Harry's Place

Article 12 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, …

It seems to me that the equality legislation referred to denies this right, by obliging the BNP to modify their constitution to admit members they do not wish to admit, ie. people who are not white.

“Members of the BNP may not serve in the police force or prison services. ”

Is it not more the case that serving police and prison officers can not be member of ANY political party?

On the Liberal-left, we even have campaigns to protect the civil rights of those convicted of crimes – even violent ones – but none of us seems concerned that the civil liberties of people who have not broken the law are being steadily removed.

Somewhat overstated, since for example I am on the liberal-left and I am very concerned indeed about this scandalous state of affairs, as I hinted earlier today on another thread in connection with Unison; and the same seems to be true of you :)

Well said, Brett.

“Is it not more the case that serving police and prison officers can not be member of ANY political party?”

Not as far as I’m aware. That would be a ‘fair’ policy at least, but most unreasonable. Why should police officers be denied the right to political expression outside of work hours?

“Somewhat overstated”

True. I’ll edit.

If Anti Fascism has mutated into Fascism does that mean Fascism is the new anti Fascism?

Article 12 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the right to freedom of association, including, and specifically stated, political parties.

Surely the use of equality legislation to compel the BNP to admit members who they do not freely choose to admit would contradict that right?

Brett – good piece, got me thinking. But let’s say yours is the kid whose teacher belongs to the BNP. And let’s say that said teacher hasn’t refused to teach minority kids, hasn’t said anything racist, sticks to the curriculum. What do you do?

Thanks for the edit, Brett.

Saline, it would be interesting to see BNP members taking the government to court over Article 12.

Ben, if that teacher hasn’t put a foot wrong in the classroom, then ‘doing anything’ would constitute punishing them for pursuing a legal activity. Either you pass a law banning the BNP, and there are arguments for and against; or you don’t ‘do’ anything; or you ban members of all political parties (and members of fishing clubs?) from the teaching profession.

“But let’s say yours is the kid whose teacher belongs to the BNP. And let’s say that said teacher hasn’t refused to teach minority kids, hasn’t said anything racist, sticks to the curriculum. What do you do?”

You do nothing. If the teacher isn’t bringing their politics into the classroom, then it’s none of your business what their private views are.

What if they resigned from the BNP – would that automatically mean their views changed. What if a teacher holds racist views but never joined the BNP. What if teachers personally hold sexist, xenophobic or homophobic views – whether or not they belong to organisations?

Put simply, we can’t – and shouldn’t – police the mind.

And let’s say that said teacher hasn’t refused to teach minority kids, hasn’t said anything racist, sticks to the curriculum. What do you do?

What can you do? If he is teaching children of all skin colours, and treating them equally, and sticking to the curriculum, then he is doing his job.

It make a refreshing change for a teacher to do that though rather than spout the usual left-wing bullshit that most of them seem to do nowadays.

It’s strange that the very people most likely to protest about McCarthyism and the imposition of loyalty tests when the witch-hunt is targeting the left are the first to start up loyalty tests against the right. And I believe in this, because it’s been tested by research, that he who fucks nuns will later join the church.

If Labour do, in fact, cause trouble for teachers who are members of the BNP (and, in fact, how many is this? Or is this `sending a message’ to an empty set?) then the Tories should, when they come to power, make membership of the SWP incompatible with being a university employee. Sauce for the fascist goose is sauce for the anti-semitic gander.

It make a refreshing change for a teacher to do that though rather than spout the usual left-wing bullshit that most of them seem to do nowadays.

I’m surprised you can here what they say in the classrooms from you car

Why stop at the BNP?

Why not the SWP or the myriad of less objectionable revolutionary (and by definition anti-democratic) sects of the far Left.

What about members of Islamist parties which are every bit as objectionable as the BNP.

“Where do you stop!!!” is usually a crap argument. But in this case, it is spot on.

Balls must have gone mad.

It make a refreshing change for a teacher to do that though rather than spout the usual left-wing bullshit that most of them seem to do nowadays.

I swear. I’ve been subject to or present at dozens of abuses by educators, counselors, etc as they abused their positions to advance a political point of view. Not once has this come from the Right.

Well the problem here is this:

1) employers have a right and a duty to only pick people who will not subvert their jobs. You can’t have a racist in a position where he’s supposed to advocate for members of the public (such as a public defender), you can’t have in a position where if he neglects his duties in the case of black people their rights will be in jeopardy such as a public servant, you can’t have him in a position to turn children into racists or to ruin the lives of black or asian children so he can’t be a teacher etc etc.

2) but in the case of the government being the employer one wishes to prevent the administration from having the ability to use hiring decisions to subvert the political process by showing favoritism to their own party or by having them punish other parties.

3) also there may be some confusion between the case of the government making laws that subvert the political process and bureaucracies making rules, hiring guidelines and the like. But I do just think that’s confusion. Hiring guidelines are legitimate

In the end my argument is this: Employers not only have a right to exclude racists many of them have a profound duty to exclude racists from their workforce.

Brett is simply wrong, profoundly wrong.

It makes no sense to ban people from any occupation on the basis of beliefs or orientations that should not affect that occupation anyway. If you did that you would have to ban all police officers of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths who consider homosexuality to be sinful. This would be unjust, because the normal professional standards they employ are sufficient to make their affiliations irrelevant to the customers.

But the other side of this coin, is the ever increasing pressure for reverse discrimination in favour of women and ethnic minority candidates. That is discrimination on grounds of gender and/or race. But apparently it’s OK when they do it?

Should an Englishman be able to drag Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP through the courts so they have to let him stand as a candidate?

Well I don’t think so.

And my final point is this. Membership of any political party, or religious organisation, is a personal matter. Like how you voted, it’s no-one else’s business.

so I won’t hold my breath to see if the ’social engineers’ in the far left also clamp down and force non white ethnic groups to start accepting whites, such as the black police federation and the many hundreds of other groups which restrict membership to ethnicity and race, ie non whites.
strange how the far left never mention this yet use draconian and the rule of physical force to restrict a legal party, ie the BNP.

The BNP are nasty, but the SWP & Stop The War Trots are worse & the Green Party is the most dangerous political group in the UK.

Then there are the Muslims ——-

Well,I suppose someone who tells you it is wrong to beat your girlfriend is kind of advancing a political view.Or am I assuming the other kind of counselor?

“Not once has this come from the Right.”

Except of course stuff like “Creationsim”?

Spot on Brett, there’s way too much Harriet Harmanism around. No two tear citizenship.

Brett – good piece, got me thinking. But let’s say yours is the kid whose teacher belongs to the BNP. And let’s say that said teacher hasn’t refused to teach minority kids, hasn’t said anything racist, sticks to the curriculum. What do you do?

Accept that your kid’s teacher holds differing political views to you. It’s called democracy.

Except of course stuff like “Creationsim”?

Actually, the right have almost nothing to do with it, because this isn’t America and there isn’t any significant alignment between social conservatives and fundamentalist Christianity. Part of the reason why Nadine Dorries is a pariah in her party, while she would be the hero of the hour at a Republican bake sale, is because abortion is hardly a political issue either and she’s trying to make it one (opponents of abortion are spread over all three major parties).

Living on the culture wars frontline as I do, I used “how do you approach evolution?” as a litmus test when selecting secondary schools for my children. If they floundered and tried to cold read me for my opinion I walked away, if they started talking “sensitive issue” I laughed and walked away. The teachers, who equivocated were largely young white women in casual clothes, who were probably desperately trying to show that they were `sensitive’ to `community’ issues. In fact, claims that truth is context sensitive and the ludicrous beliefs of the religious deserve `respect’ is a shibboleth of the left, not the right.

I wonder how many Hizbies are teachers, policemen etc.:

How does one join Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir is open to all Muslim men and women regardless of their nationality, race or school of thought, thus the party looks to all of them according to the viewpoint of Islam. An individual becomes a party member after detailed study and contemplation of the party’s thoughts and opinions. Membership of the party occurs when the individual achieves maturity in the party culture and adopts the party’s thoughts and opinions based on the intellectual and Islamic evidences.

I’m sure those of us with a long enough memory will remember Abid Javaid.

1) employers have a right and a duty to only pick people who will not subvert their jobs. You can’t have a racist in a position where he’s supposed to advocate for members of the public (such as a public defender), you can’t have in a position where if he neglects his duties in the case of black people their rights will be in jeopardy such as a public servant, you can’t have him in a position to turn children into racists or to ruin the lives of black or asian children so he can’t be a teacher etc etc.

In the end my argument is this: Employers not only have a right to exclude racists many of them have a profound duty to exclude racists from their workforce. So true.A racist is not going to leave his prejudice at home when he goes to work.

I agree with Josh Scholar!!!!

Your children shouldn’t even know which, if any political party their teacher is in. They shouldn’t know his or her views of homosexuality, or abortion.

If they know, then that teacher has over stepped the mark. Spreading propaganda is not part of their role.

Except of course stuff like “Creationsim”?

I was educated in public schools, mostly in Texas. I was never taught “creationism”. By anyone.

You should certainly not employ people who will subvert their jobs.

But I think you need evidence that a person actually WILL subvert their jobs… not that they MIGHT.

Membership of a particular political party doesn’t cut it for me.

Where was the outcry from the left when it turned out that the leader of the 7/7 suicide bombers had been employed in a school in Yorkshire, with access to young children? Where are the calls for special screening of muslim classroom staff to ensure the children are not placed at risk?

I don’t think anyone in the police or the armed forces should be a member of any political party, let alone the BNP.

