Ed Balls Welcomes Report That Supports Racist Teachers
The Maurice Smith Review, charged with carrying out ‘a full and detailed review of the provisions which prevent the promotion of racism in schools’ has reported back to Government and it’s findings have been accepted by Ed Balls in full. Apparently the review was so full and detailed that the investigations  included a meeting with a National Front press officer, as reported by the Daily Mail.Â
The DCSF press release * about the report outlines six recommendations made by Smith including monitoring by Ofsted and annual Government review states:
The current safeguards in place to protect children and young people in maintained schools from discrimination or political indoctrination include:
- a requirement for schools to have equal opportunities policies
- a duty to promote racial equality
- a statutory duty to promote community cohesion
- a duty on governing bodies, head teachers and local authorities to forbid the teaching of partisan political activities
- disciplinary powers of the GTCE
 Maurice Smith adds:
Although police and prison officers are banned, to ban more than half a million teachers – or six million public servants – from joining a legitimate organisation would take this to a different scale of magnitude. Additionally, there is no consensus on this matter, and no agreement on where to ‘draw the line’. [my emphasis]
The BBC reports:
The teachers’ union the NASUWT, which has campaigned to have BNP members banned from schools, said it was disappointed by the review’s findings.
General secretary Chris Keates said: “Maurice Smith has squandered a golden opportunity to advance the cause of ensuring good race relations in schools.
“The report is woefully inadequate and littered with contradictions.”
She said too much attention was paid to the number of incidents in schools, saying “one incident is one too many”.
So in effect, teachers racist enough to join the BNP or NF will be monitored by ‘equal opportunities policies’ and Ofsted visits carried out every four years! Seriously!  Obviously it doesn’t mean a teacher isn’t a racist bigot if they don’t belong to the BNP or NF but membership of either of these groups absolutely proves they are. I’d like to hear Balls’ rationale as to how such bigotry would not affect teaching and would promote community cohesion.
There is obviously no connection between the fact that there is an election almost upon us with New Labour desperate to woo disaffected voters who might choose to vote BNP is there? That would be seriously disgusting, and it’s not like they have form for this type of thing, certainly not in Lewisham, or Barking. (Please see Hope not Hate for alternate ways of fighting the BNP).
The Smith review does not cover recruitment within schools at all. Perhaps the new Equality Bill will really be a miracle after all and it’s enactment will mean liberal sprinklings of magic dust over all the problems that have been found with current Race Relations legislation.
*The DCSF press release contains a link to the full Smith Review report, but the DCSF have not made it available at the time of writing.
Update – The Maurice Smith Review is now available online here.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs,Race politics,The BNP
Hmmm… not quite sure about this. If teachers are banned from joining the BNP/NF, it doesn’t actually mean that there won’t be any racist teachers (any more than the police ban means no racist police). Just means it’s harder to identify the ones who are.
Does being a racist make you join the BNP, or does joining the BNP make you a racist?
“Does being a racist make you join the BNP, or does joining the BNP make you a racist?”
I couldn’t imagine a circumstance where a non-racist would join up.
There is a “where do you draw the line?” question here. If BNP, why not UKIP, for a start? And how about banning members of a party that starts illegal wars, tears up basic freedoms and is undoubtedly racist (remember “British jobs for British workers)? That’s Labour out then. As for the Conservatives – a party which hates human rights and is utterly riddled with vile racism. Would you want a member of that teaching your children?
Sorry, earwigca, that was a bit facetious on my part. What I meant was, BNP/NF membership isn’t the sole indicator of racist views; a ban on membership wouldn’t stop a teacher from holding iffy views (and potentially communicating them to students). It could create a false sense of security. I remember when most universities had a ‘No Platform For Racists’ policy. Denying racists a platform didn’t stop them from being racist.
And as Chris says, there are people who would object to their kids being taught by members of UKIP… or Respect or Hizb ut-Tahrir or Stonewall or PETA or CND…
Good grief.
You do realise that they will remain racists even if they are not permitted to join?
Instead you are proposing yet another piece of illiberal legislation because, well, since it won’t actually make any difference, it makes you feel morally superior.
Great.
I am torn in this one. My gut reaction is indeed to recoil from having someone with membership to the BNP/NF teach my children/grandchildren. However it is a pure gut reaction rather then a considered one. I want my younger family members to be taught by someone with enthusiasm and a love for learning, knowledge and the furtherance of knowledge; and if that individual happens to be a BNP or NF member then so be it.
Personally I think that for all our posturing about not wanting to politicise our childrens’ education we are doing just that by concentrating on the political affiliations of the individuals that teach our young.
By all means ensure that teachers do not bring their personal preferences into the classroom. I would not want a committed vegan teaching my children that eating meat or dairy products is a moral sin of the ‘nth’ degree. I would expect a teacher to leave their personal predilection for … oh say bull fighting outside of school premises and away from the children they are teaching.
But surely a good teacher would do that? A good teacher will build on the natural curiosity of children and help children discover the joy of learning; encourage them to follow their own interests, develop their own talents, build on their own strengths.
Maybe we were asking the wrong sort of question when we started the enquiry that led to this report. Maybe the question that should have been asked is more along the lines of what DO we want in schools rather then what DON’T we want in schools.
Racist teachers….just what we need.
Having just left the trade myself, I can say it is true that there are already numerous closet nazi teachers lurking around infesting the education system (this is probably true of most sectors in the UK I imagine).
The problem with this is that some may try ‘upping’ grades of their ‘own’ people and marking down others. They are also inclined to make life for non white teachers more difficult than it needs to be, especially when they gain positions of power.
Are there?
Did they come out of the closet just for you, or what?
How did their Nazism show itself?
F*****g LOL. They must have done a survey and realised there is a higher proportion of National Front/BNP teachers than they thought, or this is just another step in the current Labour/Tory policy to legitimise the BNP even further. True that racist teachers would exist regardless, but legitimising them? For chrissakes, what next? Entrusting our wealth to the banks?
As much as we may dislike them, the BNP *are* a legitimate organisation. So are Hope Not Hate and the Anti Nazi League- it’s called freedom of expression.
Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that the teachers can be a member of ‘any organisation that promotes racism’ under the new guidelines. That includes groups like Hizb Ut Tahrir (assuming they haven’t been proscribed).
Dalbir,
While it is commendable that you could hold your views unmolested in the teaching profession, it is comforting to know that your departure leaves one less anti-white racist in the school system!
x
… and less excuse for the likes of Morrigan to bleat on about how unfair things are for (white) Englishmen
Thrusting all that diversity at him – sheesh.
Let us be clear on one issue at least. Banning never really achieved anything apart from sending the banned underground; thereby making it a) more attractive b) less accountable c) more difficult to keep track of.
Stay close to your friends but keep your enemies even closer. Your friends you can trust, but the enemy … keep an eye on them cause they can’t be trusted so if you keep them closer you can’t be caught off guard.
Okay, I’ll grant that is fighting talk and maybe I have put it tad strongly. I don’t regard BNP or NF membership as necessarily putting the individual in the enemy camp. I do regard the general tenets of both groups as antagonistic to all I hold dear; universal dignity, validity and freedom for all. (Good grief, I’m starting to sound like a lay preacher for (secular)humanism
)
The fact is though that the gist of the old saying holds. I’d sooner know, and so be in a position to guard against and counteract any possible abuse of authority; in this case, of teachers in particular. But the concept holds true for other areas of public life as well; and not only where BNP/NF tenets are concerned.
I think you are missing the larger point. I think it is unacceptable that in a Democracy people are banned from certain positions simply because they officially support a legitimate political party. Besides undermining a fundamental democratic principle, you are also in a situation where racist teachers can very easily hide the fact that they are BNP supporters, and you are giving fodder to the BNP to cloak itself in the mantle of victimhood. Trifecta!
The real issue here is whether a teacher is (or is capable of) being fair when it comes to its job – and I am sorry, you need to evaluate his or her job and nothing else. And we want to ensure that we have mechanisms that can detect bias where certain students are benefited over others for reasons other than merit. I would think that we have several ways to detect that by statistic analysis as well as obviously complaints by students.
I see nobody has mentioned banning SWP teachers who are by far the most dangerous group. Peddling their admiration for the mass murderer Leon Trotsky and brainwashing pupils with anti Jewish hatred they seem to bear charmed lives.
All state schools have policies in place on equality, diversity and respect. A teacher seeking employment would have to sign up to that ethos. Of course, some might lie or merely pay unthinking lip-service. Membership of the BNP, however, is an open declaration that they do not share that ethos.
At the very least I would want a teacher with BNP membership to be required to explain how his or her membership is compatible with equality and respect for all.
Now that the National Front has held a meeting with an official from Ed Balls Department of Schools to determine how anti-racist they are, will there be an equal opportunities probe into the [allegedly] sordid business that must surely lie behind it? Will an impartial team of journalists stake it out? Can we look forward to the same intrepid research team who brought us (Andrew Gilligan and ‘oh my word, entryism into the Labour Party, whatever next?’) ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’?
Or would ‘Britain’s white racist republic’ strike a note just a tad too hysterical? Probably it would, so I reckon we are going to have to rely on the Daily Mail to keep us up to date.
This may or may not be of interest.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8305/
@ Don # 15 – That teachers are required to uphold the ethos of the school, when in school or directing activities that concern the school is understood and accepted.
I don’t think however that requiring teachers with BNP membership to explain how their membership is compatible with that ethos will serve any purpose other then merely prolonging the status quo that currently exists; namely teachers either do not declare their membership or withhold from becoming members despite holding to the tenets.
@17 This may also – or not – be of interest. But since it seeks to challenge the merits of Adrian Hart’s thesis, it seemed apt.
“And who is Adrian Hart? Anyone would think from the emphatic tone of the report, in which he puts down those conversant with the issue of racism in children, that he has a long track record in educational research. But he is in fact a filmmaker who has recently worked with young people. And his methodology leaves much to be desired. He relies on a small number of scare scenarios and gossipy anecdotes to support his thesis, uses a couple of examples from local authority statistics to make sweeping statements and his use of statistics is anyway in question.”
http://www.irr.org.uk/2009/november/ha000013.html
It looks like some people really haven’t learned the lessons of 1930s Germany. Remember that the Nazis were a “legitimate political party” too.
(In fact, once they got into power, absolutely everything those psychopaths did was technically “legal” in terms of German laws at the time — which of course they conveniently amended as they saw fit. Perhaps people also need to do a little historical research into exactly what happened when the Nazis began infiltrating and influencing schools in Germany).
Before anyone makes any references to alleged “double-standards”, yes I believe that members of the BNP and NF’s Islamist counterparts Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK and HuT shouldn’t be allowed to become teachers either.
The conclusions of this report are naive beyond belief, and yet another example of people refusing to learn the lessons of history.
@ Jai # 20 – Alternatively we could pick up lessons from that same black period in modern history and look at how individuals from selected minority groups were prohibited from engaging in given professions or trading freely … excluded from schools and not allowed to walk in public parks …
Sorry, the edit function seems to be missing. I was going to add to my post # 21:
If you want to give the BNP/NF cause to claim further mainstream victimisation and reason to view themselves as a downtrodden 2nd class citizen I can’t think of a more effective way.
Yeah, because we are *so* like 1930′s Germany…
1930s Germany had previously been one of the most cultured, educated and “civilised” societies in the Western world. So is Britain in 2010.
Not necessarily so different.
It’s no different to the “victimisation” claims made by groups such as Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK.
So what ?
If anyone requires a refresher course on — for example — the BNP’s religious ideology, some of their other recent activities, and the ramifications of their policies, they are advised to read this:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7702
Well I found Lucy’s link @19 of interest.
Just that really. I don’t know who has the better opinion. It’s probably somewhere down the middle between the two.
