Uncategorized

Boy, 7, branded a racist for asking schoolmate: 'Are you brown because you come from Africa?'

From The Daily Mail.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The mother of a seven-year-old boy was told to sign a school form admitting he was racist after he asked another pupil about the colour of his skin. 

Elliott Dearlove had asked a five-year-old boy in the playground whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.

His mother, Hayley White, 29, said she received a phone call last month to say her son had been at the centre of a ‘racist incident’. 

She was then summoned to a meeting with Elliott, his teacher and the deputy head of Griffin Primary School in Hull.

Hayley WhiteSummoned: Hayley White was called to her son Elliot’s school to deal with the ‘racist incident’

Ms White, an NHS healthcare assistant, said: ‘When I arrived at the school and asked Elliott what had happened, he became extremely upset.

‘He kept saying to me, “I was just asking a question. I didn’t mean it to be nasty” and he was extremely distressed by it all.’

Ms White claimed she was asked at the meeting to read a copy of the school rules and in particular its zero-tolerance policy on racism. 

‘I was told I would have to sign a form acknowledging my son had made a racist remark which would be submitted to the local education authority for further investigation,’ she said.

‘I refused to sign it and I told the teacher in no way did I agree the comment was racist. My son is inquisitive. He always likes to ask questions, but that doesn’t make him a racist.’ 

 Griffin Primary School, HullZero-tolerance: Ms White refused to sign a document agreeing that her son was a racist despite the insistence of staff at Griffin Primary School, pictured

The school had launched an investigation after the younger boy told his mother about Elliott’s comment and she complained.

Ms White, who lives in a three-bedroom house with her son and nine-year-old daughter Olivia, has now applied to have Elliott moved from the school.

She claimed she was told there were places at nearby Thanet Primary School, but the council informed her last Friday that this was not the case.

‘I am going to appeal against this decision because I think Elliott is being victimised,’ she said.

Karl TurnerSatisfied: Kingston upon East Hull MP Karl Turner said he was content the remarks were not racist

Karl Turner, Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, last night insisted that the school and Hull City Council had a statutory duty to take racism seriously. 

‘However, having spoken to Hayley, I’m satisfied that her seven-year-old son, Elliott, was not being racist in his remarks but just inquisitive,’ he said.

‘It seems the matter has been taken out of all proportion and common sense seems to have gone completely out of the window.’

In a statement, Griffin Primary head teacher Janet Adamson said the school had acted ‘in accordance with the council’s guidance for schools on the reporting of racist incidents’.

Vanessa Harvey-Samuel, head of localities and learning at Hull City Council, said: ‘There is a statutory duty to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’

Last year, it was revealed that teachers are branding thousands of children racist or homophobic following playground squabbles.

More than 20,000 pupils aged 11 or younger were put on record for so-called hate crimes such as using the word ‘gaylord’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103175/Boy-7-branded-racist-asking-schoolmate-Are-brown-come-Africa.html#ixzz1mvdC1DYK

Categories: Uncategorized

18 replies »

  1. This is the result when we allow jews to engineer our cultures. if they get their jew world order life will be hell for everyone – at least for those who survive.

  2. What a happy day it will be when the little cogs in the machine, the enforcers of political correctness, are swinging from piano wire. And it can’t come soon enough.

  3. I just feel sorry for a little boy being used as a pawn. Way to go mom for sticking up for your little mans rights.

  4. Hull is one of the most impoverished towns in the UK with a Jewish population of functionally zero. (despite that episode in which the town’s numerous seafaring community passed the place off as New York to credulous Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe in the 19th century). It’s a pretty safe bet that this dismal occurrence had no Jewish involvement of any sort. Whereas it’s almost certain that elements of the fanatical progressive indigenous ruling class here operating as the senior management of this school were responsible for the persecution of a child for asking an innocent question of a fellow student.

  5. “Where are our “civil libertarians” when this kind of stuff is going on?”

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

    J S Mill

    Claiming “conscientious objection” and feeling morally superior to those killing and dying to fight tyranny; as ever.

  6. “Whereas it’s almost certain that elements of the fanatical progressive indigenous ruling class here operating as the senior management of this school were responsible for the persecution of a child for asking an innocent question of a fellow student.”

    It seems as though the progressive elites have adopted a “scorched earth” policy in the Holy Jihad Against Bigotry.

  7. This is beginning to look like a Monty Python sketch. It would be cartoonish if not for the inherent dangers. What really makes me laugh is you know the “anarchists” in the UK areentirely oblivious to this and instead expend their concern “fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia.” It can’t be long before comedians and other entertainers get wind of this and make the PC Left their new whipping boy the same way the Religious Right was for years.

