Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Greens support Civil Rights March

Norwich Green Party | 26.10.2005 19:16 | Cambridge

At 8.30am on Friday 28 October a Civil Rights March made up of many concerned individuals and organisations from different political backgrounds will start from the Bandstand at Eaton Park.

It will process through every ward in Charles Clarke's Norwich South constituency, ending at his office on Castle Meadow at 1pm when an Open Letter of Concerns and Demands will be presented. At noon on Saturday 29 October outside Charles’ office on Castle Meadow there will be a follow-up Demonstration for Human Rights.

Councillor Adrian Ramsay, who (standing for the Green Party) challenged Charles Clarke at the general election earlier this year, will be at Eaton Park on Friday morning, at the start of the march. He said: "The erosion of basic human rights under this Government is of grave concern. Measures such as restricting the right to trial by jury, the shoot to kill policy and the proposed increase in the amount of time suspects can be held without a trial all undermine the basic principles of justice and of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Our ancestors fought hard for these rights. We should not give them up lightly.

"Recent attempts by Charles Clarke and the Government to deport suspects to countries where they could be tortured is particularly unacceptable.

"I am pleased that these concerns have now reached the very heart of Charles Clarke’s constituency, and so am delighted to be taking part in this protest."

Such demonstrations as will take place this Friday and Saturday mornings, with placards, music, loudspeakers and other traditional forms of protest, are now routinely outlawed by police outside Parliament and the Home Office. This is why grassroots Norwich human rights protesters have transferred such protests to the home ground of the Home Secretary. Throughout the month of November there will be leafleting in the streets to encourage debate on these serious issues, street theatre and public meetings.

Green Councillor Rupert Read will also be among Friday's marchers, and he said, "This is a march for civil rights. I know from personal experience how dangerous New Labour's new laws are for civil rights in Britain. Like Walter Wolfgang at the recent Labour Party Conference, I have been threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for such 'crimes' as standing with a banner on Whitehall, or with an upside-down American flag in front of Buckingham Palace, during President Bush's visit. The laws which Charles Clarke has brought in - and he is threatening to bring in even more repressive laws, as we speak -- are spelling the end of free speech and of democratic peaceful protest in this country. Mr Clarke has to be stopped - and that is the message from this march."

Green County Councillor Andrew Boswell and many other Green members and supporters will also be on the march: they will also be outside Mr Clarke's office for the culmination of the march, at around 1pm.

Norwich Green Party
- e-mail: webteam@norwichgreenparty.org
- Homepage: http://www.norwichgreenparty.org


Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

Greens support themselves and noone else

26.10.2005 22:52

There is nothing wrong with being green - its admirable in fact to wish to save us all from our selves. Capital 'G' Greens ( The Green Parties) however are as fascist as any political party member. By definition, by self-selecting themselves as fit to govern us all, they are as psychopathically violent as any other politician. All Greens are fascist, whereas all greens/environmetalists are humane.

Don't be confused - anyone who asks for your vote thinks they know better than you and so is unworthy of power, unworthy of your support. The Greens are just environmentally-minded Nazis. Thats why you never see Greens protesting the Iraq war, it doesn't profit them personally. The best of them only care for their own personal agrandissement. Thats why the Green Party candidate stood aganist Rose Gentle in the last election while even right-wing candiadates stood aside- they don't care about Iraq as much as they care for themselves. Iraqi genocide isn't a Green issue after all.

To hell with the reds, to hell with the Greens. Black is the only freedom.

Danny


Quick clarification

27.10.2005 11:20

Small point of clarification to the above post: as far as I can see the Tories, Lib Dems, SNP and Labour all stood against Rose Gentle. Only party that I can see that didn't stand was the SSP. Now, I'm not their biggest fan, but I wouldn't characterise them as right-wing...

Leam


ridiculous exaggeration

27.10.2005 12:57

While I agree with Danny that the Green Party is not going to bring about meaningful social change (we need look no further than Germany to see what happens when they get into power), I think his suggestions that "All Greens are fascist", "psychopathically violent", "environmentally-minded Nazis"...is ridiculous. It's just crap...it's like saying all anarchists are violent lunatics who just want only to smash stuff up for fun.

