Things We Won't Say About Race: The Tory War on Multiculturalism

Last night Channel Four premiered Trevor Phillip's documentary 'Things we won't say about race that are true.' In the documentary, the former equality advisor to the New Labour administration looked at various trends regarding race related crime, academic performance and social issues and exposed some important truths. The interesting thing about these truths are the government's plans to universally ignore them and proceed with a policy agenda which seeks to maintain the class and racial barriers to a better UK.

Trevor Phillips

The promotion of 'free schools' under this government has been part of the core message of the ultra free market manifesto pushed by the current Tory leadership and brings yet another public service out of direct government control. The key factor within this policy which affects race is the allowance for 'faith schools' - government funded religious schools managed not by local authorities, but by church and parent leaders. In his documentary last night, Mr Phillips showed clear empirical evidence that as humans, we welcome what is familiar and simple and that this leads to a propensity for voluntary segregation. Whilst governments cannot holistically legislate against this in terms of housing, where private housing areas will naturally allow communities to congregate - education offers a means to change attitudes and break down racial barriers.

Allowance for faith schools, as opposed to comprehensive education amounts to allowance for segregation and the damage this does to communities. Look, for example, at the accusations of muslim faith schools radicalising teenagers, this question does not need to be asked in a country which forces communication and shared learning in its schools. Cultural issues such as racism and otherness are naturally weakened if schools are designed in such a way as to include a broad racial mix. This has been tried and tested in some schools in the UK - again highlighted by the documentary, where the needs of different groups are monitored and acted upon in order to maximise both assimilation and performance.

Nicky Morgan: Tory education secretary,
better future for whom?

There are clear and observable examples of racial discrimination in jobs (those with anglo saxon names get more callbacks from CV submissions), and the lack of certain social groups - including women, in top jobs. These factors can clearly be combatted by eliminating schools which discriminate on the basis of sex or religion. Those in private education have a statistically better chance of reaching university as compared to others, and there is a growing trend amongst ethnic minority groups to do better academically than white British working class people. The introduction of free schools, promoting segregation into these groups, will only squeeze those at the bottom more and create greater inequality and tension within society.

Look, for example,
at Northern Ireland. In the only sector in the United Kingdom which still widely uses faith and grammar schools, we see the lowest performing social group in the country - working class Protestant boys. The selection system in Northern Ireland has statistically been shown to help middle class children succeed at a higher rate and the Catholic maintained sector - with its extra funding and selective process - to outperform the state sector. This leaves those who enter the state sector, namely non Catholic working class people at a blatant disadvantage.

Reluctance to change the education system in Northern Ireland is a whole separate issue based on a whole separate set of political biases and a whole different lack of values. However looking at the clear evidence of the results such a system produces, a regression to a similar divisive and corruptive system in the UK is a road which will only serve to entrench David Cameron's friends in power and worsen the state of the nation. Fight free schools, fight private schools, fight racism and inequality.

Comments in the section below.

What they want you to think. Chapel Hill.

Last night three muslim students were shot dead in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The killings were carried out by a white, American, atheist male who claimed on twitter that, 'When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.'

You may not be aware of these events at such an early stage, although I hope that they will be well reported on the news across the UK and Europe, and the actions of this man scrutinised as seriously as the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Unfortunately so far this has not been the case.

It appears abundantly clear that this killer has acted upon anti Islamic feeling to carry out such a heinous act against three individuals who appear to have done nothing to him. There are clear parallels with the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers, although arguably these victims are more innocent than the Hebdo cartoonists. These parallels have not however been covered by the Western media to nearly the same degree. 

When Hebdo happened, rolling news broadcasts focussed on footage of the shooting of a policeman. They speculated over connections to ISIS which didn't exist and then followed the obvious demand for increased securitisation leading Cameron to indicate he may ban or drastically increase monitoring of some forms of communication. When Chapel Hill happened (today), the story did not appear on the BBC News homepage, however a story discussing how Belgium have jailed Islamists did appear. Why is this?

