several weeks of stop/start
negotiations over when we would break the story and
what facts the IPCC wanted excluded. Much as I wanted to
get the story into the public domain, I also wanted to push
the IPCC to get on with unhindered investigation, ahead of
the letter alerting the police and prompting further file
shredding.
With the IPCC in contact with New Scotland Yard and
the Pitchford Undercover Policing Inquiry keen to make
the information public, I decided it was time to launch the
story, along with a Green Party petition and letter to
members.
The terrible events at Westminster have obviously
dominated the news agenda since then, and my thoughts
have been with the victims. In the coming months, I will make
the same case that I have made for over a decade – the police
need to focus on catching terrorists and those involved with
organised crime, rather than wasting their time and our money
chasing environmentalists and social justice campaigners. I
hope and believe that it is because I’ve made this case that
the brave whistle-blowers within the police have sent me this
information.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 (2002-07),
told the Lords in 2015: “Prevent is clearly not working.”
GW96
The ‘justice’ system as intimidation
Anti-fracking campaigner (and lifelong Green Party member) Tina Louise Rothery was
recently spared jail after refusing to pay £55,000 for drilling firm Cuadrilla’s legal fees.
Here, she reflects on her unsettling encounter with our criminal justice system
M
y recent encounter with our criminal justice system
was extremely unsettling; the potential outcomes
consumed my thoughts ahead of my final court
appearance in December 2016. Facing the law and knowing that
I would not have acted differently raises many questions about
what ‘justice’ is and how ‘democracy’ actually functions.
The charge against me was ‘Contempt of Court’, which could
have resulted in a prison sentence (I had a packed bag with
me), and which resulted from my refusal to pay or engage in
the process of paying legal fees of £55,000+ for an ‘eviction’
that did not physically happen.
On 7 August 2014, around 25 of us from the anti-fracking
group UK Nanas had occupied an empty field where drilling
firm Cuadrilla had a planning application to extract shale
gas through fracking. We did this (before any drills or work
began) to alert the neighbours of how close they were and
of the impending risks. We made clear from the start that we
would hold the field for three weeks in a land-dispute, issuing
a ‘section 6’ notice commonly used for squatting. The day after
we peacefully left the field, the ‘eviction’ happened. It was a
paper eviction only and all costs were legal fees.
We were in court within days and told that unless someone
put their name forward, videos and images could lead to
blame being applied to any of us. As I have the fewest assets
and responsibilities, I volunteered. A lawyer represented
me without cost, but I found this frustrating; her aim
(understandably) was to get me off with the least costs,
whereas I wanted to challenge the abuse of justice these costs
“Cuadrilla’s relentless pursuit
of me looked to be more about
intimidation than justice”
clearly represented. The costs notice said that the amount
should not be used to punish or profit – £55,000 in paperwork
fees clearly did both these things.
I heard nothing until I was followed in 2016 to public events
in London, North Allerton and Blackpool by official paper
servers (on one occasion wearing a stab vest!) with notice to
appear in court to sort payment or terms to pay. Bolstered
by wonderful support from fellow activists, I turned up, but
wasn’t willing to be part of this misuse of our legal system and
gave a statement:
“…I have huge admiration for a system of justice that is fair
but I feel in this case that our law courts are not being used to
Tina Louise Rothery (centre), protesting
with other anti-fracking Nanas
seek justice but instead being applied like a weapon and a threat
against peaceful protest.
“The fact that Cuadrilla has the finances, power and
vindictiveness to pursue this through our courts is an abuse of
one of the most valued aspects of our democracy.
“…As this case has nothing to do whatsoever with justice, I will
not be complying with any requests for information or payment.
“I make this statement on behalf of myself and an entire
movement who will not be bullied.”
