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.

I mean the EHRC of course, not CRE ...Doh!
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/bnp-commission-takes-action-over-potential-breach-of-race-d iscrimination-law/

lindseyanne83 nobody is talking about a teacher's right to vote. Voting is private and nobody ever knows how people vote. The debate about teachers formally joining, and therefore campaigning/funding, a racist party. You have to pay to join a political party, and you have to apply to do so; it's a much greater commitment than an X on a bit of paper.

Onagar I think it would do two things: reduce funding and membership levels , and send a message to teachers, kids and society that it isn't a job where racism is appropriate or welcome. Moffat's made the point, in regards to the police.

Qally, okay so like i said this is NOT about removing racist teachers as such from schools, but denying funds from an opposing political party. The teachers and society already know racism isn't welcome as it is illegal.

In which case we should ban BNP members from being milkman as that would also reduce funding and membership levels.

maybe we could check who they vote for next as well? after all, just 'cos somethings legal doesn't mean we should actually allow people to do it, does it?(oh, er, hang on - isn't that what it does mean?)

or how about instead of thought control, our apparently 'proper' politicians stopped fiddling their expenses long enough to pay attention to why people are joining the BNP in the first place and maybe whether the BNP should be legal if it's so appalling a party that people can't be allowed to join it.

Oh no - much easier to bring in a particularly narrow law to tell people in one particular profession what party they can't belong to - that'll soon make them see the error of their ways and won't make BNP sympathisers feel more hard done by (ie more committed to supporting the BNP) at all. Oh yes - jolly clever of those professional politicians

onagar - a milkman is not charged with promoting equal opportunities and openness to other cultures, because s/he is not entrusted with the care and development of a classroom full of kids. If you are signed up to a job that specifically requires active and sensitive promotion of equal opportunities, it's totally incompatible with that responsibility to be an active member of a fascist organisation.

A milkman can screw a 16 year old on his or her round, whereas a teacher can't an 18 year old in his or her class. A milkman doesn't have to agree to an enhanced (or any, I imagine) disclosure, either. And since passing a Crim. Records Check doesn't stop unidentified paedophiles - does that mean we shouldn't have CRCs? Do you think that is, too, an outrageous infringement of a teacher's civil liberties? Or are the roles in some way different?

morocco, voting is a (near - prisoners can't) universal right, and you can't interfere with the secrecy of the ballot. There's a debate on whether the BNP should be banned, clearly, though I haven't thought that one to a conclusion yet, personally. But teaching is a "special" profession, rather like policing, in that you have a lot of power over other people of all racial groups. And a teacher also has a lot of moral authority, as well as actual.

"after all, just 'cos somethings legal doesn't mean we should actually allow people to do it, does it?(oh, er, hang on - isn't that what it does mean?)"

Obviously that's what it means, which is why we are having a debate about making it illegal. Laws don't drop from the sky fully formed. "It's legal so they can do it so it must be okay because it would be illegal if it isn't so there's no need to make it illegal because it's legal" isn't really an argument. Especially as we live in a country that operates the Golden Rule - everything is legal unless proscribed. That's why it was so impossible to stop stalkers for a long time; no laws really fitted the crime.

With you on the expenses thing though, all the way. Our local MP claimed nothing but his train fares down to London, and a fair few more weren't milking it either, so it's absolute BS for them to whine that it was just what everyone did.

I'm with Qally, some professions have special responsibilities and are subject to different standards. Not everybody can do everything because it is basically legal.

Teachers shape the minds of our children. At least they are if they are doing it right. We hold them to certain standards because they have great influence over large numbers of vulnerable people.

Is it so unreasonable to expect that people in such important positions are not overtly racist, sexist and homophobic?

Yes of course there should be freedom of speech.
HOWEVER, many types of jobs recruit people not just on the basis of their skills but also on aspects of their personal life as it has a bearing on how they do their jobs.
For example, would a paedophile be allowed to be a teacher or policeman? Or someone who has spent time in prison?
Teachers are supposed to teach children about democracy, equality and humanity..how can they do this if they have made a commitment to an instituation that is none of these?
Personally I think the idea of my children being taught be a racist is abhorrant.

