# Parents gather outside Birmingham school to protest against gay teacher



## editor (Feb 18, 2019)

FFS. The world is going backwards 














> A gay primary school teacher who leads diversity lessons for children said he has received threats from those who are calling for him to resign. Andrew Moffat MBE has been under fire from parents who are protesting his No Outsiders project, which teaches children about LGBTQ equality and challenges homophobia in schools. Now the assistant head, who works at Parkfield Community School in the predominantly Muslim Alum Rock area of Birmingham, says that he has been receiving ‘nasty messages’, which left him feeling ‘very threatened’.
> 
> Just last week Mr Moffat was subjected to chants of ‘say no to Moffat’ outside the school’s gates after a crowd of aorund 100 protesters turned up.
> 
> ...


Mob gathers outside Parkfield school to protest gay teacher Mr Moffat | Metro News


----------



## Edie (Feb 18, 2019)

Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.


----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2019)

Is this getting any mainstream coverage?

nothing on Momentum's site either, surprising as they are usually champions of equality.


----------



## Reno (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is this getting any mainstream coverage?
> 
> nothing on Momentum's site either, surprising as they are usually champions of equality.


How is Metro not mainsteam ?


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 18, 2019)




----------



## treelover (Feb 18, 2019)

I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.



Would it?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.



I'll tell you if it's on the local news tonight, but it's hardly a national story.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2019)

Reno said:


> How is Metro not mainsteam ?


And it was on Today last week (when it happened) iirc, fairly long segment actually.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is this getting any mainstream coverage?



If you mean "not the Daily Mail Group", a quick Google shows multiple BBC entries and a HuffPost one going back a few weeks - seems to have been rumbling on a little while.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is this getting any mainstream coverage?


yeh cos obvs that the most important thing


----------



## andysays (Feb 18, 2019)

There is already a thread about this situation started a couple of weeks (?) ago.

Worth mentioning the issue the parents have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> Worth mentioning the issue the parents claim they have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.



FFY


----------



## Edie (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> There is already a thread about this situation started a couple of weeks (?) ago.
> 
> Worth mentioning the issue the parents have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.


Which is, tbf, about accepting that gay people can have a family.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 18, 2019)

Edie said:


> Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.



What would such an "answer" even look like? 

The fundamental issue as I see it is that religious conservatives think morality is about what you _are_, rather than what you _do_.



andysays said:


> There is already a thread about this situation started a couple of weeks (?) ago.
> 
> Worth mentioning the issue the parents have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.



Religious conservatives are fine with gay people as long as they "act straight" and keep their mouths shut.


----------



## andysays (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> FFY


So are you saying that you know the motivation of everyone involved and the parents are lying?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> So are you saying that you know the motivation of everyone involved and the parents are lying?



No, it was you who claimed knowledge of their motivation.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> So are you saying that you know the motivation of everyone involved and the parents are lying?



It wouldn't shock me.

I would not, in truth, fall off my chair if it transpired that what was said in private was rather less nuanced than what is being said in public.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> So are you saying that you know the motivation of everyone involved and the parents are lying?



There's a difference between not taking someone's claims at face value, and saying that someone is lying.


----------



## cybershot (Feb 18, 2019)

Wasn't there already a thread on this.

EDIT: ah, it's inside this one: LGBT in schools vs religious parents


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

cybershot said:


> Wasn't there already a thread on this.



Yeah, about 1988, wasn't it?


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.


It is a far right group, of sorts.


----------



## cybershot (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, about 1988, wasn't it?



I appreciate ed is probably a very busy man, but he always seems the biggest culprit of his own 1st rule of the FAQ! 



> Use the 'search' function to see if your topic has already been discussed to save repeating questions/threads that already exist.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

cybershot said:


> I appreciate ed is probably a very busy man, but he always seems the biggest culprit of his own 1st rule of the FAQ!



Well, it would need to be the same case at this school in the last couple of months, to be fair.
And I think the 1980s section of the site has been archived to rolodex.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> It is a far right group, of sorts.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


>



Is it?

Change the accents, the colour of the faces and the name of the religion and any of the ideas on display would slot right into Trump's rallies.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Is it?



Is it what?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 18, 2019)

NoXion said:


> What would such an "answer" even look like?
> 
> The fundamental issue as I see it is that religious conservatives think morality is about what you _are_, rather than what you _do_.



There is also a healthy dose of intolerance thrown into the mix for good measure.  Its depressing that this sort of shit keeps happening.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Is it what?



Sorry, I thought  meant _eh?_


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

NoXion said:


> The fundamental issue as I see it is that religious conservatives think morality is about what you _are_, rather than what you _do_.



In most cases I've seen, it is down to a difference of breaking down "are" vs "do".


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Sorry, I thought  meant _eh?_



I see it as more "hmmm.." with furtive glancing about.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 18, 2019)

Course it's a far right gathering. It is a problem the UK left seems to have, where identity trumps everything. Ask an Iraqi or Turkish communist what that demo is and they'd most likely guess it's fascists.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> In most cases I've seen, it is down to a difference of breaking down "are" vs "do".



Nope. You can be the most perfectly behaved human being on the face of the planet, but you would still have a sinful nature.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Nope. You can be the most perfectly behaved human being on the face of the planet, but you would still have a sinful nature.



Yeah, but *everyone* (in Christianity, at least) has a sinful nature.

And in Islam, to my understanding, *all* sin is down to what you *do*.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, but *everyone* (in Christianity, at least) has a sinful nature.



Exactly, that's the problem.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Exactly, that's the problem.



You might want to read the edit to my post above and also bear in mind that we're not talking about Christians in this thread.
But the "are vs. do" thing would not make sense for either group if they were protesting in a similar manner.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> There is already a thread about this situation started a couple of weeks (?) ago.
> 
> Worth mentioning the issue the parents have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.


Hmmm. I've not seen the content of his classes, but I'll wager he isn't going around telling kids to be gay. He's simply spreading a message that it's ok to be gay, and perhaps using himself as an example. So I'd dispute that really, especially when they are turning up with banners saying 'my child my choice' and 'no Islamophobia'. Presumably the logic behind the latter is that 'Islam says homosexuality is wrong; this teacher is teaching that homosexuality is ok; therefore this teacher is teaching kids that Islam is wrong'. So what, they don't have a problem with him being gay, except that he's a pervert and against God.

As others have said, it is perhaps ok for them if he's gay but only if he keeps his perversion to himself. Very big of them, I'm sure. If he's out and proud, they have a problem.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> You might want to read the edit to my post above and also bear in mind that we're not talking about Christians in this thread.
> But the "are vs. do" thing would not make sense for either group if they were protesting in a similar manner.



Genesis is part of the Muslim creation story and Man's actions due to his nature got him kicked out of the Garden of Eden, no?


----------



## andysays (Feb 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. I've not seen the content of his classes, but I'll wager he isn't going around telling kids to be gay. He's simply spreading a message that it's ok to be gay, and perhaps using himself as an example. So I'd dispute that really, especially when they are turning up with banners saying 'my child my choice' and 'no Islamophobia'. Presumably the logic behind the latter is that 'Islam says homosexuality is wrong; this teacher is teaching that homosexuality is ok; therefore this teacher is teaching kids that Islam is wrong'. So what, they don't have a problem with him being gay, except that he's a pervert and against God.
> 
> As others have said, it is perhaps ok for them if he's gay but only if he keeps his perversion to himself. Very big of them, I'm sure. If he's out and proud, they have a problem.


I've read the original story and the original thread, so I  have a pretty good idea about the content of the programme which appears to be the source of the problem.

There seem to be some pretty significant assumptions being made on this thread, based mostly on the fact that many/most of the parents are Muslim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> I've read the original story and the original thread, so I  have a pretty good idea about the content of the programme which appears to be the source of the problem.
> 
> There seem to be some pretty significant assumptions being made on this thread, based mostly on the fact that many/most of the parents are Muslim.


Meh. I doubt you'd be taking that line if this was someone like Mary Whitehouse with a bunch of Christians outside the door. At least some are accusing this teacher of Islamophobia. Why might that be, do you think?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Genesis is part of the Muslim creation story...



Not really, a version with some pretty important differences is, though...



NoXion said:


> and Man's actions due to his nature got him kicked out of the Garden of Eden, no?



No, his choices got him and Hawwa (Eve) exiled from Eden, and his sins were not transmitted to his children.


----------



## andysays (Feb 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Meh. I doubt you'd be taking that line if this was someone like Mary Whitehouse with a bunch of Christians outside the door. At least some are accusing this teacher of Islamophobia. Why might that be, do you think?


But it *isn't *Mary Whitehouse, so not sure why you've chosen to bring her into it.

Anyway, thread can carry on quite happily without me, I'm sure


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2019)

treelover said:


> I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.



I mean to me it is a far right group outside a school.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2019)

andysays said:


> Worth mentioning the issue the parents have is not with the fact that the teacher is gay, it's with a new programme he's introduced.



Pretty sure that's also Putin's line on similar issues. Do we believe him too?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I mean to me it is a far right group outside a school.



I'm not sure how well a right/left model fits in this case.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure how well a right/left model fits in this case.



It doesn't really fit anything in the real world but moaning about the gays corrupting our youth is a traditionally right-wing trope.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> It doesn't really fit anything in the real world but moaning about the gays corrupting our youth is a traditionally right-wing trope.



Yeah (generally), but that doesn't make them a far right group.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

Here’s the teacher’s twitter feed: Andrew Moffat (@moffat_andrew) on Twitter

I think most parents, including most Muslim parents, at the school have backed him though this doesn’t really come across from the media coverage.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure how well a right/left model fits in this case.


The reporting of this hasn’t been great but I expect Islamists will have been involved in organising the protests and what are they if not religious right?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

zahir said:


> I think most parents, including most Muslim parents, at the school have backed him though this doesn’t really come across from the media coverage.



No, it certainly doesn't.
There is also a willing conflation of the proportion of Muslim families in the area vs. the proportion of families opposing this teaching.

It's hard to get a good idea of the balance of things from this kind of coverage, but one thing I like to consider when pondering how broad-based and "organic" a protest is:  "are most/all of the banners in the same font / handwriting?".


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

zahir said:


> The reporting of this hasn’t been great but I expect Islamists will have been involved in organising the protests and what are they if not religious right?



Well, if you take a sub-section of a sub-section and then apply it to one thing that some people are doing, you could argue that, but it feels like a bit of a stretch.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

I’m not sure I follow. Is it that you don’t see Islamists as being on the right, or that you don’t see these protests as being primarily organised by Islamists?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

zahir said:


> I’m not sure I follow. Is it that you don’t see Islamists as being on the right, or that you don’t these protests as being primarily organised by Islamists?



I don't know whether they are primarily organised by Islamists - that was your contention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah (generally), but that doesn't make them a far right group.



It does however make them twats.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> I don't know whether they are primarily organised by Islamists - that was your contention.



Fair enough. I’m not certain about this and my assumptions may be wrong. One of the problems I have with the media coverage is a lack of questioning about how the campaign came to be organised and what people’s agendas are.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

zahir said:


> Fair enough. I’m not certain about this and my assumptions may be wrong. One of the problems I have with the media coverage is a lack of questioning about how the campaign came to be organised and what people’s agendas are.



Yeah, it's pretty patchy and "tropey" tbf.  And with no detail about particular specific objections, which implies that there aren't any to some, and could imply that there is an "Advanced Fisting" module in year 3 to others.

There is a little bit of context in an older article here, but it doesn't directly clear up what we have been discussing.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Change the accents, the colour of the faces and the name of the religion and any of the ideas on display would slot right into Trump's rallies.




They seem to have had some Christian support.


> We contend that Christian Voice did more for community relations this morning than any amount of gay indoctrination. This ministry put aside faith differences to support the parents and help protect their children. Furthermore, we promised to help the parents put an action plan together. Above all, we showed that not all British people accept the rampant secularism of the British Establishment and corrupt indoctrination like No Outsiders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2019)

zahir said:


> They seem to have had some Christian support.


Extremist nutjobs, Christian Voice, in the opinion of most Christians let alone anyone else.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Extremist nutjobs, Christian Voice, in the opinion of most Christians let alone anyone else.



There was a tie in between Christian Voice (or whatever it was called at the time..) and some local 'community leaders' when I lived in Brum (as a filthy, idle student) in the mid-90's. 

Same suit, different cuff-links.


----------



## zahir (Feb 18, 2019)

This report gives some figures. 

770 pupils, 98 per cent Muslim, 400 parents have signed a petition. So that’s maybe approaching a third of the Muslim parents.

School defends LGBT lessons after religious parents complain


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

zahir said:


> This report gives some figures.
> 
> 770 pupils, 98 per cent Muslim, 400 parents have signed a petition. So that’s maybe approaching a third of the Muslim parents.
> 
> School defends LGBT lessons after religious parents complain



That article doesn't present the 98% as a rock-solid figure imo, but if it's close then yeah, that would be about right.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2019)

Is the Birmingham Left/lGBT activists planning any sort of counter protest?

btw, very revealing that this issue has only has under 1500 views, in any other context, the viewership would be huge


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 19, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is the Birmingham Left/lGBT activists planning any sort of counter protest?
> 
> btw, very revealing that this issue has only has under 1500 views, in any other context, the viewership would be huge



Might be.

would it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is the Birmingham Left/lGBT activists planning any sort of counter protest?
> 
> btw, very revealing that this issue has only has under 1500 views, in any other context, the viewership would be huge


*newsflash* the views counter is not accurate
very revealing you measure things in views which don't have any relevance or effect


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> Might be.
> 
> would it?


it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it's wicked to mock the afflicted



someting something the left...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> someting something the left...


someting indeed.


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2019)

Are they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> someting indeed.





treelover said:


> Are they?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 19, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> *newsflash* the views counter is not accurate
> very revealing you measure things in views which don't have any relevance or effect



You've not encountered treelover before then I take it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 20, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure how well a right/left model fits in this case.



Just what I was thinking myself.


----------



## chilango (Feb 20, 2019)

treelover said:


> btw, very revealing that this issue has only has under 1500 views, in any other context, the viewership would be huge


There's 29 pages on the other thread to be fair.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 20, 2019)

Edie said:


> Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam.


 Not entirely sure about that. I remember there being a pretty strong gay culture in Morocco when I used to visit twenty odd years ago. At the time it seemed more out than many european/ uk places.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 21, 2019)

kenny g said:


> Not entirely sure about that. I remember there being a pretty strong gay culture in Morocco when I used to visit twenty odd years ago. At the time it seemed more out than many european/ uk places.



Islam is a lot more heterogeneous than it is often thought of by some (not talking about the Urban crowd tbf).  Considering there are *loads* of Muslims from a bunch of cultural traditions in a load of different places, you can’t really expect such a diverse bunch to live up to a British tabloid stereotype, really.


----------



## kenny g (Feb 21, 2019)

8ball said:


> Islam is a lot more heterogeneous than it is often thought of by some (not talking about the Urban crowd tbf).  Considering there are *loads* of Muslims from a bunch of cultural traditions in a load of different places, you can’t really expect such a diverse bunch to live up to a British tabloid stereotype, really.



Precisely, it really pisses me off when massive assumptions are made like, "muslims don't drink" when I know loads who do. It is like saying catholics don't use contraceptives when of course many do. You end up pandering to the extremists and denying the religion of people who are doing what has been done for ever, which is taking a realistic approach to law and religion.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 21, 2019)

kenny g said:


> Precisely, it really pisses me off when massive assumptions are made like, "muslims don't drink" when I know loads who do.



I know a couple of Muslims who drink, but very modestly.  As in two glasses of wine and that's it, even at a party (actually I think it's only special occasions* where they'll partake at all).  My understanding is that the earliest edicts were about turning up to Friday prayers intoxicated, then more were added about public intoxication generally and it went from there, and different traditions and cultures settle at different points on that spectrum.

Some Christians do similar.

* - not my interpretation of a special occasion, such as it being a rainy day, or a sunny day, or night time...


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

Edie said:


> Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.


Your post comes across a bit like "too may foreigners ruining our cultural norms". Have i miseread your post?
 I dont see this as an issue of multiculturalism, i see it as religious orthodox dicks being a pain. UK and Ireland have a rich seem of religious zealots going back hundreds of years, exported to boot - fucking up swathes of the world, with plenty still about, still acting this way.
And there is an answer to these people: the law.


----------



## cybershot (Mar 5, 2019)

Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest


----------



## miss direct (Mar 5, 2019)

Imagine being a child in that school and thinking you might be gay...


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2019)

Religious cunts.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2019)

miss direct said:


> Imagine being a child in that school and thinking you might be gay...



Indeed.  Gay kids have a massively difficult time accepting themselves for who they are without having to contend with parents behaving like twats like in this case.


----------



## Reno (Mar 5, 2019)

kenny g said:


> Not entirely sure about that. I remember there being a pretty strong gay culture in Morocco when I used to visit twenty odd years ago. At the time it seemed more out than many european/ uk places.


Gay sex is illegal in Morocco and carries a term of three years in prison. They are more likely to turn a blind eye there than in more hard-line Muslim countries and there are all sorts of tales of what the gay jet set got up to there in the 70s, but it's still a homophobic country.


----------



## zahir (Mar 5, 2019)

> On Friday about 600 Muslim children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from the school for the day, parents said. The school would not confirm the number.


 
From this it sounds like I was wrong and the majority of parents are backing the protests - which is depressing.


----------



## miss direct (Mar 5, 2019)

Yes, similar tale in Turkey. While it's not illegal to be gay or have gay sex, homophobia and discrimination are rife, and getting worse as the country becomes more religious.


----------



## Reno (Mar 5, 2019)

miss direct said:


> Yes, similar tale in Turkey. While it's not illegal to be gay or have gay sex, homophobia and discrimination are rife, and getting worse as the country becomes more religious.


I have a gay Turkish friend who has recently left Istanbul so he could marry his partner here in Berlin, mainly to eventually gain citizenship. It's all getting too scary there if you are gay.


----------



## zahir (Mar 5, 2019)

cybershot said:


> Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest



The school is saying the headline is misleading.


----------



## zahir (Mar 5, 2019)

Labour MP Shabana Mahmood coming under criticism from CEMB. It does sound misleading for her to claim that there hadn’t been consultation with parents.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 5, 2019)

The hard-right is already making hay from this on Twitter, I expect.


----------



## zahir (Mar 5, 2019)

Letter from the school to parents.

https://fluencycontent2-schoolwebsi...s/Letters/No-Outsiders-Equality-Education.pdf


----------



## Wookey (Mar 5, 2019)

zahir said:


> Letter from the school to parents.
> 
> https://fluencycontent2-schoolwebsi...s/Letters/No-Outsiders-Equality-Education.pdf



Now that's how you write a letter! Fair but clear.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2019)

zahir said:


> Letter from the school to parents.
> 
> https://fluencycontent2-schoolwebsi...s/Letters/No-Outsiders-Equality-Education.pdf



I'm upset that they use 'I' and 'we' in the letter, given it was from the board of governors (or whatever).  Where do I protest?

Pedant-in-chief Pickman's model will tell me that I'm wrong, no doubt.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2019)

Wookey said:


> Now that's how you write a letter! Fair but clear.



They should have told the bigots where to shove it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2019)

Where are the twitter outrages, the street protests, any other group acted like this, there would have been uproar, look at the coverage, the cake makers got, you can be sure Robinson and CO are pointing this out to their followers.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 5, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> They should have told the bigots where to shove it.



Not sure that was a chapter in How To Win Friends and Influence People...


----------



## zahir (Mar 6, 2019)

Pupils shouldn’t be denied LGBT lessons – whatever their parents say | Benali Hamdache


> Local MPs Liam Byrne and Shabana Mahmood have been championing the views of the petitions’ supporters, demanding the right for parents to opt out their children. Their comments and the decision to stop the lessons have sparked fury on social media.
> 
> I found myself browsing the comments with trepidation. I grew up gay in a Muslim household. I was opted out of sex education at the same age as the children of Parkfield, and I could easily imagine myself as any one of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## zahir (Mar 6, 2019)

This report mentions a petition with 350 names - which certainly wouldn’t be a majority of parents. The school isn’t confirming the number of children withdrawn for the protests so it isn’t clear if the figure of 600 given in the Guardian report is correct.

School says LGBT lessons WILL continue after Easter


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2019)

Shabana Mahmood under fire for comments on LGBT lessons in schools - LabourList


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

This is pretty grim.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

zahir said:


> This is pretty grim.




Complaining about indoctrination while standing on the back of a truck with a megaphone telling people, many of them kids, what to think.

Twat.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> They should have told the bigots where to shove it.



I dunno, I admire people who can keep their powder dry enough to remain coherent even when confronted with infuriating levels of stupidity.

These religious folk (of all flavours) are already being done a massive favour by schools not teaching the blindingly obvious fact that religion only survives thanks to the systematic indoctrination of those too young to make informed decisions and the threat of repercussions both mortal and divine for those whoe question or challenge that indoctrination.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2019)

But these bigots seemingly are not the same as those say, orange bigots, or the Westfield bigots, or the cake making bigots, or the TERFS, they seem to be getting a pass from much of the liberal and far left, though thankfully not all on here.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 9, 2019)

zahir said:


> This is pretty grim.




'No outsiders'

I wonder how they would feel if a bunch of people protested against the notion that _their_ lifestyles should be accepted.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> But these bigots seemingly are not the same as those say, orange bigots, or the Westfield bigots, or the cake making bigots, or the TERFS, they seem to be getting a pass from much of the liberal and far left, though thankfully not all on here.



Probably because your standard white liberal is actually pretty racist, and cannot separate the behaviour of this particular group of people from the community* to which they belong, even though they would have no problem making that distinction with bigoted arseholes within their own demographic. Everybody knows you can't talk shit about Muslims, so the only option is to keep schtum altogether.

*Community, n. : group of people who are not like us.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> But these bigots seemingly are not the same as those say, orange bigots, or the Westfield bigots, or the cake making bigots, or the TERFS, they seem to be getting a pass from much of the liberal and far left, though thankfully not all on here.


That's just the madness of liberal/left identity/anti-oppression politics for you.


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

They seem to be taking an ecumenical approach to religious bigotry.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

zahir said:


> They seem to be taking an ecumenical approach to religious bigotry.




This may not be a productive approach tbh. If it's no longer a 'Muslim thing' then it becomes unambiguously a 'bigotry thing'.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2019)

> People need to pay more attention because this controversy is likely to get bigger.
> [thread]



from Sunny's tweet.

Absolutely, you can be sure the far right, robinson followers, etc, will be noting all this.


----------



## tim (Mar 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> Where are the twitter outrages, the street protests, any other group acted like this, there would have been uproar, look at the coverage, the cake makers got, you can be sure Robinson and CO are pointing this out to their followers.



Other major religious groups have their own state funded schools within most of which a programme like "No Outsiders" wouldn't get a look in.

Here's an article from the Catholic Herald on the topic.

Including the following quote from education minister Dominic Hind



> “Well, schools of a religious character are able to reflect the ethos of their school in these lessons, and in how some of these subjects are taught,” Hinds says. He sees “a really positive change” in the government’s decision to make “relationships education” compulsory in primary schools. The emphasis, he says, is on relationships: “family and indeed friends, and all the important relationships that go to make up our lives. It’s about much more than sex education.”



‘Schools should consult parents’: an interview with Education Secretary Damian Hinds | Catholic Herald

And anyway, whilst God-botherer bashing, particularly of God-botherers who are perceived as having lifestyles, goes down well with certain posters here, don't you think the school might have mismanaged this a bit. Mr Moffat may well be an excellent classroom performer, but that doesn't mean he's not prone to siting on the occasional tuffet. Perhaps the school did that very teacherly thing of treating working class parents with distain and are suffering as a consequence

Social conservatism is not a uniquely Muslim phenomena. I have to look no further than my own family to see that. My nine year old nephew is curious to know the identity of his cousin's father . His anti-religious father is adamant that we can't just tell him it is  the woman he knows as Aunty X. When I read this:



> Two parents told Birmingham Live that children – one of them aged four – had come home asking if it was OK to change sex.



I could see my B in L joining in such protests


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

zahir said:


> .


Good point well made


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

I was trying to link to the full version of the video but the link wouldn’t work for me. Anyway the link is in the  third tweet in Sunny Hundal’s thread if anyone is interested.


----------



## tim (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Good point well made


A pointless post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

tim said:


> A pointless post.


You are Alexander Armstrong and I claim my £5


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 9, 2019)

tim said:


> Other major religious groups have their own state funded schools within most of which a programme like "No Outsiders" wouldn't get a look in.
> 
> Here's an article from the Catholic Herald on the topic.
> 
> ...



I didn't think anyone here has argued social conservatism is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon, have they? As I understand it, this is all taking place at a non-denominational state school, so I don't see state funded _religious_ schools being an issue either (for the record, religious schools are an abomination). That film shows what would be a typical far right demo... that is, it would be typical if those participating weren't predominantly brown/Muslim. If those on "the left" can't even call to smash all bigotry, whatever the religious, cultural or ethnic background of the bigots involved, then the wider far right (e.g Yaxley-Lennon types) will continue to make ground.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 9, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> I didn't think anyone here has argued social conservatism is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon, have they? As I understand it, this is all taking place at a non-denominational state school, so I don't see state funded _religious_ schools being an issue either (for the record, religious schools are an abomination). That film shows what would be a typical far right demo... that is, it would be typical if those participating weren't predominantly brown/Muslim. If those on "the left" can't even call to smash all bigotry, whatever the religious, cultural or ethnic background of the bigots involved, then the wider far right (e.g Yaxley-Lennon types) will continue to make ground.


Basically this. 

Those who want a secular society are always in a battle against those who would wish to impose their religious sensibilities upon the rest of us, which is what these protesters are doing, whether they think they are doing it or not. There is a muddle here in some places. Reminds me of the equivocation in certain quarters over the shutting down of the play Behzti in Birmingham in 2004. Certain people - whether Muslim, Christian, Sikh or whatever - consider their religious beliefs to be deserving of special attention and protection, to the extent that everyone else ought to fall in line with their boundaries, and very often, as here and as in the case of that allegedly anti-Sikh play, receiving support from other religious groups that share a common cause in opposing the secularisation of society. 

It's a pretty important battle, this, imo, and it is in danger of being lost again.


----------



## mojo pixy (Mar 9, 2019)

Not lost IMO, conceded. By liberals in the main, who find the whole gnarl-up of hot-topic issues too complicated to unravel. Homophobes .. but with brown skin .. and muslims omg noooooooooo

run away.


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

LGBTI Muslims condemn homophobic school protests in Birmingham

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lgbti-muslims-condemn-homophobic-school-protests-in-birmingham/amp/


----------



## 8ball (Mar 9, 2019)

The media portrayal of this stuff seems to have glossed over the fact that this isn't even just about LGBT children, but about inclusion or otherwise of *any* children from certain unconventional family backgrounds because of their parents or other relatives.


----------



## zahir (Mar 9, 2019)

A follow up thread from Sunny Hundal.


----------



## Riklet (Mar 10, 2019)

What a bunch of bigots.

At the same time, it does come across as naive at best trialing the new lgbt stuff in a school which is 90% Asian, and which is probably quite a conservative area in general.

Has this programme already been rolled out in wealthier, more ethnically mixed areas then?


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2019)

Salma Yaqoob, formerly of Respect,  seemed to defend the parents on The Big Questions, maybe with a bit more nuance, the parents weren't consulted' anyone else note this.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> I didn't think anyone here has argued social conservatism is a uniquely Muslim phenomenon, have they? As I understand it, this is all taking place at a non-denominational state school, so I don't see state funded _religious_ schools being an issue either (for the record, religious schools are an abomination). That film shows what would be a typical far right demo... that is, it would be typical if those participating weren't predominantly brown/Muslim. If those on "the left" can't even call to smash all bigotry, whatever the religious, cultural or ethnic background of the bigots involved, then the wider far right (e.g Yaxley-Lennon types) will continue to make ground.



Socially Conservative Christians in England (or at least Roman Catholics and Anglicans) have the choice to send their children to schools run by their own faith, this is not an option for Muslims as there are only 13 Muslim primary schools in the state sector. That does make the state funding of religious schools an issue as some communities are clearly treated preferentially.

Also a school that is inept enough to piss off 600 parents, not all of whom can be dismissed as "bigots" clearly does have a problem.

PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Type of school Total schools Percentage of total
No religious character 10,609 63.2
Church of England 4,377 26.1
Roman Catholic 1,645 9.8
Methodist 25 0.1
Other 72 0.4
Jewish 36 0.2
Muslim 13 0.1
Sikh 5 –
Hindu 4


----------



## Sue (Mar 10, 2019)

The response in recent years has been to create more denominational schools in different flavours to try and redress this imbalance. A much better way of dealing with it would be abolishing denominational schools in general.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> That does make the state funding of religious schools an issue as some communities are clearly treated preferentially.



Religious people in general are given preferential treatment over non-religious people. I don't really give a shit about any one religion getting more or less than their fair share of schools. If they've got more than zero they've got too many.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

treelover said:


> Salma Yaqoob, formerly of Respect,  seemed to defend the parents on The Big Questions, maybe with a bit more nuance, the parents weren't consulted' anyone else note this.



Five'll get you ten these same parents don't give a shit about not being consulted on any other aspect of the curriculum.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Basically this.
> 
> Those who want a secular society are always in a battle against those who would wish to impose their religious sensibilities upon the rest of us, which is what these protesters are doing, whether they think they are doing it or not. There is a muddle here in some places.



I'm not that keen on anyone who wants to impose their views on anyone. You seem to want to impose your supposedly "secular" views on those around you, and I'm not convinced that l want them imposed on me. Why should I trust you and your values than anyone else peddling a set of beliefs that I find unpalatable.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 10, 2019)

Cultural relativism at its worst.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Can you impose secularism on people or is it just a condition where nothing is being imposed at all? The alternatives to secularism definitely seem to involve a lot more things being imposed on a lot more people.


----------



## Reno (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> 'm not that keen on anyone who wants to impose their views on anyone. You seem to want to impose your supposedly "secular" views on those around you, and I'm not convinced that l want them imposed on me. Why should I trust you and your values than anyone else peddling a set of beliefs that I find unpalatable.



Don't impose views on religion, it should have no place in a modern class room. Not teaching religion is not imposing secular views, it's just an absence of imposing religious views.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Religious people in general are given preferential treatment over non-religious people. I don't really give a shit about any one religion getting more or less than their fair share of schools. If they've got more than zero they've got too many.



I don't see many ways that Muslims are treated preferentially in our society, look beyond schools and consider the statistics on Islamophobic attacks. The ongoing issues of Antisemitism in the Labour Party reflect the fact that British Jews don't exactly get an easy ride, either.

Have you had the shit beaten out of you for daring to be secular?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

If I was part of a minority religious group I'm not sure I'd be so keen to argue for religious doctrines deciding what goes in the school curriculum, for the simple reason that it wouldn't be the doctrines of my religion that would get the casting vote. It's just bad game theory, you're handing the other lot a win over your lot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't see many ways that Muslims are treated preferentially in our society



Is that what I said? It's not is it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> Have you had the shit beaten out of you for daring to be secular?



I have the good fortune not to have been raised by a religious family, and in a secular-ish society. Others aren't so lucky, and do face real consequences for giving up on the religion they're expected to belong to.

I'm not 'secular' anyway. I'm just a person.


----------



## Reno (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't see many ways that Muslims are treated preferentially in our society, look beyond schools and consider the statistics on Islamophobic attacks. The ongoing issues of Antisemitism in the Labour Party reflect the fact that British Jews don't exactly get an easy ride, either.
> 
> Have you had the shit beaten out of you for daring to be secular?


I've had the shit beaten out for being gay because me being gay offended a bunch of religions people. I bet you they would see that as an evil of secularism that I'm being granted to freedom to exist as a gay man.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can you impose secularism on people or is it just a condition where nothing is being imposed at all? The alternatives to secularism definitely seem to involve a lot more things being imposed on a lot more people.



I wouldn't trust anyone who makes the following comment not to impose their norms if put in a position to take decisions over other people's lives.




SpookyFrank said:


> Five'll get you ten these same parents don't give a shit about not being consulted on any other aspect of the curriculum.



You clearly have contempt for these parents otherwise you wouldn't assume they have no issues with the curriculum other than this. Do you distain them just because of their faith? Does social class or ethnicity also play a part?

On the broader level I look at the approach taken by the French state to "secularisation" banning the hijab and kippah. Forcing people to conform to the state dictated norms and see little to envy.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is that what I said? It's not is it?



You said:

_Religious people in general are given preferential treatment over non-religious people_

Are you saying that doesn't include religious Muslims? Are there any other faith groups that you'd exclude?


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 10, 2019)

I also have contempt for these parents


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

Reno said:


> I've had the shit beaten out for being gay because me being gay offended a bunch of religions people. I bet you they would see that as an evil of secularism that I'm being granted to freedom to exist as a gay man.



They might do, but other bigots use "secularism" as an excuse to attack religious minorities Geert Wilders has built a political career out of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> You said:
> 
> _Religious people in general are given preferential treatment over non-religious people_
> 
> Are you saying that doesn't include religious Muslims? Are there any other faith groups that you'd exclude?



Context. We're talking about schools. Muslim kids will get preferential access to Christian schools as well as muslim schools. Religious schools aren't allowed to say 'no Jews' or whatever but they can preferentially accept children 'of faith' before faithless ones.

Why would a non christian parent send their kid to a christian school? Well, from your own data we see that supply outstrips demand there, only 16% of the population is CofE, but 26% of the schools. Also selective intake provides religious chools with fun opporunities to gerrymander their student bodies and thus their exam results, so on paper a christian school may be better than the local faithless alternative. Assuming there is an alternative. If you live in a little village somewhere, maybe there's one school your kid can physically get to. If it happens to be a jesus school, well either pretend your kid loves jesus or start saving up for bus fares.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> I also have contempt for these parents



All 350/600 of them, even  though you don't actually know them? Why?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I wouldn't trust anyone who makes the following comment not to impose their norms if put in a position to take decisions over other people's lives.



I'm not likely to be in any such position any time soon don't worry.

 I don't really know what your point is tbh. It seems to just be that someone not liking bigotry or dogma makes them a dogmatic bigot. If so, you're an idiot. If not, well what actually is your point?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can you impose secularism on people or is it just a condition where nothing is being imposed at all? The alternatives to secularism definitely seem to involve a lot more things being imposed on a lot more people.


And let's be clear here. This isn't a school 'promoting homosexuality' or any of that rubbish. These protests are straight out of the Thatcher Clause 28 school of bigotry, whereby to even suggest that there is nothing wrong with being gay, to a classroom of kids that is likely to include at least a couple of gay kids or kids who will grow up to be gay, is 'promoting homosexuality' and somehow an affront to the religious beliefs of homophobes. Some might think that the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of diversity, which is all this is, is simply showing a responsible duty of care for group of kids that is going to include such diversity. 

And yes, there is a clash here between a group of homophobes and a school that wishes to teach kids about diversity and respect. That group of homophobes shows no respect for gay people. Rather, they try to justify their homophobia with religion, and impose their homophobia on the school dressed up in religious clothing and outrage. But anyway, I'm pretty happy to say that my norm, my dogma, my ideology, that there is nothing wrong with being gay is the one that should prevail here. It is a betrayal of gay people - of gay kids in this case - to say any different.


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I'm not that keen on anyone who wants to impose their views on anyone. You seem to want to impose your supposedly "secular" views on those around you, and I'm not convinced that l want them imposed on me. Why should I trust you and your values than anyone else peddling a set of beliefs that I find unpalatable.



Were you in Respect Tim?


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> All 350/600 of them, even  though you don't actually know them? Why?


Well, they may well be perfectly nice people in many other ways, but I wouldn't trust any of them to be supportive of their kids if they were not 100% hetero, nor any of the other kids at that school... so yeah, fuck 'em. Bigoted wankers.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I wouldn't trust anyone who makes the following comment not to impose their norms if put in a position to take decisions over other people's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





tim said:


> They might do, but other bigots use "secularism" as an excuse to attack religious minorities Geert Wilders has built a political career out of it.


I couldn’t care a less what superstitions people have or what they choose to worship, but I strongly object when people want to impose their religious morals on me or or anyone else. If a religion thinks being gay is intrinsically wrong or in some way inferior to being straight, then I would suggest they should not be allowed to influence children, in the same way that I would not want to see people who believe certain races are superior to others being allowed any input into a schools curriculum. All schools should be secular, and people should stop pandering to these minority’s amongst us. These parents should be prosecuted for not ensuring their kids attend school period


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And let's be clear here. This isn't a school 'promoting homosexuality' or any of that rubbish. These protests are straight out of the Thatcher Clause 28 school of bigotry, whereby to even suggest that there is nothing wrong with being gay, to a classroom of kids that is likely to include at least a couple of gay kids or kids who will grow up to be gay, is 'promoting homosexuality' and somehow an affront to the religious beliefs of homophobes. Some might think that the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of diversity, which is all this is, is simply showing a responsible duty of care for group of kids that is going to include such diversity.
> 
> And yes, there is a clash here between a group of homophobes and a school that wishes to teach kids about diversity and respect. That group of homophobes shows no respect for gay people. Rather, they try to justify their homophobia with religion, and impose their homophobia on the school dressed up in religious clothing and outrage. But anyway, I'm pretty happy to say that my norm, my dogma, my ideology, that there is nothing wrong with being gay is the one that should prevail here. It is a betrayal of gay people - of gay kids in this case - to say any different.



Echoes of the current situation in Russia too, where the official line is that you can be gay as long as you don't corrupt the kids with your gayness but the real situation on the ground is routine, organised, state-sanctioned homophobic violence.


----------



## Reno (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> They might do, but other bigots use "secularism" as an excuse to attack religious minorities Geert Wilders has built a political career out of it.



You asked about "having the shit beaten out of you" for who you are. Unpalatable as I may find his opinions, I'm not aware Geert Wilders has made a career out of literally beating the shit out of Muslims. I don't need a lecture about that there being populist politicians who exploit Islamophobia, in repose to my answer to your question.

Islamophobes who beat up Muslims don't justify their actions with "they are threatening our secular values". Usually they are yobs who just need another reason to beat someone up. Most Muslims who get assaulted or murdered for their beliefs, get attacked by people of a different religion, sometimes even by fundamentalist Muslims who interpret the Koran differently.

Your narrative of self-identified secular mobs beating up Muslims is a fantasy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Echoes of the current situation in Russia too, where the official line is that you can be gay as long as you don't corrupt the kids with your gayness but the real situation on the ground is routine, organised, state-sanctioned homophobic violence.


We're not so far historically from where Russia is now. Clause 28 was only repealed in 2003. And Russia shows how it is possible to go backwards on these matters as well as forwards. Allowing religious bigotry to trump gay rights would be a step backwards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I wouldn't trust anyone who makes the following comment not to impose their norms if put in a position to take decisions over other people's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty shameful of you to try to play the race card in this.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 10, 2019)

treelover said:


> Were you in Respect Tim?


The old "don't mention LGBT stuff, it's racist" party?


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

treelover said:


> Were you in Respect Tim?


Far too Authoritarian for me. And anyway I had some previous experience of just how unpleasant Galloway could be.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

Reno said:


> You asked about "having the shit beaten out of you" for who you are. Unpalatable as I may find his opinions, I'm not aware Geert Wilders has made a career out of literally beating the shit out of Muslims. I don't need a lecture about that there being populist politicians who exploit Islamophobia, in repose to my answer to your question.
> 
> Islamophobes who beat up Muslims don't justify their actions with "they are threatening our secular values". Usually they are yobs who just need another reason to beat someone up. Most Muslims who get assaulted or murdered for their beliefs, get attacked by people of a different religion, sometimes even by fundamentalist Mu
> 
> ...



Wilders like politicians in France use "secularism" as a dog-whistle garner racist support. I  doubt that Wilders gets his hands and feet too bloody, but he's happy to court the votes of those who are less inhibited.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're not so far historically from where Russia is now. Clause 28 was only repealed in 2003. And Russia shows how it is possible to go backwards on these matters as well as forwards. Allowing religious bigotry to trump gay rights would be a step backwards.



Except parents being unhappy about the sex education curriculum in primary schools isn't a particularly religious issue, is it? If these had been parents in middle-class conservative white catchment area this would not have created this level of vitriol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> Wilders like politicians in France use "secularism" as a dog-whistle garner racist support.



Probably better not to keep reinforcing the association of secularism with bigotry then.

Racists, and I know this is hard to believe, are sometimes less than honest in their use of language. Sometimes they may claim to be motivated by one thing while actually being motivated by something else, for example not liking a certain group of people.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

Reno said:


> Islamophobes who beat up Muslims don't justify their actions with "they are threatening our secular values". Usually they are yobs who just need another reason to beat someone up. Most Muslims who get assaulted or murdered for their beliefs, get attacked by people of a different religion, sometimes even by fundamentalist Muslims who interpret the Koran differently.



You live in Germany. Whatever other values they espoused,   the  National Socialists imposed an overtly secular regime. Not all those running the camps were "yobs", it didn't stop them murdering Jews, gays and other minorities for the greater good.

The Stalinists weren't to keen on minorities, either.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> If these had been parents in middle-class conservative white catchment area this would not have created this level of vitriol



If a bunch of white people from the suburbs started complaining about how a teacher was telling their kids stuff that contradicted the quran I think the intial reaction would be one of sheer bewilderment tbh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> You live in Germany. Whatever other values they espoused,   the  National Socialists imposed an overtly secular regime. Not all those running the camps were "yobs", it didn't stop them murdering Jews, gays and other minorities for the greater good.
> 
> The Stalinists weren't to keen on minorities, either.



You're a fucking idiot, I'm done with you.


----------



## Reno (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> You live in Germany. Whatever other values they espoused,   the  National Socialists imposed an overtly secular regime. Not all those running the camps were "yobs", it didn't stop them murdering Jews, gays and other minorities for the greater good.
> 
> The Stalinists weren't to keen on minorities, either.



Kindly go fuck yourself !


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> You live in Germany. Whatever other values they espoused,   the  National Socialists imposed an overtly secular regime. Not all those running the camps were "yobs", it didn't stop them murdering Jews, gays and other minorities for the greater good.


----------



## zahir (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I'm not that keen on anyone who wants to impose their views on anyone. You seem to want to impose your supposedly "secular" views on those around you, and I'm not convinced that l want them imposed on me. Why should I trust you and your values than anyone else peddling a set of beliefs that I find unpalatable.



A central part of what is happening in Birmingham is one group of Muslim parents trying to impose their views on other Muslim parents. The numbers involved seem to be disputed and I’m really not sure if they’re speaking for the majority of parents or not. Either way there is still a large group of parents choosing not to take their children out of school for the protests. You appear to be supporting the rights of religiously and socially conservative Muslims over the rights of the more secular minded. Muslims aren’t one homogenous group who all share the same views any more than Christians or Jews are.


----------



## zahir (Mar 10, 2019)

There is never a reason for bigotry at the school gates | Kenan Malik

I was struck by this quote from a 2016 Guardian report that Kenan Malik links to in his article. The obvious point is that there are fault lines in families and communities. The religiously conservative aren’t speaking for everyone.


> The parent of a 10-year-old admitted her views differed from her husband’s: “My husband is a strict Muslim and my son asked him about the difference between what the school says and our religion. He did not give him a good reply. My reply was that God has created us and he is the only one who can judge us. I have told my son that it wouldn’t matter if he came home to me and said he was gay, you are my son and I will love you no matter what.”


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> If a bunch of white people from the suburbs started complaining about how a teacher was telling their kids stuff that contradicted the quran I think the intial reaction would be one of sheer bewilderment tbh.



Would you be less bewildered by this, a comment, which doesn't mention the Quran from the woman who led the protest? Do you really think you wouldn't here it in the white suburbs? If not why all the focus on the religious aspect?

T_he issue was first raised by Fatima Shah, who pulled her 10-year-old daughter out of the school, saying children were too young to be learning about same-sex marriages and LGBT rights in the classroom.

“We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” she said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused._

Muslims are a very easy target but, but frothing on about this all being about religion/Islamic bigotry ignores the fact that such views are held in plenty of other sections of society

Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> _“We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” she said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused._
> 
> Muslims are a very easy target but, but frothing on about this all being about religion/Islamic bigotry ignores the fact that such views are held in plenty of other sections of society



It's hard to judge without seeing what particular parts of this programme the parents are objecting to.
The groups that are making the noise about this don't seem all that forthcoming with examples.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> Except parents being unhappy about the sex education curriculum in primary schools isn't a particularly religious issue, is it? If these had been parents in middle-class conservative white catchment area this would not have created this level of vitriol


If their objection had centred on the mentioning of diversity and same-sex relationships, it would have attracted exactly the same amount of vitriol from me. Take your hypocrisy hunting elsewhere. It doesn't work here.


----------



## zahir (Mar 10, 2019)

BBC Big Questions had a discussion on this from Birmingham today (starting at 32 minutes in).

BBC iPlayer - The Big Questions - Series 12: Episode 10


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2019)

zahir said:


> There is never a reason for bigotry at the school gates | Kenan Malik
> 
> I was struck by this quote from a 2016 Guardian report that Kenan Malik links to in his article. The obvious point is that there are fault lines in families and communities. The religiously conservative aren’t speaking for everyone.



I'm sure parents are divided, but the fact that it's hundreds of parents involved rather than a couple of dozen indicates that the school has not managed this well. I don't buy the idea that these parents are all crazy bigots. The line being pushed by some here.


On the topic of odd belief systems Kenan Malik is one of those former Revolutionary Communists who became fervent spiking Libertarians and upset George Monbiot.  

RCP/Spiked/IoI


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

tim said:


> I'm sure parents are divided, but the fact that it's hundreds of parents involved rather than a couple of dozen indicates that the school has not managed this well. I don't buy the idea that these parents are all crazy bigots.



There was nothing more than bigotry evident from that TV debate, but it's fair to say that not all parents from the school were there.


----------



## zahir (Mar 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> There was nothing more than bigotry evident from that TV debate, but it's fair to say that not all parents from the school were there.



I think at this point it may be very hard for parents who don’t support the protests to come out and say anything in public.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

zahir said:


> I think at this point it may be very hard for parents who don’t support the protests to come out and say anything in public.



Yeah, what I meant was that I was hoping to hear something about the reasons for their objections that wasn't grounded in bigotry (since that was the claim made on the show).


----------



## zahir (Mar 10, 2019)

It was a bit of a frustrating debate really. Here’s the opinion of the woman who spoke at the start.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

zahir said:


> It was a bit of a frustrating debate really. Here’s the opinion of the woman who spoke at the start.




Having watched it, she's bang on the money.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2019)

treelover said:


> Salma Yaqoob, formerly of Respect,  seemed to defend the parents on The Big Questions, maybe with a bit more nuance, the parents weren't consulted' anyone else note this.



I just watched it and found that pretty disappointing from her tbh. You’d have to be seriously deluded to not realise that it was a blatantly homophobic campaign and ‘consultation’ was only, at best, a side issue.


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2019)

tim said:


> Except parents being unhappy about the sex education curriculum in primary schools isn't a particularly religious issue, is it? If these had been parents in middle-class conservative white catchment area this would not have created this level of vitriol



The cake makers certainly unleashed serious twitter anger


----------



## tim (Mar 12, 2019)

treelover said:


> The cake makers certainly unleashed serious twitter anger



The were Ulster Protestants, so even more loathed than Muslims.


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2019)

> Birmingham primary school in LGBT row cleared by watchdog
> 
> Inspectors said there was a “small, vocal minority” of parents who believed the school’s equalities curriculum focused disproportionately on LGBT issues and was not taught in an age-appropriate way, but they found no evidence to support this.
> 
> They said their inquiries revealed that most Parkfield parents supported the curriculum and understood the school was helping their child to play a positive role in modern British society.



Well,it does like it is an element of the parents, maybe the numbers were boosted by outsiders.


----------



## zahir (Mar 12, 2019)

This is the relevant part of the Ofsted letter. https://files.api.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50062382


> Almost all of the parents who completed Ofsted’s questionnaire, Parent View, and who spoke with inspectors share the school’s vision and are happy with the quality of education the school provides. You and your staff have forged positive links with parents. You have done this by inviting parents to assemblies and workshops and to observe lessons. You have also put on classes for parents that include childcare, information technology and English for speakers of other languages. The special educational needs coordinator (SENCo) and the early years leader, for example, engage positively with parents to support pupils’ learning. The education, health and care plan process and annual reviews help to make sure that pupils with SEND receive the right support at the right times and do well. The SENCo works effectively with a wide range of health and care agencies to make sure that children at Parkfield are well supported.
> 
> The majority of parents understand how the school helps their children to play a positive role in modern British society by developing their appreciation of British values. However, a very small, but vocal, minority of parents are not clear about the school’s vision, policies and practice. This group of parents feel that staff do not sufficiently listen to their concerns. Their view is that the PSHE education and equalities curriculum focuses disproportionately on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues and that this work is not taught in an age-appropriate manner. Inspectors found no evidence that this is the case.


----------



## zahir (Mar 12, 2019)

This thread is worth reading (the Guardian headline he was reacting to is inaccurate - the school says that it hasn’t stopped the lessons).


----------



## Theisticle (Mar 12, 2019)

Turns out most parents actually support the curriculum


----------



## tim (Mar 12, 2019)

treelover said:


> Well,it does like it is an element of the parents, maybe the numbers were boosted by outsiders.



Clearly, it wasn't outsiders who took several hundred kids out of school for the day. I think that's a sudden outbreak of faith in the competence of OFSTED or any other state regulator would be unwarranted.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 12, 2019)

8ball said:


> It's hard to judge without seeing what particular parts of this programme the parents are objecting to.


And hard to judge without having some training and experience as a teacher or other educator. 
It must be a nightmare being a teacher with parents judging by their own educational experience which is 25 years out of date.

When I was at school gay people didn’t exist, so why would they get mentioned now?


----------



## Theisticle (Mar 13, 2019)

Stupidity wrapped in layers of thinly-veiled bigotry


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 13, 2019)

Talk of 'imposing values' again, and with no trace of irony. What is teaching kids about only one type of relationship if not an imposition of values?

As is so often the case, the more people try to dress up bigotry as reasonable and rational the more angry it makes me. Simply being ignorant I can understand, but when you've sat down and tried to bend the world out of shape so it fits in with something shit that you've already decided to believe, that's deliberate and knowing and there can be no excuse for it.


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> As is so often the case, the more people try to dress up bigotry as reasonable and rational the more angry it makes me. Simply being ignorant I can understand, but when you've sat down and tried to bend the world out of shape so it fits in with something shit that you've already decided to believe, that's deliberate and knowing and there can be no excuse for it.



There really is no excuse for dressing up bigotry as reasonable and rational!



> SpookyFrank said: ↑
> Five'll get you ten these same parents don't give a shit about not being consulted on any other aspect of the curriculum.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 13, 2019)

Judging people based on their actions is not bigotry. As I'm sure you know, I was referring specifically to the parents who are protesting against lessons on basic acceptance and inclusivity. Try again, and this time think with your brain and then post.


----------



## zahir (Mar 13, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> Stupidity wrapped in layers of thinly-veiled bigotry




From the intro to that article:


> *Dr Siema Iqbal argues that schools have no right to impose lifestyles and beliefs on children because that is the parent’s job.*


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Judging people based on their actions is not bigotry. As I'm sure you know, I was referring specifically to the parents who are protesting against lessons on basic acceptance and inclusivity. Try again, and this time think with your brain and then post.



Making unwarranted assumptions is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2019)

tim said:


> There really is no excuse for dressing up bigotry as reasonable and rational!


Problem is that your relativism on this doesn't work. The only 'value' being imposed here is the idea that diversity exists and should be acknowledged, with a background assumption that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe there is also within that class a discussion of men and women and what girls and boys can aspire to, with a background assumption that men and women are equal. Suppose that a group of parents objected to the idea of showing examples of women being engineers or doctors because according to their values a woman's place is in the home and girls should be brought up in a way that will make them obedient to their husbands. Would you take the same stance towards that issue? If not, why not? What is it about gender equality that is deserving of respect that sexuality equality does not have?


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that your relativism on this doesn't work. The only 'value' being imposed here is the idea that diversity exists and should be acknowledged, with a background assumption that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe there is also within that class a discussion of men and women and what girls and boys can aspire to, with a background assumption that men and women are equal. Suppose that a group of parents objected to the idea of showing examples of women being engineers or doctors because according to their values a woman's place is in the home and girls should be brought up in a way that will make them obedient to their husbands. Would you take the same stance towards that issue? If not, why not? What is it about gender equality that is deserving of respect that sexuality equality does not have?




My comments are about your bigotry, not that of the parents protesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2019)

tim said:


> My comments are about your bigotry, not that of the parents protesting.


My bigotry?  Go on, show it to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2019)

Homophobephobia?

(((homophobes)))


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2019)

When a kid is beaten up in the playground for being gay, who is the _real_ victim?

tim, I know you don't see why and you may be puzzled by the bluntness of this judgement, but your position on this is contemptible.


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My bigotry?  Go on, show it to me.



I thought you were Spooky Frank responding, and I have already exposed his. You'll have to wait for this evening when I'll have time to sift through your posts. If memory serves me right, it won't be too difficult.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My bigotry?  Go on, show it to me.



Looks like you're guilty by association.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2019)

tim said:


> I thought you were Spooky Frank responding, and I have already exposed his. You'll have to wait for this evening when I'll have time to sift through your posts. If memory serves me right, it won't be too difficult.


lol 

you homophobephobephobe


----------



## Theisticle (Mar 13, 2019)

How could anyone find issue with this book?


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2019)

Have the vanguard of the new identity politics, the SWP, said anything about this, any SWSS meetings?


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> Have the vanguard of the new identity politics, the SWP, said anything about this, any SWSS meetings?


That's would surely depend on whichever group they're targeting for recruitment right now


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2019)

treelover said:


> Have the vanguard of the new identity politics, the SWP, said anything about this, any SWSS meetings?


Asking for a friend?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 13, 2019)

E2a: no,  better just to ignore this fucking clown.


----------



## tim (Mar 13, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When a kid is beaten up in the playground for being gay, who is the _real_ victim?
> 
> tim, I know you don't see why and you may be puzzled by the bluntness of this judgement, but your position on this is contemptible.




I'm not convinced that you've taken the effort to work out what my position is.

 I think that the issues raised in the "No Outsiders" programme should be on the curriculum. My point was that the implementation of this programme in this school was clearly problematic. If it hadn't been there would not have been such a large number of parents objecting. The issue of their being Muslims is a red herring as I the kinds of objections raised are not particularly faith focused, but rather reflect  small "c" concerns that can and do arise in other places and communties. Such attitudes are widespread in British society, bearing this in mind  the focus on this being a Muslim issue is wrong and likely to boost Islamophobic attitudes. On these boards admittedly these are fused with the simplistic antireligious tropes, that certain posters come up with incessantly. On the issue of school violence being beaten up in the playground for being gay is unacceptable, but so is being beaten up for being a Muslim. 

This consentration on the evil of "these Muslims" or "these religious types", when you're talking about a group of fairly ordinary British parents fuels Islamophobic attitudes and perhaps violence, which is why I think is contemptible. 

Blanket condemnation is also not an approach that would lead to a solution of this problem, whether you like it or not these parents are stakeholders in the school. It can not effectively function without their consent. The size of the protest shows that they clearly don't have this. The school and the parents will have to work together to resolve this. The grandstanding approach you seem to favour may make you feel good but achieves nothing for the gay kids in the playground, or for Muslims gay or straight.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 13, 2019)

Edie said:


> Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.


Ironically enough Pakistan is the number one consumer of gay pr0n in the world, or at least it was a couple of years ago. 

What I do find confusing is that the most patriarchal societies in Muslim-majority countries (as in the ones that try to prevent any unsupervised mixing of the sexes) end up pushing young, hormonal men into a situation where they stand little or no chance of getting it on with women. Surely this just makes it more likely that people who are somewhere on the bi spectrum are going to experiment with other blokes?


----------



## Theisticle (Mar 14, 2019)

Parkfield School is now officially stopping No Outsiders until a resolution is reached. How very sad.


----------



## zahir (Mar 14, 2019)

No Outsiders Lessons


> Nothing is more important than ensuring our children’s education continues uninterrupted. Yesterday, both parents and the trust held constructive discussions with the Regional Schools Commissioner, and  as a result of these discussions we are eager to continue to work  together with parents, over the coming days and weeks to find a solution that will support the children in our school to continue their education in a harmonious environment.
> 
> “Until a resolution has been reached , No Outsiders lessons will not be taught at Parkfield  and we hope that children will not be removed from school to take part in protests.”


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2019)

Now this lot have won I would be surprised not to see more of the same elsewhere.


----------



## zahir (Mar 14, 2019)

It looks to me more like a strategic move by the school to take the wind out of the sails of the protests. I hope I’m right about this anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2019)

zahir said:


> It looks to me more like a strategic move by the school to take the wind out of the sails of the protests. I hope I’m right about this anyway.



I hope you're right too fwiw.


----------



## tim (Mar 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now this lot have won I would be surprised not to see more of the same elsewhere.



What? The authorities listening to ordinary people (deplorables) concerns. Don't count on it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2019)

tim said:


> What? The authorities listening to ordinary people (deplorables) concerns. Don't count on it!


You've got this so wrong it's painful to read.


----------



## tim (Mar 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've got this so wrong it's painful to read.



So you think the authorities will start listening to ordinary folk.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 14, 2019)

traditional muslim attitudes to gay sex.
Urban Dictionary: man love thursday

The term used to describe Middle Eastern men and their activities the night before Friday, the Muslim day of rest. In traditional Muslim countries women are not seen on the streets after dark so men rule the night. Anal sex for many Muslim men is not seen as homosexual. As the anus is used for pleasure. After their Thursday night adventures the men return home and act as if nothing ever happened.
While driving back to base we were visually accosted by the sight of a full blown man love Thursday.
#ass sex#chocolate star fish#in the closet#denial#sexism


----------



## tim (Mar 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> traditional muslim attitudes to gay sex.
> Urban Dictionary: man love thursday
> 
> The term used to describe Middle Eastern men and their activities the night before Friday, the Muslim day of rest. In traditional Muslim countries women are not seen on the streets after dark so men rule the night. Anal sex for many Muslim men is not seen as homosexual. As the anus is used for pleasure. After their Thursday night adventures the men return home and act as if nothing ever happened.
> ...



This is a Birmingham story not something happening in some nebulous Middle Eastern location.


----------



## Riklet (Mar 14, 2019)

not sure why youd post that ridiculous american bullshit likesfish but it's not helpful or appropriate.

thats exactly what these moaning bigots are arguing - anyone who doesnt accept their right to decide exactly what their kids learn or exposed to is racist or against islam. if they were moaning bigoted christians there wouldnt be so any lefty hand-wringing over it.

sad to hear theyre suspending the programme, but I do have misgivings about the naivity of going into conservative asian areas to trial it without a proper strategy or community approach. that isnt to say they should give up and let this lot win, though.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 14, 2019)

Yeah the whole Muslims don't do gay stuff. When Pakistan is one of the biggest consumers of gay porn. Is just a tad hypocritical. If your going to decide to follow non UK culture norms in favour of your religious beliefs pointing out that your beliefs are false is fair comment.


----------



## Riklet (Mar 14, 2019)

Wheres the evidence that Pakistan is one of the biggest consumers of gay porn? Looked like a made-up stuff-it fact to me. Totally off topic.

Even if it's true, and even if it's true theres massive homophobia and sexual repression in Pakistan. And even if most of these parents are muslim and of Pakistani or Kashmiri backgrounds, I still dont see the logic of linking it to this school situation.  this is a different country, city and situation, plenty of those parents were born here or have lived most of their lives here.

I agree theres an argument to be had about secular values and standing up against religious conservatism, even if it comes from minority groups, but those kind of nasty attacks wont win the debate.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 14, 2019)

Riklet said:


> Wheres the evidence that Pakistan is one of the biggest consumers of gay porn? Looked like a made-up stuff-it fact to me. Totally off topic.
> 
> Even if it's true, and even if it's true theres massive homophobia and sexual repression in Pakistan. And even if most of these parents are muslim and of Pakistani or Kashmiri backgrounds, I still dont see the logic of linking it to this school situation.  this is a different country, city and situation, plenty of those parents were born here or have lived most of their lives here.
> 
> I agree theres an argument to be had about secular values and standing up against religious conservatism, even if it comes from minority groups, but those kind of nasty attacks wont win the debate.



Link to evidence 

Why Is Gay Porn So Popular in Pakistan?


----------



## zahir (Mar 14, 2019)

The protest planned for today was called off.

Parkfield School - No Outsiders LGBT lessons will NOT resume


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 14, 2019)

zahir said:


> It looks to me more like a strategic move by the school to take the wind out of the sails of the protests. I hope I’m right about this anyway.



Like spooky, I hope you're right. It'd be depressing if they've just caved in the demands of the bigots.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 14, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Link to evidence
> 
> Why Is Gay Porn So Popular in Pakistan?



I feel this may be a rabbit hole we don't need to go down at this time. 

What we know for sure is that there are gay people in every country and culture and that pretending otherwise is always damaging. We're not dealing with a neutral difference of opinion here, we're talking about views which are known to be harmful.


----------



## zahir (Mar 14, 2019)




----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2019)

post deleted, can't be bothered


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2019)

Parents complain to Manchester schools about LGBT lessons

In Manchester now


----------



## zahir (Mar 21, 2019)

It may be interesting to see where the divisions between Muslims lead with this.


----------



## zahir (Mar 21, 2019)

Protests at another Birmingham school.

Parents 'warned they'll go to hell unless they sign LGBT petition'


----------



## likesfish (Mar 21, 2019)

you'd think a community that makes lots of noise about Islamophobia might be quite keen on diversity?


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2019)

Major package on Ch4, looks like it may be spreading, back at Parkfield as well, it doesn't look like its just about No Outsiders, CH4 think an Islamist organisation may be behind it, on their website , it has 'adam and eve', not 'adam and adam', on it.

If there are gay kids there, it must be terrifying, seeing your mates outside screaming abuse about you, It is imcomprehensible why the liberal left, and especially LGBT groups, haven't been robustly responding to all this, then again many were supine when it came to The Satanic Verses

The protestors do have a lot of support from the Daily Mail bigots, though


----------



## zahir (Mar 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> Major package on Ch4, looks like it may be spreading, back at Parkfield as well, it doesn't look like its just about No Outsiders, CH4 think an Islamist organisation may be behind it, on their website , it has 'adam and eve', not 'adam and adam', on it.



Here’s the Channel 4 report: Protest at primary schools over LGBT tolerance lessons

The Islamic RSE site mentioned in the report: Islamic RSE


----------



## zahir (Mar 21, 2019)

Report on the other Birmingham primary school targeted by protests.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/21/birmingham-headteacher-lgbt-lessons-protests-anderton/


> The protests this week at Hewitt-Clarkson’s school, she said, have been unsettling for both pupils and staff.
> 
> “It’s just a joke and unpleasant, and very stressful for staff and the children—and many of the parents,” said the headteacher.
> 
> ...




Video from the head teacher explaining the school’s approach to relationship education.

Anderton Park Primary School - Information for Parents


----------



## likesfish (Mar 22, 2019)

These peoples views on LGBT like all religious fundies is it's wrong and traditionally they'd be allowed to kill them.
  So Tough Gay, people exist and no you can't kill them regardless of what your holy book says welcome to the 21st century. The protest is lead by fundies who are bigots if they get away with this they won't stop. Atheists will be on their list, women not wearing headscarves, children not being segregated etc etc etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 22, 2019)

likesfish said:


> you'd think a community that makes lots of noise about Islamophobia might be quite keen on diversity?



Bigots in 'not thinking stuff through' shocker.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 22, 2019)

Lives are ruined by shame and stigma. LGBT lessons in schools are vital | Hannah Jane Parkinson - another critical article about the protests, and quite right too.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 22, 2019)

That's not a bug it's a feature as far as religious fundies are concerned .

 A gay person who never mentions they are gay and just quietly tops themselves is their ideal solution avoids shame on the community after all.


----------



## zahir (Mar 24, 2019)

Some more comments from Andrew Moffat here. 

Anti-LGBT protests by pupils ‘very hurtful’, says teacher


----------



## zahir (Mar 24, 2019)

A counter protest yesterday.



ETA: from this thread it seems they were invited in to speak.



Report on one of the speakers at the conference.

Activist warning of 'war on morality' wades into LGBT lessons row


----------



## zahir (Mar 24, 2019)

Protest in support of no outsiders at Parkfield School tomorrow. There’s some disagreement about it on the thread.


----------



## zahir (Mar 24, 2019)

Andrew Moffat’s reaction to protests being suspended.

Exclusive: 'Fantastic' says LGBT row teacher as protests are halted


----------



## zahir (Mar 25, 2019)

zahir said:


> Protest in support of no outsiders at Parkfield School tomorrow. There’s some disagreement about it on the thread.



Protest called off.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 25, 2019)

likesfish said:


> you'd think a community that makes lots of noise about Islamophobia might be quite keen on diversity?



Islam is only interested in university. As long as the university is Islam.

This should be dealt with in the same manner as taking children out of school for holidays during term time, a fine issued every time a child is absent.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 25, 2019)

likesfish said:


> you'd think a community that makes lots of noise about Islamophobia might be quite keen on diversity?


Why?


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2019)

If Sam does hold these protests, will Urbanites in the Midlands be attending?, hasn't exactly got traction on here, which is surprising compared to the say, discussions on TERFs, etc.

There should certainly be protests against the groups stirring it up,


----------



## likesfish (Mar 25, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Why?



Because tolerance of difference is kind of vital if your a minority because if we treated Muslims like Atheists and non believers are treated in 13 Muslim States they'd know what discrimination was all about the ones who aren't dead would anyway.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 25, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Because tolerance of difference is kind of vital if your a minority because if we treated Muslims like Atheists and non believers are treated in 13 Muslim States they'd know what discrimination was all about the ones who aren't dead would anyway.


So they have to be nice and tolerant or risk getting killed? Have a nap eh?


----------



## likesfish (Mar 25, 2019)

Being intolerant arses when your an easily identifiable minority probably isn't the greatest strategy. Especially when you want people not to be bigoted against Muslims.
  Not that the leaders of this shit show will care.

As an Atheist in a Muslim controlled state I'd be a risk of being murdered that's a fact.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 25, 2019)

I don't disagree with you over the treatment of apostates and atheists in many countries. But why do you think this transfers here ?


----------



## likesfish (Mar 25, 2019)

Considering their is a problem with islamaphobia demonstrating yes we are actually bigoted fucks who don't think British values should extend to our kids. 
  Isn't a way to win friends and influence people. .

Although Tommy and pals defending gay rights would be


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2019)

Cant be long before Lennon makes an appearance


----------



## andysays (Mar 25, 2019)

treelover said:


> Cant be long before Lennon makes an appearance


----------



## zahir (Mar 25, 2019)

Protest today at Anderton Park school.




ETA: Anderton Park was affected by the Trojan Horse affair a few years ago. This may help explain why it is being targeted now.

Birmingham headteachers say they are subject to campaign of intimidation (2015 report)


> Headteachers working in schools affected by the Birmingham Trojan Horse affair are facing a campaign of intimidation, including a death threat on Facebook and dead animals in the playground, it was claimed on Sunday.
> 
> One school leader made claims that a dismembered cat had been found in the playground of one school in the city and that a dead dog had been found hanging outside another school. She said there had also been petitions campaigning against staff teaching about homophobia and tolerance of homosexuality.
> 
> ...




This report points out the similarities to Trojan Horse.

Fresh protests over gay relationship lessons at primary school in Birmingham


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 25, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Considering their is a problem with islamaphobia demonstrating yes we are actually bigoted fucks who don't think British values should extend to our kids.
> Isn't a way to win friends and influence people. .
> 
> Although Tommy and pals defending gay rights would be


Liked on both points.


----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2019)

People of good heart really need to get down there, no more prevarication, especially against the outfits who are stirring it up.


----------



## zahir (Mar 25, 2019)




----------



## treelover (Mar 25, 2019)

LGBT row school staff 'distraught'

Story getting huge coverage, and once again, the liberal left is nowhere to be seen

Oh, and apparently, the head teacher, who moved specifically to teach at the school, is an Islamophobe.,


----------



## tim (Mar 26, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Being intolerant arses when your an easily identifiable minority probably isn't the greatest strategy. Especially when you want people not to be bigoted against Muslims.
> Not that the leaders of this shit show will care.
> 
> As an Atheist in a Muslim controlled state I'd be a risk of being murdered that's a fact.



None of this "No Outsiders" nonsense for you, then.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 26, 2019)

Not if your going to be an intolerant arse about it no.
Popper said it way smarter than me. 

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. 

So no you don't get a pass to be a bigot just cause your a minority. Think pointing out to these shit heads. 
  This is a so called Christian nation and that doesn't look like a bible your holding and what does the Bible say about non believers? . 
 Could be somewhat akward "it not like I'm anti Muslim or anything but Deus Vult
" 
This is the UK you don't have to like Diversity but it's a fact so get over it. We stopped burning catholics centuries ago and it's not starting up again. Because you want to be a "community leader"


----------



## zahir (Mar 26, 2019)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2019)

treelover said:


> Oh, and apparently, the head teacher, who moved specifically to teach at the school, is an Islamophobe.,



Got evidence of that?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 26, 2019)

treelover said:


> Story getting huge coverage, and once again, the liberal left is nowhere to be seen



Do you just have this sentence permanently saved to clipboard, ready to be pasted into any post about anything?


----------



## andysays (Mar 26, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do you just have this sentence permanently saved to clipboard, ready to be pasted into any post about anything?


Haven't you heard of predictive text?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 26, 2019)

zahir said:


> ...


Can you please not just post twitter links. Some members can't read them, other members can't/don't want to open then at work. Not only is it  really impolite it's also against board rules.

If you want to post a twitter link fine, but give people a brief summary too.


----------



## yellow dog (Mar 30, 2019)

this is an interesting article on this issue i came across:
Beyond taking sides on No Outsiders

its the only 'left' article on this i've come across, while the fash are making much of it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 30, 2019)

This is (was) Anton who was previously banned and has now been re-banned.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 31, 2019)

Striking off for this one hopefully. 

Psychologist to be investigated over opposition to LGBT lessons


----------



## cybershot (Apr 2, 2019)

Parkfield LGBT protest: Why has the school’s top teacher been silenced?


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2019)

> Protest organisers make it clear that they are aiming to have the teaching abolished “not just in this school but at every school in Birmingham and every school in the country”. Observers warn that what is happening in Birmingham will be mirrored across England when the lessons are introduced in September 2020, unless the government stands firm on equal rights and diversity.



and that isn't enough for people to mobilise against the bigots?


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 7, 2019)

The fash must be tying themselves in knots about how to capitalise on this.


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2019)

Loads of anti-protesters there yesterday, Oh, sorry that was the Dorchester Brunei protest


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> Loads of anti-protesters there yesterday, Oh, sorry that was the Dorchester Brunei protest


Which protest were you at?


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2019)

Not able to do so anymore, but in my time, plenty

including Genoa, where i heard thr shot that killed Carlo

care to answer the substantive point, where are the counter protests at the school?, the LGBT activist(see earler twitter posts) who planned one, seems to have gone quiet, scared off/chastened by the critical response he got from others?

ffs, its so blatant, and yes, the far right will be working out what to do.


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> Not able to do so anymore, but in my time, plenty


So now you just spend your time on Urban complaining that people aren't protesting about the things you think they should be protesting about.

If this issue is important enough for you to repeatedly complain about lack of protests, what are you actually doing about it?


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2019)

I post and argue about priorities/hierarchies of oppression, very valid areas of discourse.

Huge thread about the latter on here, did you contribute?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> Not able to do so anymore, but in my time, plenty
> 
> including Genoa, where i heard thr shot that killed Carlo
> 
> ...



Stop fucking whining. Some of the issues you raise are important. It’s becasue they’re important that I get so fucked off with you. But just for Gods sake (and no offence to you or anything) so articulating these issues   as “oh look no one cares about x”. Yes there lots of causes which don’t get as much focus/solidarity as others, and yes it does need to be addressed, but your constant passive aggressive tone doesn’t actually help. It certainly doesn’t help the causes you complain aren’t supported enough. It’s just negative crap.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> I post and argue about priorities/hierarchies of oppression, very valid areas of discourse.
> 
> Huge thread about the latter on here, did you contribute?



You should feel guilty andysays. That would help (apparently)


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> I post and argue about priorities/hierarchies of oppression, very valid areas of discourse.
> 
> Huge thread about the latter on here, did you contribute?


So are you actually doing anything substantive about this particular issue, the one you've repeatedly complained that people should be protesting or otherwise doing something about?

I appreciate that there are reasons why you (along with many others) can't be there in Birmingham to join a protest in person, but if this or any other issue is so important, there are surely other significant things you could be doing. 

Simply complaining about lack of protest from others, which appears to be pretty much all you do here, just seems to me like an utter waste of time and energy


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> The fash must be tying themselves in knots about how to capitalise on this.


