SWP supports blair's religious hatred laws...

[hibee]

Yeah, of course. But having a discussion about it doesn't make you a non-revolutionary.

I was talking about that in terms of refusing to call for an overhaul of the system and instead arguing that, because it's fucked up for one group, we have to keep it that way for everyone

 

[mk12]

The SWp haven't been revolutionary for some time, now. They're a party focused on elections, and as such like talking about new laws, etc.

We're not revolutionary, because we focus on elections, apparently. "As such", we like "talking about new laws". I really cannot understand the problem with talking about new laws.

 

[Random]

I really cannot understand the problem with talking about new laws.

Why are you being so obtuse and/or pedantick? It's clear I was referring to 'talking' in the context of hibee's statement.

I've got a rolleyes for you in my top pocket, watch out

 

[butchersapron]

We're not revolutionary, because we focus on elections, apparently. "As such", we like "talking about new laws". I really cannot understand the problem with talking about new laws.

Yes, and focusing on elections produces a different context doesn't it? One where discussing laws becomes one of supporting and arguing for effiency of state law in place of dealing with social problems and the mechanism that gives rise to them. i.e you've placed yourself on very different terrain.

You a bit under the weather matt? Got the sniffles?

 

[Random]

You a bit under the weather matt? Got the sniffles?

All those flies, diseases, etc you get on dung heaps, maybe?

 

[Pigeon]

You a bit under the weather matt? Got the sniffles?

Nah.

Probably just in a nark cos he ain't eaten since dawn.

 

[Groucho]

I was going to post a thread on this for discussion, because I haven't made up my mind yet.

Galloway voted for this in Parliament. The main argument in the Weekly Worker is that there is enough legislation on this topic already, and we shouldn't rely on the state to sort out these problems.

There has been a debate in Socialist Worker between two prominant Muslims. The Liberal Democrats have argued for an amendment to the incitement of racial hatred laws to ensure there is no ambiguity in coverage of Muslims under this legislation. One supported the new legislation and one supported the LD proposal. Neither were members of the SWP. I understand why Galloway might vote for this flawed legislation in the absense of anything better. However, I could not back a position of unqualified support, and I doubt that Rees does either.

The legislation is too broadly worded. It is being opposed by a wide body of opinion and not just racists because it has implications for outlawing ridicule of religious ideas. This is a difficult area because ridicule is a tool of comedy and also of debate, but can also be used to incite hatred. New Labour defend the legislation on grounds that the legislation is aimed at those who would seek to incite violence in the same way as the race hatred laws do. They point out the great difficulty in prosecuting under the incitement legislation - very few have been prosecuted. But the existance of the possibility of legal action might prevent free speech. The BNP and other racists seek to use the argument that singling out Muslims is not to single out a 'race' and is thus exempt from current incitement legislation. Hence the understandable argument for a new law.

The fact is that existing legslation is not enforced - ad when it is it is often enforced against the wrong target. MIchael X was the first person in Britain to be prosecuted under incitement to racial hatred. Targeting Muslims can be covered by the incitement to race hatred legislation provided it can be shown that race has been a motivating factor. New Labour, who propose this legislation, are also targeting Muslim organisations in their rhetoric in a way that encourages the very hatred they claim to be seeking to curtail. There is a good bet that the first targets of the new legislation will be Muslim clerics. New Labour are also implimenting legislation aimed at curtailing the right to protest aimed principally against anti-war protesters, but argued for on the basis of protection against terrorism. A good - and current - example as to why trusting the State with such weaponry can be a mistake.

This leads me to have severe reservations about the proposed new legislation, and about New Labour's motives. If it is to be supported it would have to be with severe qualifications and criticism. If opposed it has to be done sensitively because we accept that Muslims are under fire from bigots (including Govt. Ministers).

At the end of the day the issue is one of a balance of power on the ground. Building the anti-Imperialist movement and RESPECT will be the best ways of combating the rise of racism and anti-Muslim bigoty. Falling in behind New Labour - as if they are about to take a stand against Islamophobia - is not the best way to go about it.

