Mum and children told to leave playgroup because they were not 'multicultural' .

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.


"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

I thought this was an April Fools at first, due to the date that the story was posted. Sadly the reality is, this actually has happened.

Its blatant racial discrimination and multiculturalism is supposed to be inclusive of all cultures and ethnic groups. Its also an insult to those Aussies born to the nation, that they cannot participate or be a part pf Multiculturalism. They are being excluded, which defeats to object of Multiculturalism.

I see the education authorities have rightly done at least something by instructing the Manager to allow the program to be inclusive.

Anti-Discrimination Board Acting President Elizabeth Wing confirmed on Friday that “on the face of it”, exclusion from a playgroup “on the basis of race or ethnic background... would appear to be a breach of the [anti-discrimination] act”
"After being alerted to the problem on Friday, Education Minister Rob Stokes and his department, to their credit, instructed Fletcher to allow all families to attend the playgroup."

Not enough in my eyes, because they were practicing a prejudice a racist discriminating policy and the Manager should be disciplined for blatant racism and sacked. As there should be zero tolerance of any form of racism.

Didn't that happen here in St Neots?

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't that happen here in St Neots?

If you have a link Rags, that would be good, as not aware.

Thorin wrote:I thought this was an April Fools at first, due to the date that the story was posted. Sadly the reality is, this actually has happened.

Its blatant racial discrimination and multiculturalism is supposed to be inclusive of all cultures and ethnic groups. Its also an insult to those Aussies born to the nation, that they cannot participate or be a part pf Multiculturalism. They are being excluded, which defeats to object of Multiculturalism.

I see the education authorities have rightly done at least something by instructing the Manager to allow the program to be inclusive.

Anti-Discrimination Board Acting President Elizabeth Wing confirmed on Friday that “on the face of it”, exclusion from a playgroup “on the basis of race or ethnic background... would appear to be a breach of the [anti-discrimination] act”
"After being alerted to the problem on Friday, Education Minister Rob Stokes and his department, to their credit, instructed Fletcher to allow all families to attend the playgroup."

Not enough in my eyes, because they were practicing a prejudice a racist discriminating policy and the Manager should be disciplined for blatant racism and sacked. As there should be zero tolerance of any form of racism.

Its hard to believe that in an area that encourages diversity a person who has been born and bred in the country is excluded.....if that doesn't create a divide I don't know what will.

They certainly were practicing blatant racism Thor....the exact opposite of what a playgroup like this should be doing.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:I thought this was an April Fools at first, due to the date that the story was posted. Sadly the reality is, this actually has happened.

Its blatant racial discrimination and multiculturalism is supposed to be inclusive of all cultures and ethnic groups. Its also an insult to those Aussies born to the nation, that they cannot participate or be a part pf Multiculturalism. They are being excluded, which defeats to object of Multiculturalism.

I see the education authorities have rightly done at least something by instructing the Manager to allow the program to be inclusive.

Anti-Discrimination Board Acting President Elizabeth Wing confirmed on Friday that “on the face of it”, exclusion from a playgroup “on the basis of race or ethnic background... would appear to be a breach of the [anti-discrimination] act”
"After being alerted to the problem on Friday, Education Minister Rob Stokes and his department, to their credit, instructed Fletcher to allow all families to attend the playgroup."

Not enough in my eyes, because they were practicing a prejudice a racist discriminating policy and the Manager should be disciplined for blatant racism and sacked. As there should be zero tolerance of any form of racism.

Its hard to believe that in an area that encourages diversity a person who has been born and bred in the country is excluded.....if that doesn't create a divide I don't know what will.

They certainly were practicing blatant racism Thor....the exact opposite of what a playgroup like this should be doing.

Agreed Sly and if any non-white had been excluded the teacher would have been sacked.

So why the leniency here?

Either all racism is wrong and all should be punished accordingly or it just makes a mockery of racial discrimination laws.

This sends out all the wrong messages. Like I say, I am glad the Education authorities stepped in to act to reverse this racism, but its not enough, they should have disciplined the Manager.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didn't that happen here in St Neots?

If you have a link Rags, that would be good, as not aware.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8270481/Mothers-barred-from-women-and-childrens-group-because-of-Britishness.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

If you have a link Rags, that would be good, as not aware.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8270481/Mothers-barred-from-women-and-childrens-group-because-of-Britishness.html

Sadly in this country they allow single identity groups to racially and religiously discriminate.

A spokeswoman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said under the Equality Act 2010 it is not unlawful to set up a group especially for a particular ethnic or national group.

Its an utter disgrace that barring someone who was bred and born in a country is legal.
If a group is encouraging immigrants to forge links within the community, how ridiculous to keep away the very people who can help them do that?

Like one of the mothers said in that article Rags posted (its six years old but if this is still allowed its valid) can you imagine the uproar if councils run mother and toddler groups for exclusively British born families.

Syl wrote:Its an utter disgrace that barring someone who was bred and born in a country is legal.
If a group is encouraging immigrants to forge links within the community, how ridiculous to keep away the very people who can help them do that?

Like one of the mothers said in that article Rags posted (its six years old but if this is still allowed its valid) can you imagine the uproar if councils run mother and toddler groups for exclusively British born families.

Its been going on for years.
Example, religious schools. They actively discriminate on entry and are allowed to.
Like I said all schools, nurseries should be neutrally run and not faith or ethnically based.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Its an utter disgrace that barring someone who was bred and born in a country is legal.
If a group is encouraging immigrants to forge links within the community, how ridiculous to keep away the very people who can help them do that?

Like one of the mothers said in that article Rags posted (its six years old but if this is still allowed its valid) can you imagine the uproar if councils run mother and toddler groups for exclusively British born families.

Its been going on for years.
Example, religious schools. They actively discriminate on entry and are allowed to.
Like I said all schools, nurseries should be neutrally run and not faith or ethnically based.

My son went to a local Church run primary school, it was mainly Christian then.
Times and communities have changed so much there is now a fair % of other faiths attending, mostly Muslim.
Problems tend to arise when parents wish their children to be excluded from Christian assemblies and lessons, which some sadly do.

If religion was not a feature in schools ...problems solved.

On the other hand many people like their youngsters to attend schools where hymns and a prayer are the normal start to the school day, they see no reason to deprive their kids of what generations of children have experienced ...I do see both sides.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its been going on for years.
Example, religious schools. They actively discriminate on entry and are allowed to.
Like I said all schools, nurseries should be neutrally run and not faith or ethnically based.

My son went to a local Church run primary school, it was mainly Christian then.
Times and communities have changed so much there is now a fair % of other faiths attending, mostly Muslim.
Problems tend to arise when parents wish their children to be excluded from Christian assemblies and lessons, which some sadly do.

If religion was not a feature in schools ...problems solved.

On the other hand many people like their youngsters to attend schools where hymns and a prayer are the normal  start to the school day, they see no reason to deprive their kids of what generations of children have experienced ...I do see both sides.

You can still have prayers and hymns in neutral schools, provided by religious teachers.
Its not a necessity in my eye for this anyway, but see no reason why neutral schools could offer this.
So to me allowing religious schools, creates segregation, when all schools should be mixed to better prepare them for adult life. In a very mixed cultural, religious and ethnic society. Faith is a privilege, which schools can cater for reasonable religious needs. I see no reason to have any faith schools, being as I went to such schools myself.

There is no reason to have single identity groups, as any group should be inclusive. Even victim groups should allow all victims to attend and not be gender based for example. Those are the only times I could see arguments for the allowance of single identity groups, but even then I think they should be inclusive to all victims.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

My son went to a local Church run primary school, it was mainly Christian then.
Times and communities have changed so much there is now a fair % of other faiths attending, mostly Muslim.
Problems tend to arise when parents wish their children to be excluded from Christian assemblies and lessons, which some sadly do.

If religion was not a feature in schools ...problems solved.

On the other hand many people like their youngsters to attend schools where hymns and a prayer are the normal  start to the school day, they see no reason to deprive their kids of what generations of children have experienced ...I do see both sides.

You can still have prayers and hymns in neutral schools, provided by religious teachers.
Its not a necessity in my eye for this anyway, but see no reason why neutral schools could offer this.
So to me allowing religious schools, creates segregation, when all schools should be mixed to better prepare them for adult life. In a very mixed cultural, religious and ethnic society. Faith is a privilege, which schools can cater for reasonable religious needs. I see no reason to have any faith schools, being as I went to such schools myself.

