Forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants; stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles; grant British citizenship only to children born here; boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites; restrict tourism and immigration from outside Europe; prohibit embryo research; stop lorry movements on the Lord’s Day; require State approval for national sports teams to compete overseas; disconnect Britain from the European electricity grid; establish a “new order” between nations to resolve the world economic crisis.

Policies of one of Britain’s most influential political parties: a party that has steadily increased its vote over the last decade; a party that appeals overwhelmingly to whites; and a party that shares significant objectives with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists.

Actually, affiliates of the progressive consensus may be surprised to learn that all the reactionary policies in the first paragraph are from the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) or were adopted at the party’s Autumn Conference in Liverpool over the weekend of September 13-16, 2007.

“The Green Party recognises that subsidies are sometimes necessary to protect local, regional and national economies and the environment, and we will support them in these instances.”

Britain has two black farmers, so any policy to subsidise domestic produce and erect barriers to outsiders will, ipso facto, support white farmers and disadvantage black farmers. Even if supplies are “obtained from neighbouring countries,” white European farmers benefit at the expense of poor farmers in Africa and the developing world.

Greens agree with the BNP about migration and the green belt. They promise to: minimise the environmental degradation caused by migration; not allow increased net migration; and end the pressure on the Green Belt by reducing population and stopping growth-oriented development. Reduction in non-white tourism and immigration would be an inevitable consequence of government restrictions on air travel. Few refugees from Iraq, Darfur, Zimbabwe manage to get all the way to Britain without a large carbon footprint, neither can tourists from beyond Europe.

“Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied: The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers; Regions or communities must have the right to reject specific individuals on grounds of public safety.

In practice, these policies would give the “indigenous” white folk of a quaint rural hamlet the right to rebuff a Leicester Bangladeshi purchaser for its corner shop because she has “greater economic power” than the villagers – whose “traditional lifestyle” would be “adversely affected” by her ethnicity and religion. They could also keep her out “on ground of public safety” because her inner city Muslim children are more likely to be criminals than their own offspring.

Not surprisingly, the BNP agrees with the Greens about the “right of all peoples to self-determination and that must include the indigenous peoples of these islands.”

In the 1980s, when the Thatcher government restricted immigration to Britain to those with at least one grandparent born here, it was accused of constructive racism. Thatcher claimed her measures were not racist – any discrimination against nonwhites was just an incidental consequence of the need to maintain what is now called “community cohesion.” Green Party policy would go even further down the road of constructive racism than Mrs Thatcher, refusing citizenship to children born overseas even if their parents hold British passports.

The Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence identified “unwitting racism” in the police that can arise from well intentioned words or actions that arise out of uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible ethos of the "traditional" way of doing things: “It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation.”

No doubt, when the Green Party adopted its manifesto there was no deliberate intention to implement a reactionary and racist strategy. But the Green Party is overwhelmingly white: of more than three dozen individuals listed as speakers and discussion leaders at its Autumn Conference only one was obviously a member of a visible ethnic minority (VEMs). Even the discussion on issues affecting women from ethnic minority communities was led by a white woman and just 2% of Green Party candidates in the 2006 local elections were VEMs. Perhaps the absence of minority members in Green Party counsels results in the same sort of “canteen culture” that affects the police, making it oblivious to the right-wing, pseudo racist nature of its plans for Britain.

The lessons of the Macpherson Report’s “institutional racism” could be expanded to include “institutional reactionaryism” and should be learnt not only by the state apparatus and large companies, but also by the Green Party – which declares its desire for a fair and just society.

For full text with detailed references in the Green Party Manifesto, see:

Vote Green – go blackshirt

 http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/02/vote_green_go_b.html