This is our second story on the Green Party. For the first one, see Sabina McLuhan’s column in the November Interim. – Editor
For years the media in Britain have quietly ignored the policies of the Green Party. Not so, this year. On September 17, 1989, the Party hit the headlines with its claim that couples living in a Green-governed Britain would have to accept one-child families. Party officials also announced that within the next few days delegates to the Green Party conference in Wolverhampton were expected to approve plans to cut the population of Britain from 56 million to between 30 and 40 millions.
Reaction was swift. On the light side (and with tongue in cheek) Jon Akass of the Daily Express said “without doubt there would be less congestion on the M25 and shorter queues in the Post Office.” More seriously he added that the Greens seem to have overlooked the fact that people still love babies. Other columnists pointed out that the Greens put people after trees and whales, but neither trees nor whales have votes – people do.
Green politicians seemed to be taken aback by the public’s reaction to their plans to depopulate Britain in order to ease pollution and inner-city problems. Spokesman David Icke insisted that there were no plans to punish parents who refuse to comply with the ruling. They had no intention, said Icke, of following the Chinese example of forced abortions – nor, it is to be supposed, the Gandhi’s forced vasectomies in India. He did not explain, however, how the Greens would cull the population to reach their desired limit.
Peregrine Worsthorne, Sunday Telegraph, September 24, 1989, warned that although the Greens are obviously not contemplating wholesale slaughter of civilians there is still cause for unease. “The Greens are, after all, nice people. But even nice people can be dangerous when they start thinking and talking – almost boasting – about preventing millions of people being born. Can one imagine Jesus, who loved human beings so much that He came on Earth to save us, using the phrase “population control”?
Worsthorne went on to sound a warning against the “toxic” element in the Green policies. “So long as they were just a pressure group campaigning against pollution, or a brave band of derring-do Greenpeace heroes on the high seas, none of this mattered. But now that they have set themselves up as a political party, it does.”
Canadians must be well aware that the Green Party is not confined to Britain; its toxic anti-people policies are world-wide. It should be a matter of real concern to pro-life Canadians that most wildlife and environmental groups are pro-trees, pro-birds, pro-whales, pro-butterflies, but anti-people, and particularly anti-human babies.
The Christian World Report, September 1989 published a list of wildlife and environmental groups which are one record as favoring the repeal of the pro-life Mexico City Policy and the restoration of funding to the pro-abortion United Nations Family Planning Association (UNFPA). Amongst these organizations which are calling for the repeal of pro-life policies, and which in effect are approving the promotion of abortion as a means of population control are the following: The National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, Defenders of Wildlife, Izaak Walton League, and Zero Population Growth. The Mexico City Policy, which these groups want repealed, cut U.S. funding only to organizations which promote abortion and/or compulsory abortion.
Human sacrifice
Peregrine Worsthorne strongly disagrees with these groups. To quote him once more: “Nevertheless the primacy of man, his central and unique place in the universe (which is intended for his use), is the heart of his relationship with nature. Any other view is pagan and risks making an idol of nature. And idolatry often leads to human sacrifice – the immolation in the Green case, of millions of unborn British babies at the feet of Planet Earth.”
To this pro-lifers would say “Amen.”