There is no reason to have single identity groups, as any group should be inclusive. Even victim groups should allow all victims to attend and not be gender based for example. Those are the only times I could see arguments for the allowance of single identity groups, but even then I think they should be inclusive.

The school I know of still does have assembly for all, unfortunately some strict Muslims don't want their children to attend, so other arrangements have to be made for them.
The school provides this but it means extra staff...extra money and extra inconvenience.

They certainly don't discriminate against anyone from joining the school though, in fact, as siblings are given priority and Brits limit their families far more than they used to, I can see this church school changing in the future, dropping all traces of Christian teachings.

Some like yourself think this is the way forwards.....I'm undecided tbh.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

You can still have prayers and hymns in neutral schools, provided by religious teachers.
Its not a necessity in my eye for this anyway, but see no reason why neutral schools could offer this.
So to me allowing religious schools, creates segregation, when all schools should be mixed to better prepare them for adult life. In a very mixed cultural, religious and ethnic society. Faith is a privilege, which schools can cater for reasonable religious needs. I see no reason to have any faith schools, being as I went to such schools myself.

There is no reason to have single identity groups, as any group should be inclusive. Even victim groups should allow all victims to attend and not be gender based for example. Those are the only times I could see arguments for the allowance of single identity groups, but even then I think they should be inclusive.

The school I know of still does have assembly for all, unfortunately some strict Muslims don't want their children to attend, so other arrangements have to be made for them.
The school provides this but it means extra staff...extra money and extra inconvenience.

They certainly don't discriminate against anyone from joining the school though, in fact, as siblings are given priority and Brits limit their families far more than they used to, I can see this church school changing in the future, dropping all traces of Christian teachings.

Some like yourself think this is the way forwards.....I'm undecided tbh.

I can tell you that many religious schools actively discriminate Syl

http://www.secularism.org.uk/discrimination-in-faith-schools.html

To me again, how best to better prepare children from all ethnic and religious groups, if they attend neutral schools? They then  get to know people from all different cultures, religions and ethnic groups. You are better preparing people to get along with each other in later life. Where religious and single sex schools deny for the ability for children to integrate.

Not all religious schools discriminate Thor, I mentioned the one I know, they certainly don't.
Single sex schools, colleges or universities, they definitely do discriminate.

No school should discriminate against people from different ethnic backgrounds imo....everyone should be welcome to join any playgroup, school or community group.

Syl wrote:Not all religious schools discriminate Thor, I mentioned the one I know, they certainly don't.
Single sex schools, colleges or universities, they definitely do discriminate.

No school should discriminate against people from different ethnic backgrounds imo....everyone should be welcome to join any playgroup, school or community group.

I am sure the one you mentioned does not, but the fact is that many can discriminate and many do Syl
Its wrong, when all schools should be inclusive and why they would be better placed to be neutrally run.

Hey ho, I can only reason my case Syl and everyone has an opinion this for and against on this.
So I respect you are undecided and you should come to your own conclusions on this, when you have weighed up both sides of the arguments.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Not all religious schools discriminate Thor, I mentioned the one I know, they certainly don't.
Single sex schools, colleges or universities, they definitely do discriminate.

No school should discriminate against people from different ethnic backgrounds imo....everyone should be welcome to join any playgroup, school or community group.

I am sure the one you mentioned does not, but the fact is that many can discriminate and many do Syl
Its wrong, when all schools should be inclusive and why they would be better placed to be neutrally run.

Hey ho, I can only reason my case Syl and everyone has an opinion this for and against on this.
So I respect you are undecided and you should come to your own conclusions on this, when you have weighed up both sides of the arguments.

Discrimination is wrong as the OP proves, actually discriminating against people who are born and bred in a country emphasises just how wrong segregating people, and excluding certain groups is.

Alternatively excluding and separating people who are not indigenous to a certain place is equally wrong.

I suppose I am talking myself into the view that anything that discriminates, be it religion, class, sex, whatever, if it creates divide...is wrong.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I am sure the one you mentioned does not, but the fact is that many can discriminate and many do Syl
Its wrong, when all schools should be inclusive and why they would be better placed to be neutrally run.

Hey ho, I can only reason my case Syl and everyone has an opinion this for and against on this.
So I respect you are undecided and you should come to your own conclusions on this, when you have weighed up both sides of the arguments.

Discrimination is wrong as the OP proves,  actually discriminating against people who are born and bred in a country emphasises just how wrong segregating people, and excluding certain groups is.

Alternatively excluding and separating people who are not indigenous to a certain place is equally wrong.

I suppose I am talking myself into the view that anything that discriminates, be it religion, class, sex, whatever, if it creates divide...is wrong.

Hit the nail on the head Syl.

Hope you have a good evening.

Catch you later

x

Ditto Thor. x

All 3 suburbs mentioned are the inner west (average apartment price over 1 million dollars) and are the stereotypical 'hipsters' strongholds.
they are the sort that like the shabby chic over priced nonsense.
these areas are where the poor hippy artist lived in the 60's but have undergone extreme gentrification, even 20 years ago they were already too 'rich and yuppie' for me. they are part of the reason I left Sydney since they ruin it for everyone else.

It doesn't actually surprise me, I find them hypocrites since they are pro refugee but don't actually live with refugees, but want to multicultural without having to be any real fiends ships with new migrants. For them Authentic Vietnamese food is cooked by the rich white kid that travelled Vietnam and had daddy buy him a restaurant. (as opposed to the Vietnamese immigrant cooking cheap eats for other Vietnamese immigrants in a cheap and ugly dinner)

I'll add that 'play groups' are often not 'official', they are not true preschools financed by the state.
some are run by local councils others are run by religious centers or self declared 'community groups'.

veya_victaous wrote:All 3 suburbs mentioned are the inner west (average apartment price over 1 million dollars) and are the stereotypical 'hipsters' strongholds.
they are the sort that like the shabby chic over priced nonsense.
these areas are where the poor hippy artist lived in the 60's but have undergone extreme gentrification, even 20 years ago they were already too 'rich and yuppie' for me. they are part of the reason I left Sydney since they ruin it for everyone else.

It doesn't actually surprise me, I find them hypocrites since they are pro refugee but don't actually live with refugees, but want to multicultural without having to be any real fiends ships with new migrants. For them Authentic Vietnamese food is cooked by the rich white kid that travelled Vietnam and had daddy  buy him a restaurant. (as opposed to the Vietnamese immigrant cooking cheap eats for other Vietnamese immigrants in a cheap and ugly dinner)  

That's interesting.
Some people have skewed values, discrimination is discrimination, no point in welcoming immigrants and excluding your own when the point is to encourage multiculturalism...its as racist as putting a sign in the windows, like was seen in some places decades ago.."No blacks or Irish allowed"

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:All 3 suburbs mentioned are the inner west (average apartment price over 1 million dollars) and are the stereotypical 'hipsters' strongholds.
they are the sort that like the shabby chic over priced nonsense.
these areas are where the poor hippy artist lived in the 60's but have undergone extreme gentrification, even 20 years ago they were already too 'rich and yuppie' for me. they are part of the reason I left Sydney since they ruin it for everyone else.

It doesn't actually surprise me, I find them hypocrites since they are pro refugee but don't actually live with refugees, but want to multicultural without having to be any real fiends ships with new migrants. For them Authentic Vietnamese food is cooked by the rich white kid that travelled Vietnam and had daddy  buy him a restaurant. (as opposed to the Vietnamese immigrant cooking cheap eats for other Vietnamese immigrants in a cheap and ugly dinner)  

That's interesting.
Some people have skewed values, discrimination is discrimination, no point in welcoming immigrants and excluding your own when the point is to encourage multiculturalism...its as racist as putting a sign in the windows, like was seen in some places decades ago.."No blacks or Irish allowed"

So you agree with veya.  I wasn't sure as your last point seemed to contradict ("No blacks or Irism allowed").

Veya is decrying the artificiality of pseudo liberal movements and trends that seem to come along after the social body recognizes the genuine movements and trends.  They co-opt the real movement.  I don't know how to tell them apart, except that proponents generally accompany their choices with cries of Look at me...aren't I great?

One example is tokenism.  In this country, after the black civil rights movement arose, RW'rs opted for tokenism rather than the real thing.  After they strongly vetted a black candidate to assure he was really an Oreo cookie (black on the outside, white on the inside) they would appoint him with much fanfare, as if to say: Look and our black judge or City Manager.  A case in point is our Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas...classic example.

I too agree with veya...it makes you want to throw away your placard and give up.  Except that the real problem remains.  The Rednecks all declare problem solved!, when what they really mean is problem avoided!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's interesting.
Some people have skewed values, discrimination is discrimination, no point in welcoming immigrants and excluding your own when the point is to encourage multiculturalism...its as racist as putting a sign in the windows, like was seen in some places decades ago.."No blacks or Irish allowed"

So you agree with veya.  I wasn't sure as your last point seemed to contradict ("No blacks or Irism allowed").

Veya is decrying the artificiality of pseudo liberal movements and trends that seem to come along after the social body recognizes the genuine movements and trends.  They co-opt the real movement.  I don't know how to tell them apart, except that proponents generally accompany their choices with cries of Look at me...aren't I great?

One example is tokenism.  In this country, after the black civil rights movement arose, RW'rs opted for tokenism rather than the real thing.  After they strongly vetted a black candidate to assure he was really an Oreo cookie (black on the outside, white on the inside) they would appoint him with much fanfare, as if to say: Look and our black judge or City Manager.  A case in point is our Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas...classic example.

I too agree with veya...it makes you want to throw away your placard and give up.  Except that the real problem remains.  The Rednecks all declare problem solved!, when what they really mean is problem avoided!

There is nothing in that post of Veyas I could not agree with.
My comment of 'No blacks or irish' was in keeping with the post I had written.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So you agree with veya.  I wasn't sure as your last point seemed to contradict ("No blacks or Irism allowed").

Veya is decrying the artificiality of pseudo liberal movements and trends that seem to come along after the social body recognizes the genuine movements and trends.  They co-opt the real movement.  I don't know how to tell them apart, except that proponents generally accompany their choices with cries of Look at me...aren't I great?

One example is tokenism.  In this country, after the black civil rights movement arose, RW'rs opted for tokenism rather than the real thing.  After they strongly vetted a black candidate to assure he was really an Oreo cookie (black on the outside, white on the inside) they would appoint him with much fanfare, as if to say: Look and our black judge or City Manager.  A case in point is our Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas...classic example.

I too agree with veya...it makes you want to throw away your placard and give up.  Except that the real problem remains.  The Rednecks all declare problem solved!, when what they really mean is problem avoided!

There is nothing in that post of Veyas I could not agree with.
My comment of 'No blacks or irish' was in keeping with the post I had written.

As I indicated, I finally caught your whole meaning, tho it took a couple of re-readings.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is nothing in that post of Veyas I could not agree with.
My comment of 'No blacks or irish' was in keeping with the post I had written.

As I indicated, I finally caught your whole meaning, tho it took a couple of re-readings.

Snap, because I think I have mentioned before I often have to read and reread your posts before I get the full meaning of them....and even then sometimes I struggle.


But don't worry Quill.......its not you its me.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I indicated, I finally caught your whole meaning, tho it took a couple of re-readings.

Snap, because I think I have mentioned before I often have to read and reread your posts before I get the full meaning of them....and even then sometimes I struggle.

But don't worry Quill.......its not you its me.

When you are reading a thread that is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and then someone disrupts the dialectical flow and agrees (but doesn't come right out and say it), it takes you back. It's expecting the pattern, but then you read the content and see they are saying something unexpected.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Snap, because I think I have mentioned before I often have to read and reread your posts before I get the full meaning of them....and even then sometimes I struggle.

But don't worry Quill.......its not you its me.

When you are reading a thread that is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and then someone disrupts the dialectical flow and agrees (but doesn't come right out and say it), it takes you back.  It's expecting the pattern, but then you read the content and see they are saying something unexpected.

Are you saying I'm unpredictable Quill ?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When you are reading a thread that is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and then someone disrupts the dialectical flow and agrees (but doesn't come right out and say it), it takes you back.  It's expecting the pattern, but then you read the content and see they are saying something unexpected.

Are you saying I'm unpredictable Quill ?

Not at all. The habit is all mine. It's a fault that comes with speed reading.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Are you saying I'm unpredictable Quill ?

Not at all.  The habit is all mine.  It's a fault that comes with speed reading.

You should stop taking speed...!

Syl wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.


"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

All in the name of 'equality'...!


Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.


"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

All in the name of 'equality'...!


Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

Some people don't know what equality is obviously.
This was in Australia, but like Rags pointed out, exactly the same thing has happened here in the past.
I don't think its a right or left issue really....just some brain dead morons wanting to appear to be encouraging multiculturalism ...and doing the exact opposite.

This sort of stuff is rife here in uk...

So "multicultural" doesn't include people who speak English at home then? Weird.

From the article I linked to.

A spokeswoman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said under the Equality Act 2010 it is not unlawful to set up a group especially for a particular ethnic or national group.

So someone could set up a group for white English people only, and ban others from joining, and that would be legal?

Tommy Monk wrote:
This sort of stuff is rife here in uk...

If it is it should be stamped out.
By the way, the moron who gave me a red stripe for my earlier post obviously doesn't understand English.
I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from the play groups.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This sort of stuff is rife here in uk...

If it is it should be stamped out.

By the way, the moron who gave me a red stripe for my earlier post obviously doesn't understand English.

I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the  discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from  the play groups.

Wasn't it Quill who did that?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.


"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

All in the name of 'equality'...!

Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

I think you are stuck in your misperception that there is such a thing as absolute equality. It serves the privileged and powerful to say that equality is the same for everyone, until someone points out that the rich and powerful start out that much better off. Where is the equality when you give someone a head start?

All you are doing is perpetuating the disadvantage. That's no a fair chance.

It's better to follow the principle of proportional equality, where the starting point is taken into account.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If it is it should be stamped out.

I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the  discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from  the play groups.

Wasn't it Quill who did that?

I don't give red stripes.  I only give green ones, which means in the old vernacular: +1, or you said it and I agree.

It is meaningless to say '-1' without explaining yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If it is it should be stamped out.

I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the  discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from  the play groups.

Wasn't it Quill who did that?

Quill did misunderstand my post at first, I don't think he gave the red stripe though...if he did I'm sure he deeply regrets it now.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Wasn't it Quill who did that?

Quill did misunderstand my post at first, I don't think he gave the red stripe though...if he did I'm sure he deeply regrets it now.

When I did post, I fully understood. I only mentioned that at one point, before posting, I struggled to understand what you meant by the reference to 'blacks and Irish'.

That wasn't a criticism, as I had sussed it out myself before I posted. Actually, I mentioned it to head off a false lead by anyone else.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Wasn't it Quill who did that?

I don't give red stripes.  I only give green ones, which means in the old vernacular: +1, or you said it and I agree.

It is meaningless to say '-1' without explaining yourself.

I agree Quill.
If its a blatantly insulting post the red stripe is obviously given for that....the insult.
If a red stripe is given because someones opinion differs to your own, I believe not only is it meaningless, its also sneaky and quite cowardly to red stripe without owning it and saying why.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Quill did misunderstand my post at first, I don't think he gave the red stripe though...if he did I'm sure he deeply regrets it now.

When I did post, I fully understood.  I only mentioned that at one point, before posting, I struggled to understand what you meant by the reference to 'blacks and Irish'.  

That wasn't a criticism, as I had sussed it out myself before I posted.  Actually, I mentioned it to head off a false lead by anyone else.

Yes I know Quill, but have a thanks for explaining it anyway.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This sort of stuff is rife here in uk...

If it is it should be stamped out.
By the way, the moron who gave me a red stripe for my earlier post obviously doesn't understand English.
I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the  discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from  the play groups.

Some schools in the west Country and other rural areas have been downgraded by 'ofsted' for 'not being diverse/multicultural enough'... because all the kids happen to be white... even though that is because all the local families with children of the age group required of the schools, are white...!!!


But these school inspectors see nothing wrong with a school in London or Midlands that is full of almost exclusively blacks or Asians... and would never dare to say 'not enough whites!'... unless they were saying 'not enough white eastern Europeans'...!!!


And if that hasn't annoyed you enough... have a look into the billions upon billions of £ of taxpayer money that is given away every year to govt/council authorised taxpayer funded 'charity' groups and other multicultural projects that have a totally discriminatiory agenda towards helping only their chosen specific racial/ethnic groups...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

If it is it should be stamped out.
By the way, the moron who gave me a red stripe for my earlier post obviously doesn't understand English.
I was agreeing with what had been said, using the" no Blacks or Irish" example as extreme discrimination......similar to the  discrimination that is now banning indigenous people from  the play groups.

Some schools in the west Country and other rural areas have been downgraded by 'ofsted' for 'not being diverse/multicultural enough'... because all the kids happen to be white... even though that is because all the local families with children of the age group required of the schools, are white...!!!


But these school inspectors see nothing wrong with a school in London or Midlands that is full of almost exclusively blacks or Asians... and would never dare to say 'not enough whites!'... unless they were saying 'not enough white eastern Europeans'...!!!


And if that hasn't annoyed you enough... have a look into the billions upon billions of £ of taxpayer money that is given away every year to govt/council authorised taxpayer funded 'charity' groups and other multicultural projects that have a totally discriminatiory agenda towards helping only their chosen specific racial/ethnic groups...!!!

Try bussing. It's cheaper.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

All in the name of 'equality'...!

Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

I think you are stuck in your misperception that there is such a thing as absolute equality.  It serves the privileged and powerful to say that equality is the same for everyone, until someone points out that the rich and powerful start out that much better off.  Where is the equality when you give someone a head start?

All you are doing is perpetuating the disadvantage.  That's no a fair chance.

It's better to follow the principle of proportional equality, where the starting point is taken into account.

Where is the 'equality' when some children are barred entry to a little playground facility, in australia, because they are too white and speak English...!?

Where is the 'diversity' inside the playground when it excludes white children who speak English...!?

Surely the idiots at this facility are well of the word 'integration'...!?

Wouldn't that best be achieved by having white children who spoke English being accepted too???

As this would be best for the others to mix with those they are integrating in to... as well as for the white kids to mix with the others who are arriving...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are stuck in your misperception that there is such a thing as absolute equality.  It serves the privileged and powerful to say that equality is the same for everyone, until someone points out that the rich and powerful start out that much better off.  Where is the equality when you give someone a head start?

All you are doing is perpetuating the disadvantage.  That's no a fair chance.

It's better to follow the principle of proportional equality, where the starting point is taken into account.

Where is the 'equality' when some children are barred entry to a little playground facility, in australia, because they are too white and speak English...!?

Where is the 'diversity' inside the playground when it excludes white children who speak English...!?

Surely the idiots at this facility are well of the word 'integration'...!?

Wouldn't that best be achieved by having white children who spoke English being accepted too???

As this would be best for the others to mix with those they are integrating in to... as well as for the white kids to mix with the others who are arriving...!?

I don't know. The article doesn't go into it that deeply, to decipher what philosophy they are trying to achieve.

Separatism has been used before to achieve socially acceptable ends. For example, black separatists in the 60's and 70's argued that separating black children out from whites helped them grow up independent of surrounding power and privilege, allowing them to nurture a sense of self-worth and high self-esteem. It gets rid of the negativism that results from a dominate majority race that looks down on them.

Curious...we never felt the need to ask that question when privileged white families sent their children to prestigious and exclusive private schools. It was understood what was the meaning of white separatism. The 'tainted' children were kept away, and that was that.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Where is the 'equality' when some children are barred entry to a little playground facility, in australia, because they are too white and speak English...!?

Where is the 'diversity' inside the playground when it excludes white children who speak English...!?

Surely the idiots at this facility are well of the word 'integration'...!?

Wouldn't that best be achieved by having white children who spoke English being accepted too???

As this would be best for the others to mix with those they are integrating in to... as well as for the white kids to mix with the others who are arriving...!?

I don't know.  The article doesn't go into it that deeply, to decipher what philosophy they are trying to achieve.  

Separatism has been used before to achieve socially acceptable ends.  For example, black separatists in the 60's and 70's argued that separating black children out from whites helped them grow up independent of surrounding power and privilege, allowing them to nurture a sense of self-worth and high self-esteem.  It gets rid of the negativism that results from a dominate majority race that looks down on them.