  8. I suspect most left-wing anarchists probably approve of this kind of stuff or if they disapprove, they’re very hesitant to criticize it because they think the holy struggle against racism, sexism, et.al is so important they don’t want to do anything that might undermine it. I recently did a Google search trying to find illustrations of left-wing anarchists critiquing PC and the only thing I could find was this thread from LibCom.Org: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/political-correctness-anarchism-21012012 Suffice to say the “criticisms” of PC offered in that thread are rather shallow and lukewarm to say the least. LibCom.Org is an old guard black and red, syndicalist/an-com group so they might object that PC is a distraction from the class struggle (which is the line I used to take during my IWW days in the 80s). But LibCom has actually been criticized by the hardline PC anarchists for being outdated workerists who aren’t really in tune with the struggle against race and gender oppression (I remember William Gillis saying something along those lines, for instance).

    I’m sure the same is true of liberal “civil libertarians” (ACLU-types, for instance). There may be some of them who think this kind of stuff is excessive, but they don’t dare criticize it because they think it might make them a pariah on the Left, or undermine the struggle against racism, or strengthen the right-wing critics of PC with their nefarious agendas, etc. So they’ll accept child abuse so long as it is motivated by progressive ideology.

    The left-libertarians are even more interesting on this question. Despite all of their professed “individualism” they remain completely oblivious to the dogmatic authoritarianism and mindless conformity that PC reflects, even as it continues to become more and more part of the establishment (in Europe it is the establishment, in America it’s become ever more so). One thing I’ve found most interesting about the left-libertarians is that their leading thinkers can produce so many insights critiquing economic orthodoxies advanced by socialists, conservatives, right-libertarians, and left-anarchists alike, and yet turn around and hold views on social and cultural matters that are almost like, as you say, a Monty Python sketch parodying the Left. They’re as blinkered as they come on such questions. Anyone who hopes to develop a serious anti-state movement in 21st century North America or Europe and yet doesn’t attack PC is already out of the game before it starts.

    “It can’t be long before comedians and other entertainers get wind of this and make the PC Left their new whipping boy the same way the Religious Right was for years.”

    I’m not so sure about that. Keep in mind the entertainment industry has long been dominated by the cultural left, so of course the religious right was made a target by the purveyors of pop culture (as social conservatives never tire of pointing out). I doubt the overlords of the entertainment industry would be as keen on promoting anti-PC comedians and the like. Whenever anything like that has appeared, they’ve usually just been neocon mouthpieces like Limbaugh was in his early years.

  9. ”From a child development perspective this is about the worst way you could handle the situation for either child.”

    If we lived in a rational society that would be the case Vince; as it is this miserable episode is no doubt a valuable educational experience for both kids. One has learned the power of the race card and the other the consequences of asking questions about the sacred cows of the progressive Gestapo.

  10. ‘I’m not so sure about that. Keep in mind the entertainment industry has long been dominated by the cultural left, so of course the religious right was made a target by the purveyors of pop culture (as social conservatives never tire of pointing out). I doubt the overlords of the entertainment industry would be as keen on promoting anti-PC comedians and the like. Whenever anything like that has appeared, they’ve usually just been neocon mouthpieces like Limbaugh was in his early years.”

    I would contest this point to a degree. Howard Stern has built a long career pissing on liberal pieties, as have Opie Hughes and Anthony Cumia, the latter of whom is a regular guest on Fox News. The New York standup circuit, in particular, has produced a bevy of successful anti-PC comics (Jim Norton, Nick DiPaolo, Colin Quinn, etc.) While this scene exists largely outside the mainstream entertainment industry, it is making inroads via Comedy Central and other outlets.

    “The left-libertarians are even more interesting on this question. Despite all of their professed “individualism” they remain completely oblivious to the dogmatic authoritarianism and mindless conformity that PC reflects, even as it continues to become more and more part of the establishment (in Europe it is the establishment, in America it’s become ever more so). One thing I’ve found most interesting about the left-libertarians is that their leading thinkers can produce so many insights critiquing economic orthodoxies advanced by socialists, conservatives, right-libertarians, and left-anarchists alike, and yet turn around and hold views on social and cultural matters that are almost like, as you say, a Monty Python sketch parodying the Left. They’re as blinkered as they come on such questions. Anyone who hopes to develop a serious anti-state movement in 21st century North America or Europe and yet doesn’t attack PC is already out of the game before it starts.”

    They seem distantly aware of it, in that they acknowledge its existence but not it’s significance. I remember an exchange I had with “RoyceChristian” where I raised PC laws as a point of concern and he replied by saying “You’re referring to blah blah blah” indicating he was aware of them, but saw no reason to support their repeal. I pointed out to him the simple 2+2 equation at play here: 1) you define yourself ideologically by your opposition to “racism, sexism, and homophobia” + 2) the state does the same by imposing laws against “racism, sexism, and homophobia” = you have the same views as, and function as a supporter, of the state. The significance of this simple formula was entirely lost on him, who then changed the subject to the necessity of “fighting the far right.”

