SWP supports blair's religious hatred laws...

[mk12]

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?

Tired.

 

[Groucho]

Nor is oppsotion to religious schools in this country.

Where is the campaign against Christian schools? There are, however, campaigns against Muslim schools. That is racism.

 

[poster342002]

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.

You do realise, don't you, that elements of the far-right are all in favour of such segregation?

 

[socialistcelt]

This is obviously a touchy subject. It will be hard to make a comment without upsetting someone but here it goes.

Religion-the master of war-the murder of its people-the rape of its women- oppression-dictatorship-starvation-racism-terrorism-greed-just to name but a few. If people incite riots or acts of terrorism then it has to be stopped. All people deserve a peaceful life no matter what your colour, faith or race. If fundamentalists do not like western life then they do not have to live in the west. The truth is that a lot of them do.
I am not against religious schools but checks have to be made because sometimes these are the very place that terrorists hide. It is just not the Islamic faith that has turned against its own country. What about the IRA? The Catholic and the Protestants, the Jews, the Christians. Name one religion that has not got blood on its hands.
Perhaps religion is not such a good thing after all but which ever way you look at it something has got to be done. Whatever decisions are made someone is not going to like it.

 

[Groucho]

You do realise, don't you, that elements of the far-right are all in favour of such segregation?

Yes, that is a fair point. There are dangers of such.

I would prefer to be in a position where we are moving towards secular education, but we are instead in a position where Christian schools are accepted and Muslim schools opposed.

 

[poster342002]

Where is the campaign against Christian schools? There are, however, campaigns against Muslim schools. That is racism.

Perhaps if the left had stopped farting around and unequivocally launched campaigns against all religious schools years ago, you might not be in this knot.

 

[butchersapron]

Where is the campaign against Christian schools? There are, however, campaigns against Muslim schools. That is racism.

There are campaigns against religious education - there have been for decades before you even noticed (and they were previously largely aimed at christian schools). And please, tell me which bit of that state is attacking muslim and religious schools (you do remember that old defintion of racism - prejudice plus power to act on it that you used to support) - they're supporting them and you're colluding in the state agenda. Break the w/c up the better to keep it atomised and less capable of fighting back on a unified basis. There's very little left with you is there?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Where is the campaign against Christian schools? There are, however, campaigns against Muslim schools. That is racism.

The first result that came up on Google; not sure what’s in it but you get the point?

http://www.c.s.e.freeuk.com/

Louis Mac

p.s. the point being that just because the SWP isn't affiliated doesn't mean it's not happening. anyway I'm with BA on this one; the all too obvious reason why Respect and the SWP support the extension of faith schools has nothing to do with the reasons given....it's the lying that is so unpalatable.

 

[poster342002]

Yes, that is a fair point. There are dangers of such.

I would prefer to be in a position where we are moving towards secular education, but we are instead in a position where Christian schools are accepted and Muslim schools opposed.

And your positon is not moving us anywhere towards secular education - just the opposite.

And it can - as you now admit - allow the far-right to endorse notions of segregation with that bit more (false) legitamacy than it had before.

 

[Wilf]

And your positon is not moving us anywhere towards secular education - just the opposite.
.

yes, exactly. The only logic that can be taken out of your position (Groucho) is "lets support Muslim Schools till there are enough of them that they are at parity with xian schools - and then start opposing the lot of 'em" .. which is fairly bizarre. But then as others have said, this isn't really what this is about.

 

[Random]

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.
[...]

Of course I would not support all black schools

Why do you have the idea that 'not blocking' muslim schools would invlvled supporting them? Isn't there a big difference between 'not blocking' a law and supporting it, especially when you've got an MP?

Isn't the real reason for an equivocal stance on faith schools because of a need to appease the conservative muslim 'community leaders' who run private faith schools and want them to be funded by the sate? And is this also the reason why they're not equivalent to black schools?

Come on, be honest. It's a matter of realpolitik and your current alliances, rather than principle.

 

[poster342002]

yes, exactly. The only logic that can be taken out of your position (Groucho) is "lets support Muslim Schools till there are enough of them that they are at parity with xian schools - and then start opposing the lot of 'em" .. which is fairly bizarre.

Quite. By that stage trying to scrap religious schools would be a case of unscrambling an egg - I.E; too late.

Or maybe a better analogy would be someone saying:

"I don't like scrambled eggs. However, as three out of my ten eggs are already scrambled I'll have to scramble the other seven - after which I'll unscramble them all. Somehow".

 

[hibee]

The logic of Groucho's position is that, were he a councillor, he would oppose any new Christian schools while supporting the establishment of muslim schools.

That's what those acres of text boil down to. And what a godsend for the far right that would be.

