Labour's Orwellian nightmare continues

[Incontinenta Buttox]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7656607.stm

What the !!!!!!!!

Teachers now reporting 5-year olds for thought-crimes!!!

These idiots think Orwell's 1984 is an instrution manual.

Schools are being given advice on how to prevent pupils becoming drawn to violent extremism and terrorism.

Guidelines are being made available to primary and secondary schools in England to help them discuss the issues surrounding extremist views.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls said schools could play a "key role" in getting young people to reject extremism.

Schools should have a named teacher to whom pupils can report any concerns of grooming by extremist groups.

Teachers should protect the well-being of pupils who may be vulnerable to being drawn to extremism, says the government's "Learning together to be safe" kit.

Really, I think I should just pack up my stuff and go for a drive in the countryside. Reading this kind of bollocks just isn't good for my health.

OK, so we have the obligatory "Al-Qaeda" dogwhistle, but what's this "race-based prejudice" thing? Can you see what's coming?

Mr Balls said: "Violent extremism influenced by Al-Qaeda currently poses the greatest security threat but other forms of extremism and hate- or race-based prejudice are also affecting our communities and causing alienation and disaffection amongst young people.

"The toolkit shows how education can be used to tackle all forms of extremism and build a stronger, safer society."

Mr Balls said a security response to terrorism was not enough and that the underlying issues must be addressed.

"Our goal must be to empower our young people to come together to expose violent extremists and reject cruelty and violence in whatever form it takes," he said.

And you just know this kind of crap is going to enjoy a major endorsement from some lefty knucklehead, don't you?

The National Union of Teachers welcomed the guidance, saying violent political groups presented a significant threat to large numbers of people.

Acting general secretary Christine Blower said: "Terrorist threats have to be tackled.

"It's worth remembering that groups such as those from the far right can pose intimidatory threats to their communities, as serious as those from al-Qaeda."

So, as I see it, what this is saying is:

the government is spending my tax money to indoctrinate my children into a weltsanaschauung that is closely aligned to the New Labour orthodoxy

political viewpoints that do not fit into this orthodoxy can and will be reported to the state by lickspittle lefty teachers

right-on teachers think this is a brilliant idea

[humvee2800]

Incontinenta Buttox ....

what is 2 plus 2

[Chuffy]

Incontinenta Buttox ....

what is 2 plus 2

Uhhhh ummm.... ALL HAIL OUR GREAT LEADER COMRADE BROWN! DOWN WITH OSBOURNIST-CAMERONIAN THOUGHT!

[sirfiggin]

Incontinenta Buttox ....

what is 2 plus 2

five......I want to see five......but I can't

[Kanaric]

Has been going on in the US for years, its not Orwellian until you surpass us.

Oh wait, forgot you have cameras on every street corner.

[Каие]

Erm...what's the problem? He's absolutely correct...the war on terror will be won in the classrooms, in the universities, on the streets...not any battlefield.

It is not Political correctness to take measures to limit racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism etc.

[Erich von Manstein]

It is not Political correctness to take measures to limit racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism etc.

I'm sorry, it isn't? Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, et. al are perfectly legitimate areas of political thought (among other things). It is one thing to speak out against them, given their reprehensible natures in contemporary society. Speaking out against something from the position of an observer and engaging in discourse are perfectly acceptable manners of attempting to change a person's mind. The same cannot be said for forcing someone to think a certain way, particularly children (and you cannot tell me that teachers are not in a position of authority). Such tactics become even more problematic when the enforcers of proper thought are paid by the government (making them in the legal sense - as opposed to the cinematic sense - government agents).

The government's proper role in any liberal democracy is to serve as a reactive observer, a referee if you will. When someone preaches violence against another person or persons in a manner that is likely to be acted upon, the government has a duty to protect the intended victim. Racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamic extremism occur in many forms, not all of them violent. It is not the government's job to "crush" these non-violent ideologies, and it certainly isn't the school's job. Schools are supposed to teach children how to think, not what to think.

[Каие]

I'm sorry, it isn't? Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, et. al are perfectly legitimate areas of political thought (among other things).

In anarchist societies perhaps, but not in rational society.

The same cannot be said for forcing someone to think a certain way, particularly children (and you cannot tell me that teachers are not in a position of authority).

Forcing people is wrong...but encouragement, teaching them, promoting them...etc. to be anti-racists, anti-homophobic are perfectly justified and legitimate.

The government's proper role in any liberal democracy is to serve as a reactive observer, a referee if you will. When someone preaches violence against another person or persons in a manner that is likely to be acted upon, the government has a duty to protect the intended victim.

The only way that could be achieved with be a 'Minority Report' style society. No way the government could 'protect intended victims'. The best way to defeat such nonsense is to cut off the head and stamp on the body.

Racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamic extremism occur in many forms, not all of them violent.

You would have no problem with Islamic extremists spewing their crap? This is what causes the divisions in society, the terrorism, the hate etc. So it is as important as the violent aspects of them.


Society simply will not function if we condoned such things. As you said I believe in freedom of speech, but not in wasting our time defending such people. We spend more time defending peoples 'rights' to be racist etc. that we spend no time combating them or condemning them. People can say whatever they want, as long as they know the consequences are loss of credibility, No platform policy, ridicule etc. and if it is really serious, deportation.

[Tchouk]

[...]
Society simply will not function if we condoned such things. As you said I believe in freedom of speech, but not in wasting our time defending such people. We spend more time defending peoples 'rights' to be racist etc. that we spend no time combating them or condemning them. People can say whatever they want, as long as they know the consequences are loss of credibility, No platform policy, ridicule etc. and if it is really serious, deportation.

It's simple enough. You either guarantee a right or you don't. Combat and condemn all you want, but if one of the central premises of your system is "anyone can say anything without reprocussion from the government" then that is what it means.

Because "the government allows some people can say some things some of the time", while within limits would actually be more effective and potentially much more workable, is a very slippery slope. "Some" is not an objective quallity, unlike "every".

2 people is "some people" and so is 6 billion people. You can potentially restrict rights however much you want while still having "some people" be free.

Every person is just that - there is no confusion or double-meaning.

Anyway, it's not the issue in the first place. A healthy society doesn't have these problems, and this measure is definitely not the way to heal whatever root problems cause such wrong and hatefull feelings. It will help remove the symptoms (not without side-effects, mind you) but it doesn't do anything for the cause.

[The White Knight]

I'm sorry, it isn't? Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, et. al are perfectly legitimate areas of political thought (among other things). It is one thing to speak out against them, given their reprehensible natures in contemporary society. Speaking out against something from the position of an observer and engaging in discourse are perfectly acceptable manners of attempting to change a person's mind. The same cannot be said for forcing someone to think a certain way, particularly children (and you cannot tell me that teachers are not in a position of authority). Such tactics become even more problematic when the enforcers of proper thought are paid by the government (making them in the legal sense - as opposed to the cinematic sense - government agents).

The government's proper role in any liberal democracy is to serve as a reactive observer, a referee if you will. When someone preaches violence against another person or persons in a manner that is likely to be acted upon, the government has a duty to protect the intended victim. Racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamic extremism occur in many forms, not all of them violent. It is not the government's job to "crush" these non-violent ideologies, and it certainly isn't the school's job. Schools are supposed to teach children how to think, not what to think.

Agreed. One must ask the question though, in what way those 'legitimate' forms of 'political' thought are induced by more subtle forms of indoctrination.

[eventhorizen]

I'm sorry, it isn't? Racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism, et. al are perfectly legitimate areas of political thought (among other things). It is one thing to speak out against them, given their reprehensible natures in contemporary society. Speaking out against something from the position of an observer and engaging in discourse are perfectly acceptable manners of attempting to change a person's mind. The same cannot be said for forcing someone to think a certain way, particularly children (and you cannot tell me that teachers are not in a position of authority). Such tactics become even more problematic when the enforcers of proper thought are paid by the government (making them in the legal sense - as opposed to the cinematic sense - government agents).

Like you say, there is a difference between speaking out against certain views and forcing someone to think a certain way.

If you have proof that the outspoken and opinionated role models that taught in my school have become, or have been forced to become, psychological and behavioural indoctrinaters, utilising methods of education that are not socially acceptable in todays Britain, I would like to see it.

Frankly I am sure that todays British teachers are far more interested in educating and developing todays British youth than they ever were in realising the Government fiendish schemes. A dose of reality may be the best medicine so far as this thread goes.

[bigfootedfred]

"It's important to teach about everything in life,
to prepare young people to be world citizens,"

sigh

[Enemy of the State]

Disgusting.

Schools are supposed to teach children how to think, not what to think.

Sums up my views, pretty much.

what is 2 plus 2

I.. Don't know!

[mongrel]

Not happy with this. A future government can set it's own parameters, redefining what extremism is . Dangerous in my view. Should they not be cracking down on the violent organizations instead?

[Syron]

I'm hardly surprised.

Big Brother is watching you.

It is not Political correctness to take measures to limit racism, anti-Semitism, Islamic extremism etc.

Yes, it is.

[Каие]

Yes, it is.

See above.

[Serious Spamurai]

I can't indoctrinate all the little kiddies now .

[Ahiga]

I can't indoctrinate all the little kiddies now .

You guys taking a page from the Catholic Priesthood? :hmmm:

[Markas]

A pledge of Allegiance with a Bellamy salute is my predition of what's next.

[the_mango55]

Schools Secretary Ed Balls

Bwahahaha