Seven months later, I receive another email, this time not in English, with the same mistaken message about Holocaust education in the UK.
It's still not true. Snopes agrees with me.
PS If anyone is wondering why I haven't posted in the last few months. theres nothing to worry about. I've been a bit busy, that's all
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Holocaust education has NOT been abolished in the UK
An email I received earlier this week, said:
"Recently this week, all of the United Kingdom - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Moslem population which claims it never occurred."
This email was sent with the title "In Memoriam" and was sent to coincide with the annual Holocaust Memorial Day observed in Israel and in Jewish communities throughout the world. It was sent with a plea to "forward this to all your friends". Clearly someone thought that the abolition of holocaust education was a topic so important that it justified viral email propogation.
The claim that the UK has abolished holocaust education is utter rubbish. The UK has done no such thing.
This week (16/04/2007) The Historical Association published a report on the challenges and opportunities of "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History". The report acknowledged that some teachers found teaching certain topics difficult in certain situations, and that in some schools some topics were being avoided. But far from suggesting that the teaching of the Holocaust, or the history of Slavery, or the history of the Crusades, should be removed from the curriculum, the report recommended a proactive course of action to make it easier for teachers to teach these subjects: "The Government and key agencies, including QCA and Ofsted, [should] reinforce the importance of the teaching of emotive and controversial history".
Several other claims in the email are equally unjustified. To say that "the Moslem population" denies the holocaust is a gross generalisation, and it is dangerous because it reinforces anti-Islamic prejudice. People who claim to revere the memories of the victims of the Nazi atrocities of the Second World War should be the last ones to make grossly offensive and overtly racist remarks like this directed against any population group.
And of course, to say that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom is not true either, which should have given some readers a clue.
"Recently this week, all of the United Kingdom - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it "offended" the Moslem population which claims it never occurred."
This email was sent with the title "In Memoriam" and was sent to coincide with the annual Holocaust Memorial Day observed in Israel and in Jewish communities throughout the world. It was sent with a plea to "forward this to all your friends". Clearly someone thought that the abolition of holocaust education was a topic so important that it justified viral email propogation.
The claim that the UK has abolished holocaust education is utter rubbish. The UK has done no such thing.
This week (16/04/2007) The Historical Association published a report on the challenges and opportunities of "Teaching Emotive and Controversial History". The report acknowledged that some teachers found teaching certain topics difficult in certain situations, and that in some schools some topics were being avoided. But far from suggesting that the teaching of the Holocaust, or the history of Slavery, or the history of the Crusades, should be removed from the curriculum, the report recommended a proactive course of action to make it easier for teachers to teach these subjects: "The Government and key agencies, including QCA and Ofsted, [should] reinforce the importance of the teaching of emotive and controversial history".
Several other claims in the email are equally unjustified. To say that "the Moslem population" denies the holocaust is a gross generalisation, and it is dangerous because it reinforces anti-Islamic prejudice. People who claim to revere the memories of the victims of the Nazi atrocities of the Second World War should be the last ones to make grossly offensive and overtly racist remarks like this directed against any population group.
And of course, to say that Ireland is part of the United Kingdom is not true either, which should have given some readers a clue.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
"Megan's Law" could set a precedent
The UK government has announced a trial of a version of "Megan's Law" in certain areas, and a children's charity has expressed fears that the experiment may put children at increased risk rather than protect them.
Sexual abuse of children by predatory adults is a particularly horrible crime, and "Megan's Law" is supposed to help families protect their children by letting them know if convicted sex offenders who have targeted children in the past are living in their neighbourhoods.
There's a lot wrong with this law on many levels. Someone who committed a terrible crime, was convicted, served a sentence - and hopefully received treatment and counselling for the psychological illness that caused them to offend - and has now been released. The police and probation services know who these people are and where they are living, and there are supposed to be checks in place to monitor their behaviour. And it's certainly within the realms of possibility that the offender has now recognised their own problem and doesn't want to offend again. He or she is endeavouring to rehabilitate themself. "Megan's law" doesn't allow them to do this, as it completely negates the idea of the possibility of rehabilitation. The attitude seems to be once an offender, always an offender. The next logical step would be to say that these people should never be released from jail, and I am sure some tabloid newspaper columnists would say just that.
The next problem is what the public is supposed to do with the information that a sex offender is living in their neighbourhood. Are they going to move house? Unlikely. Are they going to watch look after their children more carefully? Possibly. Are they going to start vigilante action against people they suspect? Quite probably, judging by past experience. And then everyone with "pead-" or something similar in their job title needs to be on their guard.
But the biggest problem is that "Megan's Law" sets a great precedent for future laws. There is no logical reason to apply the idea of "the public has a right to know" just to sex offenders. What about people convicted of drug peddling, or of dangerous driving? Many more children are in danger from these sorts of criminals than from sex offenders. And why stop there? The public surely wants to know if any convicted burglars live in their area, so they can protect their property with better locks and alarms. Or find someone convenient to beat up when their homes get robbed.
Sexual abuse of children by predatory adults is a particularly horrible crime, and "Megan's Law" is supposed to help families protect their children by letting them know if convicted sex offenders who have targeted children in the past are living in their neighbourhoods.
There's a lot wrong with this law on many levels. Someone who committed a terrible crime, was convicted, served a sentence - and hopefully received treatment and counselling for the psychological illness that caused them to offend - and has now been released. The police and probation services know who these people are and where they are living, and there are supposed to be checks in place to monitor their behaviour. And it's certainly within the realms of possibility that the offender has now recognised their own problem and doesn't want to offend again. He or she is endeavouring to rehabilitate themself. "Megan's law" doesn't allow them to do this, as it completely negates the idea of the possibility of rehabilitation. The attitude seems to be once an offender, always an offender. The next logical step would be to say that these people should never be released from jail, and I am sure some tabloid newspaper columnists would say just that.
The next problem is what the public is supposed to do with the information that a sex offender is living in their neighbourhood. Are they going to move house? Unlikely. Are they going to watch look after their children more carefully? Possibly. Are they going to start vigilante action against people they suspect? Quite probably, judging by past experience. And then everyone with "pead-" or something similar in their job title needs to be on their guard.
But the biggest problem is that "Megan's Law" sets a great precedent for future laws. There is no logical reason to apply the idea of "the public has a right to know" just to sex offenders. What about people convicted of drug peddling, or of dangerous driving? Many more children are in danger from these sorts of criminals than from sex offenders. And why stop there? The public surely wants to know if any convicted burglars live in their area, so they can protect their property with better locks and alarms. Or find someone convenient to beat up when their homes get robbed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)