Yeah, they are having a problem because they patently hate gay people and constantly throw homophobic insults at e.g. Owen Jones. There have been a few things slung about but they're pretty half-hearted.



treelover said:


> Loads of anti-protesters there yesterday, Oh, sorry that was the Dorchester Brunei protest


not even worth bothering with, this one


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 17, 2019)

A pastoral assistant sacked for posting stuff against No Outsiders on social media.  It's no surprise to see that the Christian Legal Centre is mentioned.

School assistant loses job over petition against LGBT teaching


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

She may be a dick but I do find this a bit concerning.

The report is light on detail so there could be more to the story, but someone getting sacked because what they share on social media has the _potential_ to damage an employers reputation is not a good thing. I know of cases in the HE sector where people have been singled out by employers  for posting stuff and you can image political campaigns organised by staff coming under similar scrutiny.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> A pastoral assistant sacked for posting stuff against No Outsiders on social media.  It's no surprise to see that the Christian Legal Centre is mentioned.
> 
> School assistant loses job over petition against LGBT teaching




Regardless of the group coming to her defence, do you think it is acceptable to sack her for what she posted rather than anything she did?


----------



## alex_ (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Regardless of the group coming to her defence, do you think it is acceptable to sack her for what she posted rather than anything she did?



An employee campaigning online against something their employer is doing ?

Alex


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

alex_ said:


> An employee campaigning online against something their employer is doing ?
> 
> Alex


So you don't think that should be allowed? 

I fucking do, isn't that what a good chunk of trade union work is?


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

alex_ said:


> An employee campaigning online against something their employer is doing ?
> 
> Alex



Perhaps you should read the article, she was complaining about materials used in her child's primary school. She worked in a secondary school. This would seem to be an employer spying on her social media use, and sacking her for it, that doesn't seem acceptable to me.

Anyway what's wrong in principle against complaining on or off-line about your employer?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> So you don't think that should be allowed?
> 
> I fucking do, isn't that what a good chunk of trade union work is?


Exactly.

Starting a petition criticising your employer for taking Saudi money - oh sorry that has the potential to damage our reputation, off you go.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

This is going to raise the same sort of issues as the gay bakery case.  Her 'right' to campaign, or to free speech, against the rights of pupils she works with to an education free of stigma or inappropriate god bothering.



> “We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.”



That is not about damage to the schools reputation.

We have been told about her facebook posts and her removing her _innocent wonderfully created children_ from the No Outsiders lessons.  What we've not (yet?) been told about is her attitude to and treatment of gay or questioning children at the school she worked at.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 17, 2019)

She's just provided evidence that she's a bigot and doesn't give a fuck about equal opportunities or diversity


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> She's just provided evidence that she's a bigot and doesn't give a fuck about equal opportunities or diversity


which is an unacceptable attitude for someone employed as a 'pastoral assistant' which the TES says needs "_the skills and knowledge to provide effective pastoral care and that covers both academic attainment and developing pupils’ ability to become good citizens_". 

I guess we all have different ideas of what a good citizen is, but mine, at least, doesn't involve _wonderfully created children _or_ Christian views on sex education.  _


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> I guess we all have different ideas of what a good citizen is, but mine, at least, doesn't involve _wonderfully created children _or_ Christian views on sex education.  _



_“We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.”_

Mine doesn't include people who use ''role model'' as a verb


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> _“We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.”_
> 
> Mine doesn't include people who use ''role model'' as a verb


True enough.

What's the appropriate sanction?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> _ developing pupils’ ability to become good citizens_"


Ugh. Reminds me of some the worst things I hated about school.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> True enough.
> What's the appropriate sanction?



heads must role-model a ''heads must roll'' model


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ugh. Reminds me of some the worst things I hated about school.


you don't want a job then?

Describing the role without sounding icky is hard but there are children who need help along those lines.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 17, 2019)

I'm still more than a little worried about teaching very young children much to do with any sexual relationships, and this is down to which group's feelings you repress.

Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm still more than a little worried about teaching very young children much to do with any sexual relationships, and this is down to which group's feelings you repress.
> 
> Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
> My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.


your natural thought is ignorance is bliss


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm still more than a little worried about teaching very young children much to do with any sexual relationships, and this is down to which group's feelings you repress.
> 
> Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
> My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.


Yeah but we already knew you were a dodgy cunt.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> This is going to raise the same sort of issues as the gay bakery case.  Her 'right' to campaign, or to free speech, against the rights of pupils she works with to an education free of stigma or inappropriate god bothering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The school claim it is about reputational damage not about her relationship with students. So that isn't the issue, making it so is witch-hunting. The bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay event, so that is not the same either.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> The school claim it is about reputational damage not about her relationship with students. So that isn't the issue, making it so is witch-hunting. The bakers refused to bake a cake for a gay event, so that is not the same either.


It's not the same, but it throws up similar conflicting ideas about rights.

The only direct quote in the article about why she was sacked is the one I gave, which is about respect and tolerance, which very much concerns her pastoral relationship with students. 

As to the reputation of the school, would you, as a parent, choose a school for your child which, despite complaints, condones a staff member posting that respect, tolerance and understanding amounts to brainwashing?  Or would you feel that that's liable to lead to an environment where there's no pastoral concern about, or possibly active endorsement of, those who tell their peers that god doesn't approve of their sexuality or preferred gender?  The reputation and atmosphere of the whole school, and of the staff and parents who are involved with it, can be affected by a staff member campaigning in the way she was, potentially to the point that one set of parents shun it and another set actively seek it out.  The school management and the rest of the staff may not think that's such a great idea. Reputation matters.

Of course, her job is important. I'd ordinarily suggest she talks to the appropriate union, but they're quoted as being "_in favour of a motion to lobby government to strengthen RSE guidance and make teaching about LGBT relationships compulsory at all stages of the curriculum._"  She, meanwhile, want to stop books about inclusivity being shown to children.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 17, 2019)

LGBT people are Human as such have to be treated like everybody else it's not a choice or a lifestyle regardless of what holy book you read.
 This is the UK don't like it mutter about it indoors but you don't get to parade your bigotry anymore


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

I'm not bothered about her rights. I am bothered about employers attacking employees (even when those employees hold objectionable views). 

There are any number of campaigns that I support that would damage the reputation of my and other employers. Fuck their reputations.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

I don’t like the wording, but given how much disciplinary actions by organisations is done patently for reasons of reputation management, and given how vile this ‘pastoral assistant’ appears to be, I really can’t get too worked up about the action taken against her. 

“Please sign this petition, they have already started to brainwash our innocent wonderfully created children and it’s happening in our local primary school now.”

Oh and that JudyBeth character who she was promoting is vile


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

No one has the ‘right’ to have access to children or ‘vulnerable’ adults. You want to work/volunteer in such roles it’s on you to demonstrate your fit to do so. She patently isn’t.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not bothered about her rights. I am bothered about employers attacking employees (even when those employees hold objectionable views)..


Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I don’t like the wording, but given how much disciplinary actions by organisations is done patently for reasons of reputation management, and given how vile this ‘pastoral assistant’ appears to be, I really can’t get too worked up about the action taken against her.
> 
> “Please sign this petition, they have already started to brainwash our innocent wonderfully created children and it’s happening in our local primary school now.”
> 
> Oh and that JudyBeth character who she was promoting is vile



Organisations get away with the "Reputational damage excuse" because of the insouciance of people like you. If there is a problem with her work then she should face the appropriate disciplinary procedure other wise she should have the right to free speech.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.


We may find her views objectionable (and I do, to be clear) but for someone's employer to be taking action for expressing those views outside of work is at least potentially problematic.

As far as I have read, she hasn't expressed her objectionable views at work, nor has her behaviour at work been such that her employers have grounds for disciplining her. If I've missed something, I'm happy to be corrected.

It does appear to set a dangerous precedent, in terms of allowing an employer to discipline on the grounds of *any* views which the employer might find objectionable, even if we wouldn't find them so.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.



The petition is not about the organisation she works for. I don't think my employer has any right to discipline me for any petition I sign, or any demonstration I go on.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

Workers rights trump reputational management.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> The petition is not about the organisation she works for. I don't think my employer has any right to discipline me for any petition I sign, or any demonstration I go on.


This isn't just her signing the petition. It is her urging others to sign it. 

I really think it depends on the nature of your job which petitions it should be ok for you to promote outside work. 

And what if she'd joined the demo outside this school against this piece of teaching policy, which she is expected to support as part of her job? I'm very uneasy about people facing work repercussions for social media activity that is reported to their employers anonymously. But these things can't be unlimited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.


how dare she push her politics through a longstanding and legal method


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Workers rights trump reputational management.


which part of _“We are concerned that you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others and to role model such behaviour.” _isn't clear_?_ 

Why keep on about the minor reputational issue when the major _requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_ is spelt out?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Workers rights trump reputational management.



Where do the rights of those she had power over (in this case children) fit into your sloganeering?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't just her signing the petition. It is her urging others to sign it.
> 
> I really think it depends on the nature of your job which petitions it should be ok for you to promote outside work.
> 
> And what if she'd joined the demo outside this school against this piece of teaching policy, which she is expected to support as part of her job? I'm very uneasy about people facing work repercussions for social media activity that is reported to their employers anonymously. But these things can't be unlimited.


Has she joined such a demo?

If not, it's a bit disingenuous to bring it up. 'What if she'd called all the other teachers in the school cunts, in front of the kids in assembly?'...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> Why keep on about the minor reputational issue when the major _requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_ is spelt out?



She could easily get them on that point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> Has she joined such a demo?
> 
> If not, it's a bit disingenuous to bring it up. 'What if she'd called all the other teachers in the school cunts, in front of the kids in assembly'...


Did you read the post I was replying to.

"I don't think my employer has any right to discipline me for any petition I sign, *or any demonstration I go on*."

Read the thread properly and wind yer neck in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And what if she'd joined the demo outside this school against this piece of teaching policy, which she is expected to support as part of her job?


and what about ery?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you read the post I was replying to.
> 
> "I don't think my employer has any right to discipline me for any petition I sign, or any demonstration I go on."
> 
> Read the thread properly and wind yer neck in.


Political Beliefs and the Equality Act 2010


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

8ball said:


> She could easily get them on that point.


maybe. Depends on the strength of all the evidence, which we're clearly not privy to.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Where do the rights of those she had power over (in this case children) fit into your sloganeering?



When she violates those rights; which is  not what she is doing when commenting on it  says or campaigning about her child's primary curriculum.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> When she violates those rights; which is  not what she is doing when commenting on it  says or campaigning about her child's primary curriculum.



Right, so publicly ranting about conspiracies to ‘brainwash’ kids about the gays has no impact on the rights and welfare of the children in her care.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Right, so publicly ranting about conspiracies to ‘brainwash’ kids about the gays has no impact on the rights and welfare of the children in her care.


Indeed. And posting up irrelevant rubbish about the equalities act in defence of this is rather ironic.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

Some  seemingly intractable conflicts of interest here. Social media and its assumed pernicious influence is something of an irrelevance here (since it is a huge, unpoliceable artefact with nebulous  effects.) I abhor the opinions of this woman but as she has not been operating in direct contravention of her job ( at least, there is no evidence to suggest so) and since she is not demonstrating outside the doors of her  actual school, it seems like a grossly unfair and even hyperbolic reaction on the part of her employers...which simply stokes the fires of prejudice even higher.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Right, so publicly ranting about conspiracies to ‘brainwash’ kids about the gays has no impact on the rights and welfare of the children in her care.



Persecuting people  for opinions legally expressed outside the classroom impacts upon the rights and welfare of both staff and students in that school. It violates her rights and sets a precedent that can be used to persecute others

If she had been accused of discriminating against either students or colleagues on the grounds of her personal opinions than she should face appropriate disciplnary procedures, but this is not the allegation against her.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

Persecution?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 17, 2019)

One of the problems here is that there isn’t regulation for support/assistant roles (both in education and care).


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Persecution?



How else would you describe it? She got the sack for  expressing an opinion.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> One of the problems here is that there isn’t regulation for support/assistant roles (both in education and care).



That is a major issue, but not related to this incident.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 17, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but we already knew you were a dodgy cunt.



Not really

If my daughter had been told anything about sex or sexual relationships when she was six, I would have had serious words with her school. I've looked at the book in question and, even though it's pretty subtle, it still shows people in bed together.
She's eleven now, and I would be perfectly happy for her to be told about all aspects (with care) of human relationships, more so when she gets older and able to understand better.  
I've just blocked an app from her phone (Tiktok) as it's being used for gathering data about children by the Chinese owners, and being used in India to spread porn - Am I a dodgy cunt for protecting my kid from that?

My objection is the age, not the content.

You might very well think teaching that stuff to little kids is fine, but I do not and, further, would consider anyone doing so, or supporting it, to be dodgy cunts.
I fully expect someone to tell me kids see their mums and dads in bed so it's fine, but a gay or whatever couple's kids see their mums/dads in bed, so that's already looked after for the appropriate percentage of the population. If such families have kids in any given school and the subject comes up for any reason, especially bullying, then a carefully measured bit of social inclusiveness instruction is perfectly reasonable.

Then we come to the rights of given groups, and who should be oppressed in favour of whom. I don't think it's right to oppress anyone, Muslims, Jews, LGBT, parents, whoever, so a very careful line has to be considered. In a school with no such families, why bother until the kids are able to understand basic relationships?  

Anyway, in response to your accusation I'm a "dodgy cunt", I believe I'm a good dad for protecting her from learning about the wrong things too young, but teaching her all people, regardless of race, skin colour, sexual preferences, or anything else, are perfectly normal and acceptable and, most importantly, regardless of differences, we're all the same.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> If she had been accused of discriminating against either students or colleagues on the grounds of her personal opinions than she should face appropriate disciplnary procedures, but this is not the allegation against her.



yes it it.  "_you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others"_

We do not know all the evidence against her, just what the christian legal centre press release says.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> One of the problems here is that there isn’t regulation for support/assistant roles (both in education and care).



My daughter applied for a pastoral role model post where it was made crystal clear that her role was, in fact, to endorse and support the school above all other considerations...although nothing explicitly was said about posting on social media, daughter got the distinct impression that this was a massive no-no. Since this post was for a rather posh and exclusive all girls academy, daughter declined the offer.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You might very well think teaching that stuff to little kids is fine, but I do not and, further, would consider anyone doing so, or supporting it, to be dodgy cunts.


the main teaching union thinks that extending sex & relationship teaching to all age groups is appropriate.  I don't know if you've got more than one child, but it's hard to believe one parent has a better understanding of the issues involved than the expressed view of the teaching profession.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> We do not know all the evidence against her, just what the christian legal centre press release says


Yes, I had wondered what 'evidence' was being offered to justify a sacking and had the impression we were really only still hearing a partial story.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her objectionable views directly relate to her work, though. And as MiB says, she doesn't just hold these views, she's trying to push them in the form of petitions.


I have plenty of views that relate to my work that my employer might find objectionable. Roz Ward got suspended because her views damaged might have damaged the reputation of her employer. In that case the union was able to mobilise enough support to get the employer to cave in and reinstate her, but that won't always happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I have plenty of views that relate to my work that my employer might find objectionable. Roz Ward got suspended because her views damaged might have damaged the reputation of her employer. In that case the union was able to mobilise enough support to get the employer to cave in and reinstate her, but that won't always happen.


Was this person sacked because she damaged the reputation of her employer or because she was pushing views that directly conflicted with parts of her job?


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> the main teaching union thinks that extending sex & relationship teaching to all age groups is appropriate.  I don't know if you've got more than one child, but it's hard to believe one parent has a better understanding of the issues involved than the expressed view of the teaching profession.



Well, this is rather the crux of the issue isn't it? Where are the boundaries between pedagogy and child-rearing. Clumsily handled agendas, raised by competing interests usually ends with children being isolated from their peers (witness the rise in home-schooling in the US).  Much depends on the perceptions of authority and the powers it assumes...but simply dismissing the anxieties of a parent as irrelevant in the face of an educational establishment frequently at war with itself is not really a guarantee that children's interests and well-being are the ultimate priority here either.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm still more than a little worried about teaching very young children much to do with any sexual relationships, and this is down to which group's feelings you repress.
> 
> Whomever wins, one group has to give up their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in favour of the other.
> My natural thought is very live and let live, so I'm likely to fall down on the parents' side.



Except the gay parents. There are quite a lot of us about. And nothing about saying being gay is OK says it's _better _or describes anything about sexual relationships other than admitting that they're not just friends. I mean I once read a book aimed at little kids (bought in a charity shop when my daughter was small) where they really did talk about (and draw!) different sexual positions and that was dodgy as fuck, but just admitting that same-sex parents share a bed is not the same as showing actual sex.

Teaching roles always have a clause about "bringing the school into disrepute"or something similar. And I doubt there was anyone at the school "trawling social media" to see this - if we can see it, so can they, it was a public post.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> yes it it.  "_you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others"_
> 
> We do not know all the evidence against her, just what the christian legal centre press release says.



We do know all the evidence against her it is her statements on social media about the primary curriculum. The academy she works makes this quite clear. They sacked her because they feared these could have damaged their reputation, even though there was no evidence it had



> Two months after the complaint was made, a disciplinary panel found Higgs guilty of gross misconduct, citing the potential for the school’s reputation to be harmed, though the panel admitted “there was no actual evidence” that had happened.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 17, 2019)

Mob?

I've looked at photos and vids of the "Mob", only seeing a demonstration by parents with signs promoting family values, child innocence, and parents' rights.
A mob implies a bunch of angry and violent people attacking something, but was there a mob in London to protest against the idiocy of withdrawing from the EU, or was it a demo consisting people people with an opinion legally and reasonably putting forward their point of view?
Then we find out 600 kids (80%) of the school has been withdrawn, a pretty solid democracy at work there. On the other side of the coin, I don't believe religion in the form of lessons has a place in school either - any religion, but as many religious festivals as possible should be honoured in an attempt to show all what others believe. Peace and love come from understanding, but child innocence and age appropriateness have to be considered as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

campanula said:


> Well, this is rather the crux of the issue isn't it? Where are the boundaries between pedagogy and child-rearing. Clumsily handled agendas, raised by competing interests usually ends with children being isolated from their peers (witness the rise in home-schooling in the US).  Much depends on the perceptions of authority and the powers it assumes...but simply dismissing the anxieties of a parent as irrelevant in the face of an educational establishment frequently at war with itself is not really a guarantee that children's interests and well-being is the ultimate priority here either.


I agree with this. And those objecting would be on less dodgy grounds if they stuck to the point that they don't want any sex/sexuality education at primary school level of any kind, arguing that the children are too young. But if the objection is to the teaching of a diversity of sexuality rather than merely sexuality per se, it is dodgy as fuck.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was this person sacked because she damaged the reputation of her employer or because she was pushing views that directly conflicted with parts of her job?


