Phillips - 'Racial ghettos may appear in UK'

[Pilgrim]

hmm, i would have thought an organisation committed to socialism and apparently containing over 3000 revolutionary socialists would not be adverse to undoing the last 100 years of anything, but you know if there's some legal and financial issues in the way, best not go there eh, best take the revolution elsewhere, somewhere it would be a bit easier to implement and didn't contravene any laws



so instead of supporting the abolition of all faith schools you want to create more



so you do support the motion, but for sectarian reasons you oppose it, great

So, the Inner Party are still employing 'doublethink' then?

 

[hibee]

I understand that people oppose Daily Telegraph-style lets-make-them-all-salute-the-flag approaches, but when you say "I oppose the integration of immirant groups" what does that mean in practice other than supporting segregation?

It always astonishes me to hear liberals and so-called leftists support what amounts to a form of apartheid.

 

[polo]

If you visit the US, you can see what ghettos really mean. They have a positive aspect in that they were a place of safety for new immigrants to be amongst their fellow countrymen. The negative aspect is that they can remain hemmed in and isolated from the greater society. Sometimes because they outside society is hostile for political reasons, other times because they wish to limit outside contact because they consider the rest of society dangerous and profane.

We have ghettos here, in Northern Ireland there are sectarian ghettos with vivid demarcations. Brick Lane is a not so much a ghetto, more a staging post. Stamford Hill, does have an insular Hasidic religious community and it is that type of isolation that is so worrying.

The worry is that the respect shown for different cultures that is part of a policy of multiculturalism also isolates communities which can become radicalised politically and socially. How much respect can you give to a community that has elements that embrace terrorism? How much respect for a community that circumcises women? Forced marriages? Child abuse and murder? Isolation creates problems because it encourages the negative as well as the positive. We need a nore inspired policy.

Trevor Phllips has a point and it is right that this subject should be debated.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

If you visit the US, you can see what ghettos really mean. They have a positive aspect in that they were a place of safety for new immigrants to be amongst their fellow countrymen. The negative aspect is that they can remain hemmed in and isolated from the greater society. Sometimes because they outside society is hostile for political reasons, other times because they wish to limit outside contact because they consider the rest of society dangerous and profane.

We have ghettos here, in Northern Ireland there are sectarian ghettos with vivid demarcations. Brick Lane is a not so much a ghetto, more a staging post. Stamford Hill, does have an insular Hasidic religious community and it is that type of isolation that is so worrying.

The worry is that the respect shown for different cultures that is part of a policy of multiculturalism also isolates communities which can become radicalised politically and socially. How much respect can you give to a community that has elements that embrace terrorism? How much respect for a community that circumcises women? Forced marriages? Child abuse and murder? Isolation creates problems because it encourages the negative as well as the positive. We need a nore inspired policy.

Trevor Phllips has a point and it is right that this subject should be debated.

Why are the actions of a few criminals the responsibility of a whole community? In my area there a bunch of moped stealing idiot teenagers; are their crimes my responsibility because we're part of the same local community?

 

[cockneyrebel]

In principle, I support the abolition of so-called faith schools but this resolution is simplistic in the extreme. You have to undo a hundred years of school organisation not to mention countless legal and financial issues.

This logic is utterly bizarre. You wouldn't be able to implement many basic tenants of socialism if you followed it.

Nationalisation? No, far too complicated. Abolish private schools. Oh no, that's been going on for centuries. Abolish private health care. That's totally unreasonable.....

Can't believe what I'm reading, but I suppose that's where RESPECT leads you.....

 

[Random]

This logic is utterly bizarre. You wouldn't be able to implement many basic tenants of socialism if you followed it.

Yeah, but let's face it, if the CPGB posted a shit stirring motion to an organisation you were involved in, you'd not support that either.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Yeah, but let's face it, if the CPGB posted a shit stirring motion to an organisation you were involved in, you'd not support that either.

I'm talking about the logic that Fisher Gate is using to oppose the ending of faith schools.

