A good teacher is someone whose party political affiliations, sexual orientation, are a complete mystery to the children in his or her care.

I am glad to see that at least this website is escaping the relentless attack strategy that is being unleashed on Harry’s Place.

As a constructive alternative to Smith’s “opportunity missed” (NASUWT statement). Here is what the NASUWT, a major teachers’ union gave (in part) as their written submission to the Smith enquiry on this issue. Note the NASUWT supports a ban on BNP members being allowed to be employed as school teachers:

The NASUWT has given written and oral evidence to an independent inquiry set up by the DCSF into provisions preventing the promotion of racism in schools.

As a result of the NASUWT’s high profile campaign to bar members of the British National Party (BNP) from working as teachers or serving on school governing bodies, the DCSF has set up the inquiry, which is being led by Maurice Smith, former Chief Inspector of Schools.

In its evidence to the review, the Union highlighted the strength of opposition to racists and fascists working in schools, as demonstrated by the 25,000 signatures to the Union’s petition.

In its submission, the Union set out its belief that racist and fascist organisations and their members hold and promote beliefs, attitudes and practices that are irreconcilable with the ethos of public services, including schools. The NASUWT believes that such beliefs contradict schools’ legal duties to promote equality, community cohesion and inclusion, and schools and teachers’ duty of care to their pupils. The Union pointed out that the police and prison officers are already barred from membership of racist and fascist organisations and the NASUWT believes that extending the ban to teaching would provide an important and powerful statement of intent about the culture and ethos of the profession.

The evidence sets out how the NASUWT envisages a ban would work with a provision added to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document to prohibit teachers and headteachers from being members of the BNP, National Front, Combat 18 and the English Defence League.

The NASUWT has recommended that there should be a requirement for anyone working in a school to provide a declaration that they are not a member of a fascist organisation. Failure to make such a disclosure should have implications for the individual’s employment, as would an admission of membership.

The evidence also recommends that training on equalities issues should become mandatory for school governors and should be an explicit component within the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH).

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/EnglandNASUWTGivesEvidenceOnBarringRacistsFromTeaching/NASUWT_005853

My point, all along, Dawood (as you appear to have missed this) was my opposition to the Smith report on exactly these grounds. No other issue – least of all suppositions about the sympathies or other intentions of other people and groups who have similarly rejected the report’s findings – are here relevant.

I have highlighted the section most relevant.

Faisal is right to point commentary to this from PP, IW and the trots blog, for the *inconsistency* that n0ne of them would object to Maurice Smith’s decision if this were an Islamist group rather than a far-right white supremacist group.

But none of them have made this point, Dawood!

In any case, this was not what I directly objected to!

Is there something you do not understand here?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7870

If a civil servant working in HMG suggests jihad by legitimising the death of British troops, or is an Islamist radical who regards democracy as a means to an end (Khilafah), it is perfectly legitimate for writers on the Spittoon call for his sacking. By analogy, if there were a BNP civil servant calling for forced repatriation of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and African immigrants on some BNP blog, the same would apply. And we would certainly write about here on The Spittoon and no doubt you would agree with that.

This is not consistent with supporting state legislation which would prohibit people from entering the teaching position, or the police force or the civil service etc, because of their personal politics or alignment with non-proscribed groups.

So, yes al-Qanaas was right to call for the sacking of Azad Ali. But to call for Azad Ali to be prohibited from entry into the police or civil service because he belonged to the IFE or the Hizb or even the BNP, organisations whose activities are not (yet) prohibited and are legal, would be unquestionably illiberal.

You have just called your own contributer Al-Qanaas Al-Masri who called for Azad Ali’s sacking “unquestionably illiberal ” Fair enough couldnt agree more given he/ she works for the extremist Spitoon.

My own view is that a teacher’s personal politics should in no way be used to determine and evaluate their skills and professionalism, which are, first and foremost, to instil their pupils with a love of learning of their subject.

Given the hounding by Harrys Place and Spitoon of individuals BECAUSE of their political views, in many cases getting them sacked from their jobs this is jaw-droppingly hypocritical

“Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service and a prominent defender of Azad Ali, should immediately sack Azad Ali from his job at the Treasury and from his position as head of the Civil Service Islamic Society.”

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3621

Anyway, going back to the point, Faisal is right to point commentary to this from PP, IW and the trots blog, for the *inconsistency* that n0ne of them would object to Maurice Smith’s decision if this were an Islamist group rather than a far-right white supremacist group.