According to the Guardian's report it's at least partly due to repetitional damage.


> Two months after the complaint was made, a disciplinary panel found Higgs guilty of gross misconduct, citing the potential for the school’s reputation to be harmed, though the panel admitted “there was no actual evidence” that had happened.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

campanula said:


> Yes, I had wondered what 'evidence' was being offered to justify a sacking and had the impression we were really only still hearing a partial story.




If you'd read the Guardian article and the justification given by the school, you'd know that the story is about institutional reputation, not about her performance at work. Still, not doing so is clearly more fun, as it gives you carte blanche to insinuate.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Except the gay parents. There are quite a lot of us about



I fully support your right to live as you want, but not to stop others living as they want.
If your kids get stick at school because of your relationship, that's a different story and the offending kids have to be educated about hate and stupidity, but really young kids just don't need to know - fine for older kids.
If my kids ever asks me about gay or whatever relationships, I'll explain in a matter of fact sort of way, hopefully my measured and reasonable explanation forwarding the idea whatever sort of relationship is perfectly acceptable, thus won't promote hate or prejudice in them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> According to the Guardian's report it's at least partly due to repetitional damage.


Still lots we don't know, mind you. Eg, was the person who reported her a parent at the school? That would make a big difference, but is not something that would be disclosed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Not really
> 
> If my daughter had been told anything about sex or sexual relationships when she was six, I would have had serious words with her school. I've looked at the book in question and, even though it's pretty subtle, it still shows people in bed together.
> She's eleven now, and I would be perfectly happy for her to be told about all aspects (with care) of human relationships, more so when she gets older and able to understand better.
> ...


You don't seriously expect me to read all that do you?


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> If you'd read the Guardian article and the justification given by the school, you'd know that the story is about institutional reputation, not about her performance at work. Still, not doing so is clearly more fun, as it gives you carte blanche to insinuate.



Not really sure what you are implying here Tim. I have not definitively taken any sides in this debate as  it is basically an illustration of conflicting views...where I have en element of sympathy on all sides. Furthermore, of course we speculate and insinuate (this is Urban ffs) but IRL, it is totally obvious to me that these conflicts are never solved by shouty opinions but with a long, considered and often generational dialogue.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> We do know all the evidence against her it is her statements on social media about the primary curriculum. The academy she works makes this quite clear. They sacked her because they feared these could have damaged their reputation, even though there was no evidence it had


No.  "We do *not* know all the evidence against her".  What we can establish is that all of the reports have appeared within the last 24 hours, they're all written in the same form, as though they come from a single source, and they all mention the christian legal centre.  The local paper is reasonably straightforward: "_A mum claims..._"  and "_According to her representatives..._".  So I smell a press release.

She is taking this to a tribunal.  They will get all the evidence, we won't.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Mob?
> 
> I've looked at photos and vids of the "Mob", only seeing a demonstration by parents with signs promoting family values, child innocence, and parents' rights.
> A mob implies a bunch of angry and violent people attacking something, but was there a mob in London to protest against the idiocy of withdrawing from the EU, or was it a demo consisting people people with an opinion legally and reasonably putting forward their point of view?
> Then we find out 600 kids (80%) of the school has been withdrawn, a pretty solid democracy at work there. On the other side of the coin, I don't believe religion in the form of lessons has a place in school either - any religion, but as many religious festivals as possible should be honoured in an attempt to show all what others believe. Peace and love come from understanding, but child innocence and age appropriateness have to be considered as well.



I live in an area where most of the primary school kids are Muslim and their parents have managed to not do this sort of thing because they're not arseholes. But if they did I would think it was an instance of bigotry, and would feel very, very unsafe sending my child to that school or going there to pick her up.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

campanula said:


> My daughter applied for a pastoral role model post where it was made crystal clear that her role was, in fact, to endorse and support the school above all other considerations...although nothing explicitly was said about posting on social media, daughter got the distinct impression that this was a massive no-no. Since this post was for a rather posh and exclusive all girls academy, daughter declined the offer.




Name and shame


----------



## scifisam (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I fully support your right to live as you want, but not to stop others living as they want.
> If your kids get stick at school because of your relationship, that's a different story and the offending kids have to be educated about hate and stupidity, but really young kids just don't need to know - fine for older kids.
> If my kids ever asks me about gay or whatever relationships, I'll explain in a matter of fact sort of way, hopefully my measured and reasonable explanation forwarding the idea whatever sort of relationship is perfectly acceptable, thus won't promote hate or prejudice in them.



So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?

Also how would I be stopping other people from living how they want if I think it's OK for schools to acknowledge gay parents? I'm not forcing women to leave their husbands and shack up with a woman against their will. (Religion sometimes does that with the genders changed, though).

At what age is it appropriate to tell kids that it doesn't matter what gender your partner is, in your opinion? It's really not a difficult thing for little kids to understand. I mean I'm glad you would say it's OK but the thing is there's no big explanation needed.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Name and shame



Will have to ask her for the full name of the academy...but it was in one of the posher parts of Norwich. The interviews were eye-openers - a whole day of attitudinal testing where daughter, as a wc statutory  children's services worker had A LOT to say. Whilst I implied she declined the post, it is fairer to say she wasn't offered one (despite being enormously qualified and experienced in safeguarding, child protection and so on).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?
> 
> At what age is it appropriate to tell kids that it doesn't matter what gender your partner is, in your opinion? It's really not a difficult thing for little kids to understand. I mean I'm glad you would say it's OK but the thing is there's no big explanation needed.


Yeah, there's a very very very nasty undercurrent to all this that is basically just a great big Section28-style lie - that kids are being taught anything other than that there exist different kinds of relationships that are all just as ok as each other, and are somehow being _instructed_ in how to be gay.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?



Sam, I think it is fair to say that many parents have little awareness of the wider privileges of heterosexuality, (a bit like the 'colour blind' excuse for racism). Far from pushing a scary agenda onto unwilling children, the current attempts at raising sexuality and such, even for primary children, is an attempt to diminish the absolute 'normality' of the 'traditional nuclear family' which is represented cheerfully and completely, even at nursery school level. Its a shit deal, being even slightly seen as 'outsider'. Sympathy.


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

Ah, this is obviously a completely different issue...but it is notable that academies appear to have a lot of freedom to push their own ideologies (some of which really are exclusionary and regressive).


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Still lots we don't know, mind you. Eg, was the person who reported her a parent at the school? That would make a big difference, but is not something that would be disclosed.


How would the complainant being a parent make any difference at all?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?






			
				Me said:
			
		

> If your kids get stick at school because of your relationship, that's a different story and the offending kids have to be educated about hate and stupidity,



Are you drunk or just trying to cause an argument like a drunk?


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> the main teaching union thinks that extending sex & relationship teaching to all age groups is appropriate.  I don't know if you've got more than one child, but it's hard to believe one parent has a better understanding of the issues involved than the expressed view of the teaching profession.



The stupidity of her opinions are irrelevant, she still has as much  right to express her views on those issues as any union.

If she is a member of my union I would expect them to support her in her claim against managment.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Are you drunk or just trying to cause an argument like a drunk?



You also said "really young kids just don't need to know - fine for older kids." So at what age should the bullying stop, then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Are you drunk or just trying to cause an argument like a drunk?


Ok, so you're running a primary school. You judge that kids that age are unaware of sexuality and should be left to enjoy their innocence. Then you find that a kid is suffering from homophobic bullying. The bullies may not have a sophisticated understanding of sexuality, but they've picked this thing up from somewhere. How do you deal with that without calling all the kids together and talking to them on very general, non-explicit terms about the different kinds of relationships that exist in the world?


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> The stupidity of her opinions are irrelevant, she still has as much  right to express her views on those issues as any union.


She does, but if her views, her campaigning, conflicts with the central tenet of her job she must expect some sort of scrutiny. In her job she may be asked to provide pastoral guidance to a child who is gay, who questions their gender, who has gay or tg parents or friends and so on.	She'll also possibly be asked to deal with those who bully, taunt or hector them, including those with a religious perspective.  

Someone who can write this must expect their suitability for a pastoral care job to be questioned.



When someone complained some sort of process took place after which she was told "_you did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others". 
_
There's more to that statement than a facebook post.

At some point a tribunal will decide whether that process fairly dealt with her.



> If she is a member of my union I would expect them to support her in her claim against managment.


sure. So would I but she turned to the christian legal centre, not a union.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> She does, but if her views, her campaigning, conflicts with the central tenet of her job she must expect some sort of scrutiny. In her job she may be asked to provide pastoral guidance to a child who is gay, who questions their gender, who has gay or tg parents or friends and so on.	She'll also possibly be asked to deal with those who bully, taunt or hector them, including those with a religious perspective.
> 
> Someone who can write this must expect their suitability for a pastoral care job to be questioned.
> 
> ...



I'm amazed anyone is defending her, tbh. Those scare quotes around 'normal' say it all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> How would the complainant being a parent make any difference at all?


I don't have a child at that school. If I did, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in homophobic campaigning.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The bullies may not have a sophisticated understanding of sexuality, but they've picked this thing up from somewhere.


_it's not just what my mum says it's what god says _


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have a child at that school. If I did, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in homophobic campaigning.


... and, after a complaint, the school allowed to continue.  

Because that is the implication of the posts about her losing her job.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with this. And those objecting would be on less dodgy grounds if they stuck to the point that they don't want any sex/sexuality education at primary school level of any kind, arguing that the children are too young. But if the objection is to the teaching of a diversity of sexuality rather than merely sexuality per se, it is dodgy as fuck.



Which is exactly what it is.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> No.  "We do *not* know all the evidence against her".  What we can establish is that all of the reports have appeared within the last 24 hours, they're all written in the same form, as though they come from a single source, and they all mention the christian legal centre.  The local paper is reasonably straightforward: "_A mum claims..._"  and "_According to her representatives..._".  So I smell a press release.
> 
> She is taking this to a tribunal.  They will get all the evidence, we won't.



By tribunal I assume you mean an employment tribunal? They are in open court, anyone may attend.

How Public are Employment Tribunals?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm amazed anyone is defending her, tbh. Those scare quotes around 'normal' say it all.



Indeed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> ... and, after a complaint, the school allowed to continue.
> 
> Because that is the implication of the posts about her losing her job.


It's another example of misplaced priorities, imo. First on this thread, it happened with those defending the 'rights' of the demonstrators. Now it is happening with the 'right' of this teaching assistant to promote homophobia. In both cases, it is their promotion of homophobia that needs to be opposed first and foremost. It's clear with whom our solidarity should lie, imo. 

She lost her job? Tough shit. Don't be a homophobic arsehole on social media then, fuckwit. If you don't even realise that is homophobia, then you're not fit to teach.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have a child at that school. If I did, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in homophobic campaigning.


This is not an argument for someone to lose their job, anymore than saying "if I had a child at the school, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in a homosexual relationship" is an argument for anyone losing their job.

And the fact that you and others apparently can't see this and seem to equate questioning if this person should have been sacked with defending them (and defending their views is the implication) is frankly bizarre.


littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm amazed anyone is defending her, tbh...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> This is not an argument for someone to lose their job, anymore than saying "if I had a child at the school, I might not be happy about my child being taught/mentored by someone who is actively involved in a homosexual relationship" is an argument for anyone losing their job.
> 
> And the fact that you and others apparently can't see this and seem to equate questioning if this person should have been sacked with defending them (and defending their views is the implication) is frankly bizarre.


Defending their right to say this shit without losing their job. There you go.

Fuck me, you're _really_ stretching it to find something to get all angry andy about on this subject. Your first sentence is nonsensical. That's exactly like making an equivalence between objecting to being taught by a black person and objecting to being taught by a racist. Really. Exactly the same. What is it about homophobia that makes it more acceptable.

I actually had to read your post three times to make sure you really were saying something that stupid.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Defending their right to say this shit without losing their job. There you go.
> 
> Fuck me, you're _really_ stretching it to find something to get all angry andy about on this subject. Your first sentence is nonsensical. That's exactly like making an equivalence between objecting to being taught by a black person and objecting to being taught by a racist. Really. Exactly the same. What is it about homophobia that makes it more acceptable.
> 
> I actually had to read your post three times to make sure you really were saying something that stupid.


I'm not defending her views, I'm saying your "if my kids went to that school, I wouldn't want them to be taught by someone like that" argument is shit. Because it is.

If her views were affecting her behaviour in the classroom in a negative way, then that might be an argument, but there is, as far as I have seen, absolutely no evidence presented that they have.

You are simply deciding she deserves to lose her job because she has views which you (and me and almost everyone posting on this thread as it happen) don't like or even find reprehensible, not because you have evidence those views or anything else make her unsuitable for or unable to do her job.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> This is not an argument for someone to lose their job


if her conduct or views are such that she does not carry out her job with an appropriate fairness and evenhandedness, yes it is, at least potentially. 

If her job was digging roads or working in a chicken factory her views wouldn't be an issue for her employers, but how can someone who "_did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_" be a fit and proper person to do a job providing pastoral care?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> I'm not defending her views, I'm saying your "if my kids went to that school, I wouldn't want them to be taught by someone like that" argument is shit. Because it is.
> 
> If her views were affecting her behaviour in the classroom in a negative way, then that might be an argument, but there is, as far as I have seen, absolutely no evidence presented that they have.
> 
> You are simply deciding she deserves to lose her job because she has views which you (and me and almost everyone posting on this thread as it happen) don't like or even find reprehensible, not because you have evidence those views or anything else make her unsuitable for or unable to do her job.


I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head. 

You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> if her conduct or views are such that she does not carry out her job with an appropriate fairness and evenhandedness, yes it is, at least potentially.
> 
> If her job was digging roads or working in a chicken factory her views wouldn't be an issue for her employers, but how can someone who "_did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_" be a fit and proper person to do a job providing pastoral care?



The test for whether she does or does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding etc doesn't (or shouldn't) depend on her views about this issue, it depends on her behaviour in her role providing pastoral care.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head.
> 
> You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I might not want my child to be taught by a person who is actively promoting homophobia. That is the case in point here. You're just making the rest of the argument up in your head.
> 
> You should leave this thread for a bit, I think. You're making yourself look like foolish.



I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> The test for whether she does or does not demonstrate an appropriate understanding etc doesn't (or shouldn't) depend on her views about this issue, it depends on her behaviour in her role providing pastoral care.


is homophobia somehow different from racism or sexism, or do you reckon all of them are perfectly acceptable views for a pastoral carer?


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!


would you want the kids bullying your nonexistent gay kids to be offerered comfort, care, help, deprogramming by this pastoral carer?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> is homophobia somehow different from racism or sexism, or do you reckon all of them are perfectly acceptable views for a pastoral carer?



As I keep saying, it doesn't or shouldn't matter what someone's views are, providing they don't adversely affect their behaviour carrying out their role.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> I wouldn't want my nonexistent kids to be taught by a patronising cunt like you!


 andysays goes all angry and gets everything wrong. You get everything wrong in a more measured way. I'll give you that.


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> As I keep saying, it doesn't or shouldn't matter what someone's views are, providing they don't adversely affect their behaviour carrying out their role.



When the tribunal (if there is one, this might just be kite flying by the CLC) reports we'll perhaps get a more rounded view than that provided by this press release.  Until then we have to read between the lines and as I've said, the clear implication is that her behaviour was not acceptable "you _did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_"


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> would you want the kids bullying your nonexistent gay kids to be offerered comfort, care, help, deprogramming by this pastoral carer?


What's your point, caller?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> When the tribunal (if there is one, this might just be kite flying by the CLC) reports we'll perhaps get a more rounded view than that provided by this press release.  Until then we have to read between the lines and as I've said, the clear implication is that her behaviour was not acceptable "you _did not demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the school’s requirement to respect and tolerate the views of others_"


As I have said all along, if there is evidence that her behaviour while carrying out her role has been compromised by her views, then it's reasonable for some disciplinary action to be taken. But the only reported behaviour is posting nasty stuff on social media, which I don't think should be reason for her to lose her job.

Anyway, I'm not going to express my opinion further on this thread, in case littlebabyjesus decides it makes me unfit to carry out my role and contacts my employer...


----------



## newbie (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> But the only reported behaviour is posting nasty stuff on social media, which I don't think should be reason for her to lose her job.



The only source for what's been reported is the press release her campaign has issued.


> Gloucestershire Live has attempted to contact the school but it is closed for the Easter holidays. Chairman of governors Tony Joslyn said: "I cannot comment."



Are there any jobs that should be forfeit because of offensive posts on SM?  Or are posts somehow separate from the real world?  Pastoral care of children, and the duty of care that implies, has some specific requirements, surely?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 17, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> She may be a dick but I do find this a bit concerning.
> 
> The report is light on detail so there could be more to the story, but someone getting sacked because what they share on social media has the _potential_ to damage an employers reputation is not a good thing. I know of cases in the HE sector where people have been singled out by employers  for posting stuff and you can image political campaigns organised by staff coming under similar scrutiny.



I agree it appears questionable, based on the detail in the article.  The school may be overreacting, but without further information it is difficult to tell.  In previous cases 'championed' by Christian Legal Centre there have been a lot more behavioural issues that led to dismissal so it is possible that this is the case here, but we have so little to go on we can't know either way.

Employers do have a legitimate interest in what employees post on social media - if they post it in their real name and associate themselves with where they work that is.  Otherwise, it isn't any of their business.  But as you say, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that something else is going on here and she is being singled out, and the use of 'potential' reputational damage sounds suspect to me.  We may find out more if it goes to ET.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Organisations get away with the "Reputational damage excuse" because of the insouciance of people like you. If there is a problem with her work then she should face the appropriate disciplinary procedure other wise she should have the right to free speech.



Free speech isn't an untrammeled right though, and people have to use common sense.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

andysays said:


> Anyway, I'm not going to express my opinion further on this thread, in case



I wouldn't worry to much. Anyway if littlebabyjesus works in British education you could easily mount him by his own pet turd as he lacks the tolerance for faith and people of faith expected in the modern curriculum. Something that could be demonstrated from a screen grab of many of his comments about religion here.


_Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:
..._

_an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour_


----------



## likesfish (Apr 17, 2019)

Thing is her job is offer pastoral support from her fb page its obvious she's homophobic doesn't belive in transpeople both of which rather limit her ability to do her job.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2019)

newbie said:


> She lost her job? Tough shit. Don't be a homophobic arsehole on social media then, fuckwit. If you don't even realise that is homophobia, then you're not fit to teach.