Membership of a particular political party doesn’t cut it for me
Even if the declared aim of that party is to “encourage” people of the “wrong” colour or ethnicity to leave the UK? Can somebody with such views leave them at home? Incidentally I think Bratt fails the “not scratching at their heels like weasels” test he set himself.

It seems that the powers that be are doing everything possible to help the BNP. First they ignore very relevant, important issues that affect peoples’ lives; then they slander anyone that raises those issues as ‘racists’; then they turn a blind eye to the evils of Islam and Islamic culture; and now they are persecuting a group of people for their political beliefs. They are doing everything they accuse the BNP of doing, the sole difference being that they are less honest about it.

In 3-5 years it will be Islam against the BNP. It isn’t much of a choice, but that is the way it will be because Labour and the Tories and so many others have gone MIA on important issues. They have decided to sing Kumbayah instead of being honest about human rights and equality. They have thrown out 800 years of progress in return for the fallacious pleasure of being labeled ‘compassionate’. They have turned their backs to our basic freedoms in order not to offend a barbaric ideology.

To describe most of the british political class as ‘weasels’ is an insult to 4-legged animals everywhere.

Brett is wrong. Racists, misogynists, homophobes and other bigots should not be allowed to be teachers, policemen or members of other professions which require them to serve all members of the public equally and without discrimination. If someone turned up at a job interview for a teaching post and said ‘I hate niggers and poofs, but it won’t lead me to treat them differently in the classroom’, they shouldn’t reasonably expect to get the job, even if they’re sincere.

We may not be able to keep all bigots out of such professions, but we can keep out as many as possible. And I mean real bigots, not just anyone with vaguely politically incorrect views. If they belong to the BNP or an Islamist group like Hizb ut-Tahrir, they should automatically qualify for exclusion.

The right of ordinary members of the public to send their children to school or report a crime without fear of being discriminated against by the public servants in question comes before the right of bigots to the employment of their choice. There’s nothing to stop them seeking employment in other professions, where their views won’t be a problem.

so I won’t hold my breath to see if the ’social engineers’ in the far left also clamp down and force non white ethnic groups to start accepting whites, such as the black police federation and the many hundreds of other groups which restrict membership to ethnicity and race, ie non whites.

I don’t know who you mean by the “black police federation”, but I’m guessing it’s the National Black Police Association – whose website states very clearly that Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application. There is no bar to membership based on colour.

You say there are “many hundreds” of similar groups – so can you name one that explicitly bars people from certain racial backgrounds from joining in the way that the BNP undoubtedly does?

Michael, some of the local Black Police Officer Associations do have race based restrictions on membership.

Michael, some of the local Black Police Officer Associations do have race based restrictions on membership.

Oh come on – do you think I’m going to blithely accept that without supporting evidence?

If someone turned up at a job interview for a teaching post and said ‘I hate…, but it won’t lead me to treat them differently in the classroom’, they shouldn’t reasonably expect to get the job, even if they’re sincere.

But what if people don’t say that, and don’t react differently?

Should an Englishman be able to drag Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP through the courts so they have to let him stand as a candidate?

If he’s competent and agrees with the party’s policies, what’s to stop him joining and trying to get selected? I doubt any of these parties has a contitution that would prevent it.

Good points Brett. I came to the same conclusion when the BNP list was leaked last year. As disgustingly reprehensible as the BNP are, we should either relate to them like any other political party or ban them. The current state of ambivalence is not serving democracy well.

“Should an Englishman be able to drag Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, and the SNP through the courts so they have to let him stand as a candidate?”

I’m fairly sure that all of those parties have had English people standing as candidates for them. Plaid Cymru definitely has.

Michael, hey? Pull the other one…

Here’s a good thread with some links (warning! long thread, but then you probably know that… ;-]):

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/06/11/well-said/

The NBPA have conveniently plastered that comment on their website quite recently. Some of the other regional orgs. have also carefully scrutinised their legalese in continental fashion ensuring that they conform to the letter but not the spirit of the law.

The Northants BPA which explicitly advocated a racist membership policy has subsequently removed access to their main site. One can now only access a picture of a policeman and not their racist constitution. Even Google cache, which enabled Bingo Tollemache on the previous thread to link to their constitution, no longer provides a link to the original site.

The Liebour ‘fringe’ caucus formerly known as the Black Socialist Society, and now BAME Labour, still exists:

http://www.bamelabour.org.uk/

But, then you’ll probably say that they’re an advocacy group and different rules apply…

I was going to mention Northamptonshire, but you are right. The website is gone.

I remember when I was at school one of my teachers was in the National Front. He was quite open about it and it did not even occur to us that there was anything we could do. Teachers would often make racist jokes as well and do fake accents (Indian and Irish) mainly and did not make much attempt to keep their views private. I don’t think that you can actually sack someone just for being a member of a political party though – unless they say or do something at work. It is the sort of thing that we would have taken a case to the ECtHR on back when I worked at Liberty – so I agree with Brett’s main point.

I think that John Wadham (my ex-boss) is right though about the BNP not being allowed to exclude black people either as members or potential employees. Although freedom of association does imply the right not to associate with people that you don’t want to, the Tories got through a set of laws restricting the ability of trade unions to expel members (ironically some of them for BNP membership), which the court did not strike down. I am pretty sure that prohibiting someone joining your party just because of their race or ethnicity is a violation of their rights (although, it would be quite difficult to find a ‘victim’ in such a case). On potential employment bans, they are simply bang to rights – it would be illegal.

I think that John Wadham (my ex boss too… sort of!) is right about employment – this is a straightforward application of the existing law.

I do think, however, that if you’re going to exclude people in a certain profession or job from membership of a party certain goals and characteristics, you need to do so by applying a neutral set of principles, which are not ad hominem, and are proportionate and reasonably related to the mischief which it is intended to cure.

So, can anybody come up with a rule that passes that test and bans (say) teachers from membership of the BNP but not (say) members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty?

I can’t believe it’s even debatable that a public employee can be fired for mere membership in a legal political party. Have you people lost your goddam minds?

In fact, I very much hope that Liberty takes this up as a campaigning issue. It ought to, because of the potential reach of this legislation – it isn’t just about the BNP.

Have you people lost your goddam minds?

this is precisely what my father said.

What if someone mentioned they’d been on an Alpha Course and quite enyoed it. What nasty views might they let slip in the classroom or workplace?

Brett is simply right,profoundly right!!
One can not police the mind,if they are a legal entity then why should they be banned?
Liberty is the right to tell people things they don’t like to hear.
I am tired of people telling me me what I should think and do

This post is sadly quite poor.

The idea seems to be that these are lesser measures in lieu of banning. It seems a strange position to say either we must treat the BNP like they are the Girl Guides in terms of the principles of free association or we must ban them.

I am intensely relaxed about the BNP being banned myself, but I’m not sure Brett is. I’m fairly sure this requires an analysis based on a continuum of actions rather than a binary approach, and that any analysis which takes a binary view is necessarily going to be lacking.

So, full points for effort, but a big zero for achievement on this one, unfortunately. Josh Scholar and MAH are correct. To the NuLab thought crimes correctional unit for Brett and David. A bout of self-criticism will work wonders, comrades.

Nick Griffin’s response is:

“It is all a bit of liberal hysteria couched in legal terms. The fact that the letter was served on us through the mass media shows that it is actually not legal in intent at all.

“The BNP is an exempted organisation under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Race Relations Act which allow for exclusive ethnic organisations with a membership of 50 or more. The BNP has never been in breach of any of the provisions of the law in terms of its membership and Mr (Trevor) Phillips knows this to be the case”.

“It is a ridiculous PR stunt by Mr Phillips, who is yet another unelected member of the Labour Party who has been promoted beyond his capacity, just like his good friend Mr Peter Mandelson.

“Furthermore, Mr Phillips and the EHRC are on record as being utterly biased in favour of non-indigenous British groups and against the BNP.

“Last year in May, for example, Mr Phillips told the Scottish Trade Union Congress that the ‘BNP should be treated as less than human.’ Anyone who suggests that the EHRC has an objective view on the BNP should have their head examined,”

Less than human? In German, that would be ‘Untermensch’. Now, given that Trevor Philips has a bust of Lenin on his desk and is an admirer, it seems that the article which appeared here on HP about the extreme-left and the extreme right is quite timely.

You see, some racism is acceptable:

“Constitution of Greater Manchester Black and Asian Police Association

Article 9: Members

9.1 Full membership to the BAPA is applicable to all serving employees of the Greater
Manchester Police Authority who are of an African, African-Caribbean, Asian or Asian
sub-continent or Middle-Eastern origin.

9.2 Membership of the BAPA is also open to Associate Members.

9.3 Associate Membership shall be open to those persons whose objectives are compatible
with or supportive of the objectives of the BAPA, but who are otherwise ineligible for
membership to the BAPA.

9.4 The Executive Committee shall approve all applicants for Associate Membership.

9.5 Associate Members shall not be entitled to hold office nor shall they have any voting
rights.
————-
So white people can’t be members, they can only be associates with no prospects of holding office, or voting.

How do you propose stopping the BNP from doing the same?

My bat, my ball, I don’t like you, so you are not playing anymore.

Might work.

It could however so easily lead to whole different ball game.

Exposure is the way, let them expose themselves in the light of day. Push them into the dark and like fools who take cocaine, some will see them as trendy, dangerous, revolutionary, Happening.

Exposure and Ridicule that’s the way, it will work against all the Lunatic fascists be they left or right.

