Racism is an uncomfortable and emotive subject to discuss. To its victims it is absolutely devastating and can affect entire communities. In Britain it is considered socially unacceptable but despite this, and the numerous laws designed to prevent discrimination, racism is still worryingly commonplace. I’ve witnessed it myself on duty more times than I can count; the culprits are usually adults, which is shocking and unpleasant enough, but for me, the truly worrying cases are those involving children.
Last month I spoke to an officer who specialises in groups with extremist views. He told me about a child living in the UK who reads extreme right-wing literature including Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Anders Breivik’s Portfolio. The child can quote passages from them off by heart and there is evidence he has been doing so at school. Several members of the family belong to a right wing extremist group and have encouraged the child to share their views.
This case has been playing on my mind since hearing about it. For me it raises one very difficult question to answer; how should society deal with families who are deliberately raising an innocent child to be an intolerant bigot?
In a truly democratic society a person is free to think and speak as they see fit, both at home and in public; but there are limits which are necessary to protect the freedoms of everyone. The great Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George once said “Liberty has restraints but no frontiers” for me this hits the nail on the head. Liberty has restraints to ensure the democracy is fair and balanced for everyone so yes, we live in a free society but a society which must protect its citizens from prejudice and be intolerant of hate. In the case I’ve highlighted I believe education is the key. The child should be given the opportunity to learn about different people, cultures and faiths and test their views within themselves. Racism is the result of ignorance and fear. Replacing this with knowledge and understanding will be step in the right direction. It won’t solve the problem, I’m not naïve enough to think that, but it’s a start. Schools should lead the charge in providing a strong, practical education. Books should be read, open discussions had, visits to synagogues and mosques should be arranged. The issue should not be ignored. It is through examining a viewpoint from different angles which allows us to form balanced opinions. Children are no different.
This week Nick Clegg spoke about racism (listen to part of the speech here) in which he said racism must be met with a “Steel fist” and that “we must aim for nothing less than real equality of opportunity across the whole of our society” Liberal Democrats see the importance of equality for everyone and of taking robust action, either prosecution or rehabilitation, against people who commit hate crime. I believe this is the way forward for this country and all its citizens, regardless of their race, culture or gender.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
* The author is a serving police officer writing under a psudonym
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Restoring the Stiperstones to heathland
At Childhood's End, by Sophie Aldred
Building a fairer, more caring United Kingdom
The White Tiger *****
Q&A panel session - assisting children with type 1 diabetes
Dan
Peter Watson
Iain Sharpe
Paul Fisher
7 Comments
I agree but what about other forms of bigotry, such some faith schools teaching children that women and gays are inferior? Why are Lib Dem MPs enabling the creation of more state-funded faith-based ‘free’ schools to do this?
What Teresa said
agree with Teresa. The things that the article suggests are already regular activities in good schools. Oh woe that the comprehensive school system wasn’t brought in properly and fully, so instead we now have a plethora of types of school, amongst which bad practises are enabled to get established.. we have more troubles ahead unless regulations are applied across ALL aschools.
The case cited sounds to me one for considering taking the child into care. If true this is as bad as not feeding the child properly or subjecting him to physical abuse.
Nick Clegg’s speech was actually last year… right month, wrong year! Good way to mark the first anniversary anyway!
I take issue with Peter that these things are being done in schools already; yes on one level there is a veneer of ‘multiculturalism’ in schools but dig deeper and you’ll find a great deal of denial of racism in the school system. Very little recording of racist abuse experienced by pupils, and when it comes to teachers there’s frequently a kneejerk rejection against any suggestion they themselves stereotype pupils by race regarding streaming and exclusions despite statistics that indicate prejudice is rife.
Schools are the one and only part of the public services that have regarded themselves as above some equalities laws – witness the way they have ignored a duty to produce race equality plans laid down in the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 – and if we are to seriously tackle the problem it needs to start with a more honest assessment of race and schools.
Teresa: I can see the point you are making, however playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (no pun intended) not all faith schools are necessarily teaching that women and gay people are inferior. Also as we live in a society where people have religious freedom I believe the existence of faith schools is not necessarily a bad thing. Having said that it is concerning that the government will fund a school and yet have no control over what they teach their pupils.
Peter: The school system in this country is certainly diverse but I lack the information to say with any authority whether this is a good or bad thing. In regards to the case I’ve mentioned in the article I believe taking the child into care is being considered however that is a rather extreme measure which authorities will avoid until it is absolutely necessary which may be the case eventually.
This is a genuinely difficult case because the freedom which might be infringed is not the parents’ over themselves, but their power over their child. Certainly education should show the child other ideas and options. If we do intervene, we should be very clear on the grounds. I do not share Richard Dawkins’ view, for example, that parents teaching their children religion (even if one adds, “or atheism”) is unacceptable indoctrination, especially as many children grow up to have different views and it may be better to be raised with certain beliefs and values than with none. I suppose the question must be, how much damage can be done? For example, if we judged it likely that the child would become another Anders Breivik, intervention would certainly be justified to protect possible victims.
As for faith schools, not all the ideas about men and women, for example, that I profoundly disagree with are necessarily based on believing they’re unequal. What’s more, I believe it’s beneficial that in our society there are different educational strands based on different beliefs (after all, Quaker schools encourage ideas of equality including on gender and sexual orientation) , provided we ensure that other beliefs are presented fairly so that a Muslim, for example, does not leave school thoroughly ignorant or misled about Christianity, or a Christian about Islam. That leads back to the original dilemma. Is the preaching so powerful and so harmful that serious damage will be done to the basic tolerance and peace of our society, to such an extent that it outweighs the harm done by government intervention?
Simon: I agree, it is very difficult, it must be weighed up how likely it is the parents would irreparably damage the child and how much it would harm the child to take them away from their parents. It was interesting to read the news about the children taken away from the foster family in Rochester because they were members of UKIP and it was feared their views might be harmful.