Think of where in the world belonging to a political party is enough reason for a government official to take children off of you. That place is Rotherham in the UK.
The story goes like this:
- A couple, who have fostered over a dozen children successfully over seven years with no controversy, get to foster three others from a troubled family;
- The report appears yesterday that after a tip off to the Council that the couple are members of UKIP (UK Independence Party), that the Council decided it was better for the children to remove them. The report in the Daily Telegraph, which broke the story, said that the parents were told that UKIP is a "racist party"
The civil servant responsible is one Joyce Thacker, the six figure sum earning Head of Childrens' Services from Rotherham Council, who has had a disastrous day with several shocking interviews, including this one on the BBC, where she claims she was protecting the children from "strong views". She backed off from claiming they got legal advice to do this, but implied that the children's "cultural needs" wont be met by parents with such political views.
The couple were told by the person removing the children that UKIP is "racist". They have since claimed that not only did they let the children speak their own language, but they encouraged them to teach the couple the language (the children range from a baby to a girl of adolescent age).
In other words, the Council decided it was in the best interest of the children's "cultural needs" to not be fostered by people who belong to a political party.
So what is UKIP's policy on multiculturalism? The website says this:
End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies
UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain, regardless of ethnic or religious background. We reject the “blood and soil” ethnic nationalism of extremist parties. UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions. UKIP will:
Essentially it is a view of integration, that those who migrate to Britain can bring whatever culture they wish, but should be loyal to Britain.
But so bloody what?
Does it mean that people who are members of UKIP will treat children of a non-British ethnic background differently? What is more important? That children needing fostering are part of a loving family or are in care, but "culturally safe"?
The response from politicians has been predictable with UKIP leader Nigel Farage understandably "appalled", Education Secretary Michael Gove saying this is "indefensible" and Labour Leader Ed Miliband wanting a review - of course he's concerned because there is a by-election in Rotherham next Thursday. Rotherham is a safe Labour seat, with the by-election triggered by the resignation of MP Denis McShane because of the scandal of him falsifying receipts to claim expenses fraudulently (just another piggy in the trough).
It isn't a coincidence that the local authority (Rotherham) is strongly Labour holding 50 of the 63 seats on Council. Why? Because this scandal is a direct result of the embrace of the philosophy of cultural relativism, the post-modernist worshipping of neo-Marxist identity politics which has been propagated through the far from liberal (so-called progressive) mainstream left for decades.
It takes the view that whilst avowedly anti-racist and ultra-sensitive to being accused of racism, that people who do not belong to the dominant culture/ethnicity (i.e. white British) are automatically at a disadvantage, and that society must accommodate all other identities equally, and that there should be a positive discouragement of claims of achievement or pride of the dominant culture. In other words, pure cultural relativism.
There is a lot that can be said about that view, but in essence it doesn't treat people as individuals, but as ethnicities. That makes identifying those who are victims and who are with power easy. White British = powerful, Black = victim, Pakistani Muslim = victim, indeed even white European non-British are victims.
However, it is more than that. In this case it is a Maoist view of those who don't share this mindset. Consider for a moment the political and philosophical structure of the people who work for Rotherham Council and especially social workers. Do you really think that it is a place where people who think that Britain should leave the EU, that immigration should be constrained will be working or welcome?
You see that is behind Joyce Thacker's belief that it is actually ok to discriminate against people because they belong to the "wrong" political party with the "wrong" beliefs. It is a world whereby she grudgingly accepts that not everyone votes Labour, but treats with utter disdain those who express views she and her ilk find wrong.
In other words, she and the management of Childrens' Services at Rotherham neither believe in liberal democracy nor believe that people can hold views on immigration that differ from them. It is not far removed from the attitude of Chairman Mao's Red Guards who defined political correctness. Being a member of UKIP is not Politically Correct.
They cannot even tell that what they have done is akin to actions of a totalitarian state, to remove children because the parents have implied political views deemed to be contrary to their interests.
Who cares if UKIP wants an end to open immigration from the EU? Who cares if UKIP believes in celebrating British culture in Britain? It doesn't want to deny children from other ancestries their cultures or language or would even remotely advocate foster parents telling children from say Poland, that they can't speak their language or they are unwelcome. At best such a view would be a parody of reality. At worst it reflects the kind of gutter politics and malignant attitude to those with other political views that is exactly parallel to the Maoist absolutist view of political correctness.
It has been exacerbated by an official from Rotherham Council saying that the couple concerned can foster other children, as they are otherwise good foster parents, but only white British children.
Why, by any objective measure, it is better tonight for these children to be in care with the state in preference to a couple who would foster them, just because the parents hold the wrong political affiliation? Why are the children at less risk being in care with the state than they would be with successful and well loved foster parents?
Only in the twisted subjectivist world of neo-Marxist identity politics based cultural relativists, who think it is more important that children have people of similar ancestry look after them, or with the right political views, or to be looked after the state, than to be loved and appreciated as individuals.
The right response by government should be clear.
Joyce Thacker should go, her views and philosophy are contrary to the interests of children she purports to care about, and her and her team "who thought carefully about the issues" are more closely aligned to the former Stasi, than people who should have any power over others.
Rotherham Council should be put under administration and be declared unfit for purpose.
This very council has already been found wanting by being aware of, and with the Police not acting against gangs of Pakistani and other ethnic minority men enslaving and sexually exploiting underage girls - because it didn't want to "cause offence". A failing even admitted by Labour. It refused to act on criminality because it didn't want to be seen to be targeting offenders who happen to not be of backgrounds they, no doubt see, as being "powerless" and "victims" in the identity politics the men who raped young girls.
Well offence has been caused. This Council has harmed children, it has harmed adults and has been negligent in fulfilling its responsibilities towards those in its care. It is infected by its own racism, so that it sees racism everywhere and lazily treats those who don't fit its narrow view of the world as being racist.
It should go, and the people of Rotherham should wake up and vote UKIP next Thursday, to give Labour a shock (for it has been the party that, despite Ed Miliband's protestations today, has been the conduit for such views), and to declare that it IS ok to hold views contrary to the establishment.
It isn't just UKIP supporters who should be appalled, but everyone who believes that government should not judge individuals on the basis of their political party affiliations, but on their actions and deeds.
Meanwhile, there isn't a profanity I know of that is sufficiently critical of Joyce Thacker that I can think of, but I hope her next job involves clearing tables at a UKIP conference.
oh and David Cameron can carry his small share of the blame, having called UKIP a party of closet racists... so really, how much better is he?
Guido Fawkes says it is the "progressive agenda" of Common Purpose (a leftwing charity) that Joyce Thacker is expressing.