The Green Party of England and Wales is facing an escalating political and legal crisis following the passage of a highly controversial policy motion at its autumn conference in Brighton. The fallout has now extended far beyond internal party debates, with nine Labour Members of Parliament formally referring the party to Sussex Police to investigate potential criminal offenses, while a separate group of MPs has urged the national equality watchdog to intervene.
The nine Labour MPs have contacted Sussex Police, requesting that the force assess whether "possible antisemitic offences" committed during or in connection with the Brighton conference warrant a formal criminal investigation. Both Sussex Police and the Green Party have been contacted for comment regarding the referral, which represents a dramatic escalation in the public and political backlash to the policy.
The dispute centers on a policy motion put forward by a group of grassroots activists at the Green Party’s annual conference. The motion, which has sparked intense debate both within and outside the party, was ultimately endorsed by conference attendees in a vote of 1,022 in favor to 813 against. The approved text contains highly contentious language regarding the ideology of Zionism, stating: "The real, material, manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians."
The passage of this motion has laid bare deep and widening divisions within the Green Party, which has recently experienced a significant surge in its membership base. Under the leadership of Zack Polanski, the party has grown rapidly, but this expansion has brought to the surface a fundamental friction between the activist wing of the party and its newly enlarged parliamentary faction. At the July general election, the Greens achieved a historic breakthrough by electing five MPs to the House of Commons. However, the disconnect between these elected representatives and the conference voting body was made clear on Sunday, as four of the party’s five MPs voted against the motion, while Polanski himself did not take part in the vote.
The international and domestic repercussions of the vote were swift. The Israeli foreign ministry reacted to the motion’s passage by imposing a travel ban on Polanski, preventing the Green Party leader from entering the country. Domestically, various Jewish communal organizations have strongly condemned the motion, with some describing the policy and the rhetoric surrounding it as a direct "attack on the Jewish community."
Breaking his silence after initially declining requests for interviews on Monday, Polanski released a detailed and lengthy statement addressing the growing crisis. Polanski, who is himself Jewish, sought to reassure both his party members and the wider public of his commitment to inclusivity. He stated that he takes seriously his responsibility to make sure everyone feels safe and welcome in the party, addressing the anxieties felt by Jewish members and supporters.
In his statement, Polanski emphasized that his leadership would not tolerate discrimination or sectarianism. He stated that as leader, he will not accept any exclusion, or refusal to engage with anyone, because of the religious or communal body they are part of. He went on to assert that the Green Party and its leadership remain anchored in deeply held values of compassion, fairness, and equality for all.
Crucially, Polanski addressed the core ideological dispute at the heart of the controversy, attempting to draw a clear line between legitimate political debate and racial or religious prejudice. He insisted that antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct, a position that seeks to defend the right to oppose Israeli government policies while firmly rejecting hatred against Jewish people.
Alongside the police referral, the political pressure on the Green Party has been compounded by a formal appeal to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). On Monday, a group of Labour MPs sent two separate letters to the equality watchdog. The effort was organized by Mike Tapp, the former Home Office minister, who coordinated the parliamentary response to the events in Brighton.
The letters sent by the Labour MPs raised grave concerns not only about the primary motion itself but also about the rejection of specific amendments during the conference debate. These defeated amendments were designed to protect Jewish Green Party members who attend Zionist synagogues from facing internal hostility or disciplinary action. The MPs argued that the rejection of these safeguards created a hostile environment for Jewish members.
In their letter to the watchdog, the Labour MPs wrote that, taken together, these developments raise serious questions about whether Jewish members can participate freely and equally in the party, and whether their religious and communal connections could expose them to complaints or disciplinary action. The letter frames the issue as a potential breach of equality laws, suggesting that the party’s internal culture and policy decisions may actively discriminate against Jewish individuals.
The involvement of the EHRC carries significant political weight in the United Kingdom. As the statutory body responsible for enforcing and regulating equality and non-discrimination laws in Great Britain, the commission has previously intervened in the internal affairs of major political parties. Most notably, the EHRC launched a formal investigation into the Labour Party under its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, ultimately finding serious systemic failings in how the party handled allegations of antisemitism. This historical precedent heightens the stakes for the Green Party, as a formal EHRC investigation could have devastating reputational and legal consequences.
Following the receipt of the letters from the Labour MPs, the EHRC issued a statement to the BBC outlining its initial position. The commission confirmed that it would consider each complaint carefully before deciding whether any formal regulatory action is warranted. At this stage, the watchdog clarified that it has not launched a formal investigation into the Green Party.
The watchdog also reminded political organizations of their legal obligations under British law. The EHRC noted that it has guidance advising political parties on their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The commission added that, like all duty-bearers, political parties must comply with the Act and take steps to avoid discrimination. This reminder underscores that political parties are not exempt from national equality legislation and must actively work to prevent discriminatory practices within their structures.
The controversy has also reverberated across continental Europe, straining the Green Party’s international alliances. The European Green Party, an umbrella organization of which the Green Party of England and Wales is a member, took the unusual step of publicly reprimanding its British counterpart. In a statement released on Monday, the European body sought to unequivocally distance itself from the motion passed in Brighton.
The European Green Party expressed deep concern over the developments, stating that it would immediately demand clarity from the leadership of the England and Wales Green Party. Specifically, the continental organization wants assurances on how the UK leadership plans to protect Jewish people within its ranks and how it intends to uphold the fundamental principle of self-determination, which critics argue the Brighton motion undermines.
Amidst the mounting criticism, some senior figures within the domestic party have sought to defend the underlying intent of the motion while acknowledging the damage caused by the controversy. Ellie Chowns, one of the five newly elected Green MPs, spoke to BBC Radio 4’s PM programme to share her perspective on the crisis. Chowns admitted to being deeply saddened that the highly divisive motion had successfully become official party policy.
Despite her sadness over the outcome, Chowns disagreed with the characterization of the motion as inherently antisemitic. She argued that the policy was not driven by prejudice against Jewish people, but was instead underpinned by a principled opposition to the actions of the Israeli government. This distinction is central to the defense mounted by many of the motion’s supporters, who argue that criticism of Zionism and the state of Israel should not be conflated with antisemitism.
However, Chowns also used her interview to highlight a structural issue within the Green Party’s democratic processes, suggesting that the current system is vulnerable to being dominated by small, highly organized factions of activists. She pointed out that the vote in Brighton was decided by a tiny fraction of the party’s overall membership. With the Green Party now boasting more than 200,000 members nationwide, Chowns noted that less than 1% of this membership base had actually participated in the conference vote.
To address this democratic imbalance, Chowns suggested that a comprehensive review of the Green Party’s policymaking processes is urgently needed. As the party transitions from a minor protest movement into a significant parliamentary force with five MPs, critics and internal reformers alike argue that allowing a small number of conference delegates to pass highly sensitive and nationally significant foreign policy motions risks alienating the wider membership and the broader electorate.
The double pressure of a police referral and a potential EHRC investigation, combined with diplomatic bans and international condemnation from sister parties, has placed the Green Party leadership in an exceptionally difficult position. As Zack Polanski and his parliamentary colleagues attempt to manage the fallout, the party faces a critical test of its maturity and its ability to maintain a cohesive national platform. With Sussex Police and the Green Party leadership yet to issue further updates, the political establishment continues to watch closely how the newly expanded party will navigate this profound internal and external crisis.
