A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.
Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.
It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".
The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.
Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".
UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).
The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.
'Dumbfounded'
The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.
The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'
"Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said UKIP does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries."
The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.
She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."
The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".
Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.
"I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.
"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.
"I don't think [UKIP] are a racist party... I think they have very clear immigration and policies and I have to take all those factors into account."
She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.
The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.
'Political bias'
UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer.
He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.
"Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.
"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."
He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?
"Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."
In a statement, Labour said: "Membership of UKIP should not block parents from adopting children. There needs to be an urgent investigation by Rotherham Borough Council into this decision."
UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".
It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-204741
OP: While I fundamentally disagree with UKIP (though I find Nigel Farage occasionally entertaining in a village idiot sort of way), this is deeply worrying. Where does it all end? And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!
Rotherham Borough Council said the children were "not indigenous white British" and that it had concerns about UKIP's stance on immigration.
It said it had to consider the "needs of the children longer term".
The unnamed couple told the Daily Telegraph social workers had accused them of belonging to a "racist party". UKIP said it was an appalling decision.
Rotherham Borough Council's Strategic Director of Children and Young People's Services, Joyce Thacker, told the BBC that her decision was influenced by UKIP's immigration policy, which she said calls for the end of the "active promotion of multiculturalism".
UKIP's immigration policy states the party wants an "end [to] the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government", and urges Britain to leave the European Union (EU).
The Labour Party has called for an investigation into the Labour-run council's decision, after claims from UKIP it could have been politically motivated.
'Dumbfounded'
The couple, who have been approved foster parents for seven years, were eight weeks into the placement when they were approached by social workers about their membership of the party.
The wife told the Daily Telegraph: "I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has UKIP got to do with having the children removed?'
"Then one of them said, 'Well, UKIP have got racist policies.' The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said UKIP does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries."
The paper says the woman denied she was racist but the children were taken away by the end of the week.
She said the social worker told her: "We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of UKIP because it wouldn't have been the right cultural match."
The couple said they had been "stigmatised and slandered".
Ms Thacker said she did not regret the decision, which was reached after "a lot of soul searching".
"These children are not UK children and we were not aware of the foster parents having strong political views. There are some strong views in the UKIP party and we have to think of the future of the children."
She added during an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today: "I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs.
"I have legal advice I have to follow for the placement of children and I was criticised before for not making sure their cultural and ethnic needs were met.
"If the party mantra is, for example, ending the active promotion of multiculturalism I have to think about that... I have to think of their longer-term needs.
"I don't think [UKIP] are a racist party... I think they have very clear immigration and policies and I have to take all those factors into account."
She added that the children were placed with the family temporarily and were never intended to stay with the family long-term.
The council said there was no blanket ban on UKIP members being foster parents and that this couple would be allowed to foster other children in the future.
'Political bias'
UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemned the decision and said the council had many questions to answer.
He told the BBC he felt: "Very upset and very angry... this couple involved who have been fostering for many years and are very decent people. This was an awful shock to them, not to mention the upset for the children themselves.
"Politically, I am not surprised at all. This is typical of the bigotry you get from the Labour party and Labour controlled councils.
"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."
He added in a statement: "They [the council] have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask who it is that is prejudiced? A normal couple who have fostered for seven years, or themselves who are blinded by political bias?
"Publicly they must make absolutely clear the decision-making process in this case, who was responsible for this decision and why."
In a statement, Labour said: "Membership of UKIP should not block parents from adopting children. There needs to be an urgent investigation by Rotherham Borough Council into this decision."
UKIP describes itself as a "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union".
It currently has 12 MEPs and 31 councillors, with three peers in the House of Lords.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-204741
OP: While I fundamentally disagree with UKIP (though I find Nigel Farage occasionally entertaining in a village idiot sort of way), this is deeply worrying. Where does it all end? And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. What did the council think they'd do, kill them so there were less immigrants?!
a) You don't see any problem with handing children who aren't white over to white people who are members of a party that at the very least is xenophobic and Islamophobic (and that's just from a cursory google search)?
b) Can you explain how "they can't be racist because they agreed to take care of children of color" is any different from "I'm not racist because I have black friends"?
c) Your standard of proper and adequate parenting is "as long as the parents don't murder the children"?
OP what's your stance on the fact that members of the BNP party are not generally allowed to apply for the police service?
Also can I just say that 'Where does it all end?' is a fucking ridiculous thing to say. Oh when will this persecution of racists and xenophobes end?!
Edited at 2012-11-24 04:15 pm (UTC)
Before I leave what'll probably end up being my usual tl;dr... are you white?