I too am wary about bans on people holding certain professions. UAF called for the sacking of the ”BNP ballerina” Simone Clark.
And maybe a BNP member can’t be a member of a sports team, or a professor. There were calls for Oxford University to sack professor David Coleman because he was a co-founder of Migration Watch.
Good reply Lucy @ 19
@ Jai # 24 – So what? So two wrongs have never yet added up to a right (in the non political sense of the word). While I detest, abhore and will stand against the BNP/NF and everything they stand for to my last breath, I do not think that prohibiting their members from engaging in lawful pursuits, does anything but compromise everything Democracy, Individual and Civil Freedoms stands for.
We’ll have to amicably agree to disagree.
Not that I believe the BNP should be prohibited from voicing their opinions, aspirations and policies, of course — far from it. On the contrary, I think they should be given total freedom to publically provide the maximum amount of detail possible on all of the above, without any restraint whatsoever. They shouldn’t hide anything at all — they should tell the general public exactly what they think, exactly what they would like to do, exactly what they plan to do, and exactly how they plan to do it.
However, I disagree with the notion of such people being allowed anywhere near children in a teaching capacity — in exactly the same way that I believe members of Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK or supporters of Al-Qaeda shouldn’t be given the slightest opportunity to spread those views (or act on them) in a teaching environment, especially when impressionable children are involved.
Beyond that, as I said earlier, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.
This is a shocking judgment by any standards. And all this, ‘ I’m torn on this one’ is f…ing nonsense.
So, anybody out there want their child being taught by a teacher who officially signs up to party that hates your child’s race and/or religion?
We will be writing to Ed Ball’s demanding to know where these BNP teachers are practicing and to demand that every parent whose child is being taught by a BNP member decide whether or not they want their child to continue in that classroom.
This is not the politics of the left or right, this is the politics of hatred. To vote for them might be a protest vote to join them is to sign up to their ideals.
I am in absolute agreement with Simon Woolley on this and can see no legitimate reason to be torn. An openly racist teacher who ‘hates your child’s race and/or religion’ is a situation which cannot be tolerated.
Why one standard for the police and another for teachers who have immense power over children? This report is an absolute nonsense.
Lucy @ 16 – Word!
And I am also in agreement with Jai and find the analogy completely apt.
You know, I’m not going to go into it in detail, because frankly, it will not make a jot of difference. Plus you’ll get the usual howls from those who are either inclined to cover it up or are in active denial about the issue for various reasons. Racism differs from institute to institute, it is endemic in some and not so in others.
It wasn’t that great believe you me. Besides, what’s your point? That racist teachers are okay as long as they are white and directing it to nonwhites?
From what I saw, many urban institutes are corrupt to the core. The pressure put on teachers to pass students so that funding levels can continue or increase is immense and contributing to a downward trend in standards. As always, the sums that do come in are usually cleverly split between management before reaching the classroom. This takes the steam out of the many government funding enterprises we’ve heard of over the years. Most of us could probably guess something wasn’t quite right with so much money being thrown at education in various schemes, most of which haven’t even dented any of the targeted issues.
The people who are in cahoots in such arrangements are the usual suspects who dominate the executive boards.
@Miriam #18,
I agree that not all racists join the BNP or admit to it (although their tendency to have their membership list go walkies makes the latter course unreliable). So, yes, some would slip through.
But if someone has gone to the trouble of actively joining – and paying good money to do so – they have pretty much nailed their colours to the mast as an outright racist. As such I would contend that they have made it clear that they are disinclined to promote racial equality. It may be a legal party, and rightly so, but it does differ qualitively from other parties in that its essence is exclusionary and hostile to a large section of our population.
Covert racists may slide under the net, overt ones should be an easy call. Some beliefs and convictions can be left outside the classroom, others not so much.
Could a member of the BNP be trusted to seek the best outcome for black or asian kids in their charge? Encourage them to apply to the best universities? Raise their self esteem and aspirations? Put in the extra effort and put up with the attitude because they see the potential? No. It is not possible to be a good or even adequate teacher if you believe that some of your pupils are inferior interlopers whose very presence in the country is an affront.
As for feeding their victimhood, that’s an appetite that will never be short of a junk food fix.
I’d also have them excluded from working for immigration services. I don’t want to stop anyone earning a living, even racist scum, but not in positions where they can have a profound and immediate effect on the lives of people they openly and actively despise.
Like Jai, I’ll have to amicably disagree.
I shall have to disagree with Jai and others. Ravi’s comment in #14 sums up my feelings:
I think you are missing the larger point. I think it is unacceptable that in a Democracy people are banned from certain positions simply because they officially support a legitimate political party. Besides undermining a fundamental democratic principle, you are also in a situation where racist teachers can very easily hide the fact that they are BNP supporters, and you are giving fodder to the BNP to cloak itself in the mantle of victimhood. Trifecta!
The real issue here is whether a teacher is (or is capable of) being fair when it comes to its job – and I am sorry, you need to evaluate his or her job and nothing else. And we want to ensure that we have mechanisms that can detect bias where certain students are benefited over others for reasons other than merit. I would think that we have several ways to detect that by statistic analysis as well as obviously complaints by students.
I’m normally opposed to banning things or closing people off from lawful employment if they are qualified, but in this case I’m very much with Jai and Don @34. Teaching and policing are both fundamentally about taking on a duty of care to the general population regardless of their ethnicity or colour. It is, if you like, part of the job description not to be a racist. Whilst I suppose it is possible that a racist teacher might try to put his or her beliefs aside and treat all children equally, given that prejudice is a powerful subconscious influence I have my doubts as to whether it would be possible for them to do so effectively.
In any event, I do not think that non-white non-British parents could reasonably be expected to have confidence in a racist teacher to treat their children equally, nor would I personally have any confidence in such a teacher to teach my children the importance of equality and diversity.
While I agree that it would be creepy to actually have a school teacher who was a BNP member …. are there really any?
Or is the scare somewhat like a ”reds under the bed” situation like the media here in Ireland have been running with these last couple of days?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=waterford%20lars%20vilks&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw
What other professions should be covered? Police, fire, ambulance? Social worker …. traffic warden?
Ray Honneyford got binned – but but he was very outspoken. What about people who never say anything.
I’m reminded of the slogan during Bill Clinton’s term as president about gays in the military.
”Don’t ask – don’t tell”.
damon, have you been living in a cave for the last 20 years?
“While I agree that it would be creepy to actually have a school teacher who was a BNP member …. are there really any?”
The last leaked membership list showed 15 teachers as members of the BNP, hence the review. With class sizes of 30 that is 450 children per year affected at primary level with the likliehood of many times more that at secondary level.
In the case of head teachers – they are responsible for setting school ethos and employment.
“What other professions should be covered? Police, fire, ambulance? Social worker …. traffic warden?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7736794.stm
“I’m reminded of the slogan during Bill Clinton’s term as president about gays in the military.
â€Don’t ask – don’t tellâ€.”
This hardly warrants a reply. Are you equating BNP members with LBGT people? DADT wasn’t and isn’t a ‘slogan’
http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
Obama has promised to repeal this, but it hasn’t happened yet.
earwicga – I (think) that I just don’t go along with the ‘BNP’ alarm. That there were 15 on the membership list shows that it is a miniscule issue.
Saying 15 x 30 = 450 children blows it out of proportion IMO. Almost like a tabloid headline.
This isn’t a very mainstream left position, but as obnoxious as the BNP are, I think that they are given far too much attention …. so much so that it’s unhealthy.
That a cranky professional feels certain ways about issues enough to send off for some membership of some oddball party is not something to get too worked up about at a national level.
Maybe these teachers have personal hygiene issues and still live with their mothers.
LBGT is a whole other thing, and I don’t equate the two. But maybe a teachers personal views shouldn’t be given the third degree to that extent.
I think it does smack of McCarthyism.
And this is a view that I have been called a troll for making on PP and LC – by Bernard actually.
So maybe I shouldn’t ‘be allowed near kids’ either.
damon – I find your comment at 39, as well as your previous comment unbelivable. I would have to agree that you are a troll, and more than a likely a BNP troll. I will not engage with a BNP troll.
That’s fine earwicga, and your kind of attitude is the reason that I no longer see my self as a left wing person. Because of the ANL/UAF mentality.
Would you consider this bloke a BNP type troll too?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5943/
It’s from that kind of position that my opinions of what to do about the BNP come from.
Obviously not fair opinions in your view.
Hugh Muir: “For one of the most startling facts to emerge today is the disclosure that many schools still do not have an equalities policy. That should be rectified immediately.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/12/bnp-racist-teachers-ban-equalities-policy
Interesting point. It is curious why it has not been instituted already.
Earwicga – you seem to have appeared from nowhere yet you accuse Damon who has been commenting for years of being a BNP troll just because you disagree with him
so far both your posts and your comments appear to reflect the worst kind of student stridency
Damon is not a troll. He is certainly not a BNP supporter.
The reason I object to a ban is for three reasons:
1. It won’t help.
2. It hands a propaganda coup to the BNP.
3. It is illiberal.
Rumbold @ 44 – BINGO!
In the absence of any other useful suggestion, I agree so far with Katy Newton @36:
“I’m normally opposed to banning things or closing people off from lawful employment if they are qualified, but in this case I’m very much with Jai and Don @34. Teaching and policing are both fundamentally about taking on a duty of care to the general population regardless of their ethnicity or colour. It is, if you like, part of the job description not to be a racist. Whilst I suppose it is possible that a racist teacher might try to put his or her beliefs aside and treat all children equally, given that prejudice is a powerful subconscious influence I have my doubts as to whether it would be possible for them to do so effectively.
In any event, I do not think that non-white non-British parents could reasonably be expected to have confidence in a racist teacher to treat their children equally, nor would I personally have any confidence in such a teacher to teach my children the importance of equality and diversity.”
@Rumbold 44: banning is illiberal by its very nature, but sometimes it’s justified. I agree that some people can keep their opinions hidden. To take an example, plenty of paedophiles keep their proclivities hidden sufficiently well to get jobs working with children and to abuse them for years before it’s uncovered. I don’t think anyone would say that was an argument for allowing people who had openly admitted that they had abused children to work with children, would they?
Am amazed by Spitoon’s incredible hypocrisy on this issue
Faisal has just posted on BNP teachers
“My own view is that a teacher’s personal politics should in no way be used to determine and evaluate their skills and professionalism, which are, first and foremost, to instil their pupils with a love of learning of their subject.”
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/5530
Yet this is what they said about Muslim Azad Ali
“Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service and a prominent defender of Azad Ali, should immediately sack Azad Ali from his job at the Treasury and from his position as head of the Civil Service Islamic Society.â€
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3621
@ Katy Newton # 47 – Whoa!!!! There is a fundamental difference between ‘prohibiting’ and ‘banning’. It is sad to see that there are still individuals around who cannot comprehend such a fundamental difference.
@MiriamBinder 48: thanks, Miriam, I know the difference on account of not being stupid. I’m also reasonably good at not being rude, a quality which is disappearing from this site’s comment box with alarming speed.
Actually, wait a minute. What do you mean, the difference between “prohibit” and “ban”? What on earth are you talking about and how is that in any way related to my comment? Prohibit and ban actually do mean pretty much the same thing. I just checked. They’re synonyms of each other. I personally would say that generally people are banned and acts or behaviour are prohibited, but there’s not much difference really.
Thank you Cjcjc and Rumbold.
The mention of LGTB and the link from Lucy to Hugh Muir’s Guardian piece had me remembering Julie Bindel and her ‘dodgy’ view on transgendered people.
Would she be barred from being a teacher for this view?
