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.

Well I think that if someone joins the BNP without knowing what they are about then they are extremely ignorant and unintelligent and not fit to be a teacher. If they joing knowing what it is about then they are indeed "evil conspirators".

And I think it's actually dangerous nonsense to suggest that not everyone who joins the BNP is racist. If you think that then you are kidding yourself and those people who bleat on about how they are not racist but the BNP still appeals to them are also kidding themselves.

SomeGuy perhaps you could make the analogy that members of the Catholic Church are like the voters for the BNP - they do not necessarily sign up to EVERYTHING. But actually being a member of the party is different. If Nick Griffin is the Pope (!?) then the membership are the higher echelons of the Catholic Church. I agree I wouldn't want a Vatican theologian teaching sex education and family dynamics at my DC's school...

But that is the extent to which your (very laboured) analogy can be drawn.
This thread was not about the (possibly deluded) BNP voters; it is about those who make a definite decision to support the racist Nick Griffin and his bigoted henchmen.

"perhaps you could make the analogy that members of the Catholic Church are like the voters for the BNP - they do not necessarily sign up to EVERYTHING. But actually being a member of the party is different. If Nick Griffin is the Pope (!?) then the membership are the higher echelons of the Catholic Church"

but surely anyone who attends mass is giving up their time and financial contribution so they are more like party members. once again my argument for the BNP members right to teach isn't because i feel sympathy for bnp members,it's because once we open this floodgate it's open to manipulation. so just like the argument by many on here that joining the bnp and being active is clear evidence of homophobia/racism/sexism without actually having to show any wrongfull or illegal acts on the part of the person, one could just as easily argue that attending church and contributing via the collection plate is a clear and deliberate act of support of an organisation that promotes sexism and has a history of institutional child abuse. i'm not slamming the catholic curch as i know 99% of catholics deplore these stains on the church by it's members, i'm just saying that once we allow this logic to be used to ostracise one legal group that the govt. don't like, it means the next govt can manipulate the system against any other religious or political group.

"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?"

then isn't it ironic that the whole tenant of this thread is an attempt to subvert democracy by the current government (and it seems well supported on this thread) by banning members of a legal legitimate political party wholesale from a profession?

Exactly. The BNP will never have a real chance to rule unless we believe that the majority in this country want them. So they are not a real danger. The real danger are those who think it's ok to dispense with democracy 'just this once' as it's a special case.

Btw are we imagining a rule that says that teachers who want to join the BNP are not allowed to, but are allowed to vote for them?

If we're considering doing that because we don't want 'racists' in schools it will of course make no difference whatsoever to that. Unless we're saying that those who had previously joined will now get letters saying they are sacked and on a list never to work with children again.

If you just say they can't support the BNP financially it just means the BNP have less money to advertise in future. Not one teacher will resign.

That should make you think carefully about where this idea came from. Not from someone who cares about kids, but from someome who is willing to pretend they do to get their own party an advantage.

I was responding to the 'you don't accidentally sign up to the racist BNP' point, rather than its specific applicability to teachers.

I think it's quite plausible that people could sign up to it because someone's at the door and spins them a line about what the BNP will do for them and asks them to sign a form and donate £10. Such a person is quite possibly naive rather than racist.

And as for teachers, as I said earlier, the BNP MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside was a very good teacher and deliberately avoided anything to do with race, and by all accounts was fair and reasonable to people of all races. He kept his personal beliefs and professional job of teaching separate, which I suspect is more than some of his opponents manage.

And in any case a Catholic theologian would be quite fit to teach say Maths or Physics, if not perhaps PSHE.

I think there's far too much intellectualising on this subject. Bandying about phrases such as ' the democratic process' and 'the rights of the individual' are IMHO totally disingenious when discussing the BNP.

They are a racist, nasty party. Fact.

Trying to seperate your behaviour and beliefs when you're at at work - especially as a teacher - from your behaviour and beliefs when you're not is nigh-on impossible. A person's beliefs are integral to who they are.

Children are still discovering who they are, and teachers have enormous influence over this delicate process. Do we honestly want someone who has taken the trouble to join the BNP, and signs up to their beliefs, to have any influence over our children?

Take away the dinner-party discussions, the polite interviews with Nick Griffin. What you're left with is a set of core values that are just plain wrong and damaging.

I have personal experience of , as an 8-year-old child, feeling my blood run cold when I saw NF scrawled on a wall at school; feeling frightened when my friend was bullied for being black, another who had 'Paki' jeered at her for no reason other than she was mixed race.
Our teachers intervened, most taught us about tolerance. One notable exception was a PE teacher, who called this same black boy a 'jungle bunny' who was 'good at climbing trees.' He was, quite rightly, disciplined. Sounds outrageous when you read it, that a teacher could say such a thing.

Of course, he said it out loud, many think similarly but remain tight-lipped. You can't control what people think, but if you know a teacher has actually signed up to a racist party, surely you then have to take action?

The point I'm making is that the BNP is about creating division and intolerance in everyday life. And it affects real people, real children.

It's not politically correct or the state removing our democratic rights to want a happy, fair society for all. It's simple decency and common sense. Exactly what teachers should stand for.

it's not "bandying about phrases such as the democratic process", these are the ideals on which a democratic soceity has to be founded.
by all means let the government and people fight to criminalise the bnp on it's policies and values, but removing citizens democratic rights to be a member of a legitimate party is debasing the whole system.

your example of your childhood is a perfect example. there was racist insults from kids and teachers intervened and thought tolerance. the one that contravened the guidelines was then rightly punished for his actions, but only once he'd actually done something wrong.

in fact i actually find your post quite condesceding i.e. "take away your dinner party discussions..." as though we have somehow all been fooled by the pr campaign. i certainly haven't, i think the bnp are a disgrace and i can't believe it's a legal legitimate party, but for as long as it is it must be afforded the same rights as every other political party.

