New, dangerously anti-free-speech regulations have come into force in English schools on the 29th September 2014. They are contained in the new Independent School Standards regulations, which change the legal framework for academies, free schools and private schools. Ofsted has been asked to enforce the same minimum standards for all other schools.
Among them are the requirements that schools actively promote:
(v) further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions by enabling pupils to acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures;The former is very good in theory, if we didn't know that the "tolerance" and "respect" are not mutual but one-directional, at the expense of British culture.
(vi) encourage respect for other people, paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010.
As for the latter, the new standards will only be met if a school in England "actively promotes" the rights enshrined in the Equality Act.
Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage, explains what this innocent-sounding regulation means in practice:
As a result, schools will undoubtedly be put under pressure to promote same-sex marriage. Advice from a senior QC confirms this.Indeed, the Government Consultation Documents are specific about what these "protected characteristics" are. A clue: think of words that are often used in conjunction with the suffix "phobia".
a. Para 3.2.2The protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation (s4 Equality Act 2010).
b. “The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristic (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example… failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school”.
Hart elaborates:
This all conflicts directly with previous good guidance issued by the Government. But earlier reassurances can’t disguise the fact that schools will now have to comply with the new minimum standards...In short, the new regulations are written in such ambiguous terms that any opinion about an institution - like same-sex marriage - may be taken as a lack of respect for some people - homosexuals.
If schools were required to promote respect for people as people there would be no problem. But the additional requirement of “paying particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010” transforms the duty in an alarming way.
One of the ‘protected characteristics’ in the Equality Act is sexual orientation. It could easily be alleged that a teacher who says “I believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage” has shown a lack of respect for people of a same-sex sexual orientation.
Schools will come under immense pressure to endorse same-sex marriage in order to comply with these regulations. Since the equality rights must be “actively promoted”, they will undoubtedly change what is taught in schools.
Under existing equality law, schools cannot discriminate against pupils but governments have carefully excluded the school curriculum from the Equality Act. The regulations break the seal around the curriculum for the first time. Now activists could launch a discrimination claim over the content of lessons.
This is why the Association of School and College Leaders has warned about the harmful implications for freedom of expression in schools.
The Government keeps talking about “British values” but seems to think this means promoting political correctness.
In its alarming consultation document, the Government lets slip some of its thinking.
3.2.2It’s astonishing that the Government thinks schools should challenge the personal beliefs of parents for being contrary to political correctness. This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman.
PART 2 – Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of students
… Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.
The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school.As we know from recent history, reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely described as ‘homophobia’. Does the new equality requirement mean a school must discipline or dismiss a teacher who voices support for traditional marriage? Will parents of prospective pupils be interrogated about their beliefs before their child is granted a place at school?
The plans also slip in another attack on parents by demanding that in future private schools must conform to ‘national norms’ rather than the expectations of parents.
Any school with a religious ethos which upholds traditional marriage will now have to defend itself against the new rules. Schools could be harassed by inspectors or even have their governors removed by the Secretary of State.
The regulations are a fundamental change of approach in our education system, which have been slipped out under the radar. It is vital that these dangerous plans are opposed and exposed. [All emphases added]
As John Bowers Q.C. explains:
The Regulations are not framed as a duty to promote the protected characteristics but instead as a duty to promote respect of people, having particular regard to those protected characteristics. It adopts much of its language from the human rights case law (tolerance, respect etc). It is however a small step as a matter of interpretation to elide the respect for a person to respecting the beliefs and practices of the group to which that person belongs and this is especially so given the reference to active promotion, a concept to which I refer below in more detail. It may also be said that the words “paying particular regard” shift the duty beyond that of merely respecting people since otherwise it could have been framed simply as a duty to respect persons. [Emphasis added]Mr Bowers also remarks that the curriculum is in danger of becoming politicised,
because respect for some protected characteristics (or more correctly respect of those with different protected characteristics including faiths and beliefs) may be highly contentious. The law has thus far stayed steadfastly outside the classroom door (and indeed from promoting respect in the classroom) and this has been the policy of governments of each political colour. [Emphasis added]It's been an article of faith of successive governments that the curriculum should not be a political football and that teachers should not even potentially be the subject of litigation. But all this could be an unintended consequence of the amendments.