I was charged with Contempt of Court, which was addressed
in a ‘locked court’ in December 2016. I can’t talk publicly about
what happened – the judge was not robed and was free to
discuss aspects he wouldn’t have in open court. I had written
in advance explaining my stand and this time brought a friend
rather than a lawyer to accompany me. The judge appeared
to understand that Cuadrilla’s relentless pursuit of me looked
to be more about intimidation than justice. After a few hours,
during which time Cuadrilla’s solicitor called his client a
number of times, it was agreed to NOT pursue me for charges
unless, as the judge said, I come into a ‘lottery win’ – and even
then, I could again contest Cuadrilla’s case. The judge did not
make me fill in financial paperwork, only asking me to swear
all I had said was true... I did, and he said: “Contempt charges
dropped.”
This experience, I felt, was more about deterring activism
than seeking justice. We are still battling Cuadrilla here in
Blackpool, and again, trade union and other laws are being
used against us – not in the way intended, but to deny our
right to protest. The police are growing more heavy-handed,
we are growing more frustrated and the situation grows more
concerning each day. Westminster overturned our council’s
rejection of Cuadrilla’s plans for these fields, adding to the
impression that the people’s voice in our ‘democracy’ doesn’t
count (unless you want rid of a wind turbine!).
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 19
Opinion
Reinventing the green message
Despite all we know about climate change and other forms of environmental
degradation, things are, in many ways, getting worse rather than better. Tony Juniper
argues that it’s time for environmentalists to take a different approach
www.freeimages.com/Robert Linder
get their wagons into an ever-tighter circle, so greenhouse
gases continue to build up in the atmosphere, ancient forests
are cleared and species decline and disappear. We can expect
that all of this will soon get a whole lot worse. In my recent
book What’s Really Happening to Our Planet? I set out the
scale of planetary change taking place and present graphic
treatment of the fundamental drivers that lie behind it.
One of these is continuing population growth. We are
already at over 7.3 billion people, and each year our number
rises by about the equivalent of the population of Germany.
By the middle of this century, it will likely be above nine
billion and by 2100 over 10 billion. The effects of this will not,
however, be as big as the consequences of economic growth.
As the economy has grown, so more and more people have
been able to enjoy the kind of middle-class comforts that
have been more or less available to citizens in the Western
countries for some decades.
Cars, fridges, decent housing, cheap flights, consumer
goods and an adequate diet and healthcare are all things
most western people take for granted, and quite soon a
few billion more of us will have access to all that. Providing
all those things will require more energy, land and natural
resources, and if in so doing historical patterns are
followed, it will undoubtedly lead to massive additional
and accelerating environmental damage. In the face of this
tsunami of rising impact, it will be vital that greens adopt the
right kinds of strategies to meet it. Part of that must involve
some recognition of what probably won’t work.
Having spent a lot of time over more than three decades
thinking about all of this, I feel quite certain that telling
people aspiring for a better life that they can’t have one
won’t work. Another doomed strategy will be to make people
feel guilty about enjoying a comfortable life. One more
mistake would be to continue to paint the world into good
www.freeimages.com/Brade Stoney
W
e have entered a strange world – one where
the more data and observation pile up on rising
temperature, ice melt, species loss, deforestation,
ocean acidification and all the rest, the less we are proving
capable of responding. For environmentalists, this is surely a
context within which we must seriously ponder whether our
present approach is fit for purpose.
For the past 50 years or so, environmental advocates have
relied on a toolkit that was for the most part very successful.
At its core was good information and sound science. By
gathering data, it was possible to reveal the nature of
challenges and, having done that, to promote ‘solutions’. Very
often, these were reflected in policy choices, including laws
to protect declining species and special habitats, pollution
controls and official goals to expand renewable energy.
Progress on these and other agendas was assisted by coverage
in the media, citizens lobbying their elected representatives
and protest actions that exposed environmental wrongdoing
to provoke greener choices in politics and business.
That formula is today less effective, as seen in, for
example, the progressive rollback of environmental
commitments that in times of economic difficulty have been
repositioned as harmful ‘red tape’ that it is claimed costs
jobs and competitiveness. At the same time, some now
regard anti-environment policies as a badge of political
identity, making it very difficult to gain consensus on what
to do about fundamental issues like climate change. Under
these circumstances, the default of many greens is to shout
louder about the unsustainable nature of ‘growth’, to decry
the role of big business, to lash out at the political right,
to reject ‘techno-solutions’ and to look down on fellow
citizens who, for whatever reason, happen to choose higher
consumption lifestyles.
