The deadline is fast approaching. Send in your submissions now. The first annual contest to establish which indeed is the most idiotic of the world's Green Parties is upon us. Many candidates were surveyed. The Swedes, the nutty Germans and Brits, the hypocritical Canadians and Australians and even the Green Party of the United States along with some of its discordant constituent parts. The competition for lunacy is fierce. Here are but a few of the contestants.
First, let me present as my personal favourites, Canada's Greens. Their leader, Elizabeth May, argues that we should reduce our individual ecological footprint but at the same time import 300,000 more 'footprints' each year just to strengthen our 'cultural diversity'. This 'Great Multicultural Project' as she calls it, of course takes precedence over any project to protect biological diversity or constrain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which her 300,000 incoming footprints will increase. The Canadian Greens are a masterpiece of contradictions and confusion. Ontario leader Frank de Jong told us privately that Canada is overpopulated by a factor of 'four to ten'. Yet he told others, including an Australian audience, that 'population is a red herring'. Now recently, on 30 January 2008, he made the incredible assertion that 'a higher population means a higher quality of life'. (1) Economic growth is no problem either. The size of the economy can increase ten fold, he maintains, and only 'through-put' matters. The party stands for Green taxes. Down with those antiquated fair and progressive income and capital gains taxes. But some party officials like Eric Walton are waking up to the fact that low income Canadians aren't buying it. He now favours a hybrid mix of progressive and green taxes so that the poor don't pay the shot for punishing polluters and shifting to renewable technologies. That's the Canadians.(2) Let's take a quick peek at other Green hypocrites.
The British Green Party, at first blush, offers a radical departure in consciousness from its Canadian counterparts with this promise. 'To promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK, to include consideration of consumption and material comfort'.(3) But then they say that: 'Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.'. Note that the first statement calls only for a debate, as the population skyrockets, because 'the aim is to increase awareness of the issues--not to set specific population targets'. In their migration policy the UK Greens acknowledge an impending human tsunami by saying that: 'there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase'.(4) So how do they propose to respond to this, besides of course to work for a fairer world that would lessen the urge to migrate? 'We will progressively reduce UK immigration controls'. (5)
They will do that in a multitude of ways. 'Families will not be divided by deportation'. (6) 'We will abolish the "primary purpose" rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of the relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK'. (7) And 'Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety'. (8)
The British Greens will also 'resist all attempts to introduce a "barrier around Europe" shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European nationals'. (9) And finally they have this to say about human trafficking: 'The Government should grant a temporary right to stay in the country to anyone who has been trafficked or appears to have been trafficked. It should also recognize the right of those who have been trafficked to apply for a longer term or permanent immigrant status'. (10) With shameless invective, it labels as 'racists of the far right' all those persons in the United Kingdom and Europe who favour increased immigration controls.
The population of the United Kingdom, an island nation of 60 million acres, is currently 61 million and rising rapidly. It is obvious that under a Green Party administration, it would soon be 71 or 81 million barring an international resource or environmental crisis, in which event it would be even higher. What consumption levels would Britons have to tumble down to then to achieve sustainability?
But let us save the best to last. After spending much time talking about the need for family planning, (11) they declare that: 'The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice'. (12) That is brilliant. You need a licence to catch a certain number of fish and a driver's licence to operate a car within a certain speed limit but you can go ahead and have five kids on the dole and have them dump 100 metric tonnes of GHG per year into the atmosphere because it's your free choice. Yet polluters would no doubt face tough restrictions under a Green regime.
The Irish Greens similarly project an image not...