"Onagar I think it would do two things: reduce funding and membership levels "

if this is the case then surely it just points to the worst kind of opportunism on the part of the govt. artificially trying to debase a political competitors funding and membership while doing absolutely nothing to tackle the problem of teachers allowing their personal prejudices to affect their teaching methods.
will anyone lose their job over this? no. they'll just quit the bnp,still attend meetings and read the news letter via the website and make any contributions they want anonymously.
it in no way solves anything. is teacher A suddenly less racist than a week ago because she's cancelled her standing order to the bnp? no.
all this is,is the govt. paying lip service to a problem and contavening democracy to try and destabilise a party they don't like but that they either don't have the balls or are unable to find a firm enough legal reason (and i thought there'd be hundreds of them) to outlaw.
while for the bnp it will garner them more sympathy from people who might vote for them or are disenfranchised and just give them more ammo for their whole "hard working britons being discriminated against"

"For example, would a paedophile be allowed to be a teacher or policeman? Or someone who has spent time in prison?"

no but that is because they have broken the law. as far as i know exerting your political autonomy by joining a legitimately recognised legal party in a open and free democracy is, far from being illegal, one of the basic rights of a citizen in that democracy.

so mayorquimby do you think that police workers should also be allowed to join the BNP?

yes as long as it's a legal legitimate party i do believe they should.
having said that i don't think the bnp should be a legally recognised party in the first place. but for as long as it is i think the govt. have to accept that it's members have the same rights as any other citizens who are the members of recognised political parties.
i don't think that the answer to the prblem that is the BNP is for the govt. to start cherry picking legitimate groups that they don't like but which are afforded the status of a political party. by all means work to outlaw or disband the bnp, but picking them out as a single group is just paying lip service.
in a democracy rules have to be universally applicable, not just applied to one group who you disagree with. so it sets a dangeous precedent for one govt to ban members of a recognised political party that they don't agree with, and for us all to accept that. because it means the next govt. can then apply the exact same logic another legitimate party only next time we might not be so happy about it.
i view these measures as pure lip service to the problem of institutional racism in any profession. it doesn't solve the problem, it just means that any racist person won't be an official member of the BNP thus making them harder to earmark and keep an eye on. they'll go on voting,supporting and donating to the BNP if they were going to do so anyway but the govt. can point to things like "the support for the bnp has dropped with in the police force" etc. when that is a completely abstract point when the reality is any racism that was present will still be there, only now the racists will feel vindicated that they are in fact being oppressed and discriminated against "in their own country" and the bnp will have more "hard working britons get the short end of the stick" fodder.
either ban membership to one political or none at all. and then if a bnp member can leave their personal beliefs at the door and complete their jobs to the highest professional standard then srely that's all that matters.if they fall short nail them to the wall as with everyone else.

thanks for replying mq, I understand your reasoning but don't agree with it. My view is that by banning teachers from joining the BNP it is sending out the message that racist views are unacceptable. And I cannot even begin to inagine how things would be if the police didn't have the ban.

But Mayorquimby, it actually may not be a legal party ... here's the link again: iscrimination-law/

What is odd about this discussion- and I think Qually put it brilliantly: "It's legal so they can do it so it must be okay because it would be illegal if it isn't so there's no need to make it illegal because it's legal" - is that the ( current) legality of anything, most of all something like the BNP, isn't really the issue. It's allowing known BNP members to teach children.

The Government don't like them, but nor does anyone else!!( apart from a minority) Just because the Gov say something is wrong, doesn't mean we all have to disagree just because they said so, because we may not like the Government.

I'm interested to know what those contributors- who are supporting teachers joining the BNP on the basis of its legality- would think if the BNP actually became made illegal? Will it then not be OK for teachers to join simply and only because it's an illegal party?? Is what they stand for suddenly not OK?

www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/bnp-commission-takes-action-over-potential-breach-of-race-d iscrimination-law/

and if they get declared an illegal party tomorrow or have their status taken away, then yes nail them to the wall and ban the lot of them.
and i accept that the message has to be sent out that racism is abhorrent. but then how can the govt say on the one hand, this is a legal party, but on the other that this party is so intrinsically racist that mere membership of it is evidence enough that a person,while performing a legal act of joining a party, is unsuitable or unsafe to teach children or police the country.
i would have no problem with the bnp being outlawed, i think it would be great, but what i do have a problem with is the govt. upon not being able to get them outlawed forgoing the basic foundations of the democracy and soceity they are meant to uphold.
my basic argument is, that like the legal system, the democratic system has rules. and much like the legal system sometimes these rules work to protect bad people.how many times do we see blatantly guilty people practically crowbarred through the slimmest margins of "reasonable doubt" or getting off on a technicality. but we accept that this is how the system works because the alternative is anarchy which ends up with abuse of power.for example if a paedophile got off on a technicality but it was obvious they were guilty we'd want them locked up naturally. but if we were to suspend the agreed upon legal process for this one case because they were so abhorrent and let the judge say "well technically and legally you are innocent, but you are a nasty piece of work so we're giving you 10 years because it's what the people want and it's what i want" then that opens up the floodgates and 40 years down the line we have judges deciding who gets to go to jail and who gets to walk free based upon who they agree with or like.
so if we accept the govt basically going against the system of democracy this one time, it means that they are no better than the BNP and are stooping to their level by going against democracy and the civil liberties of their citizens,something the BNP would do in a heartbeat has now been legitimised by the current govt.
if the govt want to disband the bnp or get them outlawed then that is great. but to do it with any credibility they have to do it by the rules, otherwise it validates any anti-democratic actions of parties which will follow them.