“Less than human? In German, that would be ‘Untermensch’. Now, given that Trevor Philips has a bust of Lenin on his desk and is an admirer, it seems that the article which appeared here on HP about the extreme-left and the extreme right is quite timely.”

Ha ha! Come on Alan, Phillips is a heroically moderate Blairite type, hardly the head-banging ultra-left sort. Also very keen on “Britishness”, in a much more real and authentic way than our embarassing relatives in the BNP. All round a good chap.

“The BNP is an exempted organisation under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Race Relations Act which allow for exclusive ethnic organisations with a membership of 50 or more.”

David – does that stand up?

Ben, I don’t think there’s anything ‘moderate’ about Blair and the eponymous -ism. Not so much into table-thumping: more into insidious infiltration of our institutions and destroying from within. That’s ‘Blairism’ and Philips is a key practitioner, and doing rather well for himself btw!

I was under the impression that many of the ‘private club’ loopholes that applied when I studied this area of the law, have now been closed.

If that’s wrong, John Wadham is talking nonsense, which I very much doubt!

Incidentally, I was out with Richard Clayton QC last night, if you remember him! We were talking about the famous John Wadham civil action against the police . . .

David T, Josh Scholar

Therefore it must be legitimate to have an ‘equal treatment in teaching’ Code of Practice which is also an explicit component of hiring policy.

I do not think it acceptable to probe for political views at the point of interview or acceptance via a non face to face hring method.

At the point just before hiring becomes a legally binding contract along with all the other bumf filled out and security and qualifications are checked there should be a questionnaire stressing quite clearly the strict requirements for equal treatment in practice.

If a racist (whether or not a member of the BNP) does not believe as a matter of conscience that all ethnic groups (just one example) are equal and therefore they realise that, as a matter of conscience, they cannot sign such a statement on the equal treatment of the children who they not only teach but owe a duty of care ‘in loco parentis’ towards, then they should not sign.

A racist who holds commited views should accept that an inability to teach is the price they must pay for acting upon their beliefs.

In the same way a pious Muslim or Jewish applicant for a Pork butcher position should accept that they are excluded as a consequence of their choice not an unacceptable prejudice on behalf of the employer.

The other reason for making acceptance and agreement of the equal treatment code of practice a requirement of hiring is that parents have a reasonable right to require that their children are treated equaly without bias being evident in their treatment.

If the employee is later found t be in breach of the Code of Practice for their actions not their political beliefs then the termination of their employment becomes a straight forward, evidence based, breach of contract.

For example a racist teacher who had signed the pledge of equal treatment in the Code of practice was alleged to treat non white pupils differently marking them more harshly, ignoring them in class. giving them a deflated ball in ssoccer or the dangerous Bunsen Burner with the eyelash singing flame that was not fit for purpose in Chemistry, then these are all evidentiary matters that it is not hard to find a real case of discrimination in (a pupil is taughtby numerous teachers so straight A students who are non White disproportionately getting low marks would be good evidence).

Similarly an allegation of racist discrimination in teaching practice would only have to address the issue of whether (according to the civil standard) the equal treatment hiring policy and code of practice was breached.

The teacher would retain their civil and political rights and these would not become the issues for determination by a court but simply the contract of employment, was it broken or not?

This would prevent malicious claims by racists with a political agenda turning employment tribunals into a forum for their martyrdom.

If i was a nasty racist activist in the BNP these announcements would be a gift for entryism and the creation of racial strife. Just send of a load of racists to be teachers just so they can claim unfair dismissal.

Any occupation can (within the law that includes equality legislation) determine whether a prospective applicant has the necessary skills, and commitment appropriate for that job.

Quite straightforward really. Not necessarily simple but clear and practicable and fair as a policy that does not encourage a subversion of the purpose of teaching, or of the principle of our freedoms enshrined in law.

Our legal system accuses on the basis of behaviour that breaches a law and Judges an individual on the strength of evidence and if found to be liable then punishes an individual (not a group) for that breach.

Maybe we should consider a ban on anybody Left of the Tories from serving as teachers and police officers.

Good post from Brett.

The answer I believe is to have an office for the protection of the constitution on the German model which would investigate and prosecute political parties that were secretly looking to undermine democracy and install a totalitarian regime. There is plenty of evidence that the BNP is actually a neo Nazi front organisation with links to extremely violent groups. It would be a prime candidate for a legal ban. There might be different levels of ban – some parties might simply be prevented from partaking in elections. In more serious cases the party could be broken up and its property confiscated. But in any case where a party is banned its members might also be banned from public service.

Of course banning a political party is an extremely serious matter and one would expect a high threshold for evidence of totalitarian intent.

“Of course banning a political party is an extremely serious matter and one would expect a high threshold for evidence of totalitarian intent.”

Presumably, the various Marxist-Leninist and Islamist organizations would clear this threshhold, right?

In most recruiting, you can’t even find out whether the candidate under consideration has a criminal record. All you can do in an interview is query any gaps in employment record which could conceivably have been custodial sentences. You have no recourse to any official records.

Nor should you, by the way.

Saline Feline
An interesting theoretical point but there is a clear example without the need for litigation.

There is a fundamental principle that runs as the most ancient golden thread throughout all civil and political rights legislation and that is the equitable principle of ‘unclean hands’.

This means that a person coming before a tribunal to request relief from a mischeif or trespass alleged to have been committed against them, must have ‘clean hands’.

To put it plainly in this context you cannot plead a violation of your rights in order to deprive someone else of theirs.

All rights are indivisable a hierachy of more or less rightful is not allowed (though some rights are qualified already in their enactment as not allowing the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others) nor must the courts in interpreting a claim allow such a qualification.

Thus if the BNP a party that discrrminates (illegally) against people joining on the grounds of race, colour ethnic group or national origins sought relief before a court claiming their right to join a party was being infringed a tribunal could strike out the claim without hearing it the matter being so clearly settled in law.

The obvious point is that their right to form a political party is not being infringed but that they are bound by the law in doing so and are not entitled to practice racial discrimination.

In the same way a Golf Club is not entitled to keep black slaves (even consenting ones) in their basement.

The tribunal judgement on ladelle was wrong and John Wadham admitted as much in a seminar I was in a while back.

The tribunal could have found for her on her own harassment 9and they have the power to redefine the cause of action they were being lazy).

If they made any judgement on the issue of religious belief they should have said that it did not entitle her to discriminate against any other group whether she disapproved of them or not.

John Washam made clear that there is no precedent from her case even in the narrowest sense as her case only appliedto transitional arrangements for Registrars hired before the law change.

Anew case where a person was made aware the requirements for equal treatment prior to hiring would not be heard 9this means he slapped the tribunals wrists and said don’t do it again)

Richard Clayton? That is quite exciting. Presumably through your better half? You would need to pull in dinner with Lord Turner or Hector Sants to compete at a similar level, DT!

On topic, I don’t dislike Field’s idea, actually. People would say it was overkill, of course. And whilst I don’t like the idea of leaving this sort of thing to unelected officials, people are so terribly suspicious when politicians start talking about banning.

Field:

“Of course banning a political party is an extremely serious matter and one would expect a high threshold for evidence of totalitarian intent.”

Are you kidding us?

We have a labour government poking it’s unwelcome prodnose into our dustbins, dinner plates, fridges, drinks cabinets, ashtrays, cars, and I fully expect they will want to take a look into our knickers next.

We already have totalitarian measures, let alone intent. And they are accepted government policy.

In most recruiting, you can’t even find out whether the candidate under consideration has a criminal record. All you can do in an interview is query any gaps in employment record which could conceivably have been custodial sentences. You have no recourse to any official records.
Nor should you, by the way. bad news for people with gaps in their cv that aren’t actually due to being in custody.
Anyway you need an enhanced criminal records bureau check to scrub school toilets these days, that’ll show up any convictions and also even any occasions when you’ve come to the attention of plod. The system was of course designed to prevent Ian Huntley types getting jobs in schools.

Highly original metaphor with the weasels scratching heels… I’m pretty sure that’s not something weasels actually do though, least not the british ones.

Jon d:

“The system was of course designed to prevent Ian Huntley types getting jobs in schools.”

Didn’t stop a suicide bomber getting a job in a school, did it?

I wrote a pice on The Third Estate about a week ago regarding The BNP’s membership policy. To be honest the government shouldnt be going anywhere near telling political organisations who they should and shouldn’t let in. It’s basic freedom of association.

2 Iranian diplos expelled in retaliatory measure…

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148141051

The invisible (but decidely sniffy) hand of Mandelson is working his magic again no doubt…good press for Gordo.

They bounced this racist teacher in the 80s….the Left has been working their magic for many decades now….ostracizing people, labeling them racists, fascists, imperialists, and shunning them from public life. This is Leftwingism, its not something new, it is what the Left is all about, as has been pointed out time and again.

Headteacher who never taught again after daring to criticise multiculturalism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527371/Headteacher-who-never-taught-again-after-daring-to-criticise-multiculturalism.html

This is quite frankly an example of a fascistic or totalitarian mindset. If implemented, it would represent the beginning of the end of Britain as a genuinely free society. It is nothing short of state intimidation. And those advocating this monstrous assault on civil liberties know that many of those against it will keep quiet lest they themselves become accused of supporting the BNP, or worse, of being goose-stepping white-supremacist neo-Nazi nutcases.

I see echoes of the old Soviet Union and Eastern bloc in this. Precluding certain people from entering certain professions for holding certain political views is cowardly and unprincipled. Whilst I’m not suggesting that there is any equivalence between the two groups, I am reminded of how many Czechoslovak academics and teachers during the time of the old communist regime were forced to become street cleaners and menial workers when found out to be members of Charter 77.