The reasons for this are simple, fear of Islamism makes sense for Western governments; when these events happen, it helps to connect them to events in the middle east and promote fear of muslim culture among our communities. When events like the Charlie Hebdo killings happen, widespread news coverage helps to promote an anti extremist fervour and allow arms companies to make money from escalating war. Arms companies which ex government ministers, and government donors have stakes in. This propaganda, and that is what it is, allows the capitalist class to gain from war in the middle east and the subsequent securing of assets. It allows the political class to capitalise on our fear and increase security - as this blog correctly predicted following the Hebdo shootings.


The complete disparity in coverage in two very similar atrocities, which both happened in the West and both included multiple civilian casualties is a clear indication of the agenda driven corporate media. This man stands for atheists and the West as little as the Kouachi brothers stand for Islam or the muslim world. Making connections between the actions of ISIS in the middle east and the actions of a few lunatics in Paris is the same as making connections between the actions of a lunatic in North Carolina and you.

Many laugh at and ridicule the pantomime that is Fox News in America, their propaganda is transparent and easy to observe and ignore, but Fox is not the only organisation which puts across this message. It isn't even the only news organisation with that particular owner (a few of his papers in the UK declined to report on this incident today, it appeared low down on his news website's homepage). Observe this disparity in all of the mainstream media, understand why it happens. Capitalists in the UK have an agenda, it isn't one which benefits normal people either here or in the middle east. Until power is taken away from these people by turning your support away from the people in power (including the ones who aren't in government this minute) and forcibly taking power away from those who control these institutions our society will continue to make these same mistakes and hold onto this same hypocrisy.

The Green Debate: More harm than good.

When David Cameron came out to request the inclusion of the Green Party in the upcoming TV leaders' debates, many from the Green-left cheered. It was assumed that this gave a platform to a real alternative and would catapult the party into mainstream success. This unfortunately is unlikely to be the case.

The Green Party themselves have been quoted as saying they are targeting twelve seats as potential gains, with six seats being a reasonable estimate for what they could realistically hope to win. Considering the limitations of the party's estimates, it is clear they do not expect to be a major player in the next parliament.

It is for this reason that Cameron's request is not a laudable example of political inclusivity, but a piece of tactical genius. In welcoming the Greens into the TV debates, Cameron has opened the door to legal protestations from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Respect. Inclusion of the Green Party in TV debates means that based on broadcaster neutrality, all of these parties have a right to equal representation based on their representation in the House of Commons.

In promoting the inclusion of the Greens, and allowing the door to open to all of the minor parties within the House; Cameron has successfully created a debate scenario wherein the majority of messages become drowned out in a cacophony of alternative opinion. I think many would agree that nationalist and regional parties, who are now to be included in the debates, do not offer any value to a UK wide discussion on policy, as they do not seek support or have support in the majority of the union.

What these parties do serve to do however, is create confusion. In a leader's debate format, discussion on a number of issues will take place over a very short time - the previous discussions were over a 90 minute period. Were the parties to each cover their stance on health, education and the economy in this time, each leader would have just over four minutes to speak on each issue, disregarding time for questioning, retort and actual debate to ensue.

This move by Cameron to bring in minor parties, many of whom are irrelevant in the majority of constituencies serves to protect him from any criticism regarding the destruction he has carried out on the UK in the last five years. In such a limited space, it is unlikely at best that he will face any real critique on his failures in government, or be required to make any explanation of why he has begun to destroy the NHS without a mandate to do so; or increased the UK debt whilst pushing many low income families into food banks. The inclusion of the Greens has had a knock on effect of turning the debate into a circus, in which Cameron the clown becomes an entertaining option.

Within such a chaotic debate it is unlikely the Greens will get any real platform to promote themselves, and they will likely win few votes from the appearance. What their appearance, admittedly along with the SNP and Plaid Cymru will do is cause confusion. What confusion will do will cause worry among voters who have not been conveyed any understanding of complex policy issues and the respective solutions of the parties on what is the ONLY piece of media in this election which will likely reach a mass market. 

Unfortunately, what this worry will do is cause a retreat to the safety of familiarity, and likely promote the option of the Conservatives where a debate offering real criticism would damage them. The Tories remain the only party who have public confidence in their ability to run the economy, which whilst baffling is a huge tool for them, particularly in an arena such as this debate. Napoleon said that the winner will be he who controls chaos, and that is exactly what Cameron is trying to do here.