"It's not politically correct or the state removing our democratic rights to want a happy, fair society for all."

except for the supporters of a legal legitimate party that you don't agree with of course.

where have i defended any bnp policies,actions or members?i'd be very interested to know.
i'm defending the rights of a citizen to pursue their careers and be a member of a legally recognised legitimate party.
i'm also attacking the notion that the govt. or anyone else can decide to ban members of a political party that they don't like wholesale from a profession, because it debases the whole system of democracy they are meant to uphold and sets a dangerous precedent.

i'd like you to point out one place where i have defended any actions or policies of the bnp or else retract your statement that i am defending the bnp.
i'm not, i'm criticising the govt. for thinking that they can circumvent individuals rights to be members of a party that is legally sanctioned.
either criminalise the party in question or else accept that they have the same rights as everyone else.
my posts would be pretty much carbon copied if this where to happen to any other legal group.

well?

Don't mean to be condescending Mayorquimby. I'm simply highlighting the fact that we can talk about the BNP till the cows come home, but the sad fact is that their beliefs can and do hurt, frighten, sideline and damage people. Especially if children.

Yes, my teacher was punished when he'd actually done something wrong. My view is that a teacher joining the BNP is also actually doing something wrong!

Yes, they're legal. But ,as we've seen with the whole MP's expenses debacle, just because something is legal doesn't make it morally correct.

I have not read the whole thread but picked out the 'gist'.

I have to agree totally with mayorquimby.

If we want to live in a democracy then we have to accept all that goes with that. The BNP, unfortunately, is a legitimate political party. The govt either has to decide that certain professions are not allowed to have any political alliances/memberships et al, or otherwise accept the good with the bad. Democracy is nto about picking and choosing.....

I would think anyway, that teachers contractually are not permitted to voice their personal political/sexual/religious views within the context of their job unless they teach at a school that is of a religious denomination.....

Even though I do not agree with the BNP and their views, the fact that they are a legal entity means that as citizens of a (supposed!) democracy, we have the right to affiliate ourselves witht them.....

and i accept that their views are dangerous and damaging to many many people. which is why the govt. and they shouldn't in my view be legally recognised.
and i also accept your pointabout moral and legal differences, but in acknowledging that you are also in a way backing up my point. we can't impose morals on people. we have laws to govern what we deem acceptable conduct for others and these laws in a way reflect the morals of the people. so to single out one legal legitimate act (i.e. joining the bnp) as something immoral enough for us to ban them from a profession we open up the gates for the next govt. to decide what they deem, to be an unacceptable act regardless of it's legal standings.
people can do hundreds of legal things which are immoral but we can't ban them because we find their behaviour disgusting.

*which is why the govt should work towards drafting legislation that would make parties of their kind illegal

"It's not politically correct or the state removing our democratic rights to want a happy, fair society for all."

except for the supporters of a legal legitimate party that you don't agree with of course.

I love these threads!!!!!!!!

By their very existence, they support the actual discussion.

We live in a democracy - we have to accept all parts of that.

Some of the comments on here would suggest that for some, an autocratic or similar model would be preferable - would we really want to go there.....?

IIRC the police are not allowed to be members of the BNP so the precedent has already been set. That is not to say that there are no racists in the police force but the law recognises that it would not be fair for society and would represent a conflict of interest for people to be BNP members and part of the police force. I think the same principle applies to teachers.

fio i'm still waiting for you to point out any posts where i have defended any policies or actions of the bnp or for you to retract your statement that i have been on multiple threads defending them.

I'm interested to know whether those who think that teachers should be allowed to join the BNP also believe that police workers should also be allowed to join.

I thought your vote was "anoynomous", obviously not!!!!
I'm not saying that I agree with the policies etc of the BNP but everyone should be entitled to their opinions and just because you are a teacher/police officer this should not be taken away from them.
What ever happened to freedom of speech!

"except for the supporters of a legal legitimate party that you don't agree with of course."

The point isn't that I don't agree with the BNP - which I don't - rather that they are a political party and , as such, are supposed to represent ALL of their constituents. They're not a society or organisation who chatter about their dodgy views amongst themselves. They want to change society, real people and their lives, for the worst. Is that what democracy is about?
My logic follows that teachers represent all of their pupils and should nurture the positive rather than support the divisive. By joining the BNP, this is a clear conflict of interests.

I agree with Moffat.... it's exactly the same as the police. You will always have racist police, you will also always have racist teachers, racist judges, racist nurses. But, the difference is that by joining the BNP an individual makes a clear commitment to their racism.

I believe wholeheartedly in a democratic society- it just seems wrong to use hard-won democracy, something that people have stuck their necks out for; died for and fought for in order to support the BNP.

But the latest news on the BNP is actually that it may be illegal after all. ?.htm
There was also a report on Channel 4 news this week highlighting exactly that: the Commission for Racial Equality has written to Nick Griffin asking him to contact them regarding his party allowing only whites to join. Unsurprisingly, his reaction was to bad-mouth Trevor Phillips and play the victim.

Anyway, my view remains that we should have freedom of speech ( whether I agree with the views or not! ) but certain issues, racism being one of them, has no place in public life, particularly when it involves children. We've struggled a long time to overcome one of the nastiest aspects of society, and we shouldn't allow it to creep in again.

I find it really hard to understand how, just because something is legal, we should defend it to the hilt even though it is so obviously destructive.

Aside from the principle (which is what I'm mostly arguing) can anyone point out any improvement that would result from banning teachers from joining the BNP. It can only mean 'joining them officially and getting the newsletter'. It doesn't stop anyone voting for them or agreeing with them. The same teachers will be teaching the same lessons regardless.