Also while the CPGB may well be shit stirring, that doesn't mean those issues can just be ignored.

To be honest I find it a madness that the RESPECT membership just rolls over when the RESPECT/SWP NC/CC decides to overturn their constituation and announce that branches can only put forward 2 motions each.

 

[oisleep]

and strip members of their constitutional right to put forward a motion if they have the support of at least 20 members

 

[Wilf]

In principle, I support the abolition of so-called faith schools but this resolution is simplistic in the extreme. You have to undo a hundred years of school organisation not to mention countless legal and financial issues. No major political party has ever advocated this and it is electorally untested, even though when public funding of church schools was first introduced in the 1902 Education Act over 40,000 people were prosecuted for non-payment of rates in protest (early equivalent of revolt against the poll tax). In the meantime we also have to tackle the issue that because the overwhelming majority of so-called faith schools are christian, they have in effect introduced segregation/apartheid into our education system. This is contrary to Labour's alleged opposition to selection (remember Blunket's 'read my lips' statement?). Here in Lancashire (Labour council since 1981), the majority of schools are church schools and we have incredible segregation. One church school in Preston is 99% white, former grant maintained, specialist,(ie lots of extra money in the past) gets over 95% 5 A*-Cs. This is a selective school pure and simple - the selection process is via interview by the CoE vicars rather than the head/school. Another school just 1 mile away is 99% asian, muslim and hindu, underfunded and poorly performing. It is little wonder that there is a clamour for muslim schools among some parts of the muslim community, as such a grave injustice is being done.

The CPGB are putting forward this resolution to try to create schisms within Respect and I would oppose it on those grounds. Instead a commission should be set up to look at both the philosophical and practical issues associated with religion and schools and an effective solution found that removes discrimination, can be implemented nationally and locally, and commands a broad consensus that can be electorally popular. Since Respect is likely to win councillors in LEAs in next May's elections this is an urgent task.

So, you believe in getting rid of faith schools - but feel that to vote that way would embarass your alliance with Moslems. Solution: vote against what you believe. Nice one.

 

[oisleep]

i've already pointed that out 4thwrite

 

[Wilf]

i've already pointed that out 4thwrite

Dammit, are you suggesting i should read the whole thread ...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So, you believe in getting rid of faith schools - but feel that to vote that way would embarass your alliance with Moslems. Solution: vote against what you believe. Nice one.

No. I'd support an alternative resolution that establishes a mechanism for not only determining a policy, but, most importantly, a means by which it can be brought about, including in individual LEAs.

The CPGB do not have a clue as to how you would remove the religious schools. The only concrete effect of their policy would be for Respect to oppose any new religious schools, in practice this means only muslim schools, and not do anything about the thousands of existing christian schools. This is racist discrimination pure and simple - you can't say you oppose any new muslim schools while having no means of getting rid of the christian ones. For this reason the resolution should be opposed in favour of an alternative way forward.

Even when the left (and Militant in particular) ran Liverpool City Council in the 1980s they were unable to come up with a means for abolishing church schools - their much vaunted reorganisation at the time cemented the status quo of educational apartheid in place by maintaining the church schools. I don't necessarily criticise them for not being able to do this - there were other battles to be fought, but I think it's an indication that it's not an issue that can be solved by passing one line resolutions.

 

[oisleep]

Dammit, are you suggesting i should read the whole thread ...

no you're clearly a very busy man, in you come to page 2!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No. I'd support an alternative resolution that establishes a mechanism for not only determining a policy, but, most importantly, a means by which it can be brought about, including in individual LEAs.

The CPGB do not have a clue as to how you would remove the religious schools. The only concrete effect of their policy would be for Respect to oppose any new religious schools, in practice this means only muslim schools, and not do anything about the thousands of existing christian schools. This is racist discrimination pure and simple - you can't say you oppose any new muslim schools while having no means of getting rid of the christian ones. For this reason the resolution should be opposed in favour of an alternative way forward.