Do you agree? Leave your opinions in the comments.

Without Freedom of speech we are dead - Charlie Hebdo and holding onto freedom

“Our job is not to defend freedom of speech but without it we’re dead. We can’t live in a country without freedom of speech. I prefer to die than to live like a rat,” These were the 2012 words of murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier. Following the Paris attacks, particularly in their proximity to the Sydney hostage situation, his words are incredibly important for the people of Europe.

The two suspects currently being chased through France are known religious fundamentalist militant activists; one had already been imprisoned for sending jihadists to the middle east - while the other wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence. Similarly, the man who took hostages in Sydney was known to be a militant Islamist, with several prior convictions and mental illnesses on record. 

Yet the reaction from the Austrailian government, mirrored the reactions seen before in London after 7/7, and in the US after 9/11 - securitisation.

Australian PM Tony Abbott, speaking after the attacks in Sydney talked of closer monitoring of communications, more security, greater restrictions on freedoms particularly on communication. This was called for despite the acknowledgement that the perpetrator, like in Paris, was a known entity who was already under police observation. This is clearly not the answer and we have to hope that greater limitations on the freedoms that Stephane Charbonnier was prepared to die for are not what Francois Hollande asks for in the wake of new attacks.

This blog has talked before about the anti Islamic agenda coming from the West (links below) and undoubtedly an antipathy towards muslims in France has contributed to this attack. Growing tensions promoted by the likes of Nigel Farage and Marie Le Pen - the latter calling Islam a 'murderous ideology' today - create fear and division amongst communities. Wild speculation with no foundations (as seen on Sky News), linking the attackers in both incidents to ISIS, the Arab Spring revolutions, or to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fuel fear and confusion and exhibit the base irresponsibility which is rife in our current media. 

Two men in a nation of 66 million do not represent an ideology or religion. When faced with the horror of events like these it is wrong to surrender to fear and relinquish freedom. Promote compassion and a response which weakens extremism of all kinds, whether it comes from Le Pen or al-Baghdadi and we can genuinely stop these attacks. What's your opinion on dealing with the attacks? Leave your comments below.

http://thetache.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/is-there-anti-islamic-agenda-in-uk.html

#illridewithyou

Royal Pains: Why we need to end the monarchy

Almost 40 years ago the Sex Pistols released their single 'God Save the Queen' - at the time many accused the UK singles chart of fixing the result so as to keep it at number 2, similarly to the censorship around the wizard of Oz single used to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher. Almost 40 years on, the British Royal family remain an unassailable danger to society.

Many argue the 'benefits' of the Royals saying that the attention surrounding the royal baby and tourism which the family bring to Britain make them worthwhile - and that their political power is non existent in a modern
constitutional monarchy. However in recent years under Cameron's Tory coalition additional protection has been given to the Royals and their powers to extract a salary from the exchequer for the minimal work they actually do.

The dangers of the family are not limited to their pow
ers to steal from the public purse without any scrutiny, in the first 3 years of the coalition government Prince Charles had 36 meetings with cabinet ministers, 9 of which were with the
Prime Minister himself. Considering the extra protections afforded to the Royals by this government, it would be incredibly naive to believe these meetings do not indicate a clear influence on the government from the Palace.

So a family who consistently take large amounts of money from the taxpayer, who come from an environment where preservation of wealth and maintenance of the inequalities in society only serve to benefit them, their families, the people they went to school with and are surrounded by are a positive thing for society? This is incredibly doubtful. Of course, the same could be said for the government they advise, but at least in that case democracy forces them to put up some sort of facade that they care about the rest of us.

Recent revelations about suspected child abuse from Prince Andrew serve only to bring to the fore the various evils which the family represent, and to create a better more equal Britain, they have to go.

Sinn Fein: The Trojan Horse of good Government

The insulting comments made by DUP MLA Gregory Campbell last month on the Irish language undoubtedly let himself and his party down - the party's opposition to the Irish language act has prevented society developing a unified culture in the North. However the response of Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams reveals much more about the parties in government at Stormont.

