I’m quite pleased with this email I sent to the Green Party (of England and Wales) email list and it some good responses, here it is again, edited slightly for grammar and style and with names removed.
[When discussing the legitimacy of Direct Action] I’m not even sure the violence or non-violence is at issue. Whether you agree with any type of direct action is a personal issue. As a party, however, [The Green Party of England and Wales' position is this]:
3. OBJECTS AND AIMS
The object shall be to promote the aims of The Green Party, which are:
a) to develop and implement ecological policies consistent with the
Philosophical Basis of the Party as expressed in the Manifesto for a
Sustainable Society;
b) to that end to win seats at all levels of government;
c) to organise any non-violent activity which will publicise and further the
first two aims.Did the Stansted protest further those two aims? I would say, absolutely not. And it has the potential to hinder them. However it wasn’t [the Green Party] (as far as I’m aware) that were involved with the Stansted protest. Plane Stupid’s aims will be to reduce the impact of Human behaviour on Global Warming and in particular to limit human fossil-fuel-powered air travel. Did this action further those aims? I would say not. Although it did publicise them, that publicity seemed, to me, to be hugely negative.
[At least one person compared] the Climate march on the 6th December with this direct action at Stansted. Perhaps marches are not as effective [as Direct Action]. It’s a different question. But it would have been very embarrassing if it had been publicised and no one showed up… On the other hand, of course the Stansted protest got coverage. Overwhelmingly negative. The protestors came across as smug, self-indulgent, and middle-class/out-of-touch, and so will [the Green Party] if we commit to supporting (plainly) stupid and counter-productive actions simply because we support NVDA across the board for any cause we agree with. If we penalise the people we want to vote for us, they will not vote for us, and they will not support our aims. We need direct action on corporate and government bodies that promote run-away (and run-way) expansion for the aviation industry. And we need to deal with voters on a human level. When rail is drastically over-priced and air travel drastically under-priced, people as a whole do not have freedom of choice.
Lifestyle-wise, [many Green Party members constitute] a minority of a minority. We can’t expect people to suddenly convert to a lifestyle of austerity. I doubt if the majority of [Green Party members] do… We need to get people to do small things that have zero impact on their day-to-day and larger things that have a small impact. We need travel to be subsidised where it is better for the environment, and re-priced where the true cost is not reflected in the price. We can’t force people to go along with our vision, though. And we don’t want to be seen as kill-joys or fascists.
Because we’re not.
And we don’t have to be.
Sorry Gordon, but the Objects and Aims say “non-violent activity” which is not the same as “Non-violent Direct Action”. I suppose it could be argued that “activity” includes “direct action” but was that the intention of the authors and why would anyone reading that statement make that connection?
Anyway, are you saying that the Green Party should stick to politics and leave the NVDA to the likes of Greenpeace?
I agree, actually. But it wasn’t me that offered it, and the point I was making was that assuming that had to do with NVDA (which may be a stretch) theis action was not justified under those terms.
I don’t think the Green Party need stick to ‘politics’. I think the actions of Greenpeace are inherently political, and the Green Party should have policy on what sort of actions they would support and what they wouldn’t.