Even when the left (and Militant in particular) ran Liverpool City Council in the 1980s they were unable to come up with a means for abolishing church schools - their much vaunted reorganisation at the time cemented the status quo of educational apartheid in place by maintaining the church schools. I don't necessarily criticise them for not being able to do this - there were other battles to be fought, but I think it's an indication that it's not an issue that can be solved by passing one line resolutions.

PS I've held this position since the 1980s when I was a Labour Party nominated governor of a boys school. The Labour Party tolerated the existence of the boys school (an ex-grammar) in order to enable a girls school to co-exist and therefore give local Muslims the option of sending girls to a single sex school. This policy was supported by the local Labour Party - I opposed it on grounds that I was in favour of a complete reorganisation into both uni-sex and non-denominational schooling, a policy which I was in a minority of one on in the local Party structures (and among parents I should say). As there was a church school also in existence, to have proposed closing the boys and girls school would have meant, allowing christians to have their preferred education systems, but not muslims.

 

[oisleep]

No. I'd support an alternative resolution that establishes a mechanism for not only determining a policy, but, most importantly, a means by which it can be brought about, including in individual LEAs.

ah i see, you mean similar to these resolutions that were passed at last year's conference, which fully established both a mechanism and means for bringing it about

Motion 6: Nuclear Disarmament - Dorset This conference calls for a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament as the initial step to achieve our aim to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and to create genuine security for future generations.

Motion 62: Third World Debt - York Respect calls for the immediate writing off of all ‘Third World’ debt and an end to the neo-liberal policies forced on the ‘Third World’ by the IMF and World Bank.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I'm talking about the logic that Fisher Gate is using to oppose the ending of faith schools.

...

No I support the ending of so-called 'faith schools'. I just think you need to say how you would do it as well, without destroying the education of children. The only possible way I've seen it discussed is to nationalise the church of england and roman catholic church and hand over all their assets to the state. Some policy eh?

 

[oisleep]

it's interesting that you never seem to have raised the practical problems of implementing these kind of meaningless gesture motions, but you immediately point out that we can't change what's been put in place in the last 100 years with regards faith schools, however ending neo-liberal policies and ridding the world of nucleur weapons and creating genuine security for future generations appear to present you no problem with uprooting existing structures

 

[Fisher_Gate]

ah i see, you mean similar to these resolutions that were passed at last year's conference, which fully established both a mechanism and means for bringing it about

LEAs do not have control over nuclear weapons. They do control schools - get real!

 

[oisleep]

no, it's more basic than that, you complain that the resolution proposed by the CPGB should not be adopted as it doesn't set out the manner in which it would bring about what it proposes

i take it on that basis you would disagree with the two motions i quote, which were passed at last years' conference?

 

[poster342002]

The only possible way I've seen it discussed is to nationalise the church of england and roman catholic church and hand over all their assets to the state. Some policy eh?

Sounds fair enough to me as a secular socialist. Such moves would go hand in hand with sequestering all capitalist property and orgs, wouldn't it?

As an aside, the Chrurch Of England is a nationalised church: Didn't Henry 8th nationalise the English branch of the catholic church and rename it the C of E?

 

[poster342002]

it's interesting that you never seem to have raised the practical problems of implementing these kind of meaningless gesture motions, but you immediately point out that we can't change what's been put in place in the last 100 years with regards faith schools, however ending neo-liberal policies and ridding the world of nucleur weapons and creating genuine security for future generations appear to present you no problem with uprooting existing structures

They're treading the miserable path of Labour and all reformist parties: everything becomes either "too insignificant" to bother about or "too big" to change. Result: more of the same and capitalism carries on as usual.

 

[Wilf]

No. I'd support an alternative resolution that establishes a mechanism for not only determining a policy, but, most importantly, a means by which it can be brought about, including in individual LEAs.