She has an issue with the T part of LGTB.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/01/mytransmission
Joseph Harker is incredulous at this decision.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/13/bnp-racists-teach-classroom
I was about to say, @Miriam Binder #48, – that it is not like you to indulge in tired parrying (is it?) over verbalisms – not from what I’ve read. But Katy Newton #50 said it for me. The BNP is a racist party. That people are not responsible for their race or their ethnicity is not disputable. I’m not clear what you meant in terms of the form your stand would take when in #28 you wrote:
‘While I detest, abhore and will stand against the BNP/NF and everything they stand for to my last breath…’ – not that I dispute that you meant it profoundly. But what did you mean, in practice?
@ Katy Newman # 49 – I am truly sorry that my post #48 was taken as a dig at you. It was not my intention and I sincerely apologise if that is how it reads.
@ Katy Newman # 50 – Prohibitions generally refer to all inclusive bans:
All ball games are prohibited!
Non-members are prohibited from using club equipment.
We are prohibited by law from stealing, driving without a licence etcetera and so forth. I don’t think that anyone would refer to those prohibitions as a ban; despite the fact that they are synonyms. There are slight differences of nuance even between what is commonly referred to as synonyms; much of it is down to the context in which a given ‘synonym’ is employed.
@ Lucy # 52 – As for what I meant in practise; though I do indeed detest, abhore and will stand against the BNP/NF and everything they stand for to my last breath I will equally fight to my last breath for them to have the right to hold the views they do, regardless of how vile those views might be.
For me the issue is quite a simple, and rather a self serving (;)) one really. I want to hold my personal views without fear or favour. I cannot in all decency demand the right to do so unless I am willing to extend that self same right to others.
Who’s Katy Newman?
If a sum total of 15 teachers are members of the BNP, then the BNP are not the problem that Dalbir identifies @ 7. It is something else and it is that that ought to be tackled.
I appreciate the arguments for the ban and heck my initial reaction was very pro ban but on a little thinking, i’m just not sure… Have been debating it with friends elsewhere since yesterday and am intrigued to know whether those who feel a ban would be a good move …do you feel it should then extend to doctors? (apologies if its already been discussed i admit i haven’t read every post:))
chairwoman @ 54,
Good question, it confused me too. But, probably not as much as you
Damon – and I see Harker is (rightly) getting beaten up in the comments.
A few years ago he wrote a piece on the theme:
“Of course all white people are racist.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/03/raceintheuk.comment
So the ban would have to go just a little further!
Oops sorry … have the grandchildren around and they are making a racket … Katy Newton of course
We are prohibited by law from stealing, driving without a licence etcetera and so forth. I don’t think that anyone would refer to those prohibitions as a ban; despite the fact that they are synonyms.
The only real difference is whether it is controversial, or recent, or not. People still say using a mobile while driving is banned, and used to say that about driving without a seatbelt.
So I don’t think you can honestly argue for something to be prohibited : argue for it to be banned now, and then maybe in 20 years time that ban will turn into a prohibition.
Shrewd used to mean wicked/evil … now we take it as cunning.
Let’s start with the obvious point that paedophilia is a serious crime against children, whereas supporting the BNP is a totally legitimate activity. What I meant earlier is that given the fact that *all* teachers who support the BNP hide that fact, it seems silly that we compromise our democracy by explicitly banning people who support a legitimate political party.
What prevents a Catholic school from banning teachers who support a Left-leaning party because they might be biased against religion?
Nobody should be persecuted for exercising democracy. If the BNP is so bad that you can’t have teachers or judges or policemen supporting that party, it is farce that we give them the opportunity to become government. So either make the BNP illegal, or allow anyone who supports them to exercise their profession.
This should not be about punishing people for supporting the BNP or any political party we do not like or agree, but about being fair in evaluating the merit of professionals. This is after all what we expect them to do with our children.
Some associated news: The BNP’s constitution has been declared illegal by a court and they have therefore been banned from recruiting new members.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/court-bans-bnp-from-recruiting-new-members-1920509.html
However, apparently Nick Griffin is still processing new applications.
*************************************
One major point: There is a difference between just “supporting” the BNP and actually being a member of the party. The latter is what this entire discussion refers to; it’s not just about people “agreeing with some/all of the BNP’s policies” or even voting for them, but being fully paid-up formal members of the party.
Don made some excellent remarks in relation to the above in his post #34.
Gurpreet,
Personally, yes, I believe the ban should extend to doctors who are BNP members, especially in the cases of exposure to vulnerable patients in potentially life-threatening situations, such as the riskier forms of invasive surgery along with Accident & Emergency. The same ban should apply to associated medical personnel such as nurses etc.
And again, as with teachers, I believe the identical prohibition should also apply to doctors (and other medical staff) who are members of extremist Islamist organisations such as Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK & HuT or supporters of Al-Qaeda.
An important distinction needs to be made here: This is not about people just “supporting” the BNP or even “just” voting for them. This discussion refers to people actually being fully paid-up members of the party.
Don made some very good points in relation to this in the first two paragraphs of his post #34.
“Shrewd used to mean wicked/evil … now we take it as cunning.”
And sinister used to mean left-handed and now we take it as wicked/evil.
I call it evolution.
My point precisely chairwoman, thank you; word meaning evolves.
Why is this an important distinction to your argument?
Most of these organisations are actually illegal…
Because the report is about actual membership, not just “support”. Again, Don explained the rationale very well in #34.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the ideology and the associated actions & aims which is the issue, not the organisations’ legality.
In any case, I have no problem with the BNP being made illegal, for the same reasons that I have no problem with the fact that Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK has already been made illegal. They’re two sides of the same coin, and I believe exactly the same standards & principles for their legality or prohibition should apply to both of them.
Perhaps another way of looking at this. What is a racist incident?
MacPherson (idiotically) said that it was any incident that any person thought was racist, regardless of the basis for that thought.
Presumably all teachers are subject to some sort of code of conduct, provided they stick to that I believe that political affiliations are a red-herring.
Bin the MacPherson definitions – take the codes of conduct at face value and only prosecute teachers when the hold a Klan meeting in a classroom i.e when a prosecution is in the public interest rather than frivolous.
I struggle to see any argument why teachers should be seen as different to other professions.
Ravi,
What prevents a Catholic school from banning teachers who support a Left-leaning party because they might be biased against religion?
Nothing. Religious schools may insist that teachers be of their religion. If they believe that the teacher is anti-religion, or just not an adherent to their version, they can refuse employment.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_6#pt2-ch5-pb3-l1g60
(Section 60 (6))
They don’t all do so, I have a non-jewish friend who has happily taught art for years at a Jewish school, but the option is there to refuse to employ teachers who are of a different faith or none.
So we have a situation where, in some schools, a teacher can be barred for employment for not believing in transubstansiation or not accepting the 39 Articles, but not if they have actively joined an organisation which believes that some of the children they will be teaching are inherently inferior and a cancer on society.
If the BNP is so bad that you can’t have teachers or judges or policemen supporting that party, it is farce that we give them the opportunity to become government.
Quite. It is a farce, or would be if there were the remotest chance of their forming a government.
I can’t agree with your use of the word ‘persecuted’. It is not persecution to say that there are some occupations which exercise so much influence on another’s life outcomes that it is legitimate to ask that people entering that occupation are committed to treating everyone equally and fairly.
If they have gone to the trouble of joining an organisation which is committed to the precise opposite then they should re-evaluate their career choices.
I’m not sure that I’d go as far as Jai and include the medical profession, although I can see his point. But the police, the prison service, the immigration service, certain areas of social services and housing, judges and teachers – all these can have a profound effect on people who are the very people a BNP member has actively decided are undesirables and second class, not even legitimate citizens regardless of their legal status, based solely on their race.
To make an analogy, it is legal in this country to be of the opinion that women who are raped were probably slags who were asking for it. I guess there are legal organisation one could join which advocate that. I would expect membership of such an organisation to preclude employment in a police sexual violence section interviewing rape victims. I’d hope so, at least. Is that persecution?
It is legal to be of the opinion that people over the age of 80 are a burden on society and should be euthanised. Again, there are probably legal organisations one could join. But I think it would be reasonable for a care home to consider membership of such an organisation to be a barrier to employment as a charge nurse in their company.
Don and Tim Footman have made some excellent points on this. I also take Jai’s point at #64, though I don’t think that payment necessarily translates into action – and I fail to see how a ban is going to make any positive difference. What if a teacher/doctor joins the BNP in the middle/towards the end of their career? How exactly are they going to be weeded out?
The problem is that at the moment, we have no proof that racist teachers (or doctors or whatever) have brought their views to bear on their job in any situation.
One thing which must be considered is WHY these people might have BNP membership. Quite a few might be members because they have something against a particular group (i.e. blacks, or Jews, or Muslims) rather than all non-whites – you know the kind of common, racist cognitive dissonance I mean. In which case, how is anyone supposed to know what sort of behaviour to ‘look for’? Surely this point is more relevant than ever now that ethnic minorities look set to be joining the BNP.
Instead of agreeing with Labour over this attention-seeking measure, people should be taking them and the other parties – AND THE MEDIA – to task for legitimising the BNP. People will always to some extent be racist – but it should never be the least bit ‘OK’ to be a racist, and this message is becoming rapidly compromised, especially with what I just mentioned about ethnic minority BNPers (and non-white right-wingers generally…).
This is in effect what the review was supposed to find out. The conclusion was six recommendations and a list of current safeguards:
I fail to see how these measures should be acceptable in teaching but measures per se are found unacceptable in those working as prison or police officers where there is an outright ban.
I also don’t think these measures are particularly strident and from what I have seen so far there is no distinction made between teachers and head teachers.
Dr Imran Waheed, spokesman for Hizb-ut-Tahir in the UK, was working for the NHS in Birmingham as a psychiatrist in the same trust as me, and on a couple of occasions I worked closely with him on a certain out-of-hours team, he being the on-call doctor. Dr Waheed, was affable, personable, his clinical judgment
was faultless, and although there was more than ample opportunity for him to be judgmental in the situation in which we worked, he was perfectly professional and dispassionate in his behaviour. On the other hand, I used to work with a member of the SWP (as a CPN). You could always tell when he’d been to see people because they were much angrier and harder to relate to than usual. His constant smouldering anger at “the system” and hectoring attitude, so characteristic of a lefty, transmitted themselves to them. Doctors and nurses work with vulnerable people. Their capacity for exerting a deleterious influence do not depend on their politics, but their professionalism.
I only found out some time later that Dr Waheed was a prominent figure in H-u-T. I wouldn’t have known otherwise. On the other hand, the SWP member exuded his social attitudes.
As Trofims’ anecdote, whilst disregarding the value judgements it contains, clearly illustrates it isn’t the politics of any given individual that will of necessity determine their conduct but their professionalism.
Provided there is in place a mechanism for ensuring that all practitioners, regardless of the given profession, act with regard for the ethics of their profession I fear the issue is more of how they are perceived by users of the service.
Reading this thread it becomes clear that people are worried not so much about existing problems but rather what they think may become problems.
Can you trust an avowed racist to bring out the best in a mixed race/black child?
Can you trust an avowed Islamophobe to treat Mrs Yusuf Islam with the same degree of professionalism it would treat Mrs Joe Bloggs?
Will a committed BNPer act dispassionately when considering the necessary and appropriate social work intervention for Ms Ahmoud Abdul?
Etcetera and so forth.
Not banning either prospective or current teachers from engaging in their profession does not alter the current status quo. All it does do is make it possible for current and prospective teachers to be open about their political affiliations. If that does anything, it is that it will make it easier to determine whether a given professional is actually behaving professionally.
Unless of course the outcry against this decision will result in current and prospective teachers deciding not to be open about their political affiliation despite now being able to do so with impunity; in which case we are no worse, but certainly no better of then before.
Kind of taking up MiriamBinders point.
