To think that banning teachers from being members of the BNP is outrageous!

[londonone]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8112747.stm

Now I abhor the BNP and their policies however they are a LEGAL political party and as a teacher I would find it appalling that my freedom to join legal political parties was being curtailed.

If the establishment believe the BNP to be that abhorrent then they should make them illegal. If a teacher acts in a racist, sexist, homophobic way AT WORK, then discipline them on that basis.

If BNP membership is to be banned then what about the SWP, some would say they are as extreme.

Re-- Muslim women Please read a book called Princess its bio from a saudi princess its shocking

Do they pull a curtain over so nobody can see the old people swimming?

And do all the pool attendants under 65 have to leave the pool area?

If it's just a regular session in the pool like any other, then fine. If it's hidden women swimming behind curtains in a public swimming pool then that is making an accommodation with sexist and deeply unpleasant cultural traditions.

But what I want to know is, how can we get the dirty buggers off our beaches? All swimmers know that open water swimming is the best. There must be a way we can get some nice segregated beaches going on. Sorry, did I say "segregated"? I meant women-only.

skidoodle, you are being purposefully diversionary because you know your argument in favour of the OP's original post is flawed, weak and inept.

OMG can you read my MIND?

I'm just getting a little bored of a load of right on SWPers banging on about how brilliant it is that Britain is tolerant of sexism.

In what way is my original argument flawed, weak and inept?

Your saying it doesn't make it so.

I'm surprised you can even remember what it was, since the conversation has moved on a lot since yesterday.

Nobody has yet made any kind of argument to counter mine that it is dangerous and undemocratic to allow governments to dictate the political parties that public servants can join.

Democracy is not anarchy. There are still rules about how people should behave. The BNP break the law on inciting racial hatred 9as well as various equal opportunities laws), therefore the government can and should legislate against them and their members.

Single-sex swimming is not sexist, it is about extending opportunities. My friend who has just had to have a double mastectomy at 27 does not want to swim with men around. She welcomes the opportunity her leisure centre offers her. Or perhaps she shouldn't be allowed??
There is a multitude of reasons why women feel more comfortable in what is essentially underwear only in front of other women - are you too closed minded to understand this?

Someone suggested that who you vote for should be public knowledge. Remember that next time you apply for a job or rent a house and ask yourself how you'd feel if you could be turned down for not voting Tory or Labour.

I won't feel too bad for the BNP if that pass a law saying they can't be teachers as 1 week later all the religious teachers will be signing up for jobseekers allowance. Ban one and ban them all.

As for the swimming thing. Yeah I think it's right to bar men like me from swimming because we are all the same and can hardly stop ourselves from raping passing women.

I'm asking my local council to have a heterosexual only session. I don't want all those homosexuals staring at me. I assume no one here has a problem with that?

'What about other jobs? Should people whose customs tell them that menstruating women are unclean have that respected? Perhaps female public servants who have their period should be required to wear a sticker so those men can avoid touching them. '

AS far as I can see the difference is that with female only or similar things it exists as an option: whereas in some cultures there is no option but a certain dress / hiding away during your period / etc.

very different IMO.

The other aspect of course is the one that is leading yto what I still beleive is the best way forwards with a longest term view.

The HR acytion focuses on the BNP parties refusal to admit black poeple to membership; Sick Griffen's excuse is that because groups such as the Black Police exist then it's OK for the BNP tor estrict memebrship (at least that was his excuse in the interview I watched).

The differences IMMO are clear- the black police association (not sure of their exact title) exists to provide support and furtherance of specific interests but does not exist to deny the rights of other memebrs of the police force. Whereas that's exactly what the BNP does.

As longa s we see the BNP as legit they will have power, my beleif is that a party that exists for the purpose of racist intentions is not legitimate. As such I hope the HR action is the step to showing this.

Showing who they actually are of course, not the BNP of the website and soundbites.

'I won't feel too bad for the BNP if that pass a law saying they can't be teachers as 1 week later all the religious teachers will be signing up for jobseekers allowance. Ban one and ban them all.'

Being religious does not in any way cause bigotry. It can and is often used as a weapon against it. It's also quite possible to have a faith that does not involve preaching or the like- as far as I can see there are two of us on the thread with a Quaker viewpoint for a start.

As for votes being amde public- goodness, have you never heard of chartism? (taht wasn't to Onager LOL, I know that came earlier). Secret ballot is a basic and essential right.

I suppose that's why I am against a ban: teahcers who espouse strong political views especially those that try to sell bigotry or yes a faith etc should be disciplined certainly, far more effective than a ban: a ban would mean the teachers just didn't sign up but wouldn't alter a viewpoint

onagar did you actually read my post? Women-only sessions are NOT about men, they are about women who often have substantial body issues being able to engage in some form of communal exercise. To be honest, your inability to comprehend this speaks volumes!

The differences IMMO are clear- the black police association (not sure of their exact title) exists to provide support and furtherance of specific interests but does not exist to deny the rights of other memebrs of the police force.
Whereas that's exactly what the BNP does.

I'm not sure that it does. They have policies which may well be racist, but that is all they are, opinions - not actions.

