SWP supports blair's religious hatred laws...

[mk12]

Get stuck in lad, i've had a few tonight as well

I thought your PM was too nice...now I know the reason.

 

[audiotech]

Ok, 'a' target' amongst those listed above. And you missed with each one of them.

Especially with the health workers, steel workers, printers, and miners I took around various workplaces and garnered support for - some even joined.

 

[flimsier]

Errrm, you think BA is nice when he's pissed!!!

Are you mad?

 

[butchersapron]

I thought your PM was too nice...now I know the reason.

That was about 5 hours ago! And i always try and help people if i can no matter what political disagreements we might have

 

[butchersapron]

Especially with the health workers, steel workers, printers, and miners I took around various workplaces and garnered support for - some even joined.

...and all of them left

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Right, only RESPECT members and supporters to comment on respect please. Leave the hall if you dissent. Tell you what, don't post about RESPECT if you don't expect people to respond.

Don't be stupid. All I'm saying is tell us what YOUR alternative party with this policy is. How many votes have you won with it. How many MPs and Councillors support it?

 

[butchersapron]

Don't be stupid. All I'm saying is tell us what YOUR alternative party with this policy is. How many votes have you won with it. How many MPs and Councillors support it?

None. None support it in the formal terms of an election. Why would they?

I'm close to the IWCA though if you insist on casting this in electoral terms.

 

[audiotech]

Say no more, say no more...

20 sad gluesniffers determine the social relations that govern our lifes. Weren't you a marxist? Or have i the wrong bloke?

Some of 'em look a bit old for cans of bostick Butchers. Yes, thank fuck they don't govern our lives, but they often make others a misery.

 

[audiotech]

...and all of them left

Did they?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

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.



Maybe in time?



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?

I saw the figure for church attendance in some poll recently. As far as I am concerned people have a right to believe in what ever god they want but I think that arguing that the state shouldn't fund faith based schools wouldn't be that unpopular , after all we aren't talking about stopping peolles beliefs but opening up sate schools to all beliefs.

Last remark was tongue in cheek but more with genuine disappointment than
anything else. If the SWP full timer had asked me to turn up to a demo to support the setting up of a faith based school when I was a member at a branch meeting I would have refused point blank.

 

[butchersapron]

Some of 'em look a bit old for cans of bostick Butchers. Yes, thank fuck they don't govern our lives, but they often make others a misery.

Yep, and let's stop them. But let's not pretend that they're about to take power or that they've sent troops in Iraq or that they determine the level of racism that does or doesn't exist in bristish society. They're useful idiots for the state and searchlight - that's all they are.

 

[audiotech]

I saw the figure for church attendance in some poll recently. As far as I am concerned people have a right to believe in what ever god they want but I think that arguing that the state shouldn't fund faith based schools wouldn't be that unpopular , after all we aren't talking about stopping peolles beliefs but opening up sate schools to all beliefs.

Maybe, I would like to think that.

Last remark was tongue in cheek but more with genuine disappointment than anything else. If the SWP full timer had asked me to turn up to a demo to support the setting up of a faith based school when I was a member at a branch meeting I would have refused point blank.

As would I.

 

[audiotech]

Yep, and let's stop them. But let's not pretend that they're about to take power or that they've sent troops in Iraq or that they determine the level of racism that does or doesn't exist in bristish society. They're useful idiots for the state and searchlight - that's all they are.

Yes, and to keep it that way.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, and to keep it that way.

You what mate?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

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.

....

Actually I'm not completely against black schools. In certain circumstances they could be the best way of developing the black population. In the USA for example, there are a number of Colleges and Universities, called 'Historically Black Colleges and Universities', that were founded during the slavery period and have remained virtually or completely black (even though since 1954 it has been illegal to discriminate). Two weeks ago they had a Historically Black Colleges National Week. Of course the legacy of Slavery gives it a different dimension in the USA. But it's not a straight-forward issue and I think you'd be unwise to rule it out completely. Of course we have plenty of white schools - they are often church schools in suburban or rural areas.

 

[audiotech]

You what mate?

Badly worded, I was in agreement with your post.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

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

Because there are a couple of million kids studying in them, today, that's what's wrong with this, the vast majority of whom are 'working class', however you choose to define it.