It occurred to me that, of the people I meet in ‘real life’, and obviously excluding the people I have encountered directly through politics, there are very few ‘joiners’, people that actually care enough to affilliate to any given political party. I have heard acounts from some of these unaffiliated folk that their great uncle twice removed (or some such) had been a councillor somewhere. It is all very vague.
It is not that these people do not have strong political opinions – sometimes very strong – it is that there appears to be an almost universal view that people that join political parties directly are more than a little weird. No matter how ludicrous their own views might be.
I don’t think there is a way of dealing with any prejudice except through monitoring outcomes and/or open dialogue.
To take Trofim’s example at face value, does it really matter whether Dr Waheed had formalised his ideas to the extent of joining a political party or whether he held them on a personal basis? As long as it didn’t interfere with his professional judgements, I don’t see that it does, at least not in an employment context.
I’m not sure that I’d go as far as Jai and include the medical profession, although I can see his point. But the police, the prison service, the immigration service, certain areas of social services and housing, judges and teachers – all these can have a profound effect on people who are the very people a BNP member has actively decided are undesirables and second class, not even legitimate citizens regardless of their legal status, based solely on their race.
This is what I think but Don has said it splendidly. I am genuinely surprised that there are people on this page who think there’s nothing wrong with someone who has gone so far as to pay to become a recorded member of an avowedly racist political party being a teacher or a police officer. These jobs require a commitment to equal treatment and joining the BNP is a clear statement that you are committed to precisely the opposite, for god’s sake.
Yes, there may be many people who don’t join the BNP even though they sympathise with their views, and yes, these people may get jobs in the police force or in schools because their views are not known. I know lots of people who are in jobs that they are not suited to and would not have got if they had been honest about themselves in interview and, for that matter, would probably lose their jobs if they told their employer the truth now. Not everyone is right for every job. I wouldn’t get a job as an accountant because I’m shit at maths, I wouldn’t get a job with PETA because I’m not a vegetarian and I wouldn’t expect to get a job as a teacher in a multicultural society if I was a member of a racist organisation that campaigned for the ending of that society. I really do not understand what the problem is here.
I wonder about the process here. Are you asked for your political affiliations at the interview? I wouldn’t have thought so. If in the staffroom you drop the fact that you think Nick Griffin or Anjem Choudary has a point, does that mean that a responsible colleague should report you to the headteacher? As long as you teach properly, I really don’t see how your political affiliations are anyone’s business.
I’d say applicants for high security jobs like police or security in airports might need some proactive investigation on political affiliations. I find the idea that teachers or doctors should have their political affiliations investigated repulsive and McCarthyite.
You either go the whole hog or you don’t. Personally I have always felt uncomfortable with the notion that political views sincerely held can be a barrier to certain employment prospects.
There are or should be mechanisms in place that ensure that any practitioner, regardless of type of employment or profession, is wholly professional in their conduct. That not all professionals and practitioners are is an immensely regretable fact; however it isn’t always due to the political views held as more often then not it is due to a lack of objective professionalism or a sheer lack of resources.
Address the need for supervisory mechanisms. Thereby ensuring that any unprofessional conduct, regardless of what caused said conduct, can be addressed speedily; further facilitating a smooth and speedy resolution to any problems caused by unprofessional conduct.
Another thought just struck me. We are acting as if teaching occurs in a vacuum with teacher and pupil/s isolated and sealed away from the rest of society. A pupil is rarely, if ever, dependent on only one specific teacher – unless they are home-schooled and even then there is a degree, or should be a degree of supervision. Further children and youngsters are far more likely to pick up ideas of superiority/exclusivity/discrimination, and the converse, from home and the wider society they engage with.
I have now read most of the Morris report (I’ve updated the post to include the link) and have to say that if it had been available before I submitted this post and my comment at 74, then I probably would have written them differently. The report sets out in detail all the measures in place and I can see how they can be seen to be adequate. Having worked in a school I know procedures are not always carried out in the way they should be, and indeed this is noted in the report. I’m still unconvinced that head teachers shouldn’t at the very least report membership of parties such as the BNP, but am finding myself swayed to the views set out above that find a ban unnecessary.
Miriam – I seriously looked into homeschooling a while ago and was shocked at the lack of monitoring in place for children of school age. It isn’t until school age that there is any external monitoring of children, which is a cirucmstance that shocked me when my children were of that age (obviously not because my parenting needed monitoring on the whole, but I could see how isolated an experience it was and how anything could happen).
cjcjc – your comment about my ‘student stridency’ elicited a wry wrinkled smile from me yesterday. Thank you for your condemnation – it means a lot to me
damon – apologies for my accusation at 40. I actually find your comment about Julie Bindel to be very relevant and I have been thinking about it.
Thank you earwicga – interesting reading indeed.
That’s OK earwicga. I find internet discussion has its limitations and peocle can come across in ways that they didn’t mean.
Faisal – I object to all racists, whatever guise they come in.
earwicga @ 86,
Might be worth looking here:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/5530
particularly in the ‘comments’.
Faisal,
Why don’t you invite earwicga to join your discussion here:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/5530
?
Perhaps earwicga should read through the whole of that thread if she hasn’t already….
Thank you douglas clark – most interesting thread.
NB. Your comments at 87 and 88 were in moderation and I approved them both before realising they were essentially the same as each other.
earwicga,
Thanks.
My comments don’t usually get moderated, which is why I was surprised. Usually they go straight through and then get ripped to shreds
Have just read that link you provided Douglas Clark … It seems clear that Faisal does not read the threads here. Not all here have supported a ban and quite a number have argued against the ban from when the issue was first raised, including Rumbold …
Faisal,
Clerical fascism / racism, how’s a boy to choose?
Probably best not too….
Universal human rights are supposed to be, err, y’know universal and indivisible. And stop trying to lead folk up a primrose path so you can go:
“Ah Ha! And what about the human rights of the women of Afghanistan? Eh! Eh!” For that would be a hugely cheap debating tactic.
Not that you would, of course….
Hahahaha Douglas (#91).
Rumbold,
You are too cruel.
Boo Hoo.
earwicga is moderating comments?
Approving?
Is this a joke I’m not in on?
Don. I’m not sure what you are asking, but I can clarify re douglas clark’s comments. They were in the moderation queue rather than posting directly to the thread. I don’t know why they were there and it wasn’t deliberate and certainly not a reflection on douglas clark. Sometimes these things just happen.
MiriamBinder,
Au contraire.
I think oor Sid:
or Faisal as he is now known – a leap almost as astounding as that from Cassius Clay to Muhammed Ali some might say:
hangs around here quite a wee bit.
It is known as scouting out the enemy. To be fair, I do read The Spittoon and it’s evil sister Harry’s Place. And I expect I do it for exactly the same reasons that Faisal, almost certainly, reads this site regularly. It is to see whether the opposition have come up with anything new before they unleash their dogs of war.
I think Faisal is a bit busier than I am, for frankly, if you look over the abyss, all you see is a wasteland.
———————————
This is probably an exaggeration, or whatever the exact opposite of an exaggeration is, exactly, but it seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that a debate within a generally AI supportive bunch is a bit different from an arguement between a generally AI supprortive bunch and folk that want to destroy it? That is a huge difference.
And I apologise, I am off on a rant now and your post is just the springboard.
What some folk want to do is destroy Amnesty International.
Some of them want to do it because it doesn’t reflect their world view. You could see quite a lot of neo-cons and ‘decents’ in that category. You could also see a lot of fundamentalist nut jobs in that category too. That would include Al Quaida and it’s lesser spawn of evil like the mujahideen. Or several, hopefully dormant – though I’m not so sure – Christian nutters.
Or you could see it as a thorn in the side of good governance, the day to day business of keeping the completely fucked up show on the road. Why should wimpy liberals care about the death toll on the road to Baghdad? Fucking wimps. Or the death toll thereafter?
We gave them democracy! We are the ‘decents’!
They do not have any conscience whatsoever. It only matters to them that they won. The cost is discounted, like long dead fish in a cheap supermarket. Somewhere else young and presumeably impressionable fish are swimming.
———————————–
They remind me of a pitcher plant.
You know what that is? It is a plant with downward facing barbs, so that once an insect, or you, are in, you cannot climb out. And at the bottom there is acid that eats your very soul. That is who ‘decents’ are.
Boring to repeat it, yet again, but there is a Nietzsche aphorism for this too: “If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
That is the problem with the ‘decents’, they aren’t very decent.
earwicga,
I agree, the stuff that has been happening around here has been weird for the last wee while, and it is before you had anything to do with this site.
So, I have another comment floating around in moderation or something, that I did put some effort into, just because. Because I like the community that has settled around this place. The settled community are pretty nice people, least I think they are.
Because I thought my post might amuse you and all the rest of the people…
_________________________
You have no idea how many folk have commeneted here.
There is a huge trail of them earwicga, like the tail of a comet across the sky, that have added and contributed and, sometimes, made their point and left.
Sometimes they stayed around for the jokes and the laughs. Sometimes burned and died.
Sometimes they were quite stubborn, like damon. Sometimes they were quite right to say what they did, like damon.
If this is to be a useful place, we have to see each others point of view, absorb it and move on.
Otherwise we are kidding ourselves about being different from our ancestors.
Well earwicga or Rumbold,
Is there a post of mine held up in moderation, and, if so, why?
douglas – there was and it is above now at 99. I have no idea why some of your comments post immediately and some are held up. Perhaps Rumbold does?
earwicga @ 101,
No, Rumbold doesn’t. If he did, he would certainly set me free.
Thank you for releasing my post.
@ Douglas Clark – if it is indeed au contraire and having read some more of his blog, I have no reason to doubt it … what a waste of time.
MiriamBinder @ 103,
Well explain yourself, I have lost the plot completely, frankly.
I have no idea where I stand. I feel like a denied person. So, there you go. How does that feel?
Like a complete unknown? Like a rolling stone?
Or summat?
Douglas Clark, Faisal, or whatever his name is, is a waste of time; anyone who reckons it is more important to score points rather then further debate is a waste of time.
You on the other hand are one of the straight guys … even when I may not always agree with you – which may possibly happen at some time in the future.
MiriamBinder,
Of course.
I have some pretty quirky ideas, and most of them are probably wrong….
Faisal was never the sneaky sort of bastard he has become. He’d try to argue you into the ground right enough, but I don’t think he’d ever have argued behind your back, as he has done with earwicga. That is just cheapskate.
——————————–
It would be ridiculous to assume we’ll agree about everything. Faisal, or Sid, used to be someone I genuinely respected. I think it was mutual. I don’t know quite where that went wrong.
Pissing off from here, inventing his own web site, and finding himself, almost exclusively, a whore to the “decents” at Harry’s Place for web traffic has turned the boy’s brain.
Least, that’s what I think. I’d like the original Sid back, because he could debate rather than be a complete utter fool.
And then there was bananabrain…
Another person that should have stayed and argued his case, and someone else I was very fond of. Lost to the ‘decent’ case. And to the ‘The Spittoon’.
They only argue here, when they do, because they know their decision was wrong. They have become chums with Brownie, and David T, neither of whom could distinguish a fart from a genuine political movement. Though, to be quite clear, I am in awe of David T’s understanding of London centric groupiscules. I am not beholden to his idea that they actually matter.
But there you go.
I expect, for the likes of Faisal and the rest of them, the media – London – is the message.
What a shower of introverted tits.
Fortunately, it isn’t….quite like that.
Again, my reply has not appeared. What the fuck?
Och, I don’t know.
But this looks like censorship to me. Rumbold?
earwicga appears to have rights beyond your’s Rumbold. She appears to be dancing over any right to reply.
I am not happy about that….
Why the fuck did Sunny disappear and allow this?
It took me about 5 times trying to reply … I put in about 4-5 posts, all of which didn’t appear and a couple of whom I was informed were ‘SPAM’ before I gave up … I looked next thinking to give it one more try and realised that my post # 107 had suddenly materialised while I was otherwise engaged …
Rumbold, earwicga, whoever that frees stuff from the junk pile.
Thanks.
But I am going to say this anyway.
OK, maybe I am being OTT, but earwicga has chosen a censorious persona. Which, fortunately, she hasn’t actually matched. I had thought I was being censored, when I wasn’t, really. So, earwicga, apologies for that. As you agree with me, or vice versa, you are one of the good guys. Well, see below…
——————————–
The point about this site, correct me if I am wrong, is that it has never surrendered to small mindedness?
I have admired lots of folk that write here, both above and below the line, and I am not about to name names, but they know who they are.(Anyone who has hung around here for a while will know why naming names is a very bad idea. Yet another case of me fucking up.)
I think it was Rumbold that made the point that writing a post is, hereabouts, a way of opening up discussion. It is interesting, is it not, that whilst we obviously go off on a tangent in the threads, we almost always do come back to the subject?
And there are far wiser brains than mine that comment. It has always been a learning process for me and I’d like to think it ought to be for everyone else too. There are an awful lot of very bright people that write here, and it is not always obvious who is right and who is wrong. Sometimes even I am right.
I think Rumbold is my political opponent, but I also see him as my philosophical chum. I’d never have discovered that if we’d just have shouted and screamed at each other. Or not have had at least an area such as this to work out our differences and our commonality. There is not a smidgeon of difference between Rumbold and I on the practicalities, at least I haven’t seen them. His politics, on the other hand are completely ridiculous
And, sometimes, that is what it is about.
I somewhat detest, no, I completely detest, the folk that come on here and argue otherwise, for they are divisive whereas this place has never been. The point about this place, and I’d think Sunny would agree, is that it should be about intelligent and fair debate. I want to hear what earwigca and damon have to say. I want to see whether my ideas stand up to Rumbold’s, or yours, or not.
(If they don’t, then I’ll have learned a lesson!)
So there!
Douglas, did you get any sleep?
(Not judging by your timestamps…)
cjcjc @ 112,
Yup. At least I think I did
I shall desist from overcommentating on here for a while. Unless something else riles me.
For I would not wish to be mistaken for a troll. Perish the thought!
As a vampire, I’m off to bed.
And I am losing track of the numbering
MiriamBinder @ 110,
It is quite frustrating, isn’t it?
Nearly as frustrating as cjcjc!
douglas clark – as I explained at 101, I don’t know why some of your comments are held up. I am bemused at your accusations of censorship. I have deleted two comments from ‘Bill Corr’ which were racist beyond my toleration and a reply to Bill Corr was also deleted. I have also deleted several comments by somebody that likes to comment using your name. When I see comments in moderation I approve them but I am glad to say I am not psychic and therefore do not know to log in at the exact second a comment needs approving.
earwicga, I think there may be an issue with responding. I’ve had it happen once before, in my early days posting here. Last night I tried to respond a few times before giving up (see my post # 110) Also this morning, I tried to respond to a couple of issues. Twice posts didn’t appear at all … one showed up later, materialising as I was otherwise engaged and the second, I have yet to see
Having read Douglas Clarks’ latest responses, I think he realises now that it isn’t anything as sinister as censorship. It is however rather frustrating as I am sure you realise …
I do realise that. You still have two comments in moderation on other posts. I can only moderate comments on my own posts.
earwicga @ 116,
It is a difficult role that you have to play. I am – obviously grateful – that you can discern and delete stuff that some moron posts in my name. Believe me, that alone makes you an ally.
I have no idea, unless it is linked to the preceeding, why I am sometimes moderated and sometimes not.
Thanks for ‘approving’ my comments. Thank goodness you aren’t applying a quality standard
Peace.
douglas clark
@117 MiriamBinder — I, for one, would be pleased to read your posts that have been held up elsewhere – even if they are slightly off-topic. Perhaps you would consider this and also indicating where they were actually meant to be…
douglas,
i’m still here. although my comments *all* seem to have been diverted straight to moderation in the last couple of months, so actually, i’ve kind of given up on posting here. it seems, unfortunately, that the tone here has got increasingly self-righteous, doctrinaire and incivil, set by sunny and followed pretty clearly by many of the regular commenters, including yourself. the opinions and style of earwicga, as the most recent recruit, is the clearest indication i have that my suspicions are correct. i note, however, that jai, rumbold and leon have not followed sunny’s lead and for this i am grateful.
i do not enjoy hectoring, “when did you quit beating your wife” debates and frankly the groupthink mentality about whatever the hell “decents” are supposed to be bores me stupid. if you’re not a sort of career leftie – as i am not – the manoeuvrings and point-scoring between the various factions you people seem to be members of are mind-bendingly dull, insular, parochial and fail to address the actual issues or, crucially to have any prospect of improving society.
i chose to join the spittoon not because i slavishly agree with everything faisal says, nor the way he says it, but because i think his heart’s in the right place and his objectives are ones i support in most cases, which i cannot say in practice of doctrinaire leftists of any stripe. it is only the sort of people that post here that seem to think we all have to sign up to some sort of sinister computer to co-ordinate our brains before speaking out. by the same token, i find the prejudice here about a number of issues simply staggering (the middle east being a case in point) and i have come to the conclusion that for much of it, i am simply wasting my time.
all this stuff about “joining the dark side” is, basically, a load of arsewash. some of the people here are very keen on distinguishing some kind of specious “clear blue water” between a sort of vision of utopia run by shami chakrabarti in her infinite wisdom where nobody actually produces anything and a sort of concentration camp run by melanie phillips where we are all forced to invade people three times a week and steal their oil.
frankly, it is quite ridiculous. if this is the brains trust of the labour movement then that is the best confirmation i’ve ever had that we need a change of government. i remember how i felt about wanting to see the back of the tories in 1997 and, 13 years later, i think we would all be glad to see the labour party sling their hook and bugger off somewhere else where their inability to deliver isn’t a problem until they learn better.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Don (#72),
What bothers me is the ease in which our democratic values and principles are quickly abandoned when it comes to extremists, rather than using them to evaluate the strength of our principles. The reasoning goes that because *they* do not adhere to our principles/ethos, that *we* can make exceptions (for the most extreme cases, see US under Bush). And the principle here is equal opportunity: that individuals should not be banned from their professions simply because they are affiliated to a political party. Your analogies do not go as far as banning people from whole professions because they are members of a political party. I guess most people would not have problems of using the term “political persecution” if it was any party other than the BNP. If conservatives now supported corporal punishment in schools, would it be fair for schools to reject members of the conservative party, because the school has a strict policy against this sort of initiative? Or do we assume that people adhere to rules even if they disagree with them?
The problem is where do we draw the line. If you think a BNP member is so bad that he/she is incapable of treating a non-white child with fairness (and just as a cancer), then why do we not ban them from being doctors as Jai suggested? If they are unable to follow the school ethos, why would we assume that they would not violate their Hippocratic Oath? After all we can’t take chances with these people, can we?
This sort of farce, where the BNP is allowed to become government and change this whole ethos of equality and diversity, while we ban their members from exercising several professions is the sort of thing that tends to bite.
To me, a teacher that is a member of the BNP should raise a red flag, the same as a teacher who is perceived to be flirting with students. Red flags means you investigate, you evaluate performance, and then you sack people based on their (lack) of merit. I found the reasoning behind the report and Ed Balls to be very sound, and not cause for alarm.
(I would be a hypocrite if I said that I would not feel extremely uncomfortable if my son had a BNP teacher. But then again, I am against the death penalty and inhuman treatment of criminals, but if any SOB harmed my family I would not hesitate to do serious harm. I see a difference between my personal feelings and human instincts, and the kind of society I want to live in.)
Is there not a conflict of interest clause with teachers here? ie where you have to state if activities/orgn’s/memberships outside your work would put you in conflict. The onus (whether at the time of recruitment or thereafter) of disclosing that conflict being on the employee. In cases of non disclosure the employee is seen to have broken the contract.
At the time of disclosure it is flagged, maybe even monitored & limited as to extent of their membership eg not ‘condoning’ their public support.
Taking teachers, who can be role models to children, who can hero worship & even emulate them. If a teacher (who is abiding by good practice at work) in their personal time goes on a BNP march with racist placards, was photographed, was quoted or spoke, wrote a named articles for the BNP site etc – which are all accessible to children whether televised, in the press, on facebook – what would be the impact of seeing someone you are meant to respect, are meant to listen to as your educator on a child? Not to mention how this would put the school into disrepute by association?
Some supporters cover their faces when publicly supporting BNP/far right groups. Why? Because their actions are fundamentally at odds with other areas of their life and wider democratic society.
Never assume this. People who have extremely entrenched prejudicial attitudes (on any given subject) frequently find ways to circumvent the rules, especially those who are sufficiently intelligent and devious to be able to do this in manner which enables them to successfully get away with it.
Exactly. In fact, I’d expand the high-risk areas I previously mentioned (invasive surgery and A&E) to include childbirth/obstetrics and anything involving particularly vulnerable patients such as babies, small children or the elderly (neonatal medicine, paediatrics and geriatric medicine, to use the formal terms).
We shouldn’t assume this even for a second, especially as the medical professionals concerned would have the medical know-how to be able to potentially successfully cover their tracks and get away with it.
No, especially because of the considerable risk to the vulnerable groups mentioned above.
No.
No.
Highly unlikely.
Terminate their employment with immediate effect.
Make it legally compulsory for them to declare membership of the BNP immediately upon joining the party (ditto for other extremist organisations such as HuT etc).
As a formal legal disclaimer I am going to state outright that the following remarks are general statements and not concerning Dr Waheed specifically. (Incidentally, I think it would be a good idea for commenters to refrain from specifically naming individuals in these types of discussions on PP in future, otherwise it renders other commenters proposing counter-arguments [and possibly the owners of this website) potentially liable to legal action for libel, defamation etc).
However, to make a general point about doctors: They’re human beings like everyone else, frequently subject to the same flaws and prejudices, regardless of the polished professional persona they may display (which they have received extensive formal training to project). The same applies to numerous other professions where the individual concerned has a “client-facing†job.
For a recent dramatised depiction of such a deceptively polished mask successfully hiding the reality of the individual’s attitudes and emotions when professionally dealing with “clientsâ€, see George Clooney’s character in the film “Up in the Airâ€. It’s an extremely accurate and perceptive depiction of the way that professionals in such fields can hide their true thoughts and attitudes in these situations, especially when it’s politically & professionally crucial for them to do so.
Don’s comprehensive comment #72 is superb, as is Katy’s comment #78 and Persephone’s comment #122. To reiterate Katy’s points:
Exactly.
With all due respect to those who have taken the opposing stance – which has occurred not only here on PP but also on some other forums, including CiF – I think that people have to be careful that their well-meaning intentions (whilst certainly admirable) aren’t actually suicidally naïve. Even more so when it comes to the risk to vulnerable individuals such as schoolchildren or medical patients.
Anything else is irresponsible; potentially, extremely irresponsible. Rather than basing one’s arguments predominantly on “theory†and well-meaning, academically-detached hypotheses, it’s imperative to consider the way that people actually behave in the real world, especially the reality of the nastier aspects of human nature.
It’s an extremely accurate and perceptive depiction of the way that professionals in such fields can hide their true thoughts and attitudes in these situations, especially when it’s politically & professionally crucial for them to do so.
In other words, people *can* separate the professional from the personal/political.
Of course, if they don’t, then take disciplinary action. But not beforehand.
