Written by ‘Classical Liberal’
~~oo~~
(Read Part I here)
OFSTED conducted snap inspections of twenty-one schools in Birmingham. Some of the schools had previously been rated ‘Outstanding’. However, after the reviews, five schools were placed in the lowest-rated category: ‘Special Measures’, indicating that the schools are inadequate.
Among the charges levelled against the schools were the following. Sex education classes were inadequate. Schools failed to provide sufficient education on religions other than Islam. Some classes were found to have been segregated according to gender. Girls and boys were discouraged from socialising with one another. Teachers who voiced opposition to changes were found to have been bullied into compliance.
Furthermore, according to The Guardian, there was general agreement on the facts by all parties involved in the school inspections. These facts included. Schools in East Birmingham made strides to employ more Muslim educators and governors to align the teachers’ values with parents’ values. Prayer rooms and calls to prayer were introduced in some schools. Emphasis on creative arts, drama, and music was dropped, and preference was placed on basic literacy and numeracy.
In response to the Trojan Horse affair, education minister Michael Gove released statutory guidance on 27 November 2014, insisting that democratic values be actively taught in schools.
There have been some criticisms of the move to implementing five national values in schools, including the following:
The ‘Moral Panic’ Argument: The Trojan Horse affair was widely found to have been discredited. The letter was believed to have been a hoax. Suspicious leaking of the letter to the media led to widespread moral panic at something that had little basis, which blew up to the extent that teaching the five values is now compulsory in all schools.
The ‘Surveillance’ Argument: While white supremacism is mentioned in the Prevent strategy, it may be a thinly-veiled attempt at hiding the fact that this strategy is directly designed to increase surveillance on Muslim students and pressure them into assimilating.
The ‘Libertarian’ Argument: The idea that there should be a list of government-mandated national values flies in the face of liberalism, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. Forcing people to hold specific values is profoundly undemocratic.
According to the 2011 Census in England, around 85.4% of residents are White (British, Irish, other European), 7.8% Asian (mainly South Asian), 3.5% Black, 2.3% are of Mixed-race heritage, 0.4% Arab, and 0.6% identified as Other ethnicities.
Research conducted for the CRE found that white participants felt a threat to Britishness from large-scale immigration, the ‘unfair’ claims that they perceived ethnic minorities made on the welfare state, a rise in moral pluralism, and political correctness. Much of this frustration targeted Muslims rather than minorities in general. Muslim participants in the study reported feeling victimised and stated that they thought they were being asked to choose between Muslim and British identities. In contrast, they saw it possible to be both at the same time.
The mainstream media tells us that the UK government’s five fundamental British values are controversial because they are based on fear of Islamic extremism. Of course, the mainstream media plays down Jihadist terrorism and devotes pages to telling us that we are all Islamophobic.
The values themselves appear to represent the small-l liberalism that modern Britain and modern Europe are founded upon. Nonetheless, there are some tensions within the framework. For example, does insisting that people hold specific values contravene their rights to freedom of thought and expression?
In many ways, these five values are a good start. Britain is a ‘democracy’. Even if it a deeply a flawed one. Where ‘everyone has a voice’, even if they don’t always use it or the political classes largely ignore it. There is a ‘rule of law’, which should ‘ensure that everyone is treated the same’, even if it does not always live up to these laudable standards. There is also ‘Individual liberty’, giving us ‘freedom to make our own choices’ unless we upset the PC Brigade or the nanny state is trying to grab yet more unnecessary power. Indeed, the UK would be a much better country if the government properly encouraged these values rather than paying mere lip service to them. ‘Mutual respect and tolerance’ also sounds very British, as does the part about treating ‘everyone how we would like to be treated’.
However, the diktat to ‘celebrate’ diversity makes me want to vomit. We may have to ‘accept’ or ‘tolerate’ diversity as a fact of life in the UK today. But why have we got to jump up and down and ‘celebrate’ it? That’s going way too far.
No one can help the colour of the skin they are born with, nor the religion they are born into, nor where they are born. But, all people can choose which values to embrace. And, people living in Britain should embrace British values. If they prefer the values of Jihadist Pakistan, FGM promoting West Africa, or some other impoverished and backward fly-infested cesspit that we kindly allowed them or their ancestors to escape from, they should go back there. They must change to fit in with us. If we change to accommodate them, then we lose our ‘Britishness’.
‘Ruled Brittainia’. May be of interest in contributing toward the debate on ‘British values’.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/ruled-britannia/
“Britain is a ‘democracy’. Even if it a deeply a flawed one.” Where ever did you get that idea? Britain is NOT a democracy. It just pretends to be so. Having an opportunity to vote once in a while is not the same as living in a democracy. Having a choice between this party or that party isn’t democracy when we cannot determine the manifesto . . . because it is offered as ‘take it or leave it’.
And, as an after thought, how come an employee in the real world can expect to have an annual performance review with his employers and face consequences for not providing adequate performance, but an MP can be told by his party whip what performance is expected but never give a hoot what the constituent voters require.
British government is not democratic, by a long shot.
I totally agree with the author’s last 2 paragraphs.
It sums up my feelings over the B.L.M. riots and following, statue trashing/hiding/apologising etc.
Agree with all of the above article.
Plus one.
Sadly government wants us to “change to accommodate them”. We must resist; they are being used as a means to destroy our culture and values. That 7.8% might seem small but they are concentrated in particular areas which have been trashed as a result.
True Jack.