Jonathan Bartley’s islamophobic comments have no place in the Green Party
As a descendant of Mizrahi and Yemeni Jewish communities, the Labour Party’s utter refusal to unequivocally defend the right of asylum, whilst often concurrently capitulating to far-right narratives on alleged wage suppression through migrants, pushed me in the early months of 2018 to join the Green Party of England and Wales. This was borne out of the fact that it was the only party in the country that was unapologetically pro-migrant, anti-racist and anti-fascist.
Sure, the Greens plays host to a range of NIMBY activists, who use and exploit fears of migrants to attract people to the climate movement (looking at you, Rupert Read). But I believed that they were a clear minority within the Party. The trend as I saw it was a predominantly white, middle-class Party that was asking serious questions of itself and was rapidly diversifying in order to compete more seriously in areas such as Sheffield, as well as across many boroughs of London. A party that was trying to understand BAME communities and ensure that their voice was a vital part of the movement.
With Jonathan Bartley’s comments last Friday night and the subsequent absence of wide condemnation from all wings of the party, our anti-racist credentials have begun to face serious questions.
It has revealed a level of subconscious intolerance and contempt towards the UK’s largest religious minority. During an interview with BBC North West, Jonathan Bartley was asked whether he would ever consider a ban on Halal meat. Without hesitation, he replied that he absolutely would. After being reminded by the presenter that this would be hugely discriminatory to a substantial proportion of the North West, he continued to dig himself into a hole, talking about how his personal faith had taught him to love animals. While he swiftly apologised, his apology made reference primarily to the fact that what he expressed was personal opinion – not party policy. No reference was made to the deep and disturbing social roots of the islamophobic idea that he had reproduced, and he gave little impression that he had confronted exactly how and why his words had been so harmful.
TellMAMA, a faith matters project, that records and monitors the development of anti-Muslim hate crime, reported a total of 2,963 hate incidents in 2018. An astonishing number that disproportionately affected women of the Muslim faith, though due to the nature of islamophobia, affected many others that are attributed racist characteristics to define them and their perceived “Muslimness”.
In times where those of the Muslim faith or alleged Muslim “appearance” are exposed to such societal vitriol and discrimination, it is unacceptable for the co-leader of the Green Party to submit to islamophobic and far right talking points. To suggest that Dhabihah (Halal slaughter) or Schechita (Kosher slaughter) are any less morally objectionable than the slaughter of any singular animal is playing into a far-right trope that sees “Muslim” culture as unenlightened and comparatively barbaric to the allegedly superior western one.
There are legitimate arguments for us to move towards a plant-based diet and for the state to play a role in reducing meat consumption across the board. It must also be recognised, however, that defending minority rights entails passionately defending the right to practice religion freely and absolutely.
The party’s general reaction to the whole fiasco has unfortunately not been very encouraging. After the initial apology and flurry of activity, it seems as if many in the party would like to bury the comments made and concentrate on the forthcoming election. A party of principle should immediately and definitively distance itself from the offensive, racist comments of the democratically elected co-leader of our party.
What is most deeply concerning is the blanket silence from official channels. It suggests that key Green activists either believe that they can ‘sit this one out’, or do not in principle disagree with the comments Mr Bartley has made. In the spirit of dedicated anti-racism, we should demand that further action is taken and that we lead by example in the fight against the greatest scourge of society. If we fail to do so, we may reveal in our party an institutional problem with deeper and more abiding roots than many of us had imagined, and an attitude which sees our anti-racist credentials as expendable.
I do not believe that most Green Party members think this way – but it is incumbent on all of us to be consistently anti-racist, and not merely when it is convenient. I therefore call upon those disillusioned by Jonathan’s comments to demand that the party respond unequivocally using its public channels, and to distance themselves from any form of islamophobia, expressing solidarity with all those offended.
A party that unwaveringly believes in defending the rights of refugees, scrapping the islamophobic “Prevent” programme, abolishing the Home Office, as well as countless other measures designed to protect the most vulnerable within society, is an ally in the fight for tolerance. It is time for all Green Party members to belligerently reclaim the anti-racist label and show society how it’s done.
Dan Kedem is a Green Party activist and independent anti-fascist campaigner currently based in London.
“passionately defending the right to practice religion freely and absolutely”
Really? Well as a gay man I think I’ll give the Greens a wide berth thanks. The Abrahamic religious texts practised “freely and absolutely” don’t bode well for gays like myself.
See ya.