This is all perfectly natural perhaps, but while the greens
Current threats to the planet include ice melt, species loss (including orangutans, which are
critically endangered), desertification and ocean acidification, which can lead to coral bleaching
20 | Green World 96 Spring Issue 2017
GW96
“In the face of this tsunami of
rising impact, it will be vital
that greens adopt the right
kinds of strategies to meet it”
www.freeimages.com/abcdz2000
plenty of others seeking to occupy that territory, including
climate sceptics who wish to create jobs and reduce poverty.
We should also avoid making the mistake that everything
needed to achieve a sustainable world will be handed down
from governments. It won’t be. This is why at the same
time as seeking some consistent direction from elected
representatives, it will also be necessary to encourage
companies to develop and embed new business models, not
to mention vital steps to foster deeper culture change among
voters and consumers.
All of this is for me good reason why it is time for greens
to reinvent the message for the 21st century. The old
toolkit, and what looks increasingly like a set of default
messages, is no longer enough. New strategies are needed
and the reason for that basically comes down to the fact
that everyone we need to convince has human reactions.
People don’t react well to being told that the world is going
to hell in a handcart, that it is their fault and that nothing
can be done. Even though we may not mean to imply that,
it is nonetheless very often what comes across, and it is a
problem. So is the tendency to ask people to act against what
they perceive to be their own interests.
If we are going to accommodate the needs and aspirations
of upwards of 10 billion people, then we are going to have to
do things in radically different ways. Getting from where we
are to where we need to be will require some sense of vision,
painting a positive picture of what that future sustainable
society could be like. In the process of setting out a vision for
a green world, one in which people’s needs are met without
breaching nature’s limits, we will need to offer a sense of
how to get there. That will in turn require backing for
different leadership positions being adopted, including
those that are not perfect, and some of which come from
old ‘enemies’ in big business. It will require some real-world
thinking to run alongside the more philosophical aspects of
green ideas.
Importantly, it will require greens to create appeal outside
their particular ghettos of interest, to forge common
cause with those out-with their normal circles or who
have a different values bases. That, in turn, will require
some mutual accommodation of positions, in the process
breaking down barriers that presently prevent progress. It
will require putting cynicism to one side and in the process
to actually work on achieving positive win-wins, to reach out
to and achieve appeal among centre-right voters, to back
the companies that are leading in building new and more
sustainable relationships with consumers, even if where they
start from is not perfect. All that will require some different
body language, a sense of optimism and inclusiveness, and a
broader appeal and narrative.
The forces reshaping our world today threaten to unleash
catastrophic global warming, to precipitate a mass extinction
of species and cause an ecological collapse, in the process
causing humanitarian crises on a truly epic scale. At the
moment, greens are proving themselves unable to do very
much about all of that. If ‘green’ is to be more than a footnote
in history, marking that happy period from 1969 to 2007
when such ideas had real appeal, influence and impact,
then what green ideas stand for needs to be modernised,
and quickly.
Tony Juniper is a campaigner, writer and sustainability advisor.
His recent book What’s Really Happening to Our Planet? is
published by Dorling Kindersley. www.tonyjuniper.com
Acropora CC BY-SA 3.0
and evil – local communities good, big business evil, left
wing good, right wing bad. One more strategy that will fail
is cynicism, casting doubt on motives, opposing the positive
in favour of the perfect. Yet one more failing approach will
be to reinforce the notion that nothing works, to present the
situation as hopeless, dismissing positive steps that don’t fit
with some deeper ideological ‘green’ shift.
What also won’t work is to always present green views
from claimed or implied moral high ground. There are
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 21
Book Reviews
Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams
Inventing the Future
Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
Verso, 2016, 272pp, £9.99
One of the key policies that the Green Party has put forward
since the 1980s is the basic income scheme. The taxation and
benefits system would be transformed so every citizen is paid a
minimum income, whether they work or not. The basic income,
while radical, is becoming part of a new common sense and is
increasingly discussed. In a number of countries, including Finland,
experimental basic income schemes are being introduced.