No, I’m referring to the fact that people can superficially project a benign manner & veneer whilst simultaneously thinking & acting in a way which is the complete opposite. As per my first and third points in #123.
You cannot control thoughts you know.
We can, however, minimise the risk to vulnerable groups such as schoolchildren and medical patients resulting from exposure to individuals potentially acting on the core attitudes reflected by their formal membership of extremist organisations such as the BNP or HuT and associated with the core policies & goals of these organisations.
I think an important question we need to ask is just how many people of this nature are already employed in various sensitive positions? Even if they are adept at hiding their beliefs in an environment that officially disapproves?
I’ve often wondered how common supremacist thinking (from whichever quarter) is?
Is it a aberration of the norm or something a bit more common?
It only takes a relatively small number of people holding such views, to gain footings of power in an organisation to have a pervasive influence in a top down fashion.
Is Ed Balls taking the easy route and simply recognising an ugly reality (as he sees it) and giving up on a fight that he thinks is unwinnable?
And we could minimise the risk of road accidents by cutting the speed limit to 10mph.
“Oh, but think of the children” is the very worst, emotional argument for anything.
Especially as teacher performance is supposed to be monitored by school management, erm, isn’t it?
(It is, isn’t it?)
And what are you suggesting on the medical front?
The risk of a little covert euthanasia?
There needs to be a proven risk, a much greater one in my view, before we ban people from engaging in legal activity.
But this isn’t about the risk. It’s about moral superiority.
cjcjc
And when member(s) of the school management belong to organisations such as the BNP – what then?
There is no requirement to report membership.
And when the world is taken over by shape-shifting lizards – what then?
I can’t believe the level of hysteria on this topic.
On the basis of, erm, zero evidence of a problem…
So you don’t have an answer cjcjc. Ok.
My answer is this – their *thoughts* won’t be torn up with their membership cards.
“The risk of a little covert euthanasia? There needs to be a proven risk, a much greater one in my view, before we ban people from engaging in legal activity.â€
That risk may be a little too great if it was even one of your closest relatives at risk.
“But this isn’t about the risk. It’s about moral superiority”
Risk can be assessed. Moral superiority cannot. Labelling it from something concrete to something nebulous is a known tactic
At risk from what?
There may or may not be a risk, but the possession of a membership card is not going to affect it one whit.
“On the basis of, erm, zero evidence of a problem “
Thats because:
“There is no requirement to report membershipâ€
= its not measured therefore does not mean it does not exist
Not evidence of an abundance of BNP membership, evidence of these great risks on account of which you propose to ban an otherwise kegal activity.
And, to repeat, how will the tearing up of a membership card reduce the supposed risk?
Then you would support BNP members being banned from serving in restaurants because non-white families might dine there, and you can’t take chances with those people. We should also ban them from working in banks and any sort of public or private agency because they would have access to personal data belonging to non-whites (such as bank accounts, home addresses and mobiles), and we can’t risk that.
I can go on.
Where do we draw the line to avoid being suicidally naïve, Jai?
^^ I have not said to ban it. Don’t know where you get that from…
My comment @ 122 is suggesting tackling it through management by exception & not limited to card carrying membership but activity that raises a conflict, especially public. Similar to other professions which have a wider social/public responsibility which is how I think teachers should be viewed under too.
And putting the onus on the individual to disclose.
That’s quite an interesting outburst. However, let’s expand on some of the themes you’ve mentioned:
A certain Dutch political party has just disbanded itself. Its core policies revolved around the sexual behaviour of adults towards children, and its core goals included the lowering of the age of consent to just 12 years old along with the legalisation of child pornography in Holland.
The party was completely legal in Holland; similarly, membership of this party was also perfectly legal. Therefore, do you believe that members of the party concerned should be employed in occupations involving exposure to children, particularly in cases where the members concerned have not (so far) been subject to formal investigations & disciplinary actions for sexual misconduct towards children in their respective occupations ?
Ravi,
Bear in mind that — as I’ve stated earlier on this thread in comment #70 — I would have absolutely no problem with the BNP itself being completely banned, in the same way that Al-Muhajiroun/Islam4UK has already been banned.
Would you like Nick Griffin to return to teaching?
“ Before becoming BNP leader, Griffin’s highest-paying job was teaching foreign students English in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.â€
Just because he is a card carrying member it does not pose any risk, it’s not as if he or other BNPers would get involved in race crime…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894529.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/15/hate-crime-bnp-local-council-elections
has my comment been caught in the spam filter?
Jai:
Let’s examine the evidence we have at present. Do you have any examples of a BNP or Hizb doctor/teacher actually discriminating against someone?
Glad to see everybody else has been having comments trouble. I thought I had been singled out for ruthless moderation.
How did Griffin treat his foreign students?
Did he deliberately teach them grammatical errors or the wrong spelling?
Did he deliberately teach them grammatical errors or the wrong spelling?
I have to admit I did that. There is a cohort of Dutch former students from the 70′s who may still believe that ‘Ruffian most odious’ and ‘Scalliwag’ are hardcore English expressions of bring it on.
They have probably sussed by now, though.
Why should we have to wait before children are affected?
Would I feel comfortable with Nick Griffin teaching my kids? No. And I would not like a ‘pilot’ of it either to test the hypothesis
Nick may have curtailed his teaching career to ‘educate’ other BNP members who are teachers:
“A prominent BNP member and teacher used a school computer to criticise immigrants and Muslims, it is claimed.Adam Walker (also bodyguard to Nick) could be banned from the profession for alleged racial and religious intolerance if the charges are proved. He is believed to be the first teacher to be hauled before England’s General Teaching Council to face the charge. …Although he admits using the school computers, Mr Walker denies the GTC charges and told the Times Educational Supplement that the case was driven by “politically motivated spite”. …”No other teacher at the school has had their internet use monitored in the way mine was,” he said. “My real crime is political dissidence.” …Pat Harrington, Solidarity’s general secretary, admitted that Mr Walker had criticised asylum seekers, immigrants, Muslims and the promotion of homosexuality on a website using a school computer. But he denied it was racist.
Mr Walker’s brother, Mark, 37, who is also a teacher, is facing action over similar allegations. He was suspended from another school – Sunnydale College – at around the same time. He is still facing internal school disciplinary procedures.
Christina McAnea,Unison: “Schools should be centres of learning and tolerance, not a breeding ground for the poisonous views of the BNPâ€
So that makes 2 out of the 15 teachers (exc Nick) who were on the leaked membership list. Not encouraging.
We are not alone – teaching bodies are worried about BNPer’s demand to serve on the governing bodies of schools serving multi-ethnic communities:
” Teachers union ‘terrified’ of BNP Sep 2000
The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) is terrified by the current attempts by the BNP to infiltrate the governing bodies of schools in multi-ethnic communities, its deputy general secretary, Gerry Bartlett, has said. Mr Bartlett told delegates at this year’s Lib Dem conference that the NASUWT remained implacably opposed to the BNP as well as other extremist parties.
But he revealed a genuine fear that the BNP has been trying to “secure positions on the governing bodies of schools that serve multi-ethnic communities”. The teacher’s union has been campaigning for four years for an amendment to the teachers’ contract to prevent those who are members of the BNP and other far-right organisations from being employed as teachers. The NASUWT believes this would bring the teaching profession in line with the prison service and the police force and ensure children and young people are protected from exposure to the views of far right organisations.
Chris Keates, general secretary,NASUWT: ..”such a change to the conditions of employment for teachers,” she argued, would “prevent the role of the teacher from being used as a cloak of respectability for those who engage in such activities”.
persephone – I remember now reading about Adam and Mark Walker. Thanks for the reminder.
Wow – used a school computer to, erm, go on the Internet.
I’m failing to see the big risk there, I’m afraid.
If that’s the worst that’s happened so far…
Mark Walker was sacked for absenteeism, then appealed and the following was revealed at the hearing:
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2010/03/mark-walker-has-lost-his-case-for.html
Adam Walker
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5701277.ece
I think the next step is in May. Definately one to watch.
So nothing to do with his BNP membership.
150
Reminiscent of the arguments for locking up people with severe personality disorders who have committed no crime: lock em up now, before they do something.
It is a bit like that, yes.
Is that it then?
They pretend nothing is happening and make out like we are the ones in the wrong whilst their insidious morons slide themselves in place?
What a bullshit game. Anyone ethnic who isn’t an out and out asslicker or dimwit knows the type of shite that goes on everyday in organisations all over the country. Just because some of them can’t handle the dissonance attached to having to accept this (or are actually consciously trying to play it down for obvious reasons), doesn’t mean we should waste time debating whether this is going on or not with them.
Dalbir since you have given no examples of “the type of shite that goes on everyday” it is difficult to know where to start.
And if the problem is as ubiquitous as you claim, banning BNP members will hardly scratch the surface.
cjcjc
Personally I’m seriously beginning to believe that many white people have some sort of strange filter that makes them blind to the more subtle forms of racism around them. This isn’t unique to whites though, I see a similar effect within my own people with those imbeciles who strenuously deny or play down caste based discrimination around them despite obvious activity.
When you try and highlight it you get the type of incredulous response you are exhibiting. I have realised one thing – it isn’t really worth talking about racism from whites to most whites.
I’m not going into details about “the type of shite that goes on everyday” because it will only make some supremacist twats day. Those with their eyes open will know.
Banning BNP members will help a LOT because it will send them scuttling back under the rocks where they belong. I don’t think we can get rid of white supremacism that easy because it was such a central plank of British identity for so long, but we can give it a hard time when it tries to make people’s life unfairly difficult.
For the rest of you ‘ethnics’ reading this, I hope you realise that this ‘pinning down’ the arseholes through legal and media channels is only a small part of the fight. At some stage we’ll have to bring drama to the work environment to contains the devils before they run riot. Or better still, have quality parallel organisations of our own (like African-Americans in the US) that enable us to bypass this nonsense or we’ll waste too much time with these jerks. I know this last one is a long term thing, but it is something we need to seriously consider.
@ 157 & 158
It is amazing that members of a far right ideology that is at odds with their professional roles (whereby even their own teaching bodies are concerned), members with a track record of breaking the law/societal boundaries and go against the law so closely as to be accused of race crime to further that ideology are considered no risk.
The cases of the two BNP teachers point towards their not being able to put aside that side of their personality, thinking & actions outside of the classroom.
And they are hardly to be compared with innocent, vulnerable people with mental health issues.
It puts to question the motivation for protecting such a group.
Of course, I deeply disagree that people can be caged in good and evil boxes. That’s over-simplistic and rather self-defeating.
I am always reminded about Gandhi – a man who inspired other great leaders and a whole nation with his principle of non-violence against tyranny and injustice, but he was a deeply flawed man. His letters to the South African government depict a racist man who was not preoccupied with the plight of Black people and the injustices of Apartheid, but instead he felt it was unfair for Indians to be classified in the same category as Blacks, because he felt they were of a higher stock.
Most people have biases and prejudices based on their experiences, but I feel that this doesn’t mean that people will be dishonest or violent to the other camp if they had a chance to do so.
For instance, I do not see why an atheist teacher who has deep prejudice against organised religion and religious people, would actually be dishonest against children who are religious. Similarly, a Catholic teacher who believes those who are not Catholic will not be saved, will not necessarily be dishonest against children who are not religious or Christian. An Asian teacher who thinks this country has too many Eastern European immigrants or is prejudiced against Islam will not necessarily harm students who have Polish or Muslim surnames. In fact, I can’t see why these people couldn’t be in principle good professionals. I do have close relatives who are bigots towards certain types of people and lifestyles, but I never imagine them to be dishonest or violent if they had to deal with them professionally or otherwise.
I also believe that people should NEVER be forced to disclose their political affiliation when applying for a job. You judge people by their merit and competency alone based on their past and present record.