Mayorquimby please don't selectively quote me.

"I think it would do two things: reduce funding and membership levels, and send a message to teachers, kids and society that it isn't a job where racism is appropriate or welcome." was what I said. It might help in a debate if you don't cherrypick the bits you can argue against and completely ignore the bits you find unanswerable, no?

It's wholly appropriate to seek to slow down the spread of fascism amongst public servants in charge of vulnerable kids, and applying the sort of social pressures a ban can afford may help do that. Especially as one of the big arguments in favour here appears to be "but it's legal for a teacher to be a BNP member!" Well, if banned, it wouldn't be, so how is that any sort of an argument?

And you don't need to be a convicted paedophile to be unable to teach on child protection grounds, so that argument also fails. Enhanced disclosure means any reasonably substantial doubts on record about you - or even an ex partner, afaicr - can block access to children, and therefore a career working with them.

I'd argue that actively campaigning to throw kids in your care out of the country purely because they aren't white and/or of Christian origin makes you unfit to teach. Why are the teacher's rights to be a fascist more important than a child's rights to be taught by someone who isn't? No, you can't stop racists being teachers or in the police - but nor can you stop unconvicted paedophiles, or gangsters. That isn't an argument against trying.

Many posters are still talking as if a ban has some effect on how many racist teachers there might be. It has no effect whatsoever and could not have been intended to.

Hence my suggestion of banning milkman from joining the BNP. It has no more or no less effect and is only about money.

The message that racism is wrong is already sent. We made it illegal.

The only message this sends is that if you are in charge you can misuse your power to curtail the freedoms for selected groups. In this case teachers.

Oh and yes the police should have the same rights as any citizen. I don't even like what the police force has become, but police officers are not second class citizens so should have equal rights.

qallyu i wasn't cherry picking to make it look like that's all you said. apologies if that's how it came out. i was just quoting the bit which i was replying to to give my post context. i didn't do it as a ploy to paint your post or position as different to what it was.
i didn't ignore the second part as i find it unanswerable. i'd say it's obvious that teaching isn't a job where racism isn't welcome or acceptable.where we disagree is that i don't believe that banning one legal group but not others sends forth this message.
that's the only reason i only quoted the first part of your post.

and the argument isn't "but it's legal for a teacher to be a bnp memebr," and that this argument would be void all of a sudden if it were illegal for teachers to be members. the argument is that we have political autonomy and for as long as it is legal for a teacher to be a member of any political party that should apply across the board. so if it becme illegal for a teacher to be a member of the bnp tomorrow but not any other party every argument i've put forward on this thread would still be valid. either the govt. find sound legal and political grounds to ban the BNP outright or else accept that they have the same rights as everyone else. as i said before it's not ok to circumvent democracy when it suits your cause to do so and then expect everyone else to follow the rules.

Mayorquimby: if you discovered that your DS DD was taught by a member of the BNP what would you do?
If they were learning about the Holocaust, and they came home to you and said " our teacher said the Holocaust didn't happen" what would you think?
If they said to you that Hitler maybe went "a bit far" what would yo say?