The National Black Police Association do deny membership rights to white people. I can't see the difference.

And TBH the NBPA are a pretty obnoxious group, not at BNP standards, but they've been involved in a good deal of controversy.

Clemette, they would still be seen by other women so it IS about men. I see no difference to me objecting to gay men looking at me! I actually have no objection and I do think gay men are quite capable of going swimming just to swim like anyone else.

Peachy, I was thinking that the BNP could be stopped on the basis of their refusing to allow black members.

However your post has made it clear that won't work. The Black Police Association can say no white members because they have a reason to do so and therefore so can the BNP.

It's a shame since I was thinking we could get rid of them that way, but it has to be within the law and principles of the democracy we are protecting.

Presumably then if the BPA are denying memebership for furtherance issues beyond what I stated then the HR action will be able to be applied to them? Becuase whilst I get their value fro support etc any group with racist objectives should be held within that remit, rather than used as an excuse for the continuance of the bnp

Oh and as for my point that we'd be able to ban religious teachers using any new law that banned BNP ones. It would work that way because some (depending on which religion) would be supporting homophobic organiations. It wouldn't help to claim that they personally thought differently as long as they supported them.

Also we couldn't have religious teachers teaching history, archaeology etc if they believed that the world was 6000 years old could we. It would be hard to sort out which were acceptable and which were not so it would have to be a blanket ban.

Sorry but PMSL here simply because I was shouted at on another thread for not being homphobic and tehrfore supporting gay aprents in adoptions, and now my beleifs make me homophobic- can't win can I ?

seriosuly though there are many branches of faiths which don't beleive either of those points, I certainly believe neither. Which is where I think it is best to judge the teacher on their performance and what they teach than apply rules that are just so easy to geta round by not telling the bos you belvie in X or not suigning the BNP memebrships forms and just making an anon donation instead

onagar perhaps you need to read about the psychological impact of a double mastectomy before being so flippant. Or perhaps not, because that wouldn't fit your determination to make this all about Muslims...

Following a faith is not the same as joining a political party. Making a conscious decision to join fanatical sects is. Much earlier on I made the point that if a teacher was involved in an organisation/religious group that CAMPAIGNED against homosexuality (for example) and preached enforced "treatment" they would be disciplined. The same would happen if they joined a group that promoted Al-Qaeda. These rules already stand - they need extending to cover the BNP.

My DSD and DD are mixed race, I would not a BNP member anywhere near them never mind in a position of trust over them.

The Black Police Association exists largely because at least one Police Force in the UK has been documented as institutionally racist.

So for that reason alone, I can see why there is a need for such an association to exist.

onagar I suggested that membership of political parties should be public information, not voting habits.

It wasn't a suggestion as in "I think this is what should happen", more of a general wondering if it is right for that information to be private (not just in respect of the BNP).

focy that comes back to where I thought the BPA was meant to be active then- I cannot tell whether they are or if the otehr poster was right that it extends further as I am in no way knowledgeable enough.

The women-only swimming lessons were brought up in the context of how great it was that we had them in order that Muslim women could go swimming as otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to.

This was "women only" as in all men (including pool employees) being asked to leave the area of the pool. Then we heard about the convenient curtain (or pool burqa, if you like) to make sure no men could get a peek.

Is that what your friend requires? Because I don't think that's a reasonable request by anyone, for any reason in a shared public space.

Then I give up trying to reason with you. I confess I am entirelt lost as to why this is unreasonable. People pay their council tax and the council provides different activities. There is the demand so the council supplies that demand.

Note to self - must tell the school governors to stop letting some Muslim girls get changed from PE in separate stalls because some people find it "unreasonable" to be accepting of the non-threatening faith and traditions of others.

Perhaps you are one of the people who believe that anyone who lives in Britain should conform to "British" ways. Much better to have their boobs out in Heat then ask for a single-sex swimming class??

Well I certainly believe they should conform to the "British" tradition (of very short and incomplete standing) of treating women and men equally, yes.

And traditions that are oppressive of women are not "non threatening" - they threaten female equality and emancipation, which let's face it, we have a long way to go towards, even without people demanding to be allowed to swim behind a curtain because men can't be trusted not to rape a woman in a swimming costume.

And I have major reservations about state schools making separate arrangements to protect the "modesty" (read control) of girls from religious families.

I think having women's breasts plastered all over mainstream magazines and a demand for special swimming classes to protect women from the male gaze are two sides of the same ugly, misogynistic coin. I want no part of either, thanks all the same. But thanks for your lazy stereotype.

"Nobody has yet made any kind of argument to counter mine that it is dangerous and undemocratic to allow governments to dictate the political parties that public servants can join."

Oh, but they have. Repeatedly. Your problem is that you ignore what people say, invent entirely different arguments, and proceed to argue against those instead.

What was the phrase? Ah yes: intelligence-insulting sophomoric bullshit.

Sorry Qally but unless you're prepared to point me in the direction of someone directly addresing my argument I'm going to rely on my (usually reliable) memory and assume that it was ignored as it seemed to me that it was.