This is the problem with the gut reaction "we don't want religious schools". You have to have a solution that copes with the existing kids, who have rights too, including the right not to have their education torn apart and be removed from their existing school. I doubt if many of the people advocating the "abolish all religious schools today" line have kids of their own and know how critical some element of stability is in their schooling. That's also why a party that called for the immediate abolition of religious schools would get zero votes even if the majority of the population are non-believers/non-practisers. It's a useless position. We need a transition to a new system, not the closing down of half the primary schools and a lot of the secondaries in the country. Simply withdrawing state funding would also have the same effect - no money to pay for the teachers? Socialists advocating cuts? Come back and argue when you've worked out something sensible, and discussed it with a large group of parents and got their support for your approach.

 

[poster342002]

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.

What about a false unity where oppressed muslims who want to quit the faith are prevented from doing so by heavy pressure from "coimmunity leaders", families and so forth? What help can they expect from the left?

 

[Pigeon]

Because there are a couple of million kids studying in them, today, that's what's wrong with this, the vast majority of whom are 'working class', however you choose to define it.

This is the problem with the gut reaction "we don't want religious schools". You have to have a solution that copes with the existing kids, who have rights too, including the right not to have their education torn apart and be removed from their existing school. I doubt if many of the people advocating the "abolish all religious schools today" line have kids of their own and know how critical some element of stability is in their schooling. That's also why a party that called for the immediate abolition of religious schools would get zero votes even if the majority of the population are non-believers/non-practisers. It's a useless position. We need a transition to a new system, not the closing down of half the primary schools and a lot of the secondaries in the country. Simply withdrawing state funding would also have the same effect - no money to pay for the teachers? Socialists advocating cuts? Come back and argue when you've worked out something sensible, and discussed it with a large group of parents and got their support for your approach.

Who said the schools no longer had to exist?

Many people whose kids go to religious schools do so despite their religious status- they just happen to be good schools or local or whatever. So the parents are forced into a charade where they need to attend mass or whatever every Sunday to make sure their kids get in. I have no doubt that, if you left the school apparatus intact but removed the religious status, many parents wouldn't object.

 

[poster342002]

Actually I'm not completely against black schools. In certain circumstances they could be the best way of developing the black population. In the USA for example, there are a number of Colleges and Universities, called 'Historically Black Colleges and Universities', that were founded during the slavery period and have remained virtually or completely black (even though since 1954 it has been illegal to discriminate). Two weeks ago they had a Historically Black Colleges National Week. Of course the legacy of Slavery gives it a different dimension in the USA. But it's not a straight-forward issue and I think you'd be unwise to rule it out completely. Of course we have plenty of white schools - they are often church schools in suburban or rural areas.

And that, in a nutshell, will be the sort of argument we'll probably see being used to justify that type of segregated schooling when it eventually hoves onto the political horizon.

 

[hibee]

Because there are a couple of million kids studying in them, today, that's what's wrong with this, the vast majority of whom are 'working class', however you choose to define it.

This is the problem with the gut reaction "we don't want religious schools". You have to have a solution that copes with the existing kids, who have rights too, including the right not to have their education torn apart and be removed from their existing school. I doubt if many of the people advocating the "abolish all religious schools today" line have kids of their own and know how critical some element of stability is in their schooling. That's also why a party that called for the immediate abolition of religious schools would get zero votes even if the majority of the population are non-believers/non-practisers. It's a useless position. We need a transition to a new system, not the closing down of half the primary schools and a lot of the secondaries in the country. Simply withdrawing state funding would also have the same effect - no money to pay for the teachers? Socialists advocating cuts? Come back and argue when you've worked out something sensible, and discussed it with a large group of parents and got their support for your approach.

I might have used the wrong wording when I said "scrap" - I should have said "withdraw funding from". It's pretty obvious that a unilateral changeover would be impossible and the process would have to be managed over a number of years. (as far as supporting cuts go, I see no reason why a) the it could be acknowleged the transition could take several years and b) any withdrawl of funding would go to a new institution).

However, I don't understand why your response to these difficulties is to make matters worse, ie create more faith schools. Surely the principled position (there's an old phrase from my SWP days) is to oppose the creation of any new religious schools of whatever denomination and lobby for a process of integration. In that respect the anomoly of so many christian schools becomes an obvious example of injustice to be challenged rather than something other communities should aspire to. Having everyone squabbling over what slice of the cake their community should receive is liberal apartheid at its purest and the enemy of class politics.

