The Length of the Arm

Dear Editor,
I’m concerned that articles by Jenny Jones and Matt Follett on ‘Policing the Police’ (GW 64) do not place police powers in the context of a very deep civil liberties crisis in this country. The problems do not stem, as Jenny seems to suggest, from a few bad apples, and the solutions do not simply lie in better training and different tactics, as important as those things may be.

Police power is central to New Labour policies, just as it was to Margaret Thatcher, who ensured as one of her first moves heavy increases in police pay which she saw as necessary to bringing in waves of unpopular policies.
Increased police power has been part and parcel of criminalising protest, of tightening up on immigration, of pursuing illegal wars, of scapegoating communities. In the process, the police have quite literally become a law unto themselves, who can commit all manner of crimes, with impunity, in the name of anti-terrorism.

Moreover, the police are not simply, or indeed mostly, a problem for the type of ‘fluffy, happy, musical’ (and we could add white and middle-class) protesters that Jenny seems to be most concerned about. The criminalisation of Muslims has exploded in recent years ranging from stop and search to dawn raids and even murder in one infamous case of mistaken identity.

Understanding that police powers are a systemic problem in need of radical change is not only necessary to restore civil liberties in this country, but can help the Green party find relevance with non-white audiences.
Nick Dearden
Islington




Heads of State

Dear Editor,
While Don Grimes is right that many among us have cause to say “Long live the queen”, it is not necessarily in the hope of a long reign. It is rather in the hope that the individual outlives the institution. Even if the queen lives as long as her mother, that is not forever, and she has not left a “real alternative” among her own descendants. Do we really want her succeeded by a man who blames climate change on the wrong things while blithely carrying on with the activities that really cause it? Such a head of state would give quite the wrong message about Britain’s place in the modern world.

For that is the point. Who becomes our head of state is not a “minor issue”; it affects our ability to lead in issues from the environment to democracy. Think of George Bush, and don’t imagine that his kind are specific to republics. How can we stand firm on scrutinising all industries’ carbon footprints with a king calling for livestock farming’s huge footprint to be exempted? How can we criticise discrimination abroad when our own highest office excludes so many? How can we denounce tyranny and theocracy when our head of state is the pinnacle of a hereditary nobility and established church both still privileged within our legislature?

The kind of tinkering recently proposed in parliament is not the answer. Removing discrimination against women but extending discrimination against younger siblings and retaining it against (short of Princess William being from one) ethnic minorities and the working and even middle classes? Removing discrimination against Protestants married to Catholics but retaining it against non-Protestants of whatever religion and marital status? No, we need a presidency that all can aspire to.
Charles Gilman
Egham, Surrey




Real Republics

Dear Editor,
I was surprised and saddened to read a letter from a fellow Green supporting the Monarchy. Whether the Queen or her son (due shortly to take over the reign(s)) gives rise to people having ‘soft spots’ for them or not is totally beside the point. Republicans don’t oppose the royal family on the basis of personality. We oppose the monarchy because it’s part of the wholly undemocratic, deferent system of which the Queen is at the very top.

This why it shocks me to read support for her in Green World. The monarchy is fundamental to our undemocratic unwritten constitution. Once the unelected head of state is removed then we can move on to dismantling the Lords and the privy council. The present system also gives the prime minister far too much power. I don’t think we should shy away from policies that we believe in just to reach the masses. An elected head of state always makes people think of President Blair or President Thatcher, but this is a fallacy as we have never directly elected these people to be prime ministers either. We would have a choice as to whether our elected head of state would be a political figure and most importantly of all, if we were unhappy with their performance we would be able to deselect them.
Charlie Kiss
Camden, London




Dear Editor,
In reply to Don Grimes’ letter “Keep Her Head On”, in GW64, rather than describing the debate about republicanism as a “minor issue”, the question of whether we need a monarchy is very relevant, particularly at a time when even MPs are thinking about constitutional reform.An elected president would ensure that we would have a popular leader such as Joanna Lumley, so we could even have a president who endorses the Greens.

It is worth bearing in mind that the popular Irish president Mary McAleese is a unifying figure not just in Ireland but wherever she goes. She is in her second seven-year term of office and she has an approval rating of more than 80 per cent, higher than the British royal family.

The current royal family, complete with the minor royals, costs the nation hundreds of millions of pounds to maintain. If there were a president in the UK, would you read about the son of the president using Ministry of Defence aviation equipment to impress his girlfriend?

In the US, there is an African American head of state. In the UK, by contrast, the head of state has to be the eldest of an aristocratic family dynasty.

It is appropriate that in the debate Mr Tatchell is giving a talk to young people as support for the monarchy is much less among young people.
Alice Onwordi






Dear Editor,
We were wondering if there is a ‘ Deep Ecology’ group within the England & Wales Green party? If not, then we should form one. We propose the formation of a group that has the intention of informing each other concerning latest global thinking on the subject with the possibility of passing on ideas and thoughts with a view to the informing of party policy.

Those interested please contact John Gale on 01785 214894 (e-mail: john_gale@tiscali.co.uk) or Damon Hoppe (email: damonhoppe@yahoo.co.uk). If there is sufficient interest, we will form an e-group and website for the sharing of ideas.
John Gale & Damon Hoppe
Stafford