While, as a vegan, I abhor ALL slaughter I feel that the singling out of religious slaughter for criticism gives the impression that pre-stunning is humane. Quoting a previous comment “science tells us that pre-stunned slaughter is the least cruel option” we should be fully aware that this only holds true if the stunning is carried out properly. Sadly, as seen in many undercover exposés, in our high throughput, hurried slaughterhouses this is often not possible. Electric stunning can be inadequate due to incorrect current and also not taking the necessary time with each animal. Captive bolt stunning on cattle is sometimes done 2 or 3 times if the animal moves slightly. In these cases a swift cut around the neck severing both arteries, as practised in religious slaughter, may be less traumatic.
Nobody in the Green Party wants to be seen as a racist, but if you look at the link I’m sending from Animal Aid, it is simply not true that most Halal and Kosher animals are pre-stunned: https://www.animalaid.org.uk/animal-aid-statement-non-stun-slaughter/
Green Party animal activists are the real people that put boots on the ground when it comes to saving animals from cruelty. I think that, unfortunately there are too few Green Party animal activists, but if there is a need to take political action on things that are wrong in this country, then we need to do so, whatever the issue.
All forms of slaughter methods are inherently cruel.
I do not believe Jonathan was being racist or Islamophobic, I think he was saying that in his view all non pre-stunned slaughter should be banned – it was just badly & clumsily expressed. And it should be pointed out that the vast majority of halal slaughter in this country is pre-stunned anyway. But the Green Party also supports animal rights and should oppose all speciesism. Whilst I would like to see all slaughter stopped and everyone adopt a plant based diet, in the meantime it should be as least cruel as possible. And science tells us that pre-stunned slaughter is the least cruel option. I would hope the Green Party puts animal welfare first and calls for a ban on all non pre-stunned slaughter – as well as opposing all racism.
The quality of an article is inversely proportionate to the smears it contains.
(For facts about me rather than lazy and false smears, try this, rather than the above: https://user.fm/files/v2-7c30162927caf0a5df2367e1cf8fe611/Reply%20to%20Brooker.edit.pdf)
Rupert Read.
Jewish Greens were very concerned to hear of Jonathan Bartley’s recent comments regarding the banning of Halal meat. Given the similarities in the ritual practice surrounding Halal and Kosher slaughter, we presume a call to ban Halal meat is also a call to ban Kosher meat. This is deeply worrying for our community and we stand with Greens of Colour in rejecting restrictions on religious slaughter. We join with them in asking the Green Party to issue an official apology and retraction. At this time of heightened tension for both Jewish and Muslim communites this cannot be delayed.
Any call to restrict Kosher or Halal slaughter runs counter to Green Party values and policy, with our manifesto stating that we will: ‘Defend the right of people of all faiths – to express their faith, be that in religious clothing, food or reasonable accommodation of religious observance’. Opposition to Halal or Kosher slaughter overlaps with the common far-right narrative that Jews or Muslims are especially cruel to animals, something that we hope that Jonathan Bartley would reject.
We have noted Jonathan Bartley’s apology and clarification, but are concerned that he justifies his opposition to Halal slaughter as a ‘personal view’. While we respect that there are many different views regarding the ethics of meat eating, we do not believe that scapegoating ethnic minority meat eating practices is an acceptable way to raise these questions.
As our friends from Greens of Colour state:
‘The environmental crisis will not be resolved by banning faith groups from religious practices. In order to achieve climate justice, marginalised groups must be at the heart of decision-making rather than being blamed and ostracised’.
We stand with them in rejecting the politics of Islamophobia in favour of the Green Party’s policies of a socially and environmentally just future for all.
“passionately defending the right to practice religion freely and absolutely”
Really? Well as a gay man I think I’ll give the Greens a wide berth thanks. The Abrahamic religious texts practised “freely and absolutely” don’t bode well for gays like myself.
See ya.
“passionately defending the right to practice religion freely and absolutely.” All religions are deeply problematic in that they are dogmatic, and codify and sanction violence and oppression in all kinds of ways. To champion the free and absolute right to practice religion would be utterly horrific, for women, atheists, LGBTIAPQ+ people, travellers, children and so on. It is secular law that currently ensures that religion in the UK is to some extent pacified and limited in its murderous scope. Life in the UK would be much more intolerable were absolute freedom to practice religion granted. Sectarian violence, murder, pogroms, attempts at genocide, exclusion, oppression, hostility would be hideous. You need only look to religious texts, historical and current events to see that unfettered religion is a bad, bad idea.