You've been called a transphobe for the opinions you've posted on here.
There are those that maintain that promoting BDS and/or the one state solution is anti-Semitic. I guess you/they aren't fit to teach either?


----------



## campanula (Apr 17, 2019)

Um, this is quite a tricky issue - when one's values do not line up with the requirements of the job. For example, there is a clear attempt (which does not always work) to ensure that social workers embody a certain set of tolerant values across the entire social spectrum...and if they do not, they can be removed from post or denied a qualification or generally prevented from practicing in a statutory environment. But, as always, it is hard to quantify something as vague as 'social work values'  and there is always a need for evidence (which, I fear, can, as part of a larger picture, also include inflammatory posts on social media...but never just on that). So, I guess it would be dependent on what exactly this pastoral worker may have done _which has provably resulted in  acts which are detrimental to children in their care._ There's loads of other stuff too but their is an attempt to deal with  the potential conflicts arising from competing sets of tights.

Ooof, have just come back from allotment and waffling but I pressed reply so too late to delete rambling vagueness.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> So if my kid gets stick at school when they're "really young," their bullies should be left to carry on thinking that way? What?
> 
> Also how would I be stopping other people from living how they want if I think it's OK for schools to acknowledge gay parents? I'm not forcing women to leave their husbands and shack up with a woman against their will. (Religion sometimes does that with the genders changed, though).
> 
> At what age is it appropriate to tell kids that it doesn't matter what gender your partner is, in your opinion? It's really not a difficult thing for little kids to understand. I mean I'm glad you would say it's OK but the thing is there's no big explanation needed.


Exactly. In my experience younger kids especially just accept an explanation along the lines of 'you know your mum and dad love each other and share a bed? Well sometimes two men /women love each other and want to do the same. 

You don't have to go into the mechanics of intercourse. Every kid knows about man/woman couples but we don't have to talk about putting penises in vaginas for them to understand. 

It smacks of double standards to say otherwise and in all honesty makes me suspect the motivation of the person making that argument.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Are you drunk or just trying to cause an argument like a drunk?


You dishonest little shit. It's obvious Sam was responding to the part you deliberately omitted from your post:


Don Troooomp said:


> .. But really young kids just don't need to know - fine for older kids.


If you don't think younger kids will bully kids over this (usually prompted by their bigot parents) you're even drafter than I thought.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 17, 2019)

campanula said:


> Um, this is quite a tricky issue - when one's values do not line up with the requirements of the job. For example, there is a clear attempt (which does not always work) to ensure that social workers embody a certain set of tolerant values across the entire social spectrum...and if they do not, they can be removed from post or denied a qualification or generally prevented from practicing in a statutory environment. But, as always, it is hard to quantify something as vague as 'social work values'  and there is always a need for evidence (which, I fear, can, as part of a larger picture, also include inflammatory posts on social media...but never just on that). So, I guess it would be dependent on what exactly this pastoral worker may have done _which has provably resulted in  acts which are detrimental to children in their care._ There's loads of other stuff too but their is an attempt to deal with  the potential conflicts arising from competing sets of tights.
> 
> Ooof, have just come back from allotment and waffling but I pressed reply so too late to delete rambling vagueness.



The principle though is that you have to leave your values at the door - that's why they are paying you.  Most people can accept that, but sadly some devout people refuse to do so thinking they have an absolute right to be a bigoted cunt.  The CLC have a dubious track record of who they have defended, and how many cases they have lost while bleating xtian 'persecution'. 

As I said earlier, we don't know the details of the current case bar the CLC press release so the reasons are anyone's guess.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 17, 2019)

In these situations there is usually a lot more going on than gets in the news reports - particularly when those news reports are spurred on by comments from pressure groups in the first place who get uncritically quoted - and, I'll be honest, I can't be arsed to investigate further here to determine who is in the right in a situation where I can't do anything and which has no broader implications which I could do anything about either.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 17, 2019)

There are some views that are incompatible with holding an influential working role with children.  

If someone was posting anti Semitic shit in their free time, or white supremacist, I’d also expect their job with kids to be jeopardised.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 17, 2019)

The Christian Concern press release which has successfully set the terms in which this is being reported is here :

Christian school worker fired for raising concerns about sex education - Christian Concern

I see it concludes:







This is the lot who are also supporting the Christian mother campaigning against  her child's primary school in Croydon because of a "proud to be me" event, described by Christian Concern as a "Gay Pride" event. This all began last year but the Birmingham demonstrations gave them the opportunity to piggy back with a fresh story in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. According to that


> She is also seeking a five-figure sum in compensation from the governing body of Heavers Farm Primary School in Croydon, south London, because she claims her family has been victimised.



They gave much criticised legal support to the parents of Alfie Evans. And they took up the case of "Bethany" in 2016


> The school which ‘Bethany’ attended, and even the social workers who became interested in her case, all acquiesced to her desires to be treated as ‘Gary’, despite her parent’s wishes that she continue to be treated in accordance with her biological sex.


(...)


> Nonetheless, the family stood firm, and with the support of Christian Concern and an independent expert counsellor, ‘Bethany’ began receiving treatment for the various physical and mental health difficulties associated with her gender confusion. While the situation is not completely resolved, ‘Bethany’ nonetheless began making excellent progress in settling into her biological sex and coping with her self-harming behaviour.



They are very competent at agenda setting and pushing socially conservative buttons.

I would have thought the involvement of this pack of cunts would be quite sufficient warning in itself to be wary of jumping to conclusions about what the issues at stake here are.


----------



## tim (Apr 17, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> In these situations there is usually a lot more going on than gets in the news reports - particularly when those news reports are spurred on by comments from pressure groups in the first place who get uncritically quoted - and, I'll be honest, I can't be arsed to investigate further here to determine who is in the right in a situation where I can't do anything and which has no broader implications which I could do anything about either.




Ah, the no smokery argument.


----------



## newbie (Apr 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've been called a transphobe for the opinions you've posted on here.
> There are those that maintain that promoting BDS and/or the one state solution is anti-Semitic. I guess you/they aren't fit to teach either?


A lot of unnecessary insults are thrown around.
It's a pastoral care role, not teaching. That's a sensitive position, anyone in that sort of job who posts nakedly bigoted clarion calls on SM should not be surprised if it comes back and bites them.  If a complaint is made... well it's eventually up to an employment tribunal to decide if the process and outcome are fair.  A decision to involve some pressure group like the Christian Legal Centre rather than a union will up the political ante, generate column inches and maybe is not the best idea if keeping the job is top priority.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> You've been called a transphobe for the opinions you've posted on here.
> There are those that maintain that promoting BDS and/or the one state solution is anti-Semitic. I guess you/they aren't fit to teach either?


Wow. You went there. I'm assuming this is aimed at me and not newbie. 

Let's get some things clear. Are you accusing me of being a transphobe? If so, please explain, with reference to my arguments, naturally. I've also advocated the one-state solution to Palestine/Israel on here in the past. You can explain to me why my arguments are anti-Semitic, with references to those arguments, naturally. 

But who gives a fuck about me? More to the point, I'd like you to explain how this teaching assistant is not homophobic, with reference to what she has said. I'd like you to explain how she is not promoting homophobia through her social media activity. And yes, I use 'promoting homophobia' as a phrase intentionally - that is what she is doing, in a way that those accused of 'promoting homosexuality' never, ever did. 

Surprised at you redsquirrel. I would have thought that you would have realised that you were wrong to be supporting the positions of tim and andysays on this thread. But clearly I was wrong. You have joined them in the team of useful idiots to the homophobic Christian brigade.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

newbie said:


> A lot of unnecessary insults are thrown around.
> It's a pastoral care role, not teaching. That's a sensitive position, anyone in that sort of job who posts nakedly bigoted clarion calls on SM should not be surprised if it comes back and bites them.  If a complaint is made... well it's eventually up to an employment tribunal to decide if the process and outcome are fair.  A decision to involve some pressure group like the Christian Legal Centre rather than a union will up the political ante, generate column inches and maybe is not the best idea if keeping the job is top priority.


Wouldn't surprise me if the union had told her to go away, tbh. You're a homophobe who got caught promoting homophobia on the internet. Not going to help you, sorry.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2019)

newbie said:


> It's a pastoral care role, not teaching. That's a sensitive position, anyone in that sort of job who posts nakedly bigoted clarion calls on SM should not be surprised if it comes back and bites them.  If a complaint is made... well it's eventually up to an employment tribunal to decide if the process and outcome are fair.


If someone attacks their employer they probably shouldn't be _surprised_ that if it comes back to bite them, doesn't mean that it is ok or should not be opposed. And as for employment tribunals they are no less political than any other part of the law. Sometimes workers win, sometimes they lose but let's not pretend that ETs are some neutral, impartial body.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Let's get some things clear. Are you accusing me of being a transphobe? If so, please explain, with reference to my arguments, naturally. I've also advocated the one-state solution to Palestine/Israel on here in the past. You can explain to me why my arguments are anti-Semitic, with references to those arguments, naturally.
> ...
> Surprised at you redsquirrel. I would have thought that you would have realised that you were wrong to be supporting the positions of tim and andysays on this thread. But clearly I was wrong. You have joined them in the team of useful idiots to the homophobic Christian brigade.


Well for a start you might do better if you actually responded to things posted. I did not claim that I believed you to be either transphobic or anti-Semitic. However, other board members have certainly accused you of posting transphobic stuff.

I don't support the position of tim, which is based around rights. As I've repeatedly said I don't give a shit about this woman's rights (I don't agree with the philosophy of human rights in general). I do give a shit about employers attacking employee's. There are already cases of workers been hit by the bosses for stuff posted on social media (I gave one example already), there are plenty of cases of workers being attacked by employers for their political opinions. At the present time being a communist is probably not going to do more than raise a chuckle but it wasn't that long ago that that wasn't the case.

Anyone who calls themselves a socialist, a communist or an anarchist should be aware of the danger of allowing employers dictate political opinions and actions. If I'm a useful idiot for the homophobic Christian brigade you're a useful idiot for the bosses/state.

Should this woman's politics be opposed, of course it should, but they should be confronted _politically_, rather than retreating behind a legal opposition. A no platform imposed by a community is not the same as the state/bosses excluding people with political opinions they don't like.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 18, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> You dishonest little shit. It's obvious Sam was responding to the part you deliberately omitted from your post:
> 
> If you don't think younger kids will bully kids over this (usually prompted by their bigot parents) you're even drafter than I thought.



That part of the post was about kids and sexuality, not the twist you're putting on it.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 18, 2019)

I do find it a little odd how one group is allowed to push their ideals on another, but the attacked group doesn't seem to be allowed their beliefs within their own community. The teacher concerned was attacking the values held within a given community, pushing his own thoughts without consideration for their opinions or objections.
These things always have two sides so, in my opinion, I believe we have to hold a balanced view, realising there are going to be clashes of interest but, as the parents concerned have no in any way attacked the gay community, just the fact this rogue teacher has attacked their values, I believe he was in the wrong.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> That part of the post was about kids and sexuality, not the twist you're putting on it.



What twist? You're talking about young kids and sexuality. So is he. So was I. Where's the twist?

But you seriously believe the parents protesting this are the ones being attacked so you've clearly had a blow to the head or something and should probably be down the hospital rather than posting on here.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 18, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But you seriously believe the parents protesting this are the ones being attacked .



Yes, they are the victims.
80% of the school's parents object to their kids being given these lessons, and no one asked their permission to do it.
The lessons intrude on their belief system, but there has been no evidence to suggest they have in any way had a go at the gay community. You could easily prove the teacher is the victim by showing how these parents have done something wrong, and explaining why their rights are lesser than another group's.
Bigotry, oppression, and hate are bad news, and it doesn't matter which group they come from, or who the target is.
If these parents went around demonstrating against LGBT groups that would be another story, but they're only complaining about an attack on their way of life.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 18, 2019)

They're objecting to kids being taught that gay families exist. How you can possibly not understand that as an attack on the gay community is beyond me. The belief they're fighting for is that being gay is bad. That's literally what those of them who've spoken to the press say (they're quoted in this thread, so there is evidence).

And you want to me explain why their rights are "lesser" than other groups? Well, you're the one saying the rights of gay parents and kids are lesser, so why don't you back up your opinion first then?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The lessons intrude on their belief system,



So what? 

Let the parents teach the kids, let school teach the kids, then let the kids make up their own minds. If the parents' views are really valid the kids will get there in their own time. If not, oh well nothing is lost.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I do find it a little odd how one group is allowed to push their ideals on another, but the attacked group doesn't seem to be allowed their beliefs within their own community. The teacher concerned was attacking the values held within a given community, pushing his own thoughts without consideration for their opinions or objections.
> These things always have two sides so, in my opinion, I believe we have to hold a balanced view, realising there are going to be clashes of interest but, as the parents concerned have no in any way attacked the gay community, just the fact this rogue teacher has attacked their values, I believe he was in the wrong.


Who is the attacked community, who is attacking them and what form do these attacks take?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 18, 2019)

So, if the majority of parents want their kids to be less tolerant of others or (if any of their kids are gay) totally repressed, then that's all right? Fucking hell Don Toooomp, what is the matter with you? All the school is doing is teaching it's no big deal if some kids have two mams or two dads. That's basically it. But from the way the nuttier parents carry on (with the help of a lot of religious shit stirrers from outside the school) you'd think the school was giving lessons in fist fucking.


----------



## newbie (Apr 18, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> If someone attacks their employer they probably shouldn't be _surprised_ that if it comes back to bite them, doesn't mean that it is ok or should not be opposed. And as for employment tribunals they are no less political than any other part of the law. Sometimes workers win, sometimes they lose but let's not pretend that ETs are some neutral, impartial body.



This wasn't an attack on her employer. 

It's a pastoral carer shouting BRAINWASHING who has shown herself to be unwilling to accept that same sex relationships could be 'normal' (her quotes) and thereby throwing into question her personal ability to deal evenly with all children. 

Nor is it a classic example of downtrodden worker being shafted by capital. Painting it as such ignore the most salient point. The school has a safeguarding responsibility for children exhibiting social, emotional and behavioural difficulties.  Your stance undervalues their needs in favour of her values and understanding of relationships. 

Had she not made homophobic posts she wouldn't have dug her hole. She's quoted as saying "_I am determined to fight this case and to stand for Christians and all parents across the country who are being silenced for sharing and holding these views._" The politics are of her choosing. 



> Should this woman's politics be opposed, of course it should, but they should be confronted _politically_, rather than retreating behind a legal opposition. A no platform imposed by a community is not the same as the state/bosses excluding people with political opinions they don't like.



A complaint of homophobia was made.  If the school allowed her to continue to provide pastoral care they'd be seen locally as condoning her views. 

This thread started with a community attempting to no platform a school (analogy, not precise).  This woman & CLC are trolling hers, also on religious grounds.  Are you really sure that turning schools up and down the country into religious battlegrounds is a good idea?  Whose interests would it serve? Whose would it not?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2019)

newbie said:


> She's quoted as saying "_I am determined to fight this case and to stand for Christians and all parents across the country who are being silenced for sharing and holding these views._"



I expect a good many Christians will be unimpressed with the assumption that they share her homophobia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

newbie said:


> This wasn't an attack on her employer.
> 
> It's a pastoral carer shouting BRAINWASHING who has shown herself to be unwilling to accept that same sex relationships could be 'normal' (her quotes) and thereby throwing into question her personal ability to deal evenly with all children.
> 
> ...


Yep, basically this. It's a very specific, targetted and public attack on the idea of inclusive teaching. If she was indeed sacked primarily for 'reputational damage', I'd say those were the wrong grounds, but not that the sacking was necessarily the wrong decision. I certainly don't think hers is a case to be defended. And I would also dispute the idea that this is a case of her being penalised for her political views. She's being penalised for her _discriminatory_ views, which she and others wrap up in a cloak of religion. 

This school has said that it is not ok to give pastoral care at their school and at the same time to engage in a homophobic campaign on social media. Substitute 'racist' or 'sexist' for 'homophobic', and what conclusions do you reach? If your conclusions are different, I would then ask why you think homophobia is less of thing to be opposed than racism or sexism.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 18, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Who is the attacked community, who is attacking them and what form do these attacks take?



Well, I'll type slowly in the hope you'll understand

Their community doesn't want their kids to grow up knowing much about relationships until they're older - Gay relationships in this case.
The teacher is putting aside their culture in favour of his own
The parents didn't like their cultural norms being attacked, so asked him to stop
He didn't.

Try turning it around.
Imagine those same parents going into gay community gathering places, bars, or other hangouts distributing leaflets that attacked your way of life.
Would you ask them to fuck off and keep their noses out?

In other words, they have the right to their own way of life, even if others (including myself) don't much like it.
I don't understand why people would want to live that way, in exactly the same way I have little clue about what a gay relationship is like, but my lack of understanding is no reason to hate anyone or try to force my values on others because they have a different way of life to mine.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2019)

Are people really arguing that a homophobic teacher who is openly homophobic online will be able to keep their homophobia from seeping into the way they work and the way they interact with ideas and values at work?

Thing is, as I remember, racist teachers just couldn't stop their bigotry seeping into the way they interacted with students and the ideas they promoted.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 18, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> So, if the majority of parents want their kids to be less tolerant of others or (if any of their kids are gay) totally repressed, then that's all right? Fucking hell Don Toooomp, what is the matter with you? All the school is doing is teaching it's no big deal if some kids have two mams or two dads. That's basically it. But from the way the nuttier parents carry on (with the help of a lot of religious shit stirrers from outside the school) you'd think the school was giving lessons in fist fucking.



For me, I really don't care if the parents are same sex or otherwise. I fell in love with and married a lady that isn't white, and I got stick for it, so I'm fucked if I'm going to knock anyone else for their love, but that isn't the same as trying to disassemble someone's culture and beliefs, and that's what's happening here.
We may not agree with them, but we should understand their culture is old and what they believe, so we have to respect their opinions regarding what age sexuality should be discussed. As it happens, I agree with the parents on that issues - sexuality should be avoided until the kids are of an age they can understand. Once there, I don't have the slightest problem with my kids learning gay love is just as valid as anyone else's version.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> As it happens, I agree with the parents on that issues - sexuality should be avoided until the kids are of an age they can understand.



Which particular things are you talking about, in terms of kids being exposed to things they are too young to understand?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Are people really arguing that a homophobic teacher who is openly homophobic online will be able to keep her homophobia from seeping into the way they work and the way they interact with ideas and values at work?
> 
> Thing is, as I remember, racist teachers just couldn't stop their bigotry seeping into the way they interacted with students and the ideas they promoted.