Mr Bowers provides examples of situations in which teachers may fall foul of the standards because what they say may be perceived as a lack of respect for people who hold the corresponding beliefs: portraying jihad negatively, dismissing the concept of man-made climate change, making jokes about veganism. He concludes:
The danger of litigation is exacerbated by the vagueness in the proposals arising from the concept of active promotion.I find the concept of "protected characteristics" entitling the persons who possess them to "particular respect" a bit politically-correctly sinister, implying that some groups of people are more equal than others. We already know that Muslims are more equal than non-Muslims and homosexuals are more equal than Christians - we've seen it repeatedly demonstrated -, but now it could be enshrined in government's school regulations.
41. The inevitable result is to open teachers up to increased scrutiny, pressures and complaints. There is a real risk of major litigation over what happens in the classroom. Further the contents may undermine their academic freedom.
In the end, all this means one thing: much more power to the government and less freedom of expression to people. We are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and plenty of progress on that route has already been made.
European governments are psychopathic, especially in the UK and Sweden. It's as though their mission is to commit genocide against their own people and murder their culture. These people are totally evil in every way, full of hate while accusing their own people of hate, just because they want to be themselves in their own small countries without being flooded by aggressive populations from the third world who get every benefit of doubt while they, the native white peoples, are all labeled as "racists." It's utterly intolerable, so why are you tolerating it? Get your torches and your pitchforks and depose these criminals who are murdering your people!
ReplyDeleteone world order
DeleteI would like to help but East-Benders is on shortly!!! Throw the lot in the Thames!!!
Delete"This could lead a head teacher to reprimand a parent who tells their child that marriage is for a man and a woman."
ReplyDeleteWow! That's scary! I'd rather home school.
Muslim schools teach Muslim children that sex outside marriage is a sin. Homosexuality is also a sin. sex before marriage and homosexuality are western values and Muslims are not supposed to adopt them.
ReplyDeleteBritish values, which are said to include respect for legally protected characteristics such as homosexuality, religion, gender change, disability, race and marital status. what a warping of British values, the British values I was taught are respect for the institution of marriage, freedom of religious pursuit, freedom of speech, respect for the monarch. respect for others.
Until we change our attitude towards victims of sexual abuse we will continue to have these scandals. This isn't just an issue in Rottheram or the UK for that matter. Globally, we have seen repeated failures of authorities who did not believe the victims of sex crimes. Unfortunately, various groups - including atheists and Christians - have used the misogyny of Islam to justify perpetuating their own misogyny. Apparently Western misogyny doesn't need to be addressed because Muslim misogyny is worse. Misogyny is not unique to Islam or the Middle East. It wasn't until the 20th century that Christians began to abhor family violence. The current Australian PM is on record as saying his daughter's greatest gift to give is their virginity.
It seems likely that the majority of the girls abused in Rotherham were white but this begs the question of whether this was because their Muslim abusers had greater "hatred and contempt" for non-Muslim, white girls and/or whether white girls were "most easily accessible". Almost half of child sexual abuse is committed by children. One in three child sexual abuse victims are boys. 20% of child sexual abuse is committed by females. Child sexual abuse is a heterogeneous crime. There are many sub cultural interpretations of Islam as there are for Christianity. To suggest that Muslims don't respect women is ridiculous, I guess you don't know many Muslims. If a European irreligious person is the abuser what do we label them, just pervert I guess? We certainly don't see them as representative of the dominant culture. A 2012 report by the deputy children’s commissioner said that 33 per cent of child sex abuse by gangs in Britain was committed by Asians – who form 7 per cent of the population. However it is single men who abuse far more children and they are predominantly white, such as Glitter,Seville and all the related cases as well, also all those in the lost paedophile document of people higher up in society who abused at what was a paedophile brothel as well as Catholic priests who abused.
If you know a crime is being committed, you have a duty to report/act on it, surely failure to do means that you are complicit in the crime? Westminster M.P.s, knew they were stealing millions off the taxpayer and blamed the rules they themselves had written. These same people knew that there were predatory pedophiles in their midst, one of whom was a Privy Councillor and PPS to the Prime Minister.They did nothing. Police in Leeds and Rochale, knew about the activities of two of their most famous residents - yet did nothing. Police at Orgreave and Hillsborough knew they had lied in their statements - yet did nothing.I'm sure that scores more examples could be added to this list.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk