Civil Liberty - In defence of freedom in our schools

Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced at the Labour Conference that he was launching a review into 'racism' in schools and whether British National Party (BNP) members should be banned from working as teachers.

Writing in the DailyTelegraph.

He said:
"In September I asked the former Chief Inspector of Schools Maurice Smith to review the current safeguards to protect children from discrimination and the promotion of political doctrines that promote racist views.

He is considering whether an individual who is the member of an organisation with racist views – whether that be the BNP or an Islamist extremist group – should as a matter of principle be banned from teaching."

Pat Harrington, General Secretary of the Solidarity Trade Union, and Graham Williamson met with Maurice Smith and Mark Sawyer on the 24th of November. He expressed his concerns that the review was considering measures which conflicted with the right to freedom of association. Mr Harrington also pointed out that freedom of association was guaranteed in global and regional human rights instruments.

The principal general guarantees are found in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and an undertaking made by States belonging to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Mr Harrington went on to state that in addition to these general guarantees case law generally opposed any limitation on the right to freedom of association which was not necessary or proportionate.

He cited:
• United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey, 30 January 1998
• Socialist Party and Others v Turkey, 25 May 1998
• Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and the Peoples’ Labour Party (HEP) v Turkey, 9 April 2002
• Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, 31 July 2001 (Chamber) and 13 February 2003 (Grand Chamber)
• Labita v Italy, 6 April 2000

Solidarity made it clear that any attempt to impose penalties for belonging to a legal association in the form on restrictions in employment would be opposed by the Union. In response to a specific question as to whether the Union would take cases of members penalised in this way to Court the answer was an unequivocal "Yes". Indeed, Mr Harrington pointed out that the Union was already involved in preparing challenges to existing acts of political discrimination in the Police and Prison Service. He pointed to the finding by the European Court in Grande Oriente D’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v Italy,2 August 2001 when persons belonging to Masonic lodges were disqualified from appointment by a regional authority to various positions in public and private bodies. The Court determined that this was an inappropriate response to a generalised concern about Masonic influence over public decision-making. In a similar way, he argued, bans on BNP membership represented a political reaction to a rise in electoral support for that Party rather than addressing any pressing social need.

The position of the Union in defence of freedom of association may not only extend to opposing bans on members of the BNP.

Pat Harrington has stated: "If, for example, a member of a Muslim group was disciplined at work on account only of affiliation with a legal, non-violent group (whether political or religious) rather than being judged on how they behaved within their profession and was a member of our Union I would personally favour providing representation. Indeed I think that our Union should consider exercising discretion to extend representation to non-members faced with this predicament on the basis that they join. That is how strongly I feel about attacks on our traditional rights and freedoms."

In advance of the meeting the Union had contacted LEAs up and down the country under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Union asked:

1. Has your authority ever found a member of the BNP or any other political Party guilty of a disciplinary offence related to their Party membership in the last three years? If so, please give information as to when and how many?

2. Has any parent complained to you regarding the Party membership of any employee or the expression of political views within School classrooms under your authority during the last three years?

3. What safeguards do you currently have in place to prevent members of any political Party promoting their views within Schools?

Solidarity submitted the responses to Maurice Smith prior to the meeting. In only one case (Bolton) was an affirmative answer given to the first question. This was one person and it has not yet been established whether the case related to BNP membership or membership of some other political party. A follow-up question to establish these facts has been submitted. In respect of the second and third questions, answers indicated that there had been no complaints and that strong safeguards were already in place. Mr Harrington argued that in these circumstances there was no justification for imposing penalties on freedom of association.

Mr Harrington and Maurice Smith went on to discuss the wider issue of 'racism' and community cohesion. The Union put forward the view that any changes in the curriculum, examination system and/or regulation should be designed to gain the widest possible community backing. Mr Harrington said that the Union was conducting further research on such issues but that the time limit imposed on the review (the end of January 2010) meant that not all such evidence would be available for submission. Nonetheless he promised to submit such evidence as he had by that time and also provide written representations from the Union.

Mr Williamson, on behalf of the Union, thanked Mr Smith and Mr Sawyer for their time and consideration. He welcomed the commitment from Mr Smith that the review would be "evidence based".