While Srnicek and Williams seem ignorant of the Green Party’s
long standing advocacy of the basic income, their book puts
universal basic income at the heart of their strategic vision of a
future that serves the needs of all of us, not just a rich elite.
They argue that the future is being presented as one of
automation leading to job losses, corporations destroying the
environment and austerity leading to more poverty. They suggest
that resistance, if not futile, is largely a waste. Instead of protesting
against what we don’t like and slowing negative trends, we need
to promote a positive, optimistic vision of the future. Politics
achieves results when those of us who are politically active present
a vision, which the authors term ‘imaginary’, that inspires others.
Srnicek and Williams advocate a post-work imaginary. While
Cathy O’Neil
Weapons of Math Destruction
How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens
Democracy
Allen Lane, 2016, 272pp, £12.99
The age of the algorithm, with its bedfellows machine learning
and artificial intelligence, is upon us. The road to the algorithm is
routed as follows: first, a machine is let loose on massive sets of
data including the thing to be predicted (the presence of a disease,
academic success or the chance of defaulting on a mortgage); the
‘trained’ machine then ‘knows’ what factors, and how combined,
predict the outcome in question; this is then enshrined as a
predictive formula, the algorithm. On 28 February, the House of
Commons Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry
into the use of algorithms in decision making, noting: ‘Algorithms
are being used to make decisions in a growing range of contexts.
From decisions about offering mortgages and credit cards to
sifting job applications and sentencing criminals, the impact of
algorithms is far reaching.’
But what are the problems? The book reviewed here suggests
the following:
1. Where the outcome variable is under human control, the
algorithm reflects the prejudices of the decision maker. For
instance, if reconviction is the outcome variable, attributes of
those who are policed most closely will feature in the algorithm.
If the police take against people with red hair, attributes
GW80
work will never completely
disappear, they note that with
automation and the fast evolution
of the internet, more and more
can be produced with less and
less work. At present, this leads
to a society where a tiny minority
of super rich dominate, while the
rest of us take on precarious and
poorly-paid jobs.
This is where the universal
basic income provides the seeds
of a different and better future.
If work is disappearing because
the economy is so productive,
wealth that can be produced
with little or no labour, must be
shared. More and more economists are embracing basic income as
a means of making a highly-automated economy practical.
Inventing the Future is a fascinating book and a useful one. It
doesn’t simply criticise austerity, climate change or other problems
but looks at political strategy. There is much here that I disagree
with – for example, the authors really don’t like localised food
production and seem keen on a planned economy. However, the
book is thought provoking and provides a virtual encyclopaedia of
suggestion for strategy and change.
Derek Wall, Green Party International Coordinator
associated with having red
hair (for example being of
Irish extraction) will be in the
algorithm.
2. Those who know what is in
the algorithm will be able to
‘game’ the system, by spuriously
manipulating the key variables.
3. Not knowing how the
algorithm works will lead to
palpable injustice.
O’Neil gives examples of each
problem, and of the Catch-22
twist linking the second and
third problem. She tells of an
excellent teacher whose poor
assessment by the ‘algorithm gods’ cost her time and
distress and her job. It turned out that her classes had spuriously
high attainment scores because of cheating by their previous
teachers. This led to students’ progress while in her care being
understated and ascribed to her incompetence. Yet exactly how
the algorithm was calculated was withheld from her, on the basis
that, were it transparent, she would be in a position to adjust
it to her advantage. The algorithm can either be ineffable or
manipulable. It cannot be neither!
O’Neil’s book is dedicated to ‘all the underdogs’ because she
contends that algorithm use tends to disadvantage the underdog.
Her full argument for that view is well worth considering.
Ken Pease
Spring Issue 2017 Green World 96 | 23
Green World is printed on 100% recycled paper by Pensord, Blackwood, Caerphilly, NP12 2AY. Promoted by the Green World Editorial Board on behalf of the Green Party, both at The Biscuit Factory, Unit 201 A Block, 100 Clements Road, London, SE16 4DG