In the immediate term one of the biggest challenges facing eductation is Blair's reliance on "faith schools". What does Respect have to say about these "academies" that promote creationism in the north east (their funding formula and management structure notwithstanding)? Do you support their creation until this mythical day that, actually, you stop voting for faith schools? Or do you refuse them support while voting for islamic schools - sending out a disasterous message to the working class about whose "side" you're on?

It has still never been explained to me at which point you suddenly turn around and say, ok, that's enough Muslim schools, we'll start integrating everyone. It's an absolutely crazy position to hold that you continue promoting segregation until such time as you decide to turn things round.

As far as the more patronising elements of your post go, you're wrong about my family situation and I don't need to "discuss" anything with a large group of parents when throughout my life I've spoken to plenty - plus pupils, teachers etc - about why segregated education has completely failed the community in which I grew up.

 

[hibee]

And the fact a self identified member of the left is saying he's "not against" racial segregation as a policy for enrolling pupils really does show how low we've sunk. Seperate but equal, I suppose?

 

[poster342002]

And the fact a self identified member of the left is saying he's "not against" racial segregation as a policy for enrolling pupils really does show how low we've sunk. Seperate but equal, I suppose?

I do indeed think it's a staggering yardstick of how low we've sunk. It beggars belief that where the left once argued against racial/religious segregation, it now argues in favour of it - placing itself neatly on the same side of the argument as the far-right. The reasons for doing so may be diffeent from the far-right, but it amounts to the other side of the same coin in my book. A truly abysmal state of affairs.

I understand the argument of "we have to start where we are, not where we'd like to be", but when the direction being taken is actually taking you further away from your stated destination rather than closer to it, you've gotta ask some serious questions.

 

[Paul Marsh]

And the fact a self identified member of the left is saying he's "not against" racial segregation as a policy for enrolling pupils really does show how low we've sunk.

Indeed - and this is the same "left" that crucified people like Ray Honeyford in the 1980s!

 

[poster342002]

And the fact a self identified member of the left is saying he's "not against" racial segregation as a policy for enrolling pupils really does show how low we've sunk. Seperate but equal, I suppose?

Perhaps the left is now "with the racial segregationists sometimes"?

 

[butchersapron]

Or 'with the working class sometimes' - it seems 'the movement' has once more became everything. (That's one for BB to pick up on)

 

[poster342002]

Or 'with the working class sometimes'

Naaah. Not even that often.

The trouble is that, with class-conciousness being at an all-time low and all mention of class being forced off the political agenda, there's a very real danger of fuckwitted outifts like RESPECT being a success. It is not something we ought to celebrate, however.

 

[redsquirrel]

The trouble is that, with class-conciousness being at an all-time low and all mention of class being forced off the political agenda, there's a very real danger of fuckwitted outifts like RESPECT being a success. It is not something we ought to celebrate, however.

You really think that? They did terribly in the general election (their yardstick of success - not mine). They only get publicity these days due to Galloway. I suppose their tactic of targetting muslim voters might get them a bit of success in the short term but I can't see them being anything other than another minor grouplet who might get the occasional mention on the news.

 

[poster342002]

You really think that? They did terribly in the general election (their yardstick of success - not mine).

I think it'll happen more through chicanery (defecting councillors from other parties, etc) rather than by a proper mass movement. The trouble is, once they secure positions they'll be able to push their ghastly communal politics such as faith schools quite effectively.

 

[Wilf]

Because there are a couple of million kids studying in them, today, that's what's wrong with this, the vast majority of whom are 'working class', however you choose to define it.
.

A belated reply: this is just factually incorrect. Faith Schools - esp. C of E - are not predominantly working class. Quite the opposite - with the relatively low number of remaining grammar schools they are actually the main vehicle for selection in Britain. They operate this both formally and informally - requiring attendance or a family history in the particular church (at least when oversubscribed) - and also tend to have an effect on house prices in thier area (with middle class and 'aspirational' parents seeking the prized postcodes). They also tend to get better results - reinforcing further their pull factor on local parents.

Now I'm not sure how much/whether this will still operate if we see an increase in Muslim Schools. However, it is bound to be the case that these schools will also be selective - by one means or another.

With all this in mind, I find it pretty hard to support schools based on religion and selection. Equally to argue that these are the best refuges for kids suffering raism and inequality is odd. Why not just fight the racism itself, instead of supporting segregation?