'The point is to actually break these bastards - that's the point. And what's going to break them is equality. [...] that's the Trojan horse of the entire republican strategy is to reach out to people on the basis of equality.' 

The message here from the Sinn Fein leader exposes what many have acknowledged for some time with his party. Their main target is electoral supremacy and building an equal society in the North is merely a front. Whilst their partners in leadership, the DUP have made no effort to present themselves as a 'party for the people' promoting welfare and social development - SF have consistently put themselves across as a left wing party looking to build a better society in this part of Ireland.

Quotes here however add to what is already a litany of corruption from the party. They were exposed last year for housing trade offs with the democratic unionists, used to maintain their respective electoral dominance in Newry & South Armagh and North Belfast. Clearly it is acceptable for these parties to ignore the needs of local people in order to retain electoral supremacy.

Further to this, the party were also recently exposed to have set up questionable means of payment to their constituency offices, allowing money to flow into the coffers of party members in 'research' companies where research does not seem to have taken place through their assembly expenses claims. Education minister John O'Dowd then claimed that 'the only audit that matters to Sinn Fein are the voters(sic)'. This ignorance of the importance of following public procedure in order to save the taxpayer money is another indication of the party's lack of interest in proper governance.

The admission of the Party President along with the multiple incidents of corrupt behaviour surely should have set off alarm bells. The continuation of a toxic ‘two communities’ housing strategy, total ignorance over necessary budgetary changes, combined with the refusal to implement a policy of integrated education – as stipulated in the Belfast Agreement – leads us to the conclusion that Sinn Fein is not a party who is trying to build a better, more equal society. It is a party which cares only for the weight of its own pockets and maintenance of its own vote.

Feminism and equality: The Private Sphere

The sex discrimination act of 1975, and the progress that women in the workplace have made since has done a great deal to address gender inequality in the UK. Women now make up over 47% of the workplace, a 10% rise since the act was introduced. We have increasing parity of esteem between people of various and no gender in society today. But how can the next step be taken?

Much of feminist thought centres on the politics of the personal - of accessing the things in private life which a society run by men always ignored. I think we can all agree on the massive value conferred on us by those who fed, cared for and reared us as children, and provided for our family within the home. The role of the carer, traditionally occupied by women in the past caused difficulties, and continues to create difficulties for women who wish to enter public life. Notably in recent months, UKIP leader Nigel Farage declared that women are of less value than men in the workplace as they may leave full time employment due to pregnancy or childcare needs. I would contest that the value is stored somewhere else, and that in order to balance personal value in the public sphere, we must do so in the private.

Provision of childcare allowances by government go some way to alleviating the perceived need for women to look after children, but the stigma of the female parent as holding primary responsibility for childcare still holds many driven and intelligent women back. Another solution could be to look at equality again, but in the private sphere of childcare. In UK law, the father of a child ONLY has parental responsibility if he cosigns the birth certificate as either a married or unmarried partner, or applies for parental responsibility through the court system. The mother has these rights automatically. I would contest this is incorrect, unfair, and damaging to gender equality.

Similarly, in cases of family breakdown, the mother takes primacy in custody arrangements, with access granted to the father based on her wishes. This attachment of the role of carer to the mother helps to perpetuate gender roles and entrench inequality. By treating parents as equals, and debating custody from this new standpoint, we increase the responsibility of all gender roles in private life and allow for real equality.

Were we to change such a law, and take primary custody and responsibility away from mothers, placing the responsibility for a child (once born) in the hands of both parents - this could help to alleviate the poisonous stigma attaching women to the private sphere and preventing their growth in public life. By placing responsibility in the hands of fathers to take part in childcare, to be an equal partner in private and public life we could bring families and gender equality into the 21st century.

Families today come in various shapes and sizes, and by addressing inequality in family life we can better address the inequalities which remain in public life. By giving fathers parity of esteem in custody arrangements, and in doing this conferring upon them the responsibilities of equal parenthood we can better achieve gender equality for all.

What are your thoughts? Please leave your comments below and share.