 

[hibee]

Another question. At what point do you say, ok then, that's enough muslim schools, now let's scrap denominational education altogether?

 

[audiotech]

Another question. At what point do you say, ok then, that's enough muslim schools, now let's scrap denominational education altogether?

Scrap? At this point in time I think it would mean calling for a ban on denominational education, which I don't think would go down too well with a significant section of the local electorate. That's if you were an elected councillor of course.

 

[Random]

That's if you were an elected councillor of course.

Hibee's talking about party policy, which would mean opposing faith schools at the local level if a cllr, and at the national one as well if an MP.

What's so bad about doing things that are unpopular with some people if they're the right thing to do?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Scrap? At this point in time I think it would mean calling for a ban on denominational education, which I don't think would go down too well with a significant section of the local electorate. That's if you were an elected councillor of course.

I don't think we are talking about a ban , just an end to state funding and in this case the local state. But where is RESPECT positioned to even start such a debate?

This sums up the dilemna for RESPECT in my book.The whole idea of a locally based organsiation that has standing in the community is to use that standing to effect change.That change would be achieved through campaigning and if the councillor had been elected through that campaigning then the support or at least the critical mass of it is there. I don't get the sense that RESPECT are doing this.


Bearing in mind that less than 10% attend church nationally who are we talking this not going down well with? Surely not those who have backed RESPECT as a socialist organisation which believes in uniting black and white?

 

[audiotech]

Hibee's talking about party policy, which would mean opposing faith schools at the local level if a cllr, and at the national one as well if an MP.

What's so bad about doing things that are unpopular with some people if they're the right thing to do?

To be clear, as an atheist, religion is an anathema to me and I would welcome the complete separation of the church from the state, which is long overdue.

However, I have a feeling that at this time it would be unpopular to scrap, or ban faith schools with a lot of people and I suspect they would deem it an authoritarian thing to do.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

the all too obvious reason why Respect and the SWP support the extension of faith schools has nothing to do with the reasons given....it's the lying that is so unpalatable.

The moral self righteousness of yourself and butchers on this is all very good for the gallery. Shame it don't fit the facts. The SWP has been arguing the 'bad dialectics' as butchers called it above for decades, and on these types of issues well before Respect was even a gleam in John Rees' eye. In the past it was over issues like black sections in the Labour Part, separatist feminist motions at Student Union meetings. All sorts of things. And none of it was a concession to 'our allies' the Mullahs. The basic method has always been the same. Where they can socialists should argue for the maximum unity in education and everything else. But not a false unity where the oppressed are denied the right to secede because of racism, sexism or whatever.

It's an old leninist method. Which makes me smile when cockers has a pop at it. It's not about being "practical" it's about the balance of forces involved in an argument. Every member of the SWP has been at caucus meetings before a general Union meeting (Trade or Student) where they have agreed that how they were going to vote on a particular motion or ammendment would be dependent on what direction the arguments were headed. If feminists proposed separate organisation at a union meeting out of the blue my instinct would be to oppose it. But if the majority of those opposed did it in a sexist way that made it impossible for people to raise issues of womens oppression in the general meetings then I'd cast my vote with the feminists. There is no apriori position on anything. There is what best takes the struggle forward in the given time and place.

 

[Wilf]

. There is no apriori position on anything. There is what best takes the struggle forward in the given time and place.

♪ And it seems to me you live your life like a candle in the wind ... ♪

 

[audiotech]

I don't think we are talking about a ban , just an end to state funding and in this case the local state. But where is RESPECT positioned to even start such a debate?

Don't know where Respect are on this, but I do agree with your point on state funding, which is more realistic than talk of any bans.

This sums up the dilemna for RESPECT in my book.The whole idea of a locally based organsiation that has standing in the community is to use that standing to effect change.That change would be achieved through campaigning and if the councillor had been elected through that campaigning then the support or at least the critical mass of it is there. I don't get the sense that RESPECT are doing this.

Maybe in time?

Bearing in mind that less than 10% attend church nationally who are we talking this not going down well with? Surely not those who have backed RESPECT as a socialist organisation which believes in uniting black and white?

I don't know the figure for church attendance, but most people would say that they believed in a God and usually a Christian God.

As for your last point, that seems tongue in cheek?

 

[rednblack]

Where they can socialists should argue for the maximum unity in education and everything else. But not a false unity where the oppressed are denied the right to secede because of racism, sexism or whatever.

and yet the swp has banned internal sections

 

[butchersapron]

The moral self righteousness of yourself and butchers on this is all very good for the gallery. Shame it don't fit the facts. The SWP has been arguing the 'bad dialectics' as butchers called it above for decades, and on these types of issues well before Respect was even a gleam in John Rees' eye. In the past it was over issues like black sections in the Labour Part, separatist feminist motions at Student Union meetings. All sorts of things. And none of it was a concession to 'our allies' the Mullahs. The basic method has always been the same. Where they can socialists should argue for the maximum unity in education and everything else. But not a false unity where the oppressed are denied the right to secede because of racism, sexism or whatever.

