Recently I have written about Superman, the unholy state of children's bedrooms and the red paper clip that in 14 trades became a house but nothing about the situation between Isreal and Lebanon. You may or may not ask why! It is complicated but yet it is easy!
It is complicated because the situation is complicated, the situation between Isreal and the Arab world is difficult and nothing I say here would make it better. I read the opinions of the people who have commented on the internet and I agree with some comments made about both sides. So what difference would my adding fuel to the fire make? I write via Amnesty International, and on my own volition, regarding any situation that I feel is wrong and that I feel that writing about might help but most of the time I feel that no one out there is listening.
I always felt that I had strong feelings regarding the situation in the middle east and I felt I was pro one side but when I probed what I really felt I found that in my head were a lot of ,'ah buts....'
Here is an example.
I do not like, support or believe in the priciples of the BNP but yesterday I read a newspaper article about a teacher employed by Derby council who a teaching union say should be fired as a teacher because the said teacher stood as a candidate for the BNP. The argument against this is the fact that the BNP is a registered political party therefore they are legally allowed to stand as a candidate for the BNP without it affecting their job. The council believes however that there are no grounds for action.........well thank goodness for the voice of sanity. The council says that it has a statutory duty to promote race equality and the consequences of breaching this duty would be 'emphasised to Mr Jones'.
Ms Keates from NASUWT states the following in a letter to the council,'I am sure that you will share the view of the NASUWT that those who subscribe to a racist and fascist agenda have no place in the teaching profession'
The BNP made the statement that the NASUWT's stance was, 'outrageous and disgraceful'.
As Forest Gump said(don't quote me on this),'I MAY NOT BE A SMART MAN(well I'm a women actually but I'm refering to the smart bit, see blog entry dated Friday 14 July 2006), so I had to look up on the internet about the definition of what fascism is and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines fascim as,' A political philosophy movement or regime( as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralised autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition'. I am sure that this is not the only definition of fascism.
But what struck me about this definition was the part which said, 'forcible suppression of opposition', surely to fire somebody from their job because they have stood as a political candidate for a registerd party is an act of fascim by the ,' forcible suppression of the opposition'.I know I am not a clever person and I am sure some clever person could run rings around me in a debate but I just don't know how one can be a 'fascist' and the other not.
I always thought that if you were a Catholic, a Protestant, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Mormon, Muslim, a Conservative, a liberal, a supporter of the labour party, a pagan etc etc then if you were a teacher in a non-religious state school then whatever personal philosophies you held to you were not allowed to teach them in the classroom. Many of the religions and political parties that I have mentioned I know I would not want their philosophies taught to my children in school unless it was part of a politics class or a comparative religion class and then I believe that personal opinion is not allowedby the teacher. So why does NASUWT feel they have the right to discriminate against one political party when there are other political parties out there and religions that I know have policies and tenets that are just as scarey. As an example, the PM who is a member of the labour party went into Iraq WITHOUT UN support and subsequently how many civilians and soldiers have died? Does the NASUWT feel that teachers are suitable to teach if they support the labour party? The NASUWT cannot be selective in 'their judgements', if they are then they are discriminating. Are the labour supporters being advised on the need to follow the law and not promote invading non-aggressive countries without UN backing? If not then why? If Derby council is advising teachers who support the BNP to understand the consequences of breaching their statutory duty to promote race equality why are they not asking fundamentalist mormons if their beliefs regarding black people will affect their ability to promote race equality? Are they even aware of the views of the fundamentalist mormons? Is Derby council aware of the view of the teachers who support other religions who believe that only members of their church will go to heaven? Would this affect their ability to promote race equality?Justice is about justice for all not just about who you think deserves justice. Derby council are being discrimatory by feeling the need to re-emphasise to the BNP supporter about their statutory duty to promote race equality. The NASUWT comments about the BNP are discrimatory. The BNP are a legal party, if the NASUWT have a problem with the ideas that the BNP promotes then they should resort to legal means to deal with the problem and not stoop to discrimination.
So here you have an analogy of how my feelings are regarding the middle east, we do not live in a black and white world and remember it does take two to tango
No comments:
Post a Comment