    “I’m sure the same is true of liberal “civil libertarians” (ACLU-types, for instance). There may be some of them who think this kind of stuff is excessive, but they don’t dare criticize it because they think it might make them a pariah on the Left, or undermine the struggle against racism, or strengthen the right-wing critics of PC with their nefarious agendas, etc. So they’ll accept child abuse so long as it is motivated by progressive ideology.”

    The trick they typically rely on here is to acknowledge negative liberty in concept while defining it narrowly so as to exclude expressions they object to. This allows them to pay lipservice to a the concept while in practice undermining it. “I believe in free speech…..but that’s not part of free speech” and so forth.

  11. “It seems as though the progressive elites have adopted a “scorched earth” policy in the Holy Jihad Against Bigotry.”

    You overestimate these people’s ability to analyse their own behaviour Keith. Classic case of the “one step further” mentality of progressives whereby nothing is judged on its merits but on whether it is a move towards the glorious world of tomorrow. Nothing which is “more” progressive (or simply novel) can be bad, nothing which in anyway can be seen retrograde can be good. There is no consideration of the current positions effects; the whole mentality is simply calibrated to see it as the starting point and nothing more.

    This is how progressivism comes to mechanically contest every accepted convention of society. Once you have gay rights in order to “progress” you need to find an even more extreme sexual predilection to champion or “progress” halts. Once you have marginalised racial discrimination you must go on make it a crime to mention even the concept of race, better yet to make it a crime, or at least a colossal social mistake, to identify even yourself as part of a People (as is rapidly becoming the case in the UK).

    The rules are very easy to understand, far easier than to understand than concepts and principles behind them. The result is a group of fanatics who are utterly unable to recognise their fanaticism, who persecute anything that looks like it might be outside the “acceptable” and expect to be regarded as enlightened souls for doing so.

    Nowhere is this mentality more prevalent than in the management tier of the state’s social systems. These people implicitly understand that they can’t be too extreme and to hesitate or, even more unthinkable, question before unloading with a maximum force available on anything which could be considered to fall within the “unacceptable” is to invite suspicion of thought crime on their part.

    The ultimate irony is that this mentality, of course, is exactly the one which drove Germans to become the mindless apparatchiks of the nazi state. The same state which is the Alpha and Omega of progressive thought and which they genuinely believe they are the self consciously positioned opposite of.

  12. “Howard Stern has built a long career pissing on liberal pieties,”

    Touche’.

    ” I remember an exchange I had with “RoyceChristian” where I raised PC laws as a point of concern and he replied by saying “You’re referring to blah blah blah” indicating he was aware of them, but saw no reason to support their repeal. I pointed out to him the simple 2+2 equation at play here: 1) you define yourself ideologically by your opposition to “racism, sexism, and homophobia” + 2) the state does the same by imposing laws against “racism, sexism, and homophobia” = you have the same views as, and function as a supporter, of the state. The significance of this simple formula was entirely lost on him, who then changed the subject to the necessity of “fighting the far right.”

    Do you have the link to that thread? Is it in the Forum of the Libertarian Left?

    “The trick they typically rely on here is to acknowledge negative liberty in concept while defining it narrowly so as to exclude expressions they object to. This allows them to pay lipservice to a the concept while in practice undermining it. “I believe in free speech…..but that’s not part of free speech” and so forth.”

    I remember a Stalinist telling me once that of course he supported free speech but “treason is not just another opinion” (with “treason” meaning deviating from the party line of course).

    At times people will ask me why I attack the anarcho-leftoids so fervently if my goal is to build a united anarchist front against the state. “Isn’t that divisive?” is what they will say. But the thing is the anarcho-leftoids are not serious about their anti-statism. They’re just Marxists and/or progressives who’ve usurped the name. If they have any barely coherent critique of the state at all (which is rare), then the state is regarded as just another “hierarchy” of no more significance that speciesism or something like that. Meanwhile, they serve as an obstructionist force to the development of a real anti-state movement.

  13. “Do you have the link to that thread? Is it in the Forum of the Libertarian Left?”

    Yes, and yes…..http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=724

    “At times people will ask me why I attack the anarcho-leftoids so fervently if my goal is to build a united anarchist front against the state. “Isn’t that divisive?” is what they will say. But the thing is the anarcho-leftoids are not serious about their anti-statism. They’re just Marxists and/or progressives who’ve usurped the name. If they have any barely coherent critique of the state at all (which is rare), then the state is regarded as just another “hierarchy” of no more significance that speciesism or something like that. Meanwhile, they serve as an obstructionist force to the development of a real anti-state movement.”

    Certainly, as they lack any real organziational strategy and spend their time on non-productive, symbolic activities, such as public demonstrations, vandalism, etc.

Leave a Reply