There are examples of right-wing enviromentalists but I have to say I've never met them. The Greens that I have come into contact with (here in Cambridge and elsewhere) are socially progressive, left-leaning, anti-war, etc...fundamentally decent human beings who just happen to believe that an electoral approach is valid. I disagree with them, but this does not make them Nazis.

Having said all that, this posting doesn't really belong on indymedia as it basically just there to promote the green party...which is a breach of the editorial guidelines. As such, as a member of the editorial collective of Cambridge IMC, I've written to the Norwich Greens asking them to keep the press releases off the newswire.

poon


complicity

27.10.2005 13:16

Sorry, that was a terribly written post but you are wrong. I was referring to the Save the Scottish Regiments candidate, although it was perhaps unfair of me to refer to them as right-wing, I'm sure their campaign is seen by most anarchists as right-wing simply for being concerned with soldiers. The other parties refused to stand down unless the smaller Green party stood down first. I'm no fan of the SSP either but they were admirable in their support of Rose and more importantly in their continual denunciation of the Iraq war. I also appreciate the fact that they give away a lot of their salary rather than personally profitting from their cause, unlike the Greens. However, they would be quite happy to pass laws that they see as just and I don't so I oppose them too.

I'm seen various posts here by socialists complaining that their posts are removed simply for being reprints of party press releases, and that's fair enough in my opinion. However, the Green party seems to suffer no such censorship and I wonder why what applies to one party doesn't apply to them all. I assume it is because most people believe the Green spiel about being 'parliamentary activists', rather thean the parasites on society that they are. I even know people who see no contradiction in calling themselves anarchist while belonging to that political party. Companies are often criticised for 'green-washing', but Green parties are simply green-washing capitalism on a larger scale.

When your own government is using your taxes to commit genocide then I think you have a duty to oppose that everyday anyway that you can, and I don't see the Greens doing that. Learn, climate change and peak oil aren't going to affect any of the millions of Iraqis that your taxes have already murdered and buying police forces bicycles sums the party up in a nutshell.

Danny


The ban on political parties only applies to Respect

27.10.2005 13:21

You're mistaken, it's allowed for the Greens to post.. like SSP, Revolutionary Communist Group, IWCA etc. It's only Respect who are banned, because we hate the SWP.

type


To Poon this time

27.10.2005 14:13

My first post was written in anger at the Green press release seemingly getting preferential treatment, my second post was aimed at Leam before I'd read yours. I'd call the nicest, most just, and most benevolent law-making politician a Nazi fascist or any such puerile inaccurate insult as they are usurping my right to choose freely. While I can see the difference between the Greens and the BNP, they both think they have the right to send the police to enforce their will on me. Now, I can hit out at the policemen themselves but that just gets me beaten up, so I condemn anyone who issues orders and I feel contempt for anyone who follows them.
"A man who puts his hand on my shoulder to control me is a usurper and I will strike him down."
Me, I don't want to strike anyone down, but I do shout, swear, threaten, exaggerate and generally act like a spoiled child at anyone who would govern me. If politicians play any positive contributary role in society, which I doubt, then the worst people to be trust with power over others are those who volunteer for the role and we should choose such officials randomly like jury members, preferably just from the female side of our species.

I'd stand by the violentally psychopathic remark though. All political power is enforced through violence and if you aren't a psychopath for wishing such power then you will soon be corrupted by it. I'm no psychologist but I've read that the exact same qualities that are found in successful male politicians and successful male businessmen are also typical of psychopaths. The very desire for political power over others, even in its milder forms, is the root cause of all war and oppression. Individual Greens doubtless are sweet as spice, but power corrupts and their desire for power over others makes me lump them with every other party.

Danny


Greens?

28.10.2005 10:17

Why are they called the Greens when they are all White?

Memory-Hole-Catchers-Mitt


Links