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.

lol HH you really don't have a point do you! I am pretty sure that Tony Benn and Tony Blair disagree on a few things!

Rubbish, Tony Blair doesn't believe in anything at all. It's impossible to disagree with him. He stands for nothing.

lol!

but you do have a choice about whether or not to send your child to a church school. you dont have a choice once your child is in a school to not have them taught by a BNP member.

the core belief of the catholic church is the nicene creed which says nothing about homophobia, or for that matter, abortion.

do

I'm a public servant and I think it would be extremely innappropriate for me to be a member of the BNP. I would expect the body which oversees my professional registration to want to know about it and to consider striking me off.

I'm a mental health social worker and as part of my role I am asked to decide if I consent to someone being detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. It would be dangerous for me to be making judgements about someone's race or sexuality.

Whilst I do have some sympathy with the 'thin end of the wedge' concerns, I believe there are some professionals who's values should be scrutinised and this is entirely appropriate. I would put teachers in this bracket.

MildredRoper - I assume then that you feel that all people of faith and all members of any political party should not be part of your profession.

Thanks Mildred, that makes a lot of sense.

Do we need a professional organisation to oversee the registration and conduct of teachers?

Er we have one! The GTCE and they have said a ban would be wrong.

Er we have one! The GTCE and they have said a ban would be wrong.

Oh I didn't realise there was one. Well there you go then. Is that General Teachers Council of England?

"judge the teacher on their performance" yes that's the only reasonable way to do it.

"but you do have a choice about whether or not to send your child to a church school. you dont have a choice once your child is in a school to not have them taught by a BNP member."

HerHonesty, I was thinking of religious teachers in state schools of which there must be 1000s. We have no choice about that and must trust them to leave their beliefs outside when they come to work. If we say we cannot trust BNP members to do that then clearly we can't trust the religious ones either.

they havent said its wrong, they have said that "For the GTC to take a position on the appropriateness of membership of any organisation could be seen to affect its ability to act as an independent and impartial regulator and so prejudice its ability in making judgements about the behaviour and conduct of teachers in the course of its regulatory work"

Yes, you did mention them earlier in the thread but I thought they were some kind of teaching Union conference. Apologies.

Well if they say no ban, then I think it is very questionable for the government to override them.

Mildred would you be comfortable with central government making these decisions instead of your professional organisation?

Anyone else in that situation?

btw Clemette, the swimming thing was about muslims not wanting to mix with non muslim men. I'd be quite happy for our taxes to buy your friend a swimming pool if that's what she needs for her self-confidence. It's a red herring though to suggest that's what this is about.

I don't really think you can compare people who have mainstream religious beliefs with the BNP. The BNP is run by criminals who incite hatred and violence against people. Most people who have religious beliefs just want to live their lives according to their religion and would not dream of harming their fellow citizens.

Have you read about the ireland situation? About the lengths the organised church went to to prevent child abusers from being brought to justice and to allow them to continue abusing? I wouldn't be making any claims of moral superiority if I was a member of that club.

I'm actually referring to ordinary followers who don't hold positions of power. I have heard a lot about the Catholic Church and how much abuse went on but I certainly don't think that the vast majority of Catholics are paedophiles.

Exactly. Many of the ordinary members will be just ordinary people not evil conspirators.

are you referring to members of the BNP not being evil conspirators?

Because if you are then that certainly clarifies things.

"In your opinion. Where is your evidence of that?"

Oh, try here. Or here. Or here. Or here. And here. Won't keep linking as I could be here all day, but a ton of theology and activism is on the case.

"the core belief of the catholic church is the nicene creed which says nothing about homophobia, or for that matter, abortion."

What she said.

(My mother's involved in a lot of ecumenical work,so I hear this sort of debate eeeendlessly, heh. Being good liberals they all veer towards hand wringing on how to alter the Church's current teaching, but given it's headed up by geriatric celibate men, I think they may be waiting a while...) Still. If you can find equivalent black, Jewish or Muslim members of the BNP, who openly dissent from the racist policies and argue an inclusive and accepting agenda, and aren't kicked out for doing so, I'll defer.

Professional bodies are not there to oversee conduct IMO, not really. They're there to promote the interests of the profession concerned - just look at the Law Society or the GMC. Or the Speaker.

I think the core belief is relevant, actually. I know a fair number of Catholics, and none of them are homophobic. You can't say that about signed up members of the BNP, and racism. In fact we spent this w/e (Taste festival in London. Yummy) with uni friends who happen to be Catholics, and we were talking about a college tutor who'd died recently. I figured he'd had a pretty good life - adored his studies, working in a non-homophobic environment, excellent and interesting friends, beautiful surroundings, staff to look after him, a flat in the college grounds. M said he disagreed - that a gay man in the 1950s had no option, if he didn't want to live a lie, except academia or showbiz. That outside the bubble was a horrible, covert, secretive existence and the only comfort was that things had changed so dramatically for the better in 50 years, and gay friends now have legal protection from discrimination. And of course, I had to concede that M was right. Find me an equally thoughtful and racially aware member of the BNP? You can't, because the BNP is predicated upon racism. I wouldn't worry that a Catholic was a homophobe on the basis of their faith, because a young Catholic is likely to sigh, shrug, and think "weird, but changing." The Church teaching is stuck in that 50 years ago mindset IMO, because it's still controlled by that generation. But it's more than likely going to change, as younger minds and mores catch up. You can't be a member of the BNP, by contrast, without signing up to explicit and extreme racism. That's a pretty massive distinction.