This is not an academic experiment or an exercise of good intentions – if you start making this sort of exceptions, it will come back and bite you. If you are going to sack BNP teachers, it has to be because they are lousy at their jobs. The same evaluation process that you do to every other teacher who is lousy at their jobs. If you can’t find anything else to justify sacking them, then I can’t see why we should not use the P word.
Nobody suggested that there would be no risk to have BNP teachers. But when hiring any teacher or any professional, you do incur in a risk that this professional might be incompetent or worse. And that is why you need to evaluate him or her. This is exactly what is proposed.
We do agree that bad professionals should be sacked. We just do not agree on the method. I disagree that we must preemptively ban people from their chosen profession because of political affiliation. It seems to be an unnecessary measure that is undemocratic, creates a bad precedent and really does not solve the problem.
I’m a bit more worried about *this* evidence of somewhat wider incompetence…
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Nearly-7037-of-Scots-.6098159.jp
Or perhaps they’re all being taught by a gang of anti-Scots racists?
Ravi @ 164
This is what I refer to in my comment @123 – not a ban but managing that element of risk as it is done in other professions.
A school, as part of evaluation, should be privy to any affiliation/activity (I use that in its widest sense & not limited to political party) that would impact on bringing them/the profession into disrepute, conflict of interest and bear parent’s legitimate concerns. There is a precedent for many professions, including the public sector, which require disclosure already – it is hardly setting a new precedent.
I totally agree (in #122, I mention about raising a red flag in this situation).
Dalbir, Persephone,
Very good points by both of you in #161 and #162.
Yes. Devious and disingenuous, isn’t it, but very transparent and all too familiar.
It does indeed.
We’re still waiting for an answer from “Cjcjc†to the question I asked in #142:
This isn’t a random question. It’s directly related to the issue of BNP membership.
To clarify: Do you believe that membership of a political party focusing on paedophile sexual desire towards children and actively working towards the legalisation of certain activities motivated by those attitudes should automatically disqualify such a person from employment in occupations where they would have contact with children ?
“Yes†or “No†?
If your answer to the above is “Yesâ€, why do you believe that membership of a political party focusing on explicit racism towards ethnic minorities and actively working towards the legalisation of certain activities motivated by those attitudes should NOT automatically disqualify such a person from employment in occupations where they would have contact with ethnic minorities ?
On balance, no, not if the party is legal.
That strikes me as a complete red herring.
Whatever the age of consent (which globally varies from 12 to 18), sexual relations with a pupil of any age should be and is a sackable offence.
Again – you cannot control thoughts.
Perhaps you can answer this question – how does the risk diminish one iota with the tearing up of a membership card?
Actually, let me answer that one, Jai. The party in question was actually promoting a serious criminal activity, and the members were self-declared pedophiles. Clearly if Holland has no restrictions on the type of people that can become a political party even if they promote a criminal activity, then my point does not stand.
I happen to think that in the UK, pedophiles would never be allowed to become a political party, because we would not allow political parties to have a platform to promote illegal activity. Note that in the UK, even possessing pedophile material that you downloaded on the internet is a serious offense.
@154 “Wow – used a school computer to, erm, go on the Internet. I’m failing to see the big risk there, I’m afraid. If that’s the worst that’s happened so far..â€
Teachers are under a duty to behave within the school’s remit – this link shows how a USA school has teachers sign up to an internet policy to mitigate risk. The section on teacher access (p.2) is very pertinent in the cases of the two BNP teachers connecting with far right sites on school PC’s & on school premises:
http://www.bfccps.org/main/Technology/Documents/AUP.pdf
Nearer home, OFSTED say a teachers responsibility extends to pupils and far right messaging on the internet:
“In searching for information on the Holocaust, pupils can be led, unwittingly, to Nazi propaganda websites,†Ofsted said. “Teachers have to be alert to the dangers, enabling pupils to deal with problems if they arise.†(Source: The Telegraph Feb 2010)
Fine.
If they have broken pre-defined rules then follow the process.
Who is disagreeing with that?
Cjcjc,
So you have no problem with children having contact with individuals who are formal members of an organisation dedicated to actively campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia, and you dismiss & deride arguments for the protection of children against predatory adults (which includes racists as well as paedophiles) as allegedly being “not about risk, but about moral superiority†and “attempts to control what people thinkâ€.
Interesting.
My previous query did not specifically refer to teaching, although it can obviously be included – as can any number of other occupations.
You can, however, minimise the risk to vulnerable groups posed by the individuals concerned potentially acting on their “thoughts†and the associated attitudes towards their targets.
Already comprehensively answered (repeatedly, in several cases) by other commenters on this thread, particularly Don, Katy Newton, Persephone and Dalbir.
Ravi,
As we all know by now, the BNP, a political party which contains a disproportionately high number of members possessing criminal convictions for various racially-motivated offences, is promoting the legalisation of racial apartheid in Britain, the concept of completely stripping the British legal system of any laws currently protecting non-white British citizens from racially-motivated persecution, discrimination, harassment and malicious propaganda, and has openly declared its goal of eradicating the presence of 90% of Britain’s non-white population yet still refuses to divulge any details on exactly how it intends to achieve this. And the BNP’s current chairman Nick Griffin (a Holocaust-denying individual who is an apologist for the KKK, is affiliated with the US-based white supremacist organisation American Renaissance, and who has himself been successfully prosecuted in Britain for deliberate incitement of racial hatred) has also been caught on video openly stating to BNP members that he is deliberately persecuting & scapegoating Muslims, and simultaneously hiding his antisemitism from the general public, as a way to achieve power.
These involve a range of activities & goals which are currently illegal in Britain, including activities which themselves constitute serious criminal actions. These attitudes are being aggressively promoted and encouraged by the BNP from the top-down, and this is what people are signing up to when they formally become members of the BNP.
Therefore, like the aforementioned Dutch party, the BNP is indeed a political party which is a platform to promote illegal activity.
Earwigca, Rumbold,
My reply to Ravi has been caught in PP’s filter — could one of you please extract it.
Thank you.
Ravi
And when the evaluation is carried out by a headteacher who beongs to the BNP – what then?
Dalbir
I see virtually the same sentiment within feminism all the time. cjcjc seems to lack a basic understanding of power and inequality and how they work.
They lose their job?
I find that looking up what Kenan Malik has said on things like this always worth taking into consideration.
The BNP’s views certainly odious. Yet equally odious is the idea that people should be denied their democratic rights simply because of their political views. We normally accept that individuals are capable of making a distinction between their private beliefs (whether political, cultural or religious) and their public actions. A Muslim may have a literal view of the Qur’an and believe that women should be stoned for committing adultery and that ‘the punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his prophet and perpetrate disorder in the land is to kill and hang them or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off’. But being a Muslim, even a fundamentalist Muslim, is and should be no bar to having a job as a teacher, social worker or policeman. Nor should being an evangelical Christian who believes that homosexuals are evil. And, from the other side of the political spectrum, an activist who believes in open borders should still have the right to work as an immigration officer. What matters in every case is not an individual’s political or religious beliefs but his or her ability to perform a job competently and legally..
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/bergens_bnp_print.html
I guess you wouldn’t go along with that Dalbir?
Fair enough – everyone has their opinions.
Ravi,
I happen to think that in the UK, pedophiles would never be allowed to become a political party, because we would not allow political parties to have a platform to promote illegal activity.
I agree with the first part, but I suspect that may be more about attitudes than for any constitutional reason. I could well be wrong about that.
But in principle there is surely no reason why a party should not campaign to legalise a currently illegal activity. Drug use, for example. Or homosexuality which was until comparatively recently a criminal offence. It’s true that there was no single-issue political party driving the campaign but I’m not sure that the distinction between a legally constituted political party and a legal campaigning group is very germane here.
Should someone who has not been convicted of any criminal offence but who actively promotes the view that sex between teachers and pupils could be ‘experiential and educative’ be allowed to work in a school? Except, obviously, as Chief Inspector of Schools.
cjcjc,
Perhaps you can answer this question – how does the risk diminish one iota with the tearing up of a membership card?
Clearly it doesn’t. However, as I said way back near the start of this thread, membership of the BNP (or NF or Combat 18) is prima facie evidence of a rejection of the inclusive ethos most state schools profess. Just because you can’t stop the covert ones slipping through is no reason the let the overt ones in on the nod.
I don’t think it is quite such a non-issue as you seem to think. We know that teaching unions are very concerned about entryism by the BNP into boards of governors, who have considerable influence on employment of staff. We also know that (partly due to the recession)there are increasing numbers of people applying for teaching courses not because they want to teach but because it is seen by some as a soft, safe job. (And, man, are they in for an awakening.)
I believe that banning BNP members from the teaching profession is no more than declaring that if you want to teach you must be committed to the welfare of the kids. All of them. You must work to achieve the best outcome for the kids. All of them. If you have a stated conviction that the best outcome you can conceive for some of the kids is to be ejected from the country, that’s falling at the first hurdle.
Monitoring and evaluation is all very well, but realistically some schools are huge and have a rapid turn-over of staff. A lot of staff are agency and they are not subject to the same level of overview as permanent staff. Not all schools have reliable procedures in place, although I believe the vast majority try.
And I don’t accept the argument that banning feeds into their narrative of victimisation. How about feeding into their narrative of legitimisation?
damon,
I certainly would not go along with that. It is not a democratic right to have any job you want, however unsuited for it you might be.
A fundamentalist muslim who believed – really believed – that death was the appropriate response to sexual delinquency would not be qualified to work as a teacher or social worker to whom young women might disclose information they want kept from their families because death was a very real possible consequence. To whom and what does he owe his primary loyalty? The person in his or her care, or religious conviction?
There are mechanisms of checks and balances in place to ensure that if a headmaster or any part of the educational system doesn’t do its job (for any reason) that they are replaced. Ofsted, for instance, does regular checks on schools across the country.
I guess you either trust the educational system that it will root out lousy teachers and teachers who break the rules (like the ones persephone presented) or you don’t. If we don’t trust and have to rely on finding out about membership cards, then we probably have more problems to think about than the BNP.
One could objectively test that theory by calling the police and complain that the BNP is promoting illegal and criminal activity.
Ofsted inspects schools every 4 years, and I can tell you that the Ofsted inspection in the last school I worked in did NOT uncover anything about the throughly bigoted and unpleasant head teacher. So no, I would not trust this check.
Earwicga@178
Maybe he knows it all too well? Don’t discount certain people’s ability to act naive whilst all manner of ‘manoeuvres’ are taking place around them. A friend once used the analogy of the colonialist British acting like harmless bumbling, eccentric, tea sipping ‘chaps’, whilst all manner of skulduggery was going on around them, with their full knowledge. I think that is a good concept for all of us to grasp. Not saying cjcj in particular is doing this. But white ‘silence’ on particular issues is deafening at times. Johnny Average knows exactly what is going on, they have been conditioned to keep silent or are actually supportive of such things as they do work to their benefit.
Ravi you are living in fantasy land if you actually believe that.
If you think OFSTED visits are capable or designed to uncover such things in the few days they inspect an institute, you’re plain wrong.
Damon@180
Have you ever witnessed or worked in an institutionally racist organisation? If you’re white and naive you can actually be in one of these and be totally oblivious to what goes on, as you’re not on the receiving end. Like I said, I think people have a tendency to cover up their own people’s actions, whether this is done consciously or otherwise. Once you get a few committed racists in, they invariably start to act out their prejudices from what I’ve seen.
The many comments I get from other ethnic teachers (I know a fair few!), support the notion that such things are not isolated incidents but rather more pervasive.
To the ‘ethnics’ reading this:
What are we going to do? Fanny around with these people, some of whom know damn well what goes on despite the charade and some of whom are clueless to a jawdropping extent?