As with faith schools and the blasphemy laws the principled socialist position is for these to be scrapped. But socialists cannot afford simply to indulge in wish fullfilment from the sidelines. If there are blasphemy laws to protect Christianity then it is discriminatory if they do not also cover other religions. If there are Christian faith schools then other religious groups should have the same access. This is my position, and the position of the SWP. But this does not mean dropping the argument for an end to faith schools, and for an end to the blasphemy laws, and for a secular society with religious freedoms. Sometimes the position on a particular vote requires a compromise and a vote for the least worst option available.

 

[butchersapron]

So for and against at the same time. Splendidly clear. This is the bad dialectic isn't it?

 

[hibee]

. If there are Christian faith schools then other religious groups should have the same access.

Why? Why not just say you're getting rid of the lot of 'em? What's stopping you?

 

[butchersapron]

As with faith schools and the blasphemy laws the principled socialist position is for these to be scrapped. But socialists cannot afford simply to indulge in wish fullfilment from the sidelines. If there are blasphemy laws to protect Christianity then it is discriminatory if they do not also cover other religions. If there are Christian faith schools then other religious groups should have the same access. This is my position, and the position of the SWP. But this does not mean dropping the argument for an end to faith schools, and for an end to the blasphemy laws, and for a secular society with religious freedoms. Sometimes the position on a particular vote requires a compromise and a vote for the least worst option available.

What's your argument that supporting these new laws is the " least worst option available". I can think of at least three better postions.

 

[Groucho]

Why? Why not just say you're getting rid of the lot of 'em? What's stopping you?

I did if you read my post THAT is my position.

The issue though is that it would be indefensible to prevent e.g. Muslim schools while Christian schools are permitted.

 

[Groucho]

What's your argument that supporting these new laws is the " least worst option available". I can think of at least three better postions.

In a vote in Parliament the vote you have is for or against. Whichever better position you have you still have to go one way or the other in the vote, even though neither the status quo nor the proposed legislation would be your favoured option.

 

[Random]

Well, Groucho, I take your points, and I think you've got a fairly solid stance on much of this -- but I take issue with the points below.

If there are blasphemy laws to protect Christianity then it is discriminatory if they do not also cover other religions. If there are Christian faith schools then other religious groups should have the same access. This is my position, and the position of the SWP. But this does not mean dropping the argument for an end to faith schools, and for an end to the blasphemy laws, and for a secular society with religious freedoms. Sometimes the position on a particular vote requires a compromise and a vote for the least worst option available.

If, as you've already pointed out, 'broader' laws will be used for discriminatoy ends, then why support the broadening? The important fact is that we have a class society that discriminates, and this cannot be changed by farting about with a bit of legal phraseology, as you've noted.

Why vote for the least worse? Maybe it's my anarchism speaking, but this is simply not worth the time of day for me. Why not actually start working, today, for what we want?

Broader faith schools do not lead us to the end of all faith schools, broader religious laws do not lead us to the end of all religious laws. In fact, their effect will be to entrench support for segregated schools, by coating their existence with a swwet, less worse coating that draws amny one-time opponents into their support or into neutrality.

 

[hibee]

I did if you read my post THAT is my position.

The issue though is that it would be indefensible to prevent e.g. Muslim schools while Christian schools are permitted.

Sorry, I wasn't sure which way you were facing with all those "one one hand..." "on the others.."

Surely if you say you're going to get rid of all religious schools that, erm, includes christian schools? Why are you beating yourself up?

 

[Random]

In a vote in Parliament the vote you have is for or against. Whichever better position you have you still have to go one way or the other in the vote

Well here you're simply letting the structure of parliament determine your political practise? Surely not. As you know, an MP can abstain, and not turn up for votes in order to do more useful work elsewhere -- isn't that what GG is supposed to have been doing?

 

[poster342002]

The issue though is that it would be indefensible to prevent e.g. Muslim schools while Christian schools are permitted.

Supposing you eventually get some form of secular socialism after you have successfully argued for any and all religious outfits to have their own schools? How likely is it that you'll then be able to turn around afterwards and say: "right, we're now closing down all religious schools"?

