Population Matters is kicking off because the Green World Editorial Board have correctly refused to distribute a Population Matters leaflet with the magazine. See the email below.
Population Matters attempts to place our environmental crisis at the feet of women in poorer nations and their private parts.
A child-less couple driving round in a Chelsea tractor in Hertfordshire will have a far greater footprint than a large struggling family in the developing world.
The issue is consumption, not population.
Population Matters attempts to place our environmental crisis at the feet of women in poorer nations and their private parts.
A child-less couple driving round in a Chelsea tractor in Hertfordshire will have a far greater footprint than a large struggling family in the developing world.
The issue is consumption, not population.
------------------------------------------------------------
From: s****@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:33:14 +0000
Subject: Censorship at Green World magazine
To: s****@gmail.com
I append a statement by Simon Ross, chief executive of Population Matters, responding to Matthew Butcher of the Green World editorial board (GWEB) and its decision to censor advertising from Population Matters. This decision follows a previous attempt to ban Population Matters from having a stall at conference.
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:33:14 +0000
Subject: Censorship at Green World magazine
To: s****@gmail.com
I append a statement by Simon Ross, chief executive of Population Matters, responding to Matthew Butcher of the Green World editorial board (GWEB) and its decision to censor advertising from Population Matters. This decision follows a previous attempt to ban Population Matters from having a stall at conference.
As Simon forcefully demonstrates, the GWEB position is completely
mistaken about population pressures and human rights. It also breaks
with the mainstream green tradition. As you probably know, the founding
of our own parent party, the People Party, was partly encouraged by a
magazine interview with Paul Ehrlich, author of the seminal study The Population Bomb. Many leading green writers, not least Jonathan Porritt (Seeing Green), have
stressed the importance of free contraception and birth control
education both for overall ecological sustainability and the personal
well-being of individual women.
This is the censored leaflet:
Anyone who sees anything 'ungreen' in it really "should have gone to Specsavers".
We would further note that there are serious constitutional issues
raised by the actions of GWEB regarding openness, responsiveness and
accountability. Serious principles about internal democracy are at
stake. Green World is the magazine of the whole Green Party. We
should not allow it to be used by any faction to foist its views, in
this case badly mistaken ones, on the rest of the Party.
The GWEB has said that it will meet at conference, implying that
the matter can be raised there. This is shutting the stable door after
the horse has bolted. Furthermore, it disenfranchises members like me
who, for personal reasons, are unable to attend.
The GWEB decision is a pernicious act of censorship. I ask you to
call for the decision to censor Population Matters to be
reversed. Please write to:
the party leader, Natalie Bennett (****@greenparty.org.uk),
its deputy leader, Will Duckworth (****@gmail.com),
the chair of GPEX, Tim Dawes (***@********.co.uk) and to
the editorial board (***@greenworld.org.uk),
with a copies to your regional GRPC representatives.
I would be grateful if you could forward this letter to fellow
party members. I have only a small list of contacts but think that this
affair is sufficiently alarming for the membership at large to be
alerted to what has been going on in their name.
Sandy Irvine
----------------------------------------------
Dear Matthew,
The statement, reproduced at the bottom of this response,
setting out the reasons why the Green World Editorial Board did not
accept the advertising insert from Population Matters attached to this
email for the February issue of the magazine has been brought to my
attention.
The reasons are false.
The GWEB statement asserts that providing birth control
to women in majority world countries contradicts the aim of empowering
women to have control over their own bodies and contradicts Green values
of equality.
In fact, providing ‘access to reproductive health
services’ and ‘aid by developed countries for voluntary family planning
programmes’ both empowers women to have control over their own bodies
and promotes equality, both between women and men and between women in
different countries and communities. This seems pretty obvious with a
moment’s thought. The leaflet also states that women’s empowerment and a
convergence of living standards contribute to fertility reduction and
thus argues directly for greater gender and social equality.
The GWEB statement further asserts that having an aim of
reducing population through lower fertility for environmental reasons
implies that responsibility for environmental problems lies with women’s
fertility choices. Firstly, the point is that women without access to
modern family planning do not have fertility choices. Women who do
have the ability to make fertility choices almost invariably choose to
reduce their family size for their own reasons. Secondly, while growing
human numbers unarguably contribute to environmental problems, the
leaflet does not claim that this is the only cause or that fertility
reduction is the only solution, and thus does not claim that
‘responsibility for tackling environmental problems lies with women's
fertility choices’. For example, the leaflet also calls for
sustainable lifestyles and a more sustainable use of technology.
The statement further asserts that the leaflet divides
people by gender and race. In fact, the leaflet calls for women’s
empowerment, which reduces the division between genders, and for
universal access to reproductive health services, which reduces the
division between races. By specifically referencing the need for better
reproductive health in the UK, the leaflet demonstrates that it is not
concerned solely with majority world countries, a phrase it does not
use.
As you know, I have offered to speak to your Board about
any concerns and to discuss alterations to the leaflet to address them
but have received no response.
If I do not receive a positive response to this email
from you after the Spring conference, I will conclude that the Board’s
decision is unreasonable and is motivated by political considerations
which originate outwith the traditions of the Green Party and
environmentalism.
Please circulate this response to other members of the Green World Editorial Board.
GWEB statement from Matthew Butcher
"Green World Editorial Board did not accept the
advertising insert from Population Matters for the February issue of the
magazine. This decision was made as it was felt by the majority of the
board that the advertisement promotes a policy that directly contradicts
Green values of equality. Specifically, it was felt that a policy of
providing birth control to women in majority world countries with the
explicit aim of reducing population implies that responsibility for
tackling environmental problems lies with women's fertility choices, and
that these women should have fewer children. This contradicts the aim
of empowering women to have control over their own bodies, and divides
people by gender and race in our responsibility to the planet.
The Green World Editorial Board will be meeting on the
Sunday of this Spring's Green Party conference. As always this meeting
will be public and we'd encourage those party members who'd like to talk
to the board to come along. Look out for signs at conference so you
know where to go."
If you are unable to come to conference and would like to
let us know your thoughts on the issue please do send us an email using
the details below.
***@greenworld.org.uk"
Members of the Green World Editorial Board: Matthew Butcher, Josiah Mortimer, Sam Hollick, Miriam Kennet.