The CPGB do not have a clue as to how you would remove the religious schools. The only concrete effect of their policy would be for Respect to oppose any new religious schools, in practice this means only muslim schools, and not do anything about the thousands of existing christian schools. This is racist discrimination pure and simple - you can't say you oppose any new muslim schools while having no means of getting rid of the christian ones. For this reason the resolution should be opposed in favour of an alternative way forward.

Even when the left (and Militant in particular) ran Liverpool City Council in the 1980s they were unable to come up with a means for abolishing church schools - their much vaunted reorganisation at the time cemented the status quo of educational apartheid in place by maintaining the church schools. I don't necessarily criticise them for not being able to do this - there were other battles to be fought, but I think it's an indication that it's not an issue that can be solved by passing one line resolutions.

And its with this kind of logic that you illustrate that the swp has absolutely abandoned any pretence at being revolutionary party. All this talk of making social change through a council chamber - or a Royal Commission FFS! - pure parliamentary socialism, replaying the debates of the Labour left circa 1982. Seems to me you are suggesting that significant and real change can be made within capitalism.

 

[oisleep]

@poster 342002

indeed to the delight of respect supporters and bankrollers like the turners

 

[poster342002]

@poster 342002

indeed to the delight of respect supporters

They'll probably end up supporting the monarchy before you know it.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Sounds fair enough to me as a secular socialist. Such moves would go hand in hand with sequestering all capitalist property and orgs, wouldn't it?

As an aside, the Chrurch Of England is a nationalised church: Didn't Henry 8th nationalise the English branch of the catholic church and rename it the C of E?

By a revolutionary government, yes it would be 'fair enough'.

And in the meantime? We allow thousands of christian schools to continue and oppose any new muslim ones? Remember local councillors have a say on whether new schools can come into being.

Henry VIII did nationalise the CofE but at that time we had a supreme monarch. We've had the little matter of a bourgeois revolution since then (incomplete admittedly). The Roman Catholic Church was brought back into legality from 1850.

As well as thousands of christian schools by the way, there are also two CoE Universities (University of Gloucestershire and Roehampton University), and about 50 church colleges in both the FE and HE sector. All are publicly funded and regulated (to an extent), so the CPGB are wrong to say 'Bring the Church Schools into the State Sector' - they are already part of the state system but with important distinctions.

 

[Wilf]

They'll probably end up supporting the monarchy before you know it.

I certainly look forward to seeing RW's justification of George Galloway's peerage (which will innevitably follow his defeat at the next election).... "Lord Galloway of Lisbon was an indeftaigible opponent of the war, and if he chooses to pursue the struggle against racism in another place ..."

 

[oisleep]

They'll probably end up supporting the monarchy before you know it.

did they not vote down a resolution last year which supported a republic

 

[Fisher_Gate]

And its with this kind of logic that you illustrate that the swp has absolutely abandoned any pretence at being revolutionary party. All this talk of making social change through a council chamber - or a Royal Commission FFS! - pure parliamentary socialism, replaying the debates of the Labour left circa 1982. Seems to me you are suggesting that significant and real change can be made within capitalism.

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Nor am I an ultra-left. Try reading Lenin:

"Parliamentarianism has become "historically obsolete". That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it practically. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be "historically obsolete" many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the soil of capitalism. " (emphasis in original)

"Left Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder

 

[oisleep]

i with fuckin lenin would become a bit more historically obsolete

 

[Wilf]

I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Nor am I an ultra-left. Try reading Lenin:

"Parliamentarianism has become "historically obsolete". That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it practically. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be "historically obsolete" many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the soil of capitalism. " (emphasis in original)

Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

Well, for assuming you were in the swp, i apologise.

Read Lenin? Yes, I've read Left Wing Communism. However I ain't a Leninist.

You though, presumably, are. And i don't think the respect strategy could in any way be seen to fit the logic of the Lenin quote. Its a move towards Parliamentary politics pure and simple. Or, to put it another way, how would you argue that the Respect approch is part of some genuine attempt to overturn capital?