Curious...we never felt the need to ask that question when privileged white families sent their children to prestigious and exclusive private schools.  It was understood what was the meaning of white separatism.  The 'tainted' children were kept away, and that was that.

They may have argued, but its a flawed argument, as segregation does not allow people to grow up understanding other cultures, religions, ethnic groups through daily interaction. It fails to help build bonds between people which will then help them in adult life. It helps tackle poor stereotypes and understand and see all people are fundamentally one biological race. 

All people should have equality under the law. That means if there is discrimination laws, that bar people, then any company that falls foul of this should be taken to task. There is no excuses and even worse to argue in defense of segregation. So by that view, we should keep all poor kids with all other poor kids in school? Those with disabilities? All schools and nurseries need to be inclusive. To say there is a need to segregated people based off privileged, is actually backing the view to privilege people, defeating the whole purpose of tackling privilege.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Where is the 'equality' when some children are barred entry to a little playground facility, in australia, because they are too white and speak English...!?

Where is the 'diversity' inside the playground when it excludes white children who speak English...!?

Surely the idiots at this facility are well of the word 'integration'...!?

Wouldn't that best be achieved by having white children who spoke English being accepted too???

As this would be best for the others to mix with those they are integrating in to... as well as for the white kids to mix with the others who are arriving...!?

I don't know.  The article doesn't go into it that deeply, to decipher what philosophy they are trying to achieve.  

Separatism has been used before to achieve socially acceptable ends.  For example, black separatists in the 60's and 70's argued that separating black children out from whites helped them grow up independent of surrounding power and privilege, allowing them to nurture a sense of self-worth and high self-esteem.  It gets rid of the negativism that results from a dominate majority race that looks down on them.

Curious...we never felt the need to ask that question when privileged white families sent their children to prestigious and exclusive private schools.  It was understood what was the meaning of white separatism.  The 'tainted' children were kept away, and that was that.

That may be so... in a different place and different time...


Here we have lefties who are supposedly pro 'equality/diversity/multiculturalism' etc and anti 'discrimination/racism' etc...

Who think it is right to go against all these core beliefs of theirs, when it is against whites who speak English...!

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  The article doesn't go into it that deeply, to decipher what philosophy they are trying to achieve.  

Separatism has been used before to achieve socially acceptable ends.  For example, black separatists in the 60's and 70's argued that separating black children out from whites helped them grow up independent of surrounding power and privilege, allowing them to nurture a sense of self-worth and high self-esteem.  It gets rid of the negativism that results from a dominate majority race that looks down on them.

Curious...we never felt the need to ask that question when privileged white families sent their children to prestigious and exclusive private schools.  It was understood what was the meaning of white separatism.  The 'tainted' children were kept away, and that was that.

They may have argued, but its a flawed argument, as segregation does not allow people to grow up understanding other cultures, religions, ethnic groups through daily interaction. It fails to help build bonds between people which will then help them in adult life. It helps tackle poor stereotypes and understand and see all people are fundamentally one biological race. 

That's a valuable point. I think it's one that black separatists eventually realized. Still, it depends on the quality of the greater society. If the greater society is one that perpetuates negative stereotypes to be imposed on the children of the minority culture, some isolation seems advisable. It's a sliding scale I suppose, depending upon how bad the greater culture is. In America, particularly in the south, it can be beneficial.

Thorin wrote:All people should have equality under the law. That means if there is discrimination laws, that bar people, then any company that falls foul of this should be taken to task. There is no excuses and even worse to argue in defense of segregation. So by that view, we should keep all poor kids with all other poor kids in school? Those with disabilities? All schools and nurseries need to be inclusive. To say there is a need to segregated people based off privileged, is actually backing the view to privilege people, defeating the whole purpose of tackling privilege.

You can't forget the part that history played. It matters whose ox gets gored. I think it's a false equivalency to treat disparate treatment of white as the same as disparate treatment of blacks. Heretofore, and throughout history, the disparate treatment of whites has been toward privilege and power, whereas the disparate treatment of blacks has been toward poverty and lack of advantage. Now, when you try to reverse the inevitable pattern thus created, it is somewhat artificial to cry discrimination!

But, you are right, there are limits. Most of the time they try to keep proportional equalizing on the positive side, dealing with the distribution of benefits, rather than disadvantages.