It also suggests that there may be some arguments the government knows it cannot win, and so feels the need to take these measures. It is a slippery slope. What next? Legislating for criticizing certain religions or maybe just not “respecting” them enough.

If anyone is operating withing the law and not advocating violence, not spreading racial supremacist or anti-Semitic views (for which adequate laws exist already) then there is no excuse for this type of legislation.

But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: people who are members of extremist left-wing political parties, such as the SWP, should also be precluded from the teaching professions. I would find it objectionable to have some SWP Trot teaching history, for example, where anti-British anti-Israeli views would be passed on as if they represent the irrefutable truth. And how about stopping religious extremists from becoming teachers at all levels?

Not sure if the current rules were in at the time MSK got his job monty… If thats who you’re talking about, There was a picture of him working with kids printed in the times supposedly taken 3 years before 7/7, that’d be about the same time as the Soham murders occured.
Could be an issue with special branch or intelligence service records not showing up on crb, but the computer should light up like a christmas tree for your standard bnp thug.

Orwell said Zilliacus was a crypto-Commie [which didn't stop the Czech regime naming him as a British agent during one of their postwar purge trials.]

Will we see the emergence of the crypto-BNPer ?

If sane literate people with clean fingernails join the BNP in droves, as the BNP website claims is happening, then the BNP will change.

I’m looking forward to the first Sikh BNP parliamentary candidate; it’s only a matter of time.

May the Force be With You now and Forever More!

May the weasels never scratch your heels!

Monty –

C’est vrai but one has to address these questions seriously. It could be fatal to a democracy to allow a totalitarian political party to gain enough seats to hold the balance of power in a democratic assembly and so paralyse the system.

No system is without its imperfections, but the principle of the democratic political process only being open to those prepared to play by the democratic rules seems to me a sound one. It also has the added advantage of establishing in this sort of case – what types of political organisation a teacher might belong to – what the limits are and preserve people’s individual rights .

I of course recognise that ultimately the only real guarantor of democracy is a mass democratic culture among the people. We still have that to a large degree although it is being eroded.

Josh, perhaps we should subject every teacher’s precious bodily fluids to chemical tests for racism? Or even better, subject every teacher to a brain-scan to see if he or she harbors racist thoughts whilst craftily not actually joining the BNP?
You are advocating penalties for thought-crime, which makes your argument absurd and indeed totalitarian and fascist.

Notice like the hermit crabs they are crawling out of the woodwork now the Tsunami of MP’s expenses has apparently passed over. Labour backbenchers are entrenched in rhetoric, they give us the bird on the election of a speaker. I find this post so depressing!

Me, I’m not from Britain. But here in the United States you don’t have to read minds. If someone is a member of the Ku Klux Klan you know with absolute 100% certainty that the person is a racist. Same with The Arian Nation and the Nazis.

This is not rocket science.

You don’t hire a Nazi to teach your children, you don’t hire one as a Judge or a public defender. Are you following, Me? Don’t forget to breath, by the way, you might die.

We have a labour government poking it’s unwelcome prodnose into our dustbins, dinner plates, fridges, drinks cabinets, ashtrays, cars, and I fully expect they will want to take a look into our knickers next.

Funny, in the US they started out in our underwear generations ago and occasionally they let go of our penises long enough to infringe on something else.

Making martyrs of the far right will, in the long run, prove to be a dreadful, dreadful mistake.

The EHRC action is interesting. But if the BNP membership criteria (whites only) is found to be illegal what is to stop the BNP taking similar legal action against the National Black Police Association or any other civil society organisation that draws membership on racial lines?

Have they thought through the consequences?

Josh -your above post has just made me think of something. Are we actually doing today’s children any favours by wrapping them up in cotton wool and protecting them from the nastier opinions which some individuals hold and have always held? Would we not be better serving them if instead of taking the attitude that racism is something to be disinfected even at thought level, we taught them that unfortunately they are going to encounter these sort of people somewhere along the line (because no matter how much legislation we have, thought cannot be controlled) and encouraged them to find ways of dealing with it?
Back in my day of course, there were no such niceties. The deputy head teacher at my grammar school was a bad tempered, sadistic, bigotted ex-seargant major methodist lay preacher. The headmaster tried to scupper my chances of going to university on the basis that I was a troublemaking bolshevik. Some of the things which went on in that school would have been all over the front pages of newspapers today, but back then we -the kids -found our own methods of dealing with such issues. We learned to fight back, and I actually think it taught us a valuable lesson for the future in that we engaged with biggots and racists ourselves and did not expect a higher authority to come along and do it for us.

There are a lot of problems with this proposal.

Firstly, as Brett and others point out, the issue of inconsistency, and also of precedent. Whatever case there is for banning BNP membersfrom anything, there is a much greater case for banning Hizb ut-Tahrir members. Who knows which particular groups might fall foul of this in the future, depending on society’s view of where the line of acceptability should be drawn.

Secondly, it is exactly the kind of headless chicken, knee-jerk response to the BNP’s relative success that achieves nothing politically, except for giving the BNP extra publicity and making their current and potential supporters feel even more excluded and victimised. The government’s time would be better served in ensuring that they have candidates in every local by-election and activists to knock on doors, hand our leaflets and actually listen to voters. In other words, real politics.

I like the EHRC approach, because it puts to the test the BNP’s claim to be a legal political party. It doesn’t move any goalposts, just insists that the BNP conforms to the existing law like everybody else. And I do think there is a difference between a private association like the BPA and a political party offering itself for election, with the consequent obligation to represent the whole electorate.

David T

So, can anybody come up with a rule that passes that test and bans (say) teachers from membership of the BNP but not (say) members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Alliance for Workers’ Libert

That’s a good point.

Essentially the problem is defining thought crimes – which is intrinsically illiberal and will, as sure as night follows day, precipitate precisely what many well intentioned supporters of this sort of thing are trying to stop.

Anti Fascism becomes Fascism….pretty much Orwell’s thesis.

‘So, can anybody come up with a rule that passes that test and bans (say) teachers from membership of the BNP but not (say) members of the Roman Catholic Church or the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty?’

Indeed; the AWL is not a racist, misogynist or homophobic organisation; it does not preach hatred against any group of innocent people. The Catholic Church may technically be sexist and homophobic, but there are plenty of liberal Catholics out there who are neither; there is no reason to assume that someone is a bigot just because they are a Catholic. Fundamentalist Catholics and other Christians and Muslims who really do hate gays and ‘immoral women’ should be treated like BNP supporters and kept out of schools and the police.

I believe religious schools should be secularised. But if we’re going to allow Christians and Muslims to have their own schools, at least we should prevent fundamentalist teachers from turning our young Muslims into jihadis, and filling their minds with hatred for Jews, Christians, gays and ‘immoral women’, surely ?

It’s not about ‘policing the mind’; it’s about protecting our children and our citizens.

there is no reason to assume that someone is a bigot just because they are a Catholic.

If you grant this to self identifying practicing Catholics, you should grant it to self identifying practicing members of or voters for the BNP. Why is it right to essentialise one and not the other?

Brett – thanks for the response. makes good sense to me.

‘If you grant this to self identifying practicing Catholics, you should grant it to self identifying practicing members of or voters for the BNP. Why is it right to essentialise one and not the other?’

The mainstream Catholic Church does not exclude ethnic minorities, women or gays; it does not preach hatred against these groups. A Catholic priest in this country is more likely to ask practising homosexuals or ‘immoral women’ to ask the Lord’s forgiveness for their ’sins’ – or not – than to call for their extermination or expulsion.

You can ask our friend Venichka who, I believe, is a practising Catholic who favours the institution of civil union for gay couples.

There simply is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the BNP, which is an explicitly racist organisation with an all-white membership, set up to drive ethnic minorities out of our country.

“A Catholic priest in this country is more likely to ask practising homosexuals or ‘immoral women’ to ask the Lord’s forgiveness for their ’sins’ – or not – than to call for their extermination or expulsion.”

Or lobby against the extension of civil rights to those who won’t repent. Does that count?

Israelinurse while i disagree with you in this particular instance, I agree with you in principle.

In the US things have gotten so bad in the last 20 years that in some schools teachers are entirely scripted. Exactly what they can say and what they can’t has been decided for them before hand. It’s horrible.

It’s a sort of out of control “protect the children” anti-utopian nightmare, where children are thrown out of school if they’re caught with aspirin because it’s a “drug” and teachers are not allowed to have any opinions at all or act like human beings. A teacher can be fired for hugging a crying child because touching a child at all could molestation. etc etc etc

As you say, Brett, the left has campaigns to protect the civil liberties of convicted criminals. Convicted criminals are not allowed to take certain jobs – including as police officers, prison wardens and teachers, and many other jobs in the public sector. There is no left-wing campaign to have those professions opened-up to convicted criminals. Ergo, the right to hold those jobs cannot be a civil liberty. QED.

Jon d
24 June 2009, 5:01 am

Not sure if the current rules were in at the time MSK got his job monty… If thats who you’re talking about, There was a picture of him working with kids printed in the times supposedly taken 3 years before 7/7, that’d be about the same time as the Soham murders occured.
——————-

The checks were in place long before the Soham murders. Huntley got through because the police failed to do the checks properly.

On the balance of probabilities, MSK would still get through that checking procedure today, because although the Intelligence services knew about him, I don’t think the police did. And the Intelligence guys don’t like showing their hand, they fight shy of any moves that would alert their target to the fact he has been rumbled.

Scarce Lee, the point you are missing is that convicted criminals are barred from certain jobs because of something they have done, not something they have thought. The law can legitimately be used to impose penalties and restrictions on those who have broken it. It cannot legitimately be used to harass and victimise citizens who have not broken it.

Well at the risk of sounding boring, what about my ongoing concern about RC doctors refusing to offer advice on abortions due to their religious beliefs. Surely this too is discrimination against patients who do not share those views, by state employees. They may have a dispensation to be allowed to do this, but I still regard it as discriminatory.

The BNP could presumably take a leaf out of UNISON’s book, and announce that it had set up a black only members organisation within the main one, which would have its own branch and regional committees, with membership restricted to black members and a National Black Conference.

Josh:

“In the US things have gotten so bad in the last 20 years that in some schools teachers are entirely scripted. Exactly what they can say and what they can’t has been decided for them before hand. It’s horrible.”

It’s pretty much the same here. Ten years ago I did some teaching, and it sickened me. I refused to become a child-minding propagandist and left. You can take it from me that most of their script is a pack of lies.

Some examples:

Physics is different things to different people. For some people it is painting posters of wind turbines. There is no need to apply any mathematics to it, no need to quantify anything.

Spelling and grammar are merely arbitrary conventions. Drawing attention to errors in written work is oppressive, and teachers may not do so.

The school has a uniform and code of conduct, which will not, under any circumstances, ever be enforced. There is a “policy” on bringing knives to school, and a “policy” on bringing drugs to school, and neither specifies any particular sanctions.

Finally, any pupil who is determined to get excluded will succeed eventually, supposing he has to set the headmistress on fire. After about four weeks, the school will be forced to take him back. Who is the ultimate winner? The thug. The ultimate losers are the staff and the other pupils, who are now in no doubt that the bloody little crook is untouchable, and the staff are helpless.

Scarce Lee, the point you are missing is that convicted criminals are barred from certain jobs because of something they have done, not something they have thought.

But we hold a principle that convicted criminals who have completed their sentences and probation, have paid their debt to society and are therefore entitled to the restoration of their civil liberties. Since that does not include certain types of employment, those cannot be considered civil liberties. And secondly, there is no implication that BNP members should be prohibited from teaching because of anything they think. We’re not talking about barring people who merely vote for the BNP. Being a member of a party, being an activist, is a different thing – it is indeed something you do. It is obvious to me that pupils cannot learn successfully under the instruction of someone who is actively promoting their oppression or elimination.

mrs ben:
Well at the risk of sounding boring, what about my ongoing concern about RC doctors refusing to offer advice on abortions due to their religious beliefs. Surely this too is discrimination against patients who do not share those views, by state employees. They may have a dispensation to be allowed to do this, but I still regard it as discriminatory.

That’s an important concern and you shouldn’t stop raising it. But those doctors are required to make arrangements for the patient to see an alternative doctor who will provide that advice if the patient requests it. Maybe that’s the answer then – pupils faced with a BNP teacher should be able to require the school provide an alternative teacher for them.

And the Catholic adoption agencies are opposed to allowing same sex couples to adopt. In fact, they are calling a halt to their adoption services rather than meet the new legal requirements.

There are people who take a religiously inspired view that homosexual men should be killed. Should such folk be allowed to serve on juries? What about those who think that rape of a woman is always the fault of the woman? Or that parents have a right to kill their own offspring?

No one is demanding that those nutters should lose their jobs, or their right to sit on a jury, or their right to stand for parliament.

How many people do you know, who are in the Freemasons? If you aren’t in it yourself, then you don’t know. Same for the Continuity IRA.

So you are proposing, ultimately, to deprive people of their livelihood on the suspicion that they might be members of a particular party that isn’t illegal anyway?

Monty:
And the Catholic adoption agencies are opposed to allowing same sex couples to adopt. In fact, they are calling a halt to their adoption services rather than meet the new legal requirements.

Most aren’t though, are they? Most have agreed to meet the new legal requirements, to the anger of the Catholic leadership.

There are people who take a religiously inspired view that homosexual men should be killed. Should such folk be allowed to serve on juries? What about those who think that rape of a woman is always the fault of the woman? Or that parents have a right to kill their own offspring?

Personally, I’d be inclined towards adopting a system of jury selection similar to that used in America, so that people with such views could indeed be vetoed by either side’s legal team.

No one is demanding that those nutters should lose their jobs, or their right to sit on a jury, or their right to stand for parliament.

Everyone should have the right to stand for Parliament. But there are certain jobs which are clearly incompatible with people who do certain things, belong to certain organisations. For instance, if there were a British equivalent to NAMBLA, I’d support members of that being prohibited from teaching in schools – even though they aren’t breaking the law, merely campaigning to change it, the way in which they want to change it is clearly incompatible with being a teacher, as is the case with members of the BNP.

So you are proposing, ultimately, to deprive people of their livelihood on the suspicion that they might be members of a particular party that isn’t illegal anyway?

Who is suggesting it be done on suspicion? It would need to be evidenced based.

“But we hold a principle that convicted criminals who have completed their sentences and probation, have paid their debt to society and are therefore entitled to the restoration of their civil liberties.”

No, that’s a very simplistic view. It could quite easily be argued that part of the debt is paid off in long-term instalments, taking into account the loss of trust.

Furthermore, let’s not confuse two issues. There is no civil right to work in a particular profession, obviously. You need a license to be a doctor or a pilot. You can’t just turn up at a company and expect to start work: you have sucessfully apply for the job. But what is a civil right is the right not to be pre-barred entry to professions on spurious grounds – like your race, or gender, or perfectly lawful religious/political affiliations.

“It is obvious to me that pupils cannot learn successfully under the instruction of someone who is actively promoting their oppression or elimination”

So let’s fire all teachers who are members of the Evangelical Alliance. And why stop there?

Surely there are subjects which it is perfectly possible to teach without a racist context, maths for example, so long as everyone is taught the same syllabus and marked in the same way?

“It is obvious to me that pupils cannot learn successfully under the instruction of someone who is actively promoting their oppression or elimination”

So if your teacher is a Muslim who is an active member of any one of a number of groups who wish to see Israel destroyed, or indeed sharia law and a caliphate introduced into the UK?

Brett:
It could quite easily be argued that part of the debt is paid off in long-term instalments, taking into account the loss of trust.

No, we don’t say that people with a criminal record can join those professions after x number of years. They are simply barred.

But what is a civil right is the right not to be pre-barred entry to professions on spurious grounds – like your race, or gender, or perfectly lawful religious/political affiliations.

You’re defining membership in the BNP as a spurious basis for not being employed. It is not.

As an organisation, the BNP is opposed to the core values of our society. Those who actively campaign on that platform are clearly not suited for professions which are required, above all others, to uphold and engender those values.

mrs ben:
Surely there are subjects which it is perfectly possible to teach without a racist context, maths for example, so long as everyone is taught the same syllabus and marked in the same way?

It’s not how you teach the subject, it is how you treat the pupils.

So if your teacher is a Muslim who is an active member of any one of a number of groups who wish to see Israel destroyed, or indeed sharia law and a caliphate introduced into the UK?

I think anyone belonging to such a group should be barred too.

“No, we don’t say that people with a criminal record can join those professions after x number of years. They are simply barred. “

Yes, being bared for life from positions that require confidence in a trust you’ve broken is part of the penalty.

“As an organisation, the BNP is opposed to the core values of our society.”

Whose society? Are members of political groups you or I might find objectionable not “part of our society”? And what about other groups that don’t share “our” core values? As I said, is membership of teh Evangelical Alliance not grounds for being barred from teaching and public service?

Who is going to run this committee to screen groups whose values are in opposition to some abstract “core values” (whatever they are) of “our society”?

What do ou do if a person resigns from one of these legal-yet-politically-proscribed groups? Do you have a hearing to determine whether they’ve really had a change of heart, or are they banned for life, even if their political views change radically? Who runs these hearings? Do all teachers have to submit to a “political test” or is it a “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy?

Where does this go if you start thinking it through?

Brett,

But what is a civil right is the right not to be pre-barred entry to professions on spurious grounds – like your race, or gender, or perfectly lawful religious/political affiliations.

Not a chance. Quite a few professions are mostly self-regulating, and that self-regulation means that they can set the rules of entry. And they often do set rules of entry that are more stringent than this. In particular, you can be denied ordination for belonging to a perfectly legal organisation, the BNP. This is perfectly fine is as it is, not just in this case, but in the wider one: it’s OK for organisations to set rules of entry that are more stringent than mere conformity with the law, so long as the extra-legal rules aren’t themselves unjust.

Anyway, professions, or at least the bodies that regulate professions, are supposed to be, and meay even be, private orgnisations. The BNP is a public orgnanisation, which aims to take state power. That’s why it’s liable for the race-relations stuff.

And TBH, I really don’t see your argument at all. You seem to be arguing that since the BNP is a legal political party, the civil rights of its members can’t be abridged in virtue of their membership. It’s pretty clear that this is supposed to work generally: joining a lawful organisation should not affect one’s civil rights.

Just false. The police are a legal organisation. Just in virtue of being a policeman, you basically forfeit the right to strike. So it just isn’t true, in fact, that membership of a legal organisation is insufficient to curtail a civil right. More to the point, this is quite just: maybe the restrictions on industrial action by police and doctors are too tight right now, but given the importance of those professions, I’m entirely comfortable with restricted access to industrial action for their members.

GAH. Prison officers are a much better example than policemen.

I’m entirely comfortable with restricted access to industrial action for their members.

I refer you to my previous question:

What do you do if a person resigns from one of these legal-yet-politically-proscribed groups? Do you have a hearing to determine whether they’ve really had a change of heart, or are they banned for life, even if their political views change radically? Who runs these hearings? Do all teachers have to submit to a “political test” or is it a “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy?

What do you do if a person resigns from one of these legal-yet-politically-proscribed groups? Do you have a hearing to determine whether they’ve really had a change of heart, or are they banned for life, even if their political views change radically? Who runs these hearings? Do all teachers have to submit to a “political test” or is it a “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy?

That’s sort of a policy question, rather than one about what ought to happen. But the fact that the person has resigned shoudl suffice, surely, to prove that they’ve repudiated the dodgy opinion.

But note that this is independent of your original argument, which was just that the BNP are protected from having their members’ civil rights restricted because the BNP is itself a legal organisation. This just isn’t true.

“But note that this is independent of your original argument, which was just that the BNP are protected from having their members’ civil rights restricted because the BNP is itself a legal organisation. This just isn’t true.”

Well, okay. Let’s just say that I’d prefer not to have a society in which people can be barred from their professions having broken no laws and having done nothing wrong in terms of professional conduct.

A person’s private views and political affiliations are their own, and, unless they bring them into the workplace in a way that is negatively impacting on the delivery of service to the public, that’s how they should remain.

That’s part of being free people enjoying a democratic society.

In the 50s, there was an attempt to bar Communists from work in much the same way. It was a monsterous abuse then, as this is now. But if you don’t accept this principle, then you have no right to complain when the winds of public feeling waft in a direction unfavourable to one’s own position.

They are protected because they have committed no crime which would disbar them from any profession. As we all are. Not because their political party is legally constituted.

I could be a rabid anti-evangelical bigot, and keep that opinion to myself. I could serve on a jury in which I would be quietly but implacably determined to return a guilty verdict against a defendant who was a member of an evangelical church. You would never be able to demonstrate prejudice.

Just as quite a lot of unsuccessful job applicants are sent packing with a plausible excuse. Nobody is going to be stupid enough to say “it’s because you are of childbearing age/ wear a burka/ have a name that sounds Jewish/ look a bit southern hemisphere/ talk like Vicky Pollard/ look a bit camp”.

Someone asked about an equivalent of NAMBLA. There was, (may still be), and outfit over here called the Paedophile Information Exchange. Their campaign was directed at the legalising of sexual intercourse between adults and children above the age of four years. They were affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, in the days when (I think it was) either Harriet Harman or Margaret Beckett supported their right to pursue their campaign. Perhaps labour women shouldn’t be allowed to supervise children either.

Who is going to run this committee to screen groups whose values are in opposition to some abstract “core values” (whatever they are) of “our society”?

I can think of several posters who would be all too keen to become Section Leaders and Standard Bearers in such a committee.

Goldstein, you simply don’t understand the difference between private organisations and statutory (public!) education. Mind you, the confusion between professional associations, some of whom think they are above the law and can pass their own legislation, and statutory public ones, is a disease that afflicts much of British society.

We need clear, objective criteria for professionals who work with vulnerable people. To that end, there are certain markers we can reasonably take into consideration. But they must be based on proven misconduct, not suspicion, gossip, or hearsay.

Here are some examples:

If you have ever had a conviction for cruelty, violence, or willful neglect of a vulnerable party.

If you have ever had a conviction for a sexual offence.

If you have ever had a conviction for theft, embezzlement, or any other crime of disposession, including blackmail or extortion.

If you have ever had a conviction for membership of a criminal or terrorist gang.

We are obsessing about what someone who might be in a particular party (speculation), might be thinking of doing (speculation), despite having no track record of misconduct.

And at the same time we are turning a blind eye the fact that some of our teachers, and some of our police, do have a criminal record.

Brett:
Yes, being bared for life from positions that require confidence in a trust you’ve broken is part of the penalty.

And being a member of the BNP breaches a trust required of teachers – something we already recognise with regard to police officers.

Whose society? Are members of political groups you or I might find objectionable not “part of our society”?

Oh, come off it. It’s not about groups that anyone might find personally objectionable. It is about a group that wishes to cleanse society of certain minorities.

And what about other groups that don’t share “our” core values? As I said, is membership of teh Evangelical Alliance not grounds for being barred from teaching and public service?

I would have no problem if members of the Evangelical Alliance didn’t become teachers. But whom do they want to strip of their citizenship? Which pupils would be forced to face, in a member of the Evangelical Alliance, a teacher who was actively campaigning to have them removed?

That is the issue: How can we expect pupils to sit in a front of a teacher who is actively campaigning for them to not even be there? How can such pupils learn? How can we even expect them to behave? I know I wouldn’t have.

Who is going to run this committee to screen groups whose values are in opposition to some abstract “core values” (whatever they are) of “our society”?

There’s no need for some kind of committee. We already bar certain people from becoming or continuing as teachers, and this is implemented by those who employ teachers. We simply add membership of the BNP to that list.

What do ou do if a person resigns from one of these legal-yet-politically-proscribed groups? Do you have a hearing to determine whether they’ve really had a change of heart, or are they banned for life, even if their political views change radically?

If it’s a former member wishing to enter the profession, then obviously they are allowed to join – the bar is on current, not former members. Just as we don’t allow Police Officers to be members of trade unions, but don’t bar former members of trade unions from joining the Police.

Who runs these hearings?

As with similar situations currently, if someone is accused of being a secret member, you would have an internal investigation.

Do all teachers have to submit to a “political test” or is it a “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy?

You require prospective teachers to declare if they are members of the BNP, just as you require them to declare if they have criminal records.

Where does this go if you start thinking it through?

Oh, please. You can argue the slippery slope against any prohibition, any law, any standard. Unless you are advocating total liberty in all things it’s a bogus argument. You might as well say, “look how banning convicted paedophiles from teaching has led us to a point where we might ban members of the BNP – therefore, we should we remove the existing bans”.

In the 50s, there was an attempt to bar Communists from work in much the same way.

Members and (and I don’t agree with this) former members of the Communist Party of Great Britain were banned from the civil service in 1948.

Monty:
Someone asked about an equivalent of NAMBLA. There was, (may still be), and outfit over here called the Paedophile Information Exchange.

It was wound-up in 1984, according to Wikipedia.

Their campaign was directed at the legalising of sexual intercourse between adults and children above the age of four years. They were affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, in the days when (I think it was) either Harriet Harman or Margaret Beckett supported their right to pursue their campaign.

If it was the NCCL, you’re probably thinking of Patricia Hewitt, the NCCL’s general secretary.

Perhaps labour women shouldn’t be allowed to supervise children either.

Defending the right of an organisation to exist and to campaign to change the law, is different from being a member of that organisation. Were members of this Exchange allowed to join the teaching profession? If it still existed, would they be now?

Maybe PIE members shouldn’t be allowed on school grounds unless they can show that they have condoms ready.

Scarce Lee:

“if someone is accused of being a secret member, you would have an internal investigation.”

Riiiiggghhhtt.

How long have you been a secret supporter or member of the BNP Lee?

“Defending the right of an organisation to exist and to campaign to change the law, is different from being a member of that organisation.”

OK

So if I campaign to defend the right of the BNP/ Al Qaeda/ Real IRA to exist, and to campaign to change the law, so long as I tell you I’m not a member, that’s OK is it?

Scarce Lee, maybe you aren’t quite scarce enough dear.

Brett, I think you’re worrying too much about technical questions such as where you draw the line, or how you tell if someone is really racist or not.

Realistically, you can’t keep all racists and other bigots out of the teaching and police professions. But you can at least keep the most blatant ones out. And being a member of the BNP makes you a blatant racist.

Catholics opposed to gay marriage simply aren’t on the same scale. As for former BNP members, I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, so long as they don’t give any indication of still being racist. They can be asked about that in the job interview – that is, after all, what job interviews are for.

Hoare, are you seriously stupid enough to imagine that people going to job interviews are going to say “yep, I reckon we should deport all the black folks”?

” I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, so long as they don’t give any indication of still being racist”

But you are a racist youself.

As soon as you signed up to the creed that only white people can be racists, you became a racist.

You literally think that you, and your friends, should be given the power to police what other people might be thinking?

There is something seriously wrong with you mister.

Interview Checksheet- Please answer all questions.

1. Are you a terrorist? Y/N

2. Are you planning to attack the school with guns and explosives? Y/N

3. Are you planning to rape the children? Y/N

4. Are you planning to seduce the sixth form? Y/N

5. Do you dream about shooting black people? Y/N

7. Do you like setting Catholics on fire? Y/N

8. Do any of your friends happen to be evil conniving bloody Jews? Y/N

9. Have you ever worked in the private sector you self-serving bastard? Y/N

10. What is the headline on page 14 of today’s Guardian?

MAH wrote:

There simply is no comparison between the Catholic Church and the BNP,

I agree, the Catholic church is a global institution and to my mind it’s a complete no brainier. It’s orders of magnitude more divisive and damaging than the BNP.

As an organisation, the BNP is opposed to the core values of our society. Those who actively campaign on that platform are clearly not suited for professions which are required, above all others, to uphold and engender those values.

Swap the BNP for Islam and self identifying practicing Muslim and is there any difference at all? To me the argument’s identical, and it’s a very illiberal, dangerous argument.

Brett is absolutely spot on in this matter, particularly here on this very important core principle….

A person’s private views and political affiliations are their own, and, unless they bring them into the workplace in a way that is negatively impacting on the delivery of service to the public, that’s how they should remain.

Monty, how can I put this in terms that even you will understand ?

I wouldn’t let anyone with your type of disgusting, vile racist views anywhere near our classrooms. Someone like you, who believes in an all-white Britain and hates Muslims and immigrants, isn’t fit to teach children. And yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if you BNP types were to sound off against foreigners in a job interview, in just the same way as you do here.

‘As soon as you signed up to the creed that only white people can be racists, you became a racist.’

I never said only white people can be racist – you’re a liar, Monty.

What makes you so sure I’m a white man you Hoare?

“I wouldn’t be surprised if you BNP types”

What makes you think I’m in the BNP?

“Monty, how can I put this in terms that even you will understand ?”

Sorry old thing. Were we all supposed to stand back and admire your superior intellect? You should’ve said.

i would like to go on record as saying that Marko is the finest Hoare in the western world.

What makes you think I’m in the BNP?

You disagree with Hoare. That makes you automatically a racist, a BNP member and generally a piece of vile scum. Or at least, that’s how Hoare’s razor-sharp mind works.

Are you following, Me? Don’t forget to breath, by the way, you might die.

Another wit in his own lunchtime, who ‘thinks’ (sorry, I am too tired to come up with the correct term for Josh’s alternative to thinking) that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid.

What if the BNP decide to allow (say) Settled Immigrant Associate membership and we’ll suddenly find that there is the Afro-Carribean BNP section, the Sikh BNP section, the Chinese BNP section, etc

Suddenly the BNP is not ‘racist’ anymore but still has the same arguments (and use their Immigrant members as proof of their well-meaning nature and sincerity), and people will have to find real arguments to beat them with.

Be very careful what you wish for.

(Btw, Josh Scholar, what about devout Muslims @ work in situations where they have to deal with women? Clearly they are not feminist compatible at all, so, should we also ban Muslims from all potential workplaces where they could potentially discriminate against women(and other assorted people, gays, unbelievers, Jews, Hindus)?)

If the BNP ever summoned up the common sense to open up their membership criteria, the British Chinese, Hindus and Sikhs would be in like Flynn.

Btw, Josh Scholar, what about devout Muslims @ work in situations where they have to deal with women? Clearly they are not feminist compatible at all, so, should we also ban Muslims from all potential workplaces where they could potentially discriminate against women(and other assorted people, gays, unbelievers, Jews, Hindus)?

I’m not ready to ban “devout Muslims” from any jobs, but I am certainly in favor of not bending job descriptions to match religions. If they can’t meet the job description due to belief, then they’re not fit to do the job.

The furthest I would be willing to go in that direction is to classify Mosques, religious schools and the like by whether they promote hatred, sexism, racism or other relevant disqualifications, and if a job applicant goes to a school or mosque on the proscribed list for that job, then he is not eligible.

If he went to such an institution in the past then he better be capable of demonstrating, to the satisfaction of his interviewers, that he does not subscribe to the unacceptable views promulgated at said institution.

So, why are you handling the Muslim and the potential danger to innocent people they present differently to a BNP member?

You want to blanket ban the BNP just in case they may do something, but in case of devout Muslims you are willing to take the risk of someone getting hurt first before you’re willing to protect them.

Why the different treatment here?

(You’re even willing to accept membership of a radical mosque, just in the hope that perhaps even tho everything about them screams ‘religious fascist’ they maybe not who they say they are and maybe surprise you as a nice, rounded equalitarian friend who loves all of humanity if you only give them the change to prove themselves.)

“They can be asked about that in the job interview – that is, after all, what job interviews are for.”

So now asking who people voted for in elections is a valid job interview question!

See, this is what I’m talking about.

“Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the SWP?”

field: “The answer I believe is to have an office for the protection of the constitution on the German model which would investigate and prosecute political parties that were secretly looking to undermine democracy and install a totalitarian regime.”

What’s with the secretly. Organisations like al-Muj, which don’t bother with the “secretly” bit, turn out not to be banned either. Not that I imagine it has any teachers in mainstream schools, but what if it set up its own little islamic school? or indeed if a member left the organisation and did so?

mrs ben:
: (Surely there are subjects which it is perfectly possible to teach without a racist context, maths for example, so long as everyone is taught the same syllabus and marked in the same way?)

“It’s not how you teach the subject, it is how you treat the pupils.” Scarce Lee

How can you prove that a teacher has not merely taken a dislike to any particular pupil, regardless of colour?

I am sure we can all think of teachers we empathised with and those we did not. (I felt particularly targeted by my white Geography teacher (female, Glaswegian) who thought I (white female English) was too cheeky and not respectful enough.

I am sure I was singled out for unfair treatment, but it was nothing to do with my colour, it was my attitude she did not like. How could you prove racims to be the case with any teacher pupil relationship problem, assuming the teacher did not use racist language?

So let’s get this straight, banning parties in the UK not committed to democracy and who might seek to establish a totalitarian regime, destroy freedom etc is fine with some of you, but Avigdor Liebermann’s attitude to the Israeli Arabs who repeatedly and explicitly call for the destruction of the country he lives makes him a raving nutter.

Double standards much?

Just by coincidence, my 12-year old’s dyed-in-the-wool Leftie English teacher just yesterday managed to work in ‘I dont like Israel because they’re very bad to the Palestinians’ (quoted) into a lesson about the Classical Greek Mythos. She has previously stated to her class that she is a paid-up Labour member, and isnt shy about ‘expressing a political opinion’ on repeated occasions. You might say that’s fine and dandy, but the statement re. Israel was addressed to a Jewish child who had mentioned she had family in Israel. Should she be sacked for doing down the world’s only Jewish state in the face of a Jewish child? Or does it only count when nasty rightwingers do it?

Hmm, I just had another idea to add:

We will most likely be able to scan people’s brains for subversive thoughts and ideas in the near future (so our boffins tell us).

Taking the idea of civil liberties only for the approved further, I wonder:

Should we make those scans mandatory, and, given that once we understand a process, we can modify it, should we compel people to undergo brain surgery (virtual or physical) in order to ‘cure’ them of their thoughts?

If you view the population as a reservoir of ideas of the time which then get tested to destruction in the pub, on the street and in the end sometimes as official party policies, is restricting the range of ‘legal thoughts’ not a problem in itself?

The BNP won’t run this country (or at least it’s unlikley) but their ideas have entered the mainstream and so they’ll end up modifying the way this country thinks in some way. It’s not that they are totally wrong, it’s just that the package deal solution they offer is not sensible, a working democracy should have no problem filtering good ideas from bad ones.

If you take this feature of society to re-invent and devolop itself away, what will you end up with? And how do you protect against those who want to farm humans by controlling them totally instead of letting them run ‘free-range’ is is the case under modern democracy?

So, why are you handling the Muslim and the potential danger to innocent people they present differently to a BNP member?

You want to blanket ban the BNP just in case they may do something, but in case of devout Muslims you are willing to take the risk of someone getting hurt first before you’re willing to protect them.

Uhm no. I want a blanken ban on the BNP because they are an explicitly racist organization that no one is forced to join.

You don’t have a blanket ban on Muslims because what it means to be a Muslim or even a “devout Muslim” is extremely ambiguous, partially because membership in Islam is mostly by birth not choice.

partially because membership in Islam is mostly by birth not choice.

Not by birth, babies are born areligious and apolitical. ‘Born a Muslim’ is an Islamic trope; and it’s complete tosh. No, it’s by early indoctrination. There’s a very profound difference.

“Uhm no. I want a blanken ban on the BNP because they are an explicitly racist organization that no one is forced to join.

You don’t have a blanket ban on Muslims because what it means to be a Muslim or even a “devout Muslim” is extremely ambiguous, partially because membership in Islam is mostly by birth not choice.”

In the West, Islam is optional, just like the BNP is.

And as always, there is a range of people in both ideologies, from rabidly extreme to almost sane and reasonable, so, it’s always going to be highly ambiguous in both cases.

So, why not blanket ban Islam, but just the BNP?

And would a ban make Islamists and the BNP go away and turn into peace-loving hippies everafterwards?

And what do you feel about the concept of free will, which encompasses the process of having stupid ideas in theory and rejecting them in practice?

Btw, Josh, you speak German? If so, here is Europe’s oldest ‘freedom of thought’ song, the first version was sung in 1229: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Gedanken_sind_frei

Basically, you’re going up against one of the oldest concepts of western civilisation here.

That song was sung many times throughout history, and rewritten many many times. Wikipedia mentions that Sophie Scholl played the melody, but if you look at German history, there is a long long list of good, brave people who all did. It’s not the greatest song in the world by way, but it’s been a hit for hundreds of years, because the message it carries has been valid ever since and much of our freedom was built on it.

Why BNP members should be barred from teaching:

“We were delivering “Hope Not Hate” literature in Frizington (Copeland, Cumbria: picture Billy Elliot country, except more isolated, more deprived and almost certainly more *COUGH* “close-knit” ;-)) one sunny evening when we were approached by three little boys who asked us what we were doing. They were probably 7 or 8 years old. We gave them a leaflet which they then went away and read. I overheard them asking each other what “racist” was and another of them replying “it’s being horrid to black people”, to which they all giggled. They then came back to me and told me I didn’t belong round here and I should go back to where I came from. Dumbfounded, I reassured them that I had only come from Whitehaven – and, in fact, my family had lived in these parts for generations – for hundreds of years. I asked them why on earth they thought I was a foreigner? “Well, you talk funny” replied one of them, obviously referring to my lack of West Cumbrian dialict. Another replied “it’s yer hair”. Maybe they thought my long dark hair made me look Mediterranean or perhaps even Asian. Either way, I can’t imagine that boys this young would be able to exhibit this kind of prejudice UNLESS they were hearing this kind of language at home. 20 yards up the road was a house completely plastered with BNP posters. The BNP secured 27.2% of the vote in the Cleator Moor & Frizington Division.”

If I was a teacher at Frizington Primary School, I would consider it my PUBLIC DUTY to challenge the deep-seated prejudice that these children were absorbing at home. If I was a member of the BNP I would be singularly unqualified for that task.

Any teacher who takes his or her personal political or religious views into the secular classroom should be sacked. The children should have no idea who you vote for, or what place of worship you go to. Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference between teaching and indoctrination, should never have been allowed into the profession in the first place. And making statements that cause discomfiture for any of the pupils is way out of order.

Rachel, you mean the entire school in this area is a nest of BNP teachers who all conspire against ‘Hate not hope’ to send little kiddies to frustrate you? Not one decent Labour teacher there to heroically stem the tide of school-age nazism?

And what happend to the rest of the vote for that area — surely the BNP is not the majoiry party there and so, you should berate the Tories or Labour (maybe the Libdems?) for their failure to keep the school ‘BNP-rein’?

Monty: +1. And not only teachers, but also, people like Rachel should stay away from poisoning other people’s kids minds with their ideology.

Imli,

I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re on about.

Frizington is fortunate to have a very good primary school. Outstanding, in fact, according to OFSTED. I’m quite sure they do their level best to combat prejudice wherever it raises its head. The above incident clearly raises issues that perhaps I need to raise with someone. Maybe the school; maybe the MP.

I have no idea what party their teachers vote for – and in fact, you have no idea what party I vote for. There seems to be some implication that I must be a Labour supporter, which is a bit of a wild assumption to make, in my view.

The question is: do we think, as a society, that racial prejudice is wrong? If so, then children need to know that. They won’t necessarily be told that at home, so if the teachers don’t tell them, who else will? A BNP teacher is singularly unable to do that.

BTW there were 2 other candidates in this election: Labour comfortably took the seat and the Tories came a distant 3rd. There was no Lib Dem candidate ‘coz they’re anti-nuclear and that doesn’t go down too well when you’re in the shadows of Sellafield….

The question is: do we think, as a society, that racial prejudice is wrong? If so, then children need to know that.

We do think that. We also think, as a society, that immigration should be vastly reduced. Does it follow that children need to know that, and if they’re not being told it at home then teachers should be doing so? What if we believe, as a society, that capital punishment should be reinstated? Etc etc.

The children should have no idea who you vote for, or what place of worship you go to.

Err…you clearly don’t live in West Cumbria! If you live in a tight-knit community it’s impossible for children NOT to know if you go to church, mosque etc. etc.

I also think children need to learn enough to make informed choices. A child from (say) a muslim family should have the opportunity to learn enough about (say) the Christian faith to make an informed choice as to which religion he or she should adopt as an adult. This, of course, should work in reverse too.

This can be a bit tricky, though, because I understand that for a Christian to say to a muslim that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is blasphemy. (NB. It is also technically blasphemy in reverse – though there probably hasn’t been a legal case for several hundred years…) I’d imagine there’d be a fair few Jews who wouldn’t be very happy either.

Hence the need for freedom of speech in a free society.

…but I go back to the point about racial prejudice being wrong. If we, as a society, believe that racial prejudice is wrong then teachers have a public duty to teach children that.

If, on the other hand, we think “we live in a free society: people should be allowed to be racially prejudiced if they want to” then I suppose teachers wouldn’t need to have a duty to challenge prejudice in the playground.

But it’d be a slippery slope dontcha think?

“The question is: do we think, as a society, that racial prejudice is wrong? If so, then children need to know that. They won’t necessarily be told that at home…”

If we think *as a society* that something is wrong, then why do you fear that children “won’t necessarily be told that at home”. Surely the whole basis of the claim that we believe something “as a society” rests upon the vast majority of people holding the principle dear?

“NB. It is also technically blasphemy in reverse – though there probably hasn’t been a legal case for several hundred years…) “

Or since the late 1980s at least…

So why do you think that the BNP is guilty of what you accuse them of? And why did you think the teachers in that school are BNP members who should be banned from teaching? (on the evidence of a few cheeky kids, who probably were having a great laugh at winding you up!)

And how would you like the BNP turn up at a school near you, handing out leaflets to the kids in order to ‘educate’ them?

Leave the kids out of politics, at that young age exposing them to this kind of thinking that needs all sorts of reasoning ability they don’t yet have is, so meddling with them the way ‘Hope no Hate’ did is simply child abuse.

It’s also child abuse to brainwash kids into holding opinions they are too young to think through for themselves!

Leave the kids alone Rachel, as you said, it’s their parents who are the source, so, go and talk to the adults.

(and no, you don’t have ‘free speech’ when it comes to talking to underage kids, at least not when you’re talking adult topics.)

Oops sorry Wardytron. We obviously crossed in cyberspace…

I gave ‘em a leaflet coz they asked for one….:-S

partially because membership in Islam is mostly by birth not choice.

Not by birth, babies are born areligious and apolitical. ‘Born a Muslim’ is an Islamic trope; and it’s complete tosh. No, it’s by early indoctrination. There’s a very profound difference.

You and Imli are being thick. A child’s membership in his family isn’t optional. And in muslim families and societies one can’ just quit Islam, one may lose one’s family, one may lose one’s community, one may be killed or even killed by a close family member. In muslim countries one loses one’s property and is forced to divorce one’s wife/wives… Also, what if someone has family back in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

Just moving to the west doesn’t instantly make such things disappear instantly – it doesn’t even make it disappear among second generation families.

Also belief in God is natural – and if one is born a Muslim then a belief in God is likely to make some say they’re religious Muslims no matter what the specifics of their beliefs are.

We can do our best to outlaw the oppression of former Muslims, but we still have to deal fairly with the fact that not every Muslim who disagrees with the oppressive parts of Islam will be able to face the losses of leaving Islam, or want to.

We DO have to treat Muslim citizens as individuals.

Rachel: just as well they didn’t ask you for a cigarette then…

Seriously, leave children to just be kids and concentrate on the adults. And don’t do things that the BNP may decide to copy, remember, what si sauce for the goose is gravy for the gander :(

If, on the other hand, we think “we live in a free society: people should be allowed to be racially prejudiced if they want to” then I suppose teachers wouldn’t need to have a duty to challenge prejudice in the playground.

Actually I do think they have a duty to challenge it in the playground – anything like that should be against school rules, for a start – but I’m wary of it being brought into lessons. Maths should be about maths, not about anything else. I would generally lean towards an innocent until proven guilty approach as a default when it comes to whether someone’s private views should automatically disqualify them from their job.

Josh, your describing Islam as a compulsory social cult rather than as a religion and the idea that the belief in a deity is natural is also quite bigotted — are Atheists unnatural? Your view of muslims is quite supremacist as well, because in a way you’re saying they don’t have the same ability to reason as westerners and like other human beings, but are victims of community coercion without the ability of free will.

As for insulting people as thick when they don’t agree with your opinion, it’s a style of debate that reflects on you, but not us…

As for banning muslims, no-one wants that(note we’re arguing against banning people for thought crimes), but it was used as a tool to make you understand that making special excuses for anyone or banning innocent people before they have been guilty of anything is never a good idea — this sort of thing always starts with good intentions and ends in Gulags.

Appeasing fascists (religious or political) is never a good idea either, if you’re batting for western culture and the concept of modern reason, you’ll have to engage with them as equals and quit treating people like pets that can be trained to obey you.

Josh, your describing Islam as a compulsory social cult rather than as a religion and the idea that the belief in a deity is natural is also quite bigotted — are Atheists unnatural? Your view of muslims is quite supremacist as well, because in a way you’re saying they don’t have the same ability to reason as westerners and like other human beings, but are victims of community coercion without the ability of free will.

“Describing Islam as a compulsory social cult” is the only way to accurately describe what goes on in the real world.

I did not say that Atheists are unnatural, I’m not a deist myself. I just recognize the evident fact of the human mind, it is normal for people to have some faith, whether you like it or not, it is natural.

You simply don’t understand the meaning of the word “biggoted”, Imli. You also obviously don’t know how to form a valid argument.

I don’t see any point in answering more nonsense from you.

So we’re all agreed. Allow people to hold posts unless their actions in their jobs break their contractual obligations, and ban the burqa which has no place in this continent or this millenium, repellent emblem of woman hatred that it is. Excellent.

I say Burqas should be illegal on warm days.

Rachel, being the decent person she obviously is, witholds the information that the folk in that part of Cumbria are downright odd and inbred and suspicious of outsiders.

A 27% vote for the BNP suggests an impressive degree of rejection of traitorous and suicidal let-them-all-in Labour policies!

Rachel
25 June 2009, 7:19 pm

I gave ‘em a leaflet coz they asked for one….:-S
————————

As the responsible adult in that transaction you should have said no, and moved on.

A 27% vote for the BNP suggests an impressive degree of rejection of traitorous and suicidal let-them-all-in Labour policies!

This is actually the truth, except that the ultra-free market, extreme right wing libertarian policy of having no immigration controls whatsoever was never a stated policy of the Labour Government. They never actually argued a case for this bizarre and obviously wrong policy. Their failure to prevent unsustainable immigration was down to massive incompetence rather than actual policy.