ETA: Actually, I might not with the tl;dr. Like, I don't know how to explain/simplify the idea that racist asshats raising kids of colour would deeply affect those kids negatively and lead to them believing many disgusting untruths about themselves and fellow folks of colour. That kind of internalized hatred leads the painful, ugly bullshit that a lot of my fellow queer and trans folks sadly know all too well.
Edited at 2012-11-24 04:27 pm (UTC)
If you have to make such a disclaimer, you probably are a racist fuck.
UKIP also 'opposes multiculturalism', as if the millions of British people who are from ethnic minorities can just up and leave to some fabled land from which they all came, as if they don't fucking contribute anything to Britain's social fabric.
How could anyone, in any conscience, place children of colour with asshats who believe in such things?
UKIP is a xenophobic party who wants to rescue Britain from all those pesky foreigners in Europe, and have Britain as a white monolith. It's just the BNP with better PR, but thankfully the council have seen through this and taken steps to prevent those children being exposed to such hate. It's absolutely the right call! I don't get why anyone even thinks this should be up for debate.
Right? It also just ignores the fact that poc have been a part of Britain's history forever and have contributed to the building of empire and nation, often through oppression, colonialism and exploitation.
The wealth and prosperity that Britain has was made at the expense of the growth and prosperity of developing nations and poc all over the world. So, like, just chill with the whole 'we built this' bullshit. Immigrants are just collecting their ancestors due.
Edited at 2012-11-24 04:32 pm (UTC)
(Also, I think the article suggests that the children were from a Polish background.)
I stopped and re-read the article because the way it's written, if you're skimming and not paying close attention, it sounds like the article is about adopted kids being taken away. The tone of the piece is sensationalist and mentions adoption in enough places for it to sound like that's what's going on if you don't catch the distinction between fostering and adoption, and it preys on the fact that a lot of people really honestly don't know much about either.
"We have nothing against people from Poland or elsewhere in the world... we are not against immigration. We believe in controlled immigration."
Ha, that old chestnut. Controlled immigration. I know a girl who is a fervent UKIP supporter and also...half Chinese. And as an expat myself, I can't believe how many fellow UK expats I've met who are have an attitude of "the only legit immigration is MY immigration! I'm white and Western European!"
(I've seen the same with Irish undocumented immigrants in the US who somehow think they are totally justified in complaining that the US system doesn't have a special amnesty just for them and not for undocumented immigrants from, say, a country that actually shares a border with the US. And in case I was ever under any illusions that it might be racist . . . I've also had conversations where I pointed out to someone giving out about "non-nationals" that I'm a non-national too and been told, "well, you're different". Yeah. I'm in the same queue at immigration as everyone else. I'm pretty sure I'm not.)
Where does what end? Putting children's best interests before the ~feelings of foster parents? Hopefully nowhere.
The right of children to have a safe and supportive environment completely trumps the desire of adults to raise children.
Bigots should never, ever get the chance to raise kids from back-grounds, countries and races they actively hate. Don't buy the bullshit that UKIP and xenophobia isn't about hate because that is straight up lies. SLIPPERY SLOPE leads to kids being kept away from damaging fuckers who will make them feel less than with their constant prejudice.
At the very best, children of colour raised by these people would get some serious mixed messages from them. Being pulled from the home probably isn't great for them either and I wish the child services had been more thorough in the first place. I imagine they didn't have a hard and fast policy about political affiliation before?
And surely because they have no problem adopting "not indigenous white British" kids they're not all that hardcore anyway. ever heard of white man's burden?
Frankly, I have problems with all people who say that membership in racist/xenophobic parties or the espousal of racist or xenophobic views should not block people from becoming foster parents, and not only for not "ethnically British" children.
Children are not some kind of a fashionable toy or accessory that anyone should feel entitled to adopt or foster on a whim. The children have needs too, and they deserve to spend their childhood with people who will be accepting of them and positive about their ethnicity and culture. UKIP members can GTFO
Uh, no. Though they might impact on their self-esteem through their complete lack of regard for anyone who isn't perfect white British, as their political views would indicate. Being a foster parent is not a right, and if you're judged unsuitable, then you're judged unsuitable. Bitching about it just makes you look like you're in it for the money.
I doubt it. I would assume that the concern was that these children would be subjected to beliefs that they are inferior, do not belong in the country they live and cut off from learning (in a positive manner) about their culture which is very emotionally damaging.
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of comments here that immediately and 100% support this idea. I could've sworn that freedom of association is a pretty important human right and should be taken into consideration...
Really, would you allow a pair of KKK members to be foster parents to black children? Because it's the same principle. These kids don't need to hear their ethnicity and cultural heritage get demeaned on a daily basis.
Edited at 2012-11-25 12:49 am (UTC)
So what they are saying there is that they won't let the parents mess with the minds of immigrant kids or kids of colour (good choice!) but raising the local white kids to be racist is not a problem.