Teachers and the BNP

So, having had the judgment that it\’s OK to have BNP members teaching our kids, it seems these extremists don\’t even have to be quiet about their bigotry. What exactly would it take for a deep-seated racist to be ruled unfit to teach?

I have to admit to being a little puzzled over this. The idea that membership of the BNP makes you unfit to be a teacher.

Yes, yes, I know, nasty little racist shits and all that.

But racism isn\’t the only vile view that various people hold. I\’m sure we could find unreconstructed Marxists and Trotskyites among the massed ranks of teachers. No, not just people who are Marxian in their views, but full on calls for the extermination of the bourgeoisie sort of stuff.

You know, advocates of the mass murder of 60% of the population or so.

What is it that makes that world view acceptable in a teacher and not racism?

20 comments on “Teachers and the BNP

  1. As always, it depends on who is doing the viewing.

    Way back when, I reconned that if those hammering South Africa ALSO hammered the USSR, I might agree with them.

    Alan Douglas

  2. I spent a few months at, don’t laugh, Wandsworth Tech College.

    A nest of Trots it was.

    Openly.

    The chap teaching politics an law spent all his time banging on about his personal politics. Unfortunately, alot of blank canvases there.

    The answer to this is that schools need to be able to hire and fire, and by schools, I mean SCHOOLS, not LEAs, but the Head, Governors.

    Take away the dead hand of the LEAs, AND the centralising mess that will be the Tory plans and then let schools decide. A school that is known to have a supremacist carpet-muncher on board* might find parents seeking alternative venues or demanding that their kids did not come in contact with them.

    * though it seems in this case the teacher only expressed indignation at criminal immigrants being allowed to remain, which is hardly an outrageous view, if rather coarsely held, but one does not know if he had personally suffered from it. Supremacists can also cover Islamists (not to be confused with Muslims).

  3. @ukliberty “Um… not being good at teaching?”

    Unfortunately for the rest of society this is not one of the reasons they can get rid of teachers. All the “-isms” will get you thrown out pdq but inability to do the job….nope.

  4. What about people who believe that women are half as intelligent men (aka as devout Muslims). Should they be banned from teaching.

    “Supremacists can also cover Islamists (not to be confused with Muslims).”
    Was Mo an Islamist? If not why not? If yes aren’t his followers Islamists?

  5. “No, not just people who are Marxian in their views, but full on calls for the extermination of the bourgeoisie sort of stuff. You know, advocates of the mass murder of 60% of the population or so.”

    So you truly believe that 60% of the population own ‘the means of production’, Timmy? I’ll have what you’ve been smoking.

    Tim adds: “In contemporary (capitalist) societies, the term bourgeoisie can refer to middle, upper middle, and/or upper classes, and/or their lifestyle and values.”

    Given that owner occupation is up over 60% of the population yes, 60% or more of the population are bourgeois.

  6. Come on, Tim, to redefine a term that has a specific and well understood meaning simply to suit your own ends is pure sophistry.

    WRT your other point. Home ownership is hardly ownership of the means of production, either, is it? And even if you wanted to claim it as such, home _ownership_ (as opposed to home indebtedness) is way lower than 60%.

    I might seem pedantic, but if you’ve a valid case to make — and want to be taken seriously — then you ought to be able to do so without making stuff up.

    Source of definition:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

    Hardly making things up now, is it?

  7. I do not see why any teacher, of any party political persuasion, should allow his or her views to be manifest in the classroom. It is unprofessional to air such views in the workplace.

    Ideally, schoolchildren should have no idea of the political stance, sexual orientation, personal circumstances, of their teachers. A school is not a recruiting place for political activists.

  8. I think the point is that BNP membership is an overt statement of racist beliefs. A person can be a closet racist (and some sociological theories would suggest that a majority are) and still hold a teaching position, so long as that personal prejudice does not become manifest. BNP membership, however, is an indication that the prejudice has already become manifest.

    Similarly, if there were a Far Left organisation that explicitly and overtly called for discrimination against a certain sector of society, then members of that organisation should probably be barred from holding teaching positions for the same reason as BNP members.

    However, I would argue that most Far Left organisations do not fall under that banner, though clearly they are painted as such by the kind of people (like, possibly, ‘Chuckles’ above) who state — with a straight face — that the modern Labour Party are Far Left.

    Most of the ‘deep red’ organisations I’ve encountered (or, as a youth, was a member of) don’t seek to discriminate against individuals, but instead to restructure society so that a certain class or classes of people no longer exist (in the sense that eliminating poverty tends not to mean killing or discriminating against poor people, but building a society where such people are lifted above the breadline). Yes, there are lunatics attracted to these organisations; but it is not the stated policy of these organisations to discriminate against individuals in the sense that it is BNP policy to do so.

    That’s my take on it, anyway.

  9. “don’t seek to discriminate against individuals” – um, that’s pretty much what they do do; anyone thinking for themselves or out of step with party/PC policy is very likely to be labelled in a discriminatory manner.

    A woman raises the issue of immigration and the then PM labels her a bigot. On a larger scale those who wished for an open investigation of immigration policy were labelled racists, their concerns dismissed by the MSM who were already filtering the content of certain news stories to brush over such concerns.

    Similarly those who are sceptical about AGW are labelled ‘deniers’, largely because they are not keen we should “restructure society” based on an ideology that ignores reality.

    Anyway, back on topic, I agree with Monty.

  10. @David

    “Was Mo an Islamist? If not why not? If yes aren’t his followers Islamists?”

    Mo, I can’t speak for him, but he certainly acted like one. However, Jesus was Jewish and his followers built a different religion to his. Either way, you cannot predict the beliefs of followers based upon who they follow.