It's an old leninist method. Which makes me smile when cockers has a pop at it. It's not about being "practical" it's about the balance of forces involved in an argument. Every member of the SWP has been at caucus meetings before a general Union meeting (Trade or Student) where they have agreed that how they were going to vote on a particular motion or ammendment would be dependent on what direction the arguments were headed. If feminists proposed separate organisation at a union meeting out of the blue my instinct would be to oppose it. But if the majority of those opposed did it in a sexist way that made it impossible for people to raise issues of womens oppression in the general meetings then I'd cast my vote with the feminists. There is no apriori position on anything. There is what best takes the struggle forward in the given time and place.

There's no, or not much "self righteousness" on my part - i see what you're doing and why you're doing it. I think you shouldn't, and i think the mealy mouth crap offered thus far an an reason makes me sick - where's the honesty? This isn't the last in a long line of brave moves to defend minority rights it's a tactical move that demands results results in the future. The same as every single other move you've mentioned above BB.

 

[tbaldwin]

Every member of the SWP has been at caucus meetings before a general Union meeting (Trade or Student) where they have agreed that how they were going to vote on a particular motion or ammendment would be dependent on what direction the arguments were headed. If feminists proposed separate organisation at a union meeting out of the blue my instinct would be to oppose it. But if the majority of those opposed did it in a sexist way that made it impossible for people to raise issues of womens oppression in the general meetings then I'd cast my vote with the feminists. There is no apriori position on anything. There is what best takes the struggle forward in the given time and place.

So what happened to "Womens Lip" then?

 

[audiotech]

So what happened to "Womens Lip" then?

Give us a kiss.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

and yet the swp has banned internal sections

but then again the argument was about the right to secede from racist/sexist bodies be they education systems, reformist parties etc. the whole point about the swp is that it's supposed to be full of anti-racists/anti-sexists. we might disagree on whether it is or not but that's a different argument

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The way to explain the SWP ban on internal sections and the simultaneous encouragement of the extension of faith schools is straight forward; look at the needs of the party leadership.

Internal sections create the possibility of sustained challenges to the leadership, so they are not wanted; while support for extension of faith schools is proof of their bona fides to their Muslim allies in Respect, so it is a policy to be encouraged.

No need for dialectics here, good bad or indifferent; just look at who gains from these obviously contradictory positions.

Louis Mac

p.s. Unless of course you hold that the leadership of the SWP is the collective expression of the most class consscious elements of the SWP, which is itself the collective expression of the most class conscious elements of the working class...then it all fits perfectly...but that would just be daft.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Internal sections create the possibility of sustained challenges to the leadership, so they are not wanted; while support for extension of faith schools is proof of their bona fides to their Muslim allies in Respect, so it is a policy to be encouraged.

As my old philosophy lecturer would have said, that's a very teleological argument about theology there Loius!

And it ignores the fact as I said above that the SWP has been arguing like this well before Respect ever arrived. I rooted out an article by Norah Carlin from the Socialist Review in Jan 1986 (I remember it cause it was one of the first I read when I came across the SWP). It's on positive discrimination, how revolutionaries don't see it as a solution in itself, don't go along with the arguments about 'role models' for the oppressed but still find themselves in situations where they have to defend it against the right. Amazingly like the arguments today about faith schools and anti-hatred legislation wouldn't you say? And of course at the time the swp was hardly falling over itself to woo the Bea Campbells of this world was it? But the position was dictated by the method not by passing opportunism.

The final paragraph could be plucked straight out of any swp-friendly post in this thread:

We may argue - we should argue- about correct and incorrect strategies in the class struggle; but we cannot abandon our principles and appear to be lining up with racists and sexists against oppressed sections of the working class

 

[flimsier]

I know this is predictable, but I agree with BB here.

Not a lot to add - I'm reading - just wanted to give him some support.

 

[butchersapron]

Nor should you buy into and endorse the states actions (no matter how heavy your heart is) when they try and introduce legisation designed explicity to a) shore up their own support amongst muslims and b) seperate and atomise the w/c of this country. This second measure esp would make any sort of significant fightback against the current state of things that much harder, and not just for the now - but foe the next two generations at the very least.

It's not good pulling up an argument from 20 years ago that was wrong then in support of that continued idiocy today. You're making the idiots think that you actually believe this and they'll cut their own arguments accordingly. Someone preserve the left flank.

No, it's wrong in principle, and it's wrong tactically.