I have to say though, I'm not comfortable with state-funded faith schools. Just seems rather unfair on the parents in the catchment area who don't share that faith. Proselytising on the taxpayer strikes me as a bit off.

Moffat, I'm just saying it works for one organisation as well as the other.

There will be a mass of people who joined up for their own reasons. Some will be ignorant, some will be deluded and some will think they can they pick and choose what bits to be involved in. Only a very few will be really evil.

So you have to go by the individual.

You don't accidentally sign up to an extremist racist organisation, though. I mean, you don't trip one day and find you've fallen onto an application form. It is not a normal or average or legitimate party. It's extremist and vicious.

You don't have to be homophobic - or even straight - to be Catholic. You DO have to be white and racist to be a member of the BNP. The distinction is not minor or subtle.

"lol HH you really don't have a point do you! I am pretty sure that Tony Benn and Tony Blair disagree on a few things! "

Yes, she has a point. That point is pretty fundamental to the constitution of this country. People vary in what they want their party to achieve but they do share core values, to some extent they act in unison, and they share a commitment to our democratic system. What sets the BNP apart, other than the racism, is a determination to subvert democracy if they ever achieve power. You need to be able to understand the threat before you can assess it, no?

I wish Blair had no beliefs. I'm pretty certain he went into Iraq because he did, and look how well his foray into principle went.

Well no, I'm not sure that you do. If you watch the BNP's party political broadcasts, there's a bit of Gordon Brown (British jobs for British workers), a bit of UKIP (leave the EU), and a bit of Arthur Scargill (protectionism). They don't necessarily put racism in their ads.

It's an appealing mix for a certain kind of voter, who might not know that the BNP are an extremist party.

Not everybody has an intimate familiarity with the policy platform of every political party, and it's nonsense to suggest that because the BNP are run by racists that all their members must be racists.

It's no more or less valid than saying that because the Pope has a medieval attitude to abortion all Catholics have the same.

In fact it's probably less valid, because one of the central tenets of Catholicsm is that of papal infallibility, something that not even Nick Griffin claims to hold.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Firstly because anyone politically engaged enough to watch a ppb will read at least one paper and almost certainly watch tv news, and the media have endlessly flagged up the less savoury aspects of the BNP of late. And secondly, if you look at where the seats have been won, they're in areas of serious racial tension, where local BNP members are only too vocal about their feelings and intentions. That's how/why they win votes! Saying "people don't know!" is raising the question of why exactly the BNP have strongholds in areas with a lot of race crime?

I can buy that some people are so politically unengaged they're voting in ignorance, but joining in ignorance? Optimistic belief, but most improbable IMO, sadly. Be so reassuring were that true.

Papal infallibility is not the idea that the Pope is never wrong. That's a complete misconception. It refers to the distinct and rare occasions when a Pope pronounces formally on dogma - the only two examples I know of being on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception (and I think possibly saints' beatifications, not sure?). It's the notion that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra - as an instrument of the Spirit - and only then. It pertains to religious dogma, not social teachings. The abortion teachings are not subject to the doctrine of infallibility (which itself was only declared in the latter end of the 19th century, iirc.).

I also don't agree that the Church has got a mediaeval attitude to abortion. For a start abortion was only equated to homicide by the Church at the end of the 19th century - earlier, there was a debate on when the soul entered, prior to which, not a problem, and at other points the fornication was regarded as the major sin, not the termination. The mediaeval church was a lot more tolerant of early stage abortion! Secondly I am fiercely pro-choice on the grounds that nobody should bind burdens of that magnitude for others' shoulders, and the woman in question should have conrol of her own body. But I also have to accept that there is a genuinely held belief on the part of many sincere and decent people that it's morally unacceptable. That belief isn't mediaeval, just because I vehemently don't share it. And I have to say, at least the Church strongly opposes the death penalty as well as abortion. I respect that failure to opt only for the cuddly end of the debate.

None of the Church's social teachings are intrinsic to the faith itself, and there's a lot of very active and engaged Catholics who are working to move things forward. That's light years away from a party set up solely to discriminate against and victimise people on racial grounds. I think the attitude of the Vatican to gay people is disgusting, but geriatric. Homosexuality's only been legal in this country for 50 years - always takes a while for society to catch up with itself. Good shove might help though.