I agree with democracy and the freedom of speech, but fundamentalism and incitement to hatred from anyone, not just the BNP, has no place in schools.

well then i'd be disgusted because they'd be bringing their political views over the threshold of the class-room. i've reiterated time and time again that the teachers should still be held up to the highest possible standards and i they fail to meet these then give them both barrells.
let me ask you this, if a teacher did the things you described, why should their partyt allegience matter?they've committed the exact same transgression.
would you feel better if the teacher who did this wasn't a member of the bnp?
would it be worse if the teacher gave them a factual lesson from the curriculum and happened to be a bnp member but left their own politics out of it, than a non-bnp racist spouting out the things about hitler and the holocaust as above?
in fact if the relevant authorities know the teacher is a bnp member it means they can keep a closer eye out for things like this and ensure that the teacher is not bringing their politics to the class-room. much better than just assuming because the teacher is a labour/green party/whatever member they're not going to break the rules and because one is bnp member they will.

sorry to answer the 1st question if i found out they were simply as bnp member i'd think less of them as a person but i wouldn't let it affect my judgment of them in their ability to teach unless i had evidence of misconduct.
i had some sadistic pricks of teacher who i never knew what party they supported. some of them were even men of god. but one of the biggest bastards outside of the classroom who i wouldn't even dignify with spitting on, was a bloody great maths teacher and never brought his issues to his teaching.

Okay, apologies on my side as well for misunderstanding your concerns. The thin end of the wedge argument I actually do respect, and I share those concerns. I suggested further back in the threads that any such law about teachers should specifically enshrine their rights to any form of political activity that was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act (BNP activity amongst teachers arguably does, on discrimination grounds). That would not only ban BNP activity, it would guarantee the future right to participate in politics as long as it wasn't hateful (in the legal sense of the word). It would stop any further encroachment itswim. Frankly if I were a teacher I might rather welcome my profession being brought under that aegis - swapping BNP rights for protection in general.

Unfortunately the "but it's legal!" argument's been trotted out an awful lot.

"I suggested further back in the threads that any such law about teachers should specifically enshrine their rights to any form of political activity that was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act (BNP activity amongst teachers arguably does, on discrimination grounds). "

and something like that (except i'd go further to say for any political party to be legally recognised it should meet them) would be workable. where you have an over-arching all encompassing set of rules or law then i'd agree it's feasible. but when you name one party specifically and apply a completely different set of rules to only that party, i think it's unworkable as the party will either just change it's name or it's members will work to stay under the radar, and to me it just seems like a pr exercise for the govt to show how pro-active they are. where as if you set the rule first and then make every party adhere to it and not just one democratic freedoms will prevail.

i do see why people would have a problem with bnp members teaching their kids and understand the concern, it is the solution to the problem that has been suggested that i just can't agree with.

Yeah, I can agree with you there. If an HRA compatibility test were applied to all political activity for teachers/the police, it would automatically exclude the BNP and any other hate filled organisation. And putting any party through that test as a precursor to gaining electable status would be a fair test, too.

Mostly I'm hopping mad with the corruption over expenses. It's meant a disillusionment with the process that's playing into extremist hands - and most MPs involved seem totally unable to accept their responsibility for that.

Again, I agree with Qally in that an HRA compatability test would be a sensible way forward.
To answer your question Mayorquimby:
"would it be worse if the teacher gave them a factual lesson from the curriculum and happened to be a bnp member but left their own politics out of it, than a non-bnp racist spouting out the things about hitler and the holocaust as above?"

Of course it would be exactly as bad. The difference being that, had they joined the BNP and parents knew about it then hopefully it would never come to that. And, of course, the BNP believe it is a fact that the Holocaust never happened so to that teacher it would be a factual lesson!

As I said before, there is a lot of polite talk about the BNP, but remove it and their attitudes actually do affect people. You need sensible discussion and debate, of course, but lets not lose sight of the fact that their policies and beliefs are hateful.

I don't know your racial heritage Mayorquimby, and I won't assume anything. All I will say is that I've seen racism first hand and let me assure you that it's ugly.
If I trust my DD to her teachers and discover that, despite keeping their politics to themselves ( which I think would be pretty hard: extreme parties attract extremists) one was a BNP member I would be horrified and ask why they were allowed to teach.
Because, even if they kept their politics quiet, they would 'feel' differently towards any of their pupils and their families who weren't white British ( or Norse descendent... bizarrely.) In the cut and thrust of the classroom you can't possibly predict what a teacher will be asked or what subjects will arise.

Of course you can't stop all teachers being racist ( as I said in a previous post ) but if you actually know them to be racist because they've made a financial commitment to it, then this is a way, however imperfect, to stop racists inter-acting with children.

As I said before, we can debate the legal/ democratic issue and it's interesting to do so. Some points I agree with.

But when it comes to everyday life, to the real treatment of children in the classroom and how they feel with a certain teacher: these are intangible. They're harder to pin down. Certain things are insidious, dangerous and no amount of legal debate can change that. In the end, it will be individual children and families who suffer.