Once all religions have them, it'll be even harder to argue for their (rightful) abolition - in fact I suspect this notional aim would be quietly dropped at this point.

A recipe for trying yourself up in knots.

 

[butchersapron]

In a vote in Parliament the vote you have is for or against. Whichever better position you have you still have to go one way or the other in the vote, even though neither the status quo nor the proposed legislation would be your favoured option.

No, you have another, and RESPECT has at least two others. Not all politics is in parliament. And please, credit us with some nous - we all know just why GG can't vote against, just don't try and pull the wool over our eyes.

 

[poster342002]

Broader faith schools do not lead us to the end of all faith schools, broader religious laws do not lead us to the end of all religious laws. In fact, their effect will be to entrench support for segregated schools, by coating their existence with a swwet, less worse coating that draws amny one-time opponents into their support or into neutrality.

Spot-on.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

This leads me to have severe reservations about the proposed new legislation, and about New Labour's motives. If it is to be supported it would have to be with severe qualifications and criticism. If opposed it has to be done sensitively because we accept that Muslims are under fire from bigots (including Govt. Ministers).

I absolutely agree there. Either way it's not a simple issue of unreserved support or opposition. I suspect though that when push comes to shove the SWP will go down the support with reservations line. I have to admit, that'd be my instinct. But then I'm a right-Respectoid and not a member of the SWP

 

[Wilf]

So for and against at the same time. Splendidly clear. This is the bad dialectic isn't it?

Yes - though to be fair Groucho seems to at least be saying what he believes. Other swappers seem to be holding fire till they work out what what John Rees actually said... and so what they are supposed to believe

 

[ska invita]

Unity through Separatism?
Inclusion through Segregation?

Strewth.

thats right... life is more complex than black and white, left and right, absolutist positions - on the left there is a tendency to be absolutist, I would say, and it does us no favours.

I'll run you through it again:
Imagine you are in a small minority of British Anarchists in China!
You arrive feeling alienated, expecting the state and broader culture to be against your ethnicity and beliefs.
Then the state sets up a British Anarchist school to send your children to, and goes out of its way (through positive discrimination projects) to make you feel included.
You respond to this courtesy by engaging better with the state, and ultimately relax about being in another country.

There is a carefull balance that must be struck between creating net inclusion out of seemingly exclusionary state policies, but there is much research to prove that this does have a significant psychological effect on minorities and helps them to feel valued by the host state.

The absolutist position is the French route - all citizens must be loyal to the republic first and foremost - all religious clothing banned from schoold etc.,

I would say that the UK has better race relations than France, and possibly than any other country in the world - in no small part to a policy that allows people to "do their own thing" rather than forcing them into a narrow mould of "Britishness", whatever that might be.

Its more complex this way, its subtler, but i think it is the right way to go.

 

[butchersapron]

Here's the flaw:

"Then the state sets up a British Anarchist school to send your children to, and goes out of its way (through positive discrimination projects) to make you feel included.
You respond to this courtesy by engaging better with the state, and ultimately relax about being in another country."


The point about co-opting and integrating muslim anger, about making sure it flows through official institutional channels is of course not being picked up on here. And it's not being picked up on for a reason. The longer term SWPers will appreciate why. Buy the top lot off, make them pacify those below them, work together to make money off those just below you two.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Fisher Gate and Groucho are saying they support having more Muslim faith schools, because there are Christian ones, and because saying no to all faith schools is not practical.

A question to both of you. There have recently been calls for black only schools. By the same logic, do you support this call?

Also on a "practical" note, do you think that this can be applied to RESPECT calling for the nationalisation of the gas and electric companies?

 

[hibee]

thats right... life is more complex than black and white, left and right, absolutist positions - on the left there is a tendency to be absolutist, I would say, and it does us no favours.

I'll run you through it again:
Imagine you are in a small minority of British Anarchists in China!
You arrive feeling alienated, expecting the state and broader culture to be against your ethnicity and beliefs.
Then the state sets up a British Anarchist school to send your children to, and goes out of its way (through positive discrimination projects) to make you feel included.
You respond to this courtesy by engaging better with the state, and ultimately relax about being in another country.