Did you or anyone complain to Ofsted about this head teacher’s misconduct? If there is a consensus that the mechanisms are inappropriate to root out bad teachers, then I think that’s a real problem that needs to be solved.
Everything to you has to be between “ethnics” vs “these people”? I
Ravi@187
One particular nasty teacher I knew, actually went on to work for OFSTED!
In racist educational institutes mediocre or poor teachers are frequently protected or covered by managers.
In one college I worked at it got to a point that a particular new white teacher was actually being called a racist openly in the corridors by numerous students. When he was pulled up for it by management, they gave him a mild informal warning. Meanwhile ethnic teachers were hauled up and even suspended on relatively minor issues.
Totally inept teachers and managers were shielded from their failures year after year. Ethnic staff were not unknown to be dismissed on exaggerated charges. Nepotism was also rife.
May I ask what is his name? Where did he teach?
What educational institutes are you referring?
Dalbir – perhaps cjcjc does and is skilled at hiding it.
And we’re back to the bystander role that was in Tom Shakespeare article that Rumbold blogged about on here.
Ravi – I tried to but there were no mechanisms to deal with it without directly involving the woman which was very unpleasant to say the least. In the end it was better (for me) just to leave, and I’m not the only one that was forced to do this. There is a lot of talk about school governors having immense power, but in effect they were powerless in this school.
Edit – I’ve just re-read your question and no, I didn’t complain to Ofsted. I don’t think this option was available, or I didn’t know of it. When an inspection is on the whole school attitude is to show the best of the school. Inspectors don’t hand out anon. questionnaires asking for real accounts and don’t source such evidence.
Ravi – I think it is perhaps better not to directly name teachers or colleges on PP, as has been noted above.
It’s called self empowerment. Ever heard of it?
The day has to come when we can resolve our own issues instead of running to Mr. Nice Whiteman to deal with Mr. Bad Whiteman all the time. Is that simple enough for you to grasp?
Truth is that Mr. Nice Whiteman is frequently beleaguered and scared of Mr. Bad Whiteman, who has authority over him, which often makes him behave like a mouse. I don’t want to have to rely on that.
Earwicga, I think this Ofsted page tells you how to issue a complaint. I understand that it can put you in a very difficult position, and I can only hope that you found a school with more pleasant people to work with.
Ravi is a seriously nice innocent guy………bless him.
Earwigca
Make sure you have sufficient witnesses before you complain. Be aware of the ‘shite you pants syndrome’ that takes place with most people when they actually have to speak up against their employers.
If you take this route make sure witnesses are solid and not cowardly types.
Wow – I’ve just come back from an excellent talk on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence to learn here that the the British educational system is riven with racism, corruption and incompetence.
No wonder 20% of primary school leavers can’t read.
Weren’t you a regular in Goodness Gracious Me? I remember there was a parody of a guy who thought he was an Asian Malcolm X.
What are you Ravi? A modern day Mahatma Gandhi? Were you considered a geek growing up? You seem to live in a quite a sheltered bubble princess?
I apologise.
and 195 was really highbrow Ravi…..
Just forget it, no wonder we have these issues when some of us seem to be sleep walking around the place…..
Related article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-face–institutional-racism-claims-1816209.html
I apologise for any offence as well.
That’s an interesting piece from the Independent Dalbir. But what to make of it?
Who is doing all this discriminating exactly? Other white teachers?
The problem with racist teachers must be worse than we thought.
Also, why would there be such different figures for African teachers being discriminated against (65%) and what it calls Caribbean teachers (34%)?
I just wonder if it’s a bit unfair to say this is always down to more or less proven racism from whites.
It could be more complicated than that.
I know that these people don’t have much of a good reputation on Pickled Politics, but when I read Dalbir, then read this following article, I’m inclined to go along with them. But I do understand how this kinds of talking can get the ”red card” in many leftist circles, as it’s an anathema to mainstream left thinking and practice.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/7452/
“Also, why would there be such different figures for African teachers being discriminated against (65%) and what it calls Caribbean teachers (34%)?â€
There can be a divide between British Africans more recently from Africa to long established British Caribbeans. A divide in terms of identity and assimilation. Caribbeans align themselves more with their white colleagues & can even be embarrassed about links to their ethnic ancestry. Some Africans feel they are discriminated against as, despite being very highly qualified and articulate they are culturally ‘different’ and sometimes have an African accent. It appears that Caribbeans are seen to be more assimilated in certain ways. Religion is not a factor as a large proportion of Africans are Christian. This is not restricted to the education sector.
Here’s one possible suggestion:
An initial probe into the subject of discrimination in the education sector indicates that many nonwhites teachers are reporting racism to be a tangible factor effecting them at work?
It may well be a relatively small group that do this covertly and unchallenged. From what I have seen, racist teachers are more of a problem for the students than other teachers. Whilst racist management is the big issue for ethnic teachers, especially when they work in cahoots with racist teachers.
There are lots of reasons that could explain this. For instance the distinct culture in terms of dress, language and religious practices may make racist whites
view Africans with extra animosity. The Caribbean community has a much longer and intimate relationship with white Britons than many other communities and may be approaching the problem in a different way to others. There are lots of other potential reasons for the discrepancy. What are you suggesting?
I don’t think it is unfair or an unrealistic possibility. I think there is definitely a ‘syndrome’ that takes place when discrimination is deeply rooted in a community. Many people from that community just do not want to accept it. It is like a collective denial. I’ve seen this in nonwhite communities as well.
I had a flick through that article you posted and whilst I agree with the idea that some problems with youths doing poorly in education can stem from internal cultural factors, it is a deflection to use this as a cover up of what may well be going on the the education sector in the UK. This includes schools, colleges and universities. This isn’t saying that each and every institute is like this but that it goes on, possibly more than we imagine.
Dalbir:
I’m suggesting that it could be all kind of things, and not just what one survey or political view says it is.
And that there is ‘politics’ in the descussions about race and diversity – and there might be something in this idea off ”official anti-racism” having some serious flaws. (That was mentioned in that link I did.)
persephone:
But it’s pretty harsh on non African trachers and school management if they aren’t actually being racist.
Religion could be a factor, if someone is a member of a church (particularly of the kind brought from Africa) and colleagues are secular.
Here’s a bit of that link I did in my last post. It’s about pupils here, but might also aply to teachers to.
That view shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand as it often is, in my opinion.
I agree other factors may be involved, the problem is in using these as some sort of deflection of the issue of neo-nazi types holding positions of power and insidiously impacting on them. Plus your statement above sort of assumes that all those teachers spoken to in the survey share an identical or similar political views informing their reading of their experiences – I think that is highly unlikely. Instead of politics you must consider the possibility that this is a reflection of real life experience. I’m genuinely flabbergasted at how some whites still try and make out like racism is a figment of our imaginations.
The only flaw in this ‘official anti-racism’ is that racists naturally hate it and are trying to work around it as it cramps their style.
The only politics I can see in all this is one group trying to maintain a hegemony on power and position through devious means.
PS – There is some conflation of issues in your link damon. The matter of ‘black’ academic performance in the UK is one that may well have an internal cultural component, but that doesn’t detract from what some nasty whiteists are doing. Besides, these days I wonder about the ‘black’ label as it doesn’t seem to encompass the many highly motivated and capable African students.
Thanks Ravi. The page you link to is for complaining about Ofsted only. I also found getting any help from my union to be absolutely useless as well.
Dalbir
And therein lies the problem. When it comes down to it most people find it easier to keep their head down than act.
Apologies. Here is the page (item 1) and another for whistleblowing.
Ravi – that really is a link that should be publicised. It also mentions the organisation Public Concern at Work which details the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 with information for whistle blowers.
http://www.pcaw.co.uk/law/pida.htm
However, we also see that only a minority of teachers of Indian origin complain of discrimination, and unlike their African counterparts, they have a more distinct culture – language, religion and dress – and tend to be less intermixed with whites than Africans.
But of course it may well be that the exclusion is cultural, where people that are perceived to be foreigners (due to their accents or the fact that their academic studies were done elsewhere) might be a factor of discrimination. Also, the article does not clarify what sort of discrimination did they suffer and when did that discrimination happen. Is the discrimination widespread or tends to be contained in certain regions? Also it would be nice if the study included non-British whites and whites, and their perceptions of discrimination due to other factors.
But this sort of article seems designed to fit the same old narrative, and so it doesn’t bother with these details. Other facts that do not quite fit the narrative is the fact that Indian and Chinese students consistently score higher than whites and other groups in school. If there is a widespread problem of racist teachers out there, they seem to be pretty incompetent. Asians in this country, being 4% of the population, produce 6% of the wealth (as Jai pointed out). In the US, Indians are the most well-paid and the highest-educated ethnic minority group (ahead of Jews and Japanese).
I am not saying that we live in a perfect world where racism has ended, but if we are establishing the narrative of Mr Ethnic and Mr. Bad whiteman (terms you use, Dalbir) it needs to take into account all facts. My personal view is that race in this country is no longer an element that determines success or failure. I think it has to do with your parents education level and income. Those from poor backgrounds, regardless of race, will do poorly in society…
Your language is polarising and divisive. Nobody denies that there are racists out there. But this is not a problem between “ethnics” and whites, but having people with responsibility who are abusing power and being guilty of misconduct. We are in all in this together.
I should have written “tend to do poorly”.
Alternatively they could be keeping their heads down avoiding conflict or facing these things in a placid fashion? I’ve seen that umpteen times Ravi, ‘Indians’ in toxic environments quietly getting on with it never challenging discrimination even when they acknowledge it outside of the earshot of white colleagues. In any case, causal factors behind those stats you referred to aren’t explored so all we can do is grope about in the dark regarding that right now.
Maybe the figures would be even higher without racist barriers? You ever consider that?
Fair point, but I would like to see more open condemnation from white sources about such stuff in the workplace. In all of the racist environments I have encountered they seem conspicuously quiet. This amounts to tacit support. I understand that people are fearful of being targeted and losing a living if they stick their necks out a bit, but this fear is exactly what allows abuse of power.
A belated happy Saint Patrick’d day to all as well….especially those recovering from yesterday.
Damon
“But it’s pretty harsh on non African trachers and school management if they aren’t actually being racist.â€
But the individuals I referred to felt they had been racist. They also felt that more established caribbeans were part of the ‘supporting’ edifice as it was seen as cooler/better to be more culturally white. They felt you were rewarded or ‘seen as one of them’ if you were part of that edifice & culture.
“Religion could be a factor, if someone is a member of a church (particularly of the kind brought from Africa) and colleagues are secular.â€
A situation I had in mind in my comment related to a Cof E school so being secular does not come into it.
“ That view shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand as it often is, in my opinionâ€
As others have agreed, yes it exists but should not overpower or negate discrimination where it exists.
I remember seeing on TV over ten years ago, some documentary based in London, about how an Afican guy went to make a complaint to Lee Jasper who was working for some anti-racist body in east London.
His complaint was that English Caribbeans were discriminating against more newly arrived African immigrants.
Lee Jasper wouldn’t even give the guy the time of day.
If what I saw was how I remember it, I wonder how much that might impact into the 65% figure.
That 65% of your African colleagues are going to make official complaints of racism?
I was reminded of this thread yesterday afternoon as I stood in the late afternoon in the middle of Dublin during its Saint Patrick’s day celebrations.
There were so many young people of African origin standing outside the General Post Office that they must have all had some facebook and telephone arangement to turn up there.
There were a couple of hundred at about 6pm.
Them and loads of their white friends (particularly girls) hanging about too.
It looked like a fun scene that I probably don’t get… being years older and from England.
I only mention this – as their parents may be going through the ’65%’ kind of discriminatoin themselves.