Who does the police work for? A Statement by Southall Black Sisters

This comparison seems unwarranted to me. I don’t know enough about CRT to comment on that specifically but I do know that GI is based on mostly men’s attempts to negate biological reality due to their desire to infiltrate women’s spaces. Whereas racism is pretty inescapable in how its manifested in all too often physical reality for those on the receiving end.

I posted much earlier on this thread that I was surprised that an alleged racist attack on the director of a very well-known, long established and widely respected women's organisation which was being characterised as some 'black girls' brawling on the Tube.

It's possible that a highly qualified senior member of SBS, with years of experience in anti-violence against women and girls organisations like NIA ['proudly feminist'] and Victim Support, launched an attack on a fellow-passenger - possible, because people sometimes do uncharacteristic things, but unlikely.
I hope justice is served.

Well, legally yes. But you might hope that the white police officer wouldn’t be a dickhead. That they’d accept it was a heightened moment and not charge the black woman for one. Given the historical and current racism in this country and given acceptance of the police being institutionally racist. Otherwise it just feels like vindictiveness.

"Postive" or "affirmative" action is illegal and discriminatory in the UK.
It is never ok to abuse, bully or discriminate against someone because of their race, and quite frankly I am sick and tired of the racist bs that it's OK to be racist to white people, Christians and Jews because we are "the oppressors".
Do you have any articles that are relevant to the UK and British law rather than American Cup?

I am more and more seeing similarites between Critical Race Theory and Gender Ideology

• Silencing other opinions
• Using Transphobe/Racist to shut down any objections
• Requires Belief
• Institutional racism = gender dysphoria
• 'Allies' mindlessly jump on board and out-do each other for highest moral ground
• Opression olympics
• Mob mentality
• People afraid to question
• Dubious academic studies/departments
• Lots of public funding

Im sure there are more

The UK isn’t America.

I referenced it because it was a simple and concise explanation.

You've linked to a complaint from a woman who objected to being taught critical race theory. A position which gained much ground with the MAGA in the US and has led to books about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, amongst others, being banned in some schools.

Bit of a weird choice to choose an undecided case from a woman backed by Jordan Peterson, the iea, and a host of supporters on the right into a discussion about racism.

Because that's irrelevant when discussing combating systemic racism. King was talking about interpersonal relationships, his philosophy (informed by his religious middle-class background) consistently tried to negotiate between the personal & the political.

This is an Australian document.
Are there any UK policy documents that say white people may be called derogatory names because of their whiteness?
I don't think that argument would fly here. In fact there's a lawsuit going on now against the Tavistock NHS Trust about the derogatory use of whiteness

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11730793/Nurse-suspended-NHS-course-health-chiefs-saying-white-doesnt-make-racist.html

you missed out where he said about the content of thier heart not the content of their skin........

MLK was referring to prejudice, not racism in your quote.

“Justice for black people will not flow into this society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory…White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society" MLK

Who gets to decide what racism means in the UK? The people historically exposed to it is probably a good start. People with an understanding of power relations, history, sociologists etc. Certainly not Laurence Fox.

@CupversusMug
Who gets to decide what a word means?
I like MLK Jr's definition for judge a man by the content of his heart not the colour of his skin.
Your opinion my differ, but I think anything that treats people differently based on the colour of their skin is racist.

All bad, but nothing close to being equivalent. Is that really such a difficult concept?

“Prejudice plus (institutional) power” is the widely accepted basic definition of racism. Or, as two researchers defined it in 1988: “Racism equals power plus prejudice.”

"White people may be called a derogatory name with a reference to their whiteness. They may be discriminated against: for example, by an ethnic business owner who prefers to employ someone from their community background.
This may sometimes be unlawful. At other times, it may be a lawful form of “positive action” or “affirmative action”, aimed at reducing historically entrenched, intergenerational and systemic inequalities."

https://www.vu.edu.au/about-vu/news-events/news/what-is-reverse-racism-and-whats-wrong-with-the-term

Whyis racism towards one colour of skin ok, but towards a different colour of skin the worst crime ever? Surely that itself is racsim?
No racism is "good" racism, it's all bad.

There are, or were, state funded Steiner Schools in the UK

From 2019 "Three of the state-funded Steiner schools – the Steiner academies in Bristol, Exeter and Frome – have been placed in special measures.
A fourth state-funded Steiner academy, in Hereford, received a “good” judgment in December. Recent DfE data showed the Hereford pupils to be making rapid progress, while GCSE grades were good but less impressive."

Do the Independent schools get charitable status?

I'm so done with the bullshit of being able to call people 'white' as an insult and it supposedly being acceptable - it's not.

Where did I say it was? You appear to be having an argument with yourself.

My children go to a Steiner-Waldorf School, and it is the most ethnically diverse school in our county, the parents of non-white children choose to send their kids there for it's inclusivity.

The Waldorf school movement is amazing, espcially compared to current mainstream schooling and curriculum. It is based on Rudolf Steiner's philosophy of education, but he lived 100 years ago, it isn't a religion or a cult around this man, it doesn't take his every single word as gospel.

I'm sure most philosophers / psychologists / scientists from 100 years ago were racist and were recorded saying racist things, Freud for example was racist, but we still value his contribution to psychology.

You are trying to undermine a schooling movement which already struggles without any funding whatsoever from the goverment, a schooling movement that prioritises the child and encourages protection from so many of the issues we are seeing in society - porn, gender ideology, social media addiction.

I absolutely disagree, I think saying 'you white bastard' is the same as 'you black bastard'. It might not make the victim feel the same - as it would likely be more insulting to human-with-black-skin than a human-with-white-skin due to racist history, however the intention from the perpatrator is the same. You are insulting someone and using their skin colour to degrade them.

I'm so done with the bullshit of being able to call people 'white' as an insult and it supposedly being acceptable - it's not.

I do agree that a black woman calling a white police officer "You white bastard" is not the same as a white woman calling a black police officer "You black bastard" (if that's what happened), because of the different historic and current power dynamics. But I can't see how you can have a law that allows one and not the other, because races do not neatly divide into oppressed and oppressor. There's a history of anti-African racism in India, for example, but obviously Indians are themselves often subject to racism for not being white. And what about mixed race people?

I can't see how the law could work without treating all abuse based on race on an equal footing.

It’s really not difficult - if both victim and perpetrator are women then you believe the white one. If both are white then it gets trickier but the safe money will be on the one with the less foreign-sounding accent.

How am I naive for pointing out the Law is made, by and for, mostly men of a particular class?

You've made quite the leap from my questioning the equivalence of anti-white racism versus endemic racism towards minorities to accuse me of being a men's rights activist.

That's quite a leap.

We don’t know what the white woman admitted to or what she accepted a caution for.

I would be extremely interested in the SBS's perspective on the issues raised in this video, as SBS have been receiving financial support from Triodos since at least 2005

Steiner schools racism and bullying concerns revealed - Newsnight

This video is also extremely interesting in relation to bullying, false allegations, gaslighting and DARVO in relation to the Steiner movement

Might want to ask MN to move this to the Black Mumsnetters board. This is just going to be catnip to the “racism against white people” crew here.