28 May 2010 | News
A campaign for a BNP teacher ban smacks of the thought police; people should not be punished for their private thoughts, however repugnant, argues Brendan O’Neill
One of the central pillars of a free, democratic society is that people should never be penalised or discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs. The state and society have the right to demand that all of us obey the law and perform our public duties to a high standard, but they have no right to tell us what to think; they have no right to invade our minds or to exclude us from the public realm on the basis that we have the “wrong beliefs”.
Yet today, trade union officials and apparently liberal commentators seem determined to demolish this pillar of democracy. They want members of the British National Party to be denied the right to teach in schools, not because they are professionally unfit, or lack the right qualifications, or have been recorded making racist speeches to their pupils, but because their private thoughts, their personal belief systems, are deemed to be unacceptable. This is a new kind of McCarthyism, aimed at the far right rather than the far left.
On Tuesday, the General Teaching Council cleared Adam Walker, a former teacher and BNP activist, of racial and religious intolerance. While he was a teacher in Sunderland in 2007, Walker had used a school laptop to post vile comments in an online forum. He described immigrants as “savage animals” and said Britain had become a “dumping ground for the filth of the third world”. It was nasty stuff, yet the GTC said its main concern is the fact that Walker had used school property during school times for personal reasons — which it has every right to be concerned about — rather than the idea that he is unfit to teach because he is racially intolerant.
Some commentators are outraged. Joseph Harker at the Guardian scoffs at the idea that “it is okay to have BNP members teaching our kids” and hopes that our new prime minister, David Cameron, will sort this problem out. After all, Cameron once said: “Any good headteacher would not have a member of the BNP within a hundred miles of a school. They should be able to fire someone for that reason.” This echoes last year’s claim by a group of GTC members that “it is not possible, in our view, for a BNP member to be a registered teacher”.
The extraordinary intolerance and illiberalism of these arguments seems to have passed people by. Discriminating against individuals on the basis of their beliefs is no better than discriminating against them on the basis of their religion or sexuality. Commentators are calling for “BNP teachers” to be banned from teaching in schools not on the basis that they are failing to stick to the curriculum or have attempted to indoctrinate students with racist thinking —which would indeed call into question their professional capabilities — but simply because, in everyday life, outside of the classroom, they adhere to a political belief system that many of us find obnoxious.
Bizarrely, many of the anti-“BNP teacher” campaigners justify their arguments in the language of “rights” and “diversity”. Harker says every parent has the “fundamental right” to know that their child is not being taught by a racist, while some GTC members justify their opposition to “BNP teachers” on the basis that their presence in schools is “fundamentally inconsistent with the ethos [of diversity]”.
This is a warped and Orwellian use of language. In the name of “parents’ rights”, the real rights of adults to believe what they want and to not be punished for it by the state is being undermined. For all their talk about “celebrating diversity”, teaching officials are sending the clear message that there are limits to diversity— it cannot possibly include, for example, allowing individuals whose views are judged to be beyond the pale to work in the education sector.
However much these commentators and activists try to hide behind the language of rights and tolerance, there’s no disguising the fact that they are explicitly arguing for the policing of people’s thoughts and the state-enforced exclusion of people from the public sector if their thoughts are deemed unpalatable. Treating individuals as sub-citizens simply because they support a certain political party is far more anti-democratic than anything the BNP has yet come up with.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of Spiked Online
27 May 2010 | News, United Kingdom
Response from the Libel Reform Campaign to Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s Private Members Defamation Bill
READ LORD LESTER’S DEFAMATION BILL HERE
Read the Libel Reform Campaign’s report Free Speech Is Not For Sale here
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill is the first attempt in over a century to redraft libel laws that are unfair, internationally criticised and against the public interest. Our libel laws are unnecessarily complicated and unduly costly, defences are uncertain and narrow and the laws haven’t kept up with the information age. They are damaging freedom of expression and the open exchange of information worldwide.
The libel laws have been exposed as unjust
English PEN and Index on Censorship’s Free Speech is not For Sale report made 10 recommendations for fairer laws; the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee report on Press Standards Privacy and Libel called for far reaching reforms; a Ministry of Justice report said the law needs reforming in the public interest.
There is a public outcry about the chill on free speech
Over 500 commentators, comedians, poets and authors have spoken out and over 52,000 people have signed the libel reform campaign petition. Fifty organisations including Royal Medical Colleges, human rights NGOs, medical and science bodies, authors, bloggers, publishers and media and law organisations have called for reform. Hundreds of people have reported threats of libel action leading them to remove articles, blogs, reviews, academic papers, reports and books. Vital issues of public interest are affected including drug safety, human rights abuses and corporate behaviour.
There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform. The majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform.6
There were general election manifesto commitments to reform the libel laws from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour…
There is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws.
Now it’s time to change the law!
In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
Jonathan Heawood Director, English PEN said: “The current libel laws give international bullies licence to silence criticism. Until we have a clear public interest defence human rights activists, NGOs, authors, publishers, scientists and bloggers will continue to be threatened and sued.”
John Kampfner Chief Executive, Index on Censorship said: “There have been piecemeal reforms to our libel laws before but the big problems have not been resolved. The Duke of Brunswick ruling predates the lightbulb, but is still in use today to silence online debate. That is why we welcome this attempt to modernise the libel laws for the internet age.”
Tracey Brown Managing Director, Sense About Science said: With every week that passes, we are contacted by yet more writers and researchers who have been threatened with libel action. In the face of high costs and weak defences, they withdraw their articles, hold back their material from public discussion and, in the end, stop asking vital questions of public interest. Lord Lester’s Bill should be considered urgently by the Government.
Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat former MP who chaired the cross-party group for manifesto commitments for libel reform said: “Libel law reform is needed to prevent the chilling of comment which is in the public interest. It is therefore essential for scientists and academics and giving their opinion in good faith and responsibly, and their publishers, to know at the time of publication that they will have an effective defence against an unjustified libel plaintiff. Lord Lester’s skilfully crafted bill is one way of doing that and also offers the Government a vehicle for legislation following their review.”
14 May 2010 | Uncategorized
This is really quite depressing. The Christian Institute has posted footage of the arrest of street preacher Dale McAlpine for alleged homophobic comments. McAlpine’s apparent crime was to state that homosexuality was sinful. He is entitled to believe that, and to say that.
But what’s absolutely absurd about this case is that the police arrest McAlpine for a racially aggravated incident. Now, whatever your stance on McAlpine’s beliefs, (though I hope you’re unequivocal about his right to hold his beliefs), surely saying that homosexuality is a sin doesn’t make him a racist.
Dale McAlpine was wrongfully arrested. It would be a real sin if this case were to be taken any further.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12LtOKQ8U7c
Hat tip: Mediawatchwatch
Read Nigel Warburton’s take on Dale McAlpine’s plight here
5 May 2010 | Index Index, minipost, Uncategorized
The Dutch public prosecutor will challenge an April court ruling which acquitted a Muslim group of insulting Jews by publishing a cartoon denying the holocaust. The public prosecutor said yesterday the appeal was necessary to establish whether the cartoon added to public discussion or was “exceptionally offensive”. The Arab European League claims it was highlighting free speech double standards following the row over publication of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed.