  11. I was taught economics at a private school by an avowed Marxist. However, he did make it clear that he would teach the syllabus rather than his personal beliefs. Why should it be different for someone who belongs to0 BNP?

    However, this guy was that rarity, a thinking Marxist. So he was not a tripe-gushing Trot. If he had been the latter, I think his inability to teach would have come to the attention of my parents (one of whom was a merchant banker) and the Governors…who would have had a word with the headmaster.

    So, it’s all about checks and balances, as with all institutions. Just wondering where the checks and balances are in the British “constitution2 as dismembered by Blair.

  12. I disagree with you DerekP. But it’s hardly worth arguing about given the well know axiom that the probablility of any participant in an online discussion conceding a point is too small to measure.

    I would suggest that your definition of discrimination is so broad as to essentially make the term utterly meaningless. I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, but to suggest that muttering a vague insult under ones breath about someone we disagree with (let’s remember, he didn’t realise this was a public statement) is tantamount to “discrimination” effectively neutralises the term.

    For instance, you suggest that AGW theory is an “ideology that ignores reality”. In which case you are suggesting that I (as someone who accepts it as broadly fact-based) am a fantasist. So merely labelling me as such is an act of discrimination?

    Perhaps by the strictest of definition of the word you might be correct, but to conflate as you have done, an under-the-breath aside with an overt policy of granting people different rights based purely on skin colour (i.e. the BNP’s position) makes a nonsense of any debate one might have on discrimination.

    I’m also highly sceptical of the notion that the MSM is somehow ignoring or suppressing discussion of immigration. The topic was the only one discussed at length in all three leadership debates in the recent UK elections. It features on the front pages of almost every taboid at least twice a week and the leadership contest within the Labour party appears openly dominated by the discussion.

    As someone who spent most of his life living in other countries (i.e. as an immigrant), including the UK, and who is married to a foreign national, I can assure you that the topic; far from being marginalised; is dominating modern political discourse.

    As it happens, I myself have some potentially controversial views on immigration. But they are based upon notions of sustainability and carrying capacity. Anyone who is economically right wing and/or believes in free markets and the potential for ‘sustainable economic growth’ is arguing from a position of bad faith if they oppose immigration (i.e. a free market in labour); given that immigrant labour can only add to the economic prosperity of a nation in a system predicated upon continuous economic expansion.

  13. Look there are people holding some pretty disgusting sets of beliefs from all across the spectrum of leftie authoritarianism. Some have pictures of mass murdering Austrian house painters on their walls, others, mass murdering Argentinian doctors. Some of them are teachers.

    Unless we want to hand over the power of deciding which picture is acceptable and which is not to some sh1t for brains apparatchik (or even worse a politician) this is a price we have to accept for living in a free society. Provided those teachers with extreme views (of whatever stripe) refrain from spreading their warped philosophies at work and confine themselves to doing what they are paid to do, why should we worry if they are neo-nazis, crypto-commies or tofu-weaving eco-mentalists?

  14. Jim Bliss // May 27, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    I think the point is that BNP membership is an overt statement of racist beliefs. A person can be a closet racist (and some sociological theories would suggest that a majority are) and still hold a teaching position, so long as that personal prejudice does not become manifest. BNP membership, however, is an indication that the prejudice has already become manifest.
    ——–

    That’s ridiculous.
    Membership, of any organisation, is not a public manifestation of anything. It is a private matter, unless the individual wishes to make it public, by some manner of declaration.
    And no such declaration, of any political affiliation, should be made to schoolchildren. They are there to be taught, not propagandised.

  15. I don’t know. Perhaps you’re right, Monty. The thing that concerns me is that surely one of the job requirements of being a teacher is that one is required to completely disregard ethnicity or nationality as a basis for how you treat those in your charge. However, BNP membership is arguably a statement that you are unwilling to do that.

    As I say, maybe I’ve got that wrong, but it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable assumption to me.

  16. “Anyone who is economically right wing and/or believes in free markets and the potential for ’sustainable economic growth’ is arguing from a position of bad faith if they oppose immigration (i.e. a free market in labour); given that immigrant labour can only add to the economic prosperity of a nation in a system predicated upon continuous economic expansion.”

    Not quite: the usual free market/right wing view is that you can have a welfare state or immigration but not both and that the free marketer would prefer to have immigration.

    However, given that we already have a welfare state, we need to stop (or at least manage) immigration until we can curb the welfare state. I suspect that’s the nuance you’ve missed.

  17. In a country where you have tollerance rammed down your throat-
    Is it not glorious to have something like the BNP that you can openly hate.

  18. Jim Bliss // May 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    Jim Bliss said “it’s hardly worth arguing about” in a prelude to a rather lengthy argument.

    Firstly your description is nowhere near the truth; Gordon Brown didn’t mutter the insult under his breath, he said it to someone in the car, someone who would agree with him – one of the ‘anointed’ who shared his ideology, the Liebore dogma that any discussion of immigration is racist. Brown only apologised for the media because he had no other option… and it was a pretty lousy apology.

    I didn’t watch the leadership debates but I can be certain that any discussion that little ‘club’ had concerning immigration and related issues will have been sanitised and distant from any real problems, such as that woman wanted to raise, because our policy makers cannot face the reality that does not match how they think the world should be. If they discussed immigration at all it will have been because of the BNP, because EU election votes for the BNP became a MSM issue.

    Similar to Brown’s bigot leak, it was the leaking of material from UEA CRU that revealed some truths at odds with the ideology and dogma of AGW. If you don’t have the background to understand any of that material or what it means then I’m not surprised you go along with the AGW propaganda that calls sceptics ‘deniers’, any more than I’m not surprised you go along with the Liebore propaganda that supports the reflex bigotry of Brown calling someone a bigot for wanting to raise the issue of immigration.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.