I make my own mind up about things. I follow no pack, not PP’s, not even yours. Sorry.

That on examination the 3 blogs that Faisal links to, chances are that you will find that they will probably all argue…

Probably? Not certainly. Therein lies the rub.

What is the reason for your “increasingly clannish” for support earwigca’s and PP’s apologia of Cageprisoners?

That’s a smear. I support a position on the issue of a report on the compatability of membership of the BNP with being a teacher in England and Wales, that is all.

I support Cageprisoners? I do not. Show where this is the case.

I happen to agree with a number of people that the Smith report is mistaken in its conclusions.

How you move from that to support for Cageprisoners is mystifying.

That is exactly the inconsistency of (falsely) arguing from one issue to another I was alluding to, above.

I think you will find that that is exactly the point of the original post. That on examination the 3 blogs that Faisal links to, chances are that you will find that they will probably all argue that Hizbi teachers should NOT be banned while protesting loudly when BNP teachers are not.

And what’s with the “increasingly clannish” comment? What is the reason for your “increasingly clannish” for support earwigca’s and PP’s apologia of Cageprisoners?

The article on PP concerned the government’s reported position re BNP membership and teachers. My concerns and its concerns are about this. Nothing else.

No, I don’t live in a cave – rather a nice apartment with a near view of the Nile, actually. And oddly, living in Sudan, the iniquities of Islamism have not passed me by. Odd you think they should because I disagree with an increasingly clannish cohort on The Spittoon about this issue.

But the main point is banning teachers who belong to the BNP, or any dodgy extremist group and no matter how awful their views and until the group in question has been officially proscribed, is unquestionably illiberal. And not all PP feels that way, as Rumbold and Jai informed us in another thread.

You might have missed the fact that during the Gita Sahgal-Amnesty brouhaha, Sunny Hundal of Pickled Politics and earwicga of earwicga gave their unconditional backing to Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners. So much so, that Sunny has recruited earwicga with a blogging account on PP.

Now unless you live in a cave, you will know that Cageprisoners is a self-confessed and unapologetic champion of Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza and Anwar al-Awlaki who are…wait for it…clerical fascists.

Now you have to add PP and earwicga to the mix.

So I think Faisal is pointing at PP’s inconsistencies for the same reasons he is pointing to Bob Pitt. And he’s write to do this since they can both be regarded as “unreliable witnesses”.

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7847#comment-195908

My concerns are with the report, not with the reporters of the report (so to write) – and my concern with the report is that it is inadequate to the task of upholding the highest standards in the education service.

Bob Pitt’s inspired love for clerical fascism renders him an entirely unreliable witness. I did not mention anything about various Trots at all.

My point, latterly, is that you have to show such inconsistencies as you have indicated. As well as to point out that the report covers the BNP not Islamists. When HMG canvasses a report dealing with the latter, I shall certainly be watching for the reaction of these very sites.

In any case, I have reports of my own to write.

Faisal raises the same inconsistencies of motivation for protesting the banning of BNP teachers by Bob Pitt, some Trots and Pickled Politics. You admit there are inconsistencies in the first two which make you, in your words, “vomit” but discussing the third shows up Faisal’s “issues”?

WTF? To me, that’s just partisan, and shows that it’s you who has the issues.

However, unless you can show that the people who so object are inconsistent on the issue covered by the report, then it all rather looks like point-scoring.

The fact is this report covers the desirability of banning people who are members of the BNP from teaching. It does mention Islamist organisations. The story in PP covered the report. As far as I am aware it concentrated its criticisms on the same.

If you can show that the author of the article on PP has previously supported Islamist educators and their right to teach, then you might have some grounds for your position. If you cannot, it rather looks like you are creating for the sake of creating a conflict on the basis of speculation and – at best – views with which you disagree held by others about other issues.

My concern is standards in the education service and the good name of that service. I do not believe these are best served by employment of fascists (of whatever stripe); nor do I believe that the report’s recommendations concerning the monitoring of extremist political conduct in places of education on the part of staff are adequate or sensible.

Now the fact that these objections have also been raised by a blogger on Pickled Politics is of complete indifference to me. What is important, as far as I am concerned, is that I agree with these concerns, not their source in a site with which you clearly have, whether rightly or not, issues.