There is a carefull balance that must be struck between creating net inclusion out of seemingly exclusionary state policies, but there is much research to prove that this does have a significant psychological effect on minorities and helps them to feel valued by the host state.

The absolutist position is the French route - all citizens must be loyal to the republic first and foremost - all religious clothing banned from schoold etc.,

I would say that the UK has better race relations than France, and possibly than any other country in the world - in no small part to a policy that allows people to "do their own thing" rather than forcing them into a narrow mould of "Britishness", whatever that might be.

Its more complex this way, its subtler, but i think it is the right way to go.

Instead of thought experiments, here's a real-life example. My family are mostly Irish immigrants living in the west of scotland. In the face of persecution and with little in the way of class solidarity their forebears looked to catholic "community leaders". Hence seperate schools, kickings on the way home, seperate estates, seperate towns. Not much in the way of class unity, however.

Here's another. In Oldham the asian community was again segregated in terms of housing, schooling etc from the rest of the town. Then the riots kicked off, and everyone wondered why. That's Britain's wonderful race relations for you.

The enthusiasm by the left for what is effectively apartheid never fails to astound me.

 

[rednblack]

A question to both of you. There have recently been calls for black only schools. By the same logic, do you support this call?

and also once you've got black schools, the bnp will be calling for schools for white kids from the estates, would respect support them?

 

[Groucho]

Fisher Gate and Groucho are saying they support having more Muslim faith schools, because there are Christian ones, and because saying no to all faith schools is not practical.

A question to both of you. There have recently been calls for black only schools. By the same logic, do you support this call?

Also on a "practical" note, do you think that this can be applied to RESPECT calling for the nationalisation of the gas and electric companies?

I have said that whilst I favour a secular education a system (no faith schools) I would not block (I would support) other faith schools if we are to have Christian schools. I would not e.g. vote with the Christian right to block a Muslim school. Voting down other faith schools whilst maintaining Christian schools is insupportable. It is least worst - we are not starting from where would like to be.

Of course I would not support all black schools. I do accept that the creation of further faith schools has risks of segregation. I just would not allow an abstract position to lead me to side with racists.

Not sure your point re gas and electricity. Support renationalising.

 

[butchersapron]

I have said that whilst I favour a secular education a system (no faith schools) I would not block (I would support) other faith schools if we are to have Christian schools. I would not e.g. vote with the Christian right to block a Muslim school. Voting down other faith schools whilst maintaining Christian schools is insupportable. It is least worst - we are not starting from where would like to be.

Of course I would not support all black schools. I do accept that the creation of further faith schools has risks of segregation. I just would not allow an abstract position to lead me to side with racists.

Not sure your point re gas and electricity. Support renationalising.

"I would not e.g. vote with the Christian right to block a Muslim school."

What if it wasn't the Christian Right seeking to block the school? And the same as regards jewsish/christian schools

You're on a very slippery slope that first leads to racialising social issues, then chucking a religious issue on top of that. You're so far off base here that it's not funny anymore.

And you're lying to us - the quickest way to a fair base is to attck currently existing religious schools, not argue for their extenstion. But we both know exactly why you will not.

It's not the idiocy i can't stand - it's the lies.

 

[Random]

I just would not allow an abstract position to lead me to side with racists.

Are you against the EU?

 

[Groucho]

Are you against the EU?

Yes, but that is NOT a position primarily associated with racists although I grant racists/right-wingers do oppose the EU. The opposition in France was led by the left. A campaign against e.g. a local Muslim school is not likely to be a position boosting a call for secular education, but will play into the hands of racists. It has not been a level playing field - there are already Christian schools.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, but that is NOT a position primarily associated with racists although I grant racists/right-wingers do oppose the EU. The opposition in France was led by the left. A campaign against e.g. a local Muslim school is not likely to be a position boosting a call for secular education, but will play into the hands of racists. It has not been a level playing field - there are already Christian schools.

Nor is opposition to religious schools in this country.

We're fucked already, if we disagree we're likely to be racists, Which re-inforces the need for the legislation. Which Groucho doesn't support. Expect when he does.