If this teacher had been reported for posting white supremacist shit on the internet, I guarantee that zero people here would be arguing that her sacking was wrong. Somehow gay equality is a little way down the list in terms of importance.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 18, 2019)

You've got it arse sideways. Surely it's the conservative parents and their religious allies who are trying to force their opinions on the *whole school*.

And when you say teach sexuality, do you really think it's wrong to say to kids it's okay if one your schoolmates has two mams or two dads?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> For me, I really don't care if the parents are same sex or otherwise. I fell in love with and married a lady that isn't white, and I got stick for it, so I'm fucked if I'm going to knock anyone else for their love, but that isn't the same as trying to disassemble someone's culture and beliefs, and that's what's happening here.
> We may not agree with them, but we should understand their culture is old and what they believe, so we have to respect their opinions regarding what age sexuality should be discussed. As it happens, I agree with the parents on that issues - sexuality should be avoided until the kids are of an age they can understand. Once there, I don't have the slightest problem with my kids learning gay love is just as valid as anyone else's version.



Presumably to be consistent you’ll avoid exposing your offspring to any examples of ‘straight’ sexuality like a man and a women living together and sleeping in the same bed? Or is this about something else?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 18, 2019)

"Mam, Dad... how are babies born?" 
"Get thee behind me Satan!"


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 18, 2019)

In general, parents' views are just that,_ some people's views_, and obviously the world is full to bursting with views on this, that and the ten thousand things. Kids are going to hear things from everywhere, all the time. If parents have so little faith in the ideas they're teaching that they have to actually _censor _other ideas from being passed to their kids (as opposed to, say, discussing any and all ideas openly with their kids) then their views are not really worthy of any respect.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Well, I'll type slowly in the hope you'll understand
> 
> Their community doesn't want their kids to grow up knowing much about relationships until they're older - Gay relationships in this case.
> The teacher is putting aside their culture in favour of his own
> ...


It's pointless writing out long posts like this to me. My time is limited so I read selectively. Since I'd get more out of a debate over quantum theory with the dog than I'd get out of an exchange with you I choose not to bother. 
What I have skimmed is moral relativism at its worse. Have a word with yourself. 

No idea where the stuff about them going into gay bars and attacking my way of life comes from either.I doubt they would have a problem with my way of life, you see you don't have to be gay to support gay rights. 

It's simple. Not all views are equal, some are not legitimate. Like theirs. They can tell their kids what they want but, in order that they understand the society they live in and function in it comfortably they will be told the truth at school.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> In general, parents' views are just that,_ some people's views_, and obviously the world is full to bursting with views on this, that and the ten thousand things. Kids are going to hear things from everywhere, all the time. If parents have so little faith in the ideas they're teaching that they have to actually _censor _other ideas from being passed to their kids (as opposed to, say, discussing any and all ideas openly with their kids) then their views are not really worthy of any respect.


Very good point. And ironic, given that the views in this instance are supposedly based on faith.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> "Mam, Dad... how are babies born?"
> "Get thee behind me Satan!"


That'd confuse the fuck out of children, potentially messing them up for years


----------



## RainbowTown (Apr 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> In general, parents' views are just that,_ some people's views_, and obviously the world is full to bursting with views on this, that and the ten thousand things. Kids are going to hear things from everywhere, all the time. If parents have so little faith in the ideas they're teaching that they have to actually _censor _other ideas from being passed to their kids (as opposed to, say, discussing any and all ideas openly with their kids) then their views are not really worthy of any respect.



Totally concur. Some may want to dress this up as they like in order to appear fair and all-inclusive etc (all fake of course), but at the end of the day the underlying meaning to what this really is about is as clear as daylight: intolerance and prejudice, and based solely on the belief that homosexuality is abnormal and shameful and sinful. Let's not pretend otherwise.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2019)

What if these parents were complaining about kids being taught evolution in science and insisted they taught creationism instead? 

Wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the next step.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 18, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> What if these parents were complaining about kids being taught evolution in science and insisted they taught creationism instead?
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the next step.



One of the quotes from the lady says that children are “created”


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 18, 2019)

alex_ said:


> One of the quotes from the lady says that children are “created”



Well, they are created .. by pushing and shoving and sweating and grinding and a mess of body fluids. At least that's how mine was done, YMMV


----------



## likesfish (Apr 18, 2019)

Ffs it's the 21st century in the UK GLBT people exsist noone is going to teach your kids how to be gay.
  If the paras can cope with the exsistance of gay paras (obviously not unarmed Irish gays it's still a work in progress) 

Teaching kids that the gays exist and arnt going to kill them is hardly outrageous.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> There are some views that are incompatible with holding an influential working role with children.
> 
> If someone was posting anti Semitic shit in their free time, or white supremacist, I’d also expect their job with kids to be jeopardised.


But would you support them going through a disciplinary/dismissal process as a union rep? That's not so much a challenge to you or what you say, just thinking about how the different sets of rights would play out.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Well, they are created .. by pushing and shoving and sweating and grinding and a mess of body fluids. At least that's how mine was done, YMMV



Sexual fluids are mucuous-based, so basically kids are created from snot.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Sexual fluids are mucuous-based, so basically kids are created from snot.


You old romantic you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

Wilf said:


> But would you support them going through a disciplinary/dismissal process as a union rep? That's not so much a challenge to you or what you say, just thinking about how the different sets of rights would play out.


The RMT is just about the strongest union in the country. But if you get done for alcohol at work, despite what the tabloid press would have you believe, they won't defend you unless they feel you have significant mitigating circumstances. The union actually agrees with some of the rules and penalties laid down by management, particularly when it comes to safety. Is this situation not analogous? Would the teacher's union not agree with management's rules regarding spouting homophobia and promoting a homophobic campaign?


----------



## tim (Apr 18, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> What if these parents were complaining about kids being taught evolution in science and insisted they taught creationism instead?
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the next step.




A Whatiffery and a wouldntsurpriserme in the same post. You're surpassing yourself today!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2019)

How can anyone who actively promotes homphobia be trusted to uphold the equality and diversity commitments/policies of the place they work for and they are contractually bound to?

Any union rep working for this member would be aiming for damage limitation, some king of warning would have been the very best they could have hoped for surely? That would've been a fucking long shot though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> How can anyone who actively promotes homphobia be trusted to uphold the equality and diversity commitments/policies of the place they work for and they are contractually bound to?
> 
> Any union rep working for this member would be aiming for damage limitation, some king of warning would have been the very best they could have hoped for surely? That would've been a fucking long shot though.


With advice such as 'apologise, show remorse, vow never to do it again, agree to go on a training course'. Doesn't look like this person wishes to do any of those things. That's a very long way from what this Christian group appears to be trying to do, which is to defend her right to do what she did. No reason any union would or should do that any more than the RMT would defend a driver's right to have a drink at lunchtime. 

Christian group of course has wider objectives too, which are to push to get teaching policies changed. So they may well take this case on even if they know they'll lose it. They're not necessarily looking out for her interests here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2019)

tim said:


> A Whatiffery and a wouldntsurpriserme in the same post. You're surpassing yourself today!


I surpass myself on a daily basis.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With advice such as 'apologise, show remorse, vow never to do it again, agree to go on a training course'. Doesn't look like this person wishes to do any of those things. That's a very long way from what this Christian group appears to be trying to do, which is to defend her right to do what she did. No reason any union would or should do that any more than the RMT would defend a driver's right to have a drink at lunchtime.
> 
> Christian group of course has wider objectives too, which are to push to get teaching policies changed. So they may well take this case on even if they know they'll lose it. They're not necessarily looking out for her interests here.



The CLC are a bunch of fanatics who will always try to overturn equality laws, and laws around abortion, etc.  The stances they take are akin to advocating for xtians to have an absolute right to do what they want, regardless of the consequences on others - similar to the 'religious freedom' laws enacted by various states in the US.  

There are some entertaining judgments where they have (predictably) lost cases, where the judge slags off their counsel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> The CLC are a bunch of fanatics who will always try to overturn equality laws, and laws around abortion, etc.  The stances they take are akin to advocating for xtians to have an absolute right to do what they want, regardless of the consequences on others - similar to the 'religious freedom' laws enacted by various states in the US.
> 
> There are some entertaining judgments where they have (predictably) lost cases, where the judge slags off their counsel.


Yes, good to be reminded of the successes these fucks have had in the US. Thanks for making the link. Stuff like employers being allowed to deny their employees abortion coverage in their health care insurance plans, for instance, which exists in more than one state. They should be vigorously opposed.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, good to be reminded of the successes these fucks have had in the US. Thanks for making the link. Stuff like employers being allowed to deny their employees abortion coverage in their health care insurance plans, for instance, which exists in more than one state. They should be vigorously opposed.



These groups are utter cunts and should be fought at every opportunity.  They basically want a theocracy.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 18, 2019)

Wilf said:


> But would you support them going through a disciplinary/dismissal process as a union rep? That's not so much a challenge to you or what you say, just thinking about how the different sets of rights would play out.



Im not a union rep but I would want their union to fully support them in understanding where they stand as regards their legal position.  If, as I suspect, that legally they’re screwed, I’d hope the union would help ensure that their dismissal was dealt with appropriately wrt any benefits/notice/references etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2019)

The moral relativists here are essentially saying that those who think being gay is not normal and not socially acceptable should be given equal weight to the views of those who believe in equality. I completely reject that. I'm not a Liberal moral relativist. I'm a communist. We take sides.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 18, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Sexual fluids are mucuous-based, so basically kids are created from snot.



I think all animal and a good deal of insect and plant life on Earth is snot-based. What a delightful planet


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I think all animal and a good deal of insect and plant life on Earth is snot-based. What a delightful planet



Planet gelatinous.  

Its what happens when eukaryotes decide to hitch a ride with each other - they need some lube.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 18, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Planet gelatinous.
> 
> Its what happens when eukaryotes decide to hitch a ride with each other - they need some lube.



plus, however potential offspring emerge from the birth parent - whether naked or inside an egg - they need some way to slip 'n' slide out, right?


----------



## tim (Apr 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if the union had told her to go away, tbh. You're a homophobe who got caught promoting homophobia on the internet. Not going to help you, sorry.



Let's hope not, because lots of us are potentially fucked if this is the case.

Firstly, she was grassed up to her bosses by a snitch who took a screen grab of something she posted to "Friends" only, not as a general public post. Secondly, she was complaining about the curriculum in her child's primary school, not the institution she works in. Nothing she has said is illegal. As has been made clear, elsewhere, this is about school image management; the belief that by posting she could have caused reputational damage. They are not interested in student welfare. They want to protect their brand. 

I'll be out in London tomorrow supporting Friends involved in thr Extinction Rebellion protests. I shan't be breaking the law, but presumably my mere association with such groups might be considered to cause reputational damage to my employer; a potentially more realistic threat to my well being at work are my sporadic postings on social media about the current situation in Saudi Arabia as takes state sponsored students from Saudi Arabia some of whom I teach. I'm not ashamed of what I do and have no desire to self-censor. I don't want to refrain from such activities, even though if a link were made it could cause "reputational damage". I actually believe that what I do in my private life, as long as I don't break the law is of no business to my employer. I don't think they should have a right to discipline me for what I do or say in my private life. I would clearly expect my Union to support me not to tell me to fuck off.

Finally, all the "reasonable" boss crap spouted here makes me want to puke. We should be supporting workers against bosses, even workers we distain.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 19, 2019)

Would you defend a scab?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I doubt they would have a problem with my way of life,



.....but many people object to their way of life. Trying to force sex education on them is about the same as some silly fucker trying to tell gay men to wear little weights on their cocks in the hope of avoiding an erection upon seeing a bloke they fancy.
For these parents, the lessons were offensive and an attack on their lifestyle.

I think what's missing here is the ability to see other people's points of view. You don't have to agree with something to understand it, but refusing to accept it's their point of view, and actively trying to change their social norms, is bigoted, ignorant, and dangerous.

Ask this - Where does trying to enforce a point of view on the unwilling stop?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

If anyone fancies a read about the Christian Legal Centre, which appears to have been the source of the bulk of the information cited on this thread about this dismal case, this link provides a little snapshot of their organisation. Total cunts. They're mostly not even lawyers. 

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/o...ionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/

I really can't speak for Christians too much as I'm not one, but this shower and their fellow-travellers really do not represent any kind of mainstream Christian thinking in the UK. In fact you'll find many Christian sites strongly criticising them, eg:

How is the Christian Legal Centre funded? – Thinking Anglicans

Playbook direct from the US. And money from the US as well by the looks of it. Really, really need to be opposed, this lot.



> Close observers of the centre believe it is adopting the tactics of wealthy US evangelical groups, notably the powerful Alliance Defence Fund, which, through its Blackstone Legal Fellowship, trains an army of Christian lawyers to defend religious freedom “through strategy, training, funding and direct litigation”.
> 
> The ADF, which according to filings had an income of almost $40m last year, is funded by prominent benefactors including Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater private security giant, the Covenant Foundation, which is financed by a leading member of the Texas Christian right, James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, a charity that rejects evolution, insisting “man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures”.
> 
> The ADF has joined forces with the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern For Our Nation to launch the Wilberforce Academy in the UK, which aims to train delegates “for servant-hearted, Christ-centred leadership in public life” having equipped them “with a robust biblical framework that guides their thinking, prayers and activity in addressing the issues facing our society”. Several of its delegates have already gone on to work for the legal centre and Christian Concern.



And tim, your criticism of earlier whataboutery from spineyn - there's the link to creationism, right there. It wasn't hard to find.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 19, 2019)

[QUOTE="Don Troooomp, post: 16014622, member: 75608] Trying to force sex education on them is about the same as some silly fucker trying to tell gay men to wear little weights on their cocks in the hope of avoiding an erection upon seeing a bloke they fancy.[/QUOTE]

That has to rate as one of the most tortured and ill-conceived analogies I have ever waded through. And you're a dirty puppy as well.

I notice you use "force" and "sex" in the same phrase when it comes to describing these lessons, which is interestingly suggestive.

What "sex education" do you think is being "forced" on these five year old children...exactly?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Would you defend a scab?



How dangerous is that statement?

You've dehumanised a person
You've used a term to describe someone with an opposing political or social view that has a very negative twist, possibly to the point of suggesting violence is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with them
You've suggested the person is unfit to live in society
You've said the person is unfit for fair treatment, and they're guilty as a result of accusation, not conviction of a crime that doesn't exist
You've made up a crime, and suggested punishment of some sort should follow

Who shall we dehumanise next?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

Wookey said:


> I notice you use "force" and "sex" in the same phrase when it comes to describing these lessons, which is interestingly suggestive.



Force suggests resistance, and there is clearly a lot of that.
Sex is talking about relationships, and the teacher did that.

Yes, the teachers was forcing kids to learn about stuff that is alien to their culture, and the parents objected.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> .....but many people object to their way of life. Trying to force sex education on them is about the same as some silly fucker trying to tell gay men to wear little weights on their cocks in the hope of avoiding an erection upon seeing a bloke they fancy.
> For these parents, the lessons were offensive and an attack on their lifestyle.
> 
> I think what's missing here is the ability to see other people's points of view. You don't have to agree with something to understand it, but refusing to accept it's their point of view, and actively trying to change their social norms, is bigoted, ignorant, and dangerous.
> ...



Nobody is doing that. They can think whatever the fuck they want, even tell their kids whatever the fuck they want to tell them. 

Nobody is asking them to take it up the arse. Nobody is telling their kids they should be gay. Nobody is imposing anything on anyone. 

But if they're going to tell their kids bigoted shit at home the kids will be told it's hateful nonsense when they go to school. If they don't like it then tough shit. 

Again, homophobes aren't on an equal moral footing to those who believe in equality. In drawing an equivalence you reveal a lot about yourself.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> What if these parents were complaining about kids being taught evolution in science and insisted they taught creationism instead?
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the next step.



What is these parents insisted on a magical figure that created and controls the world? - OMG - STOP THEM!
Ban religion, ban thoughts that don't conform to yours, ban reading, ban .......


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

Wookey said:


> That has to rate as one of the most tortured and ill-conceived analogies I have ever waded through. And you're a dirty puppy as well.
> 
> I notice you use "force" and "sex" in the same phrase when it comes to describing these lessons, which is interestingly suggestive.
> 
> What "sex education" do you think is being "forced" on these five year old children...exactly?


 A veritable freudian field day, this one.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Sex is talking about relationships, and the teacher did that..



Sex isn't talking about relationships at all. Maybe in your head, but then I've peaked inside your head and it's mucky in there.

Teachers use age-appropriate terms, to discuss the plurality of family make up. Mum and dad. Mum and no dad. Two mums. There's no sex involved, especially not for five yhear olds ffs, and the fact you think it would says more about you than it does these teachers. Plural by the way, this isn't one man doing one lesson one time, it's national curriculum policy.



Don Troooomp said:


> Yes, the teachers was forcing kids to learn about stuff that is alien to their culture, and the parents objected.



It's not alien to any culture, ever, on earth, since humans had culture. You're repeating a homophobe lie, and doing it shamelessly. Who the fuck are you and who let you in?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> What is these parents insisted on a magical figure that created and controls the world? - OMG - STOP THEM!
> Ban religion, ban thoughts that don't conform to yours, ban reading, ban .......



That bares no relation to what I posted you boring know nothing twat.

Again, they can believe what they want but in science classes people should be taught science and not mythology. If they want their kids taught about the book of genesis they can send them to fucking Sunday school.

I wouldn't have had you down as a fan of the US religious right, strange that you should parrot their arguments so freely, knowingly or not.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

Anyway, what the fuck am I doing getting drawn into a back and forth with this tedious ignoramus? I've got more productive and less shameful things to do. For example a furtive wank in the back yard.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anyway, what the fuck am I doing getting drawn into a back and forth with this tedious ignoramus? I've got more productive and less shameful things to do. For example a furtive wank in the back yard.



*watches*


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

I wouldn't if I was you, some things cannot be unseen


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> homophobes aren't on an equal moral footing to those who believe in equality.


Goes for the whole thread, this bit. Has been said a few times already on the thread, but bears repeating.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 19, 2019)

Or, SpineyNorman put it another way:



SpineyNorman said:


> In drawing an equivalence you reveal a lot about yourself.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody is doing that. They can think whatever the fuck they want, even tell their kids whatever the fuck they want to tell them.



That's OK then - The teacher was never there and there isn't a thread about it



SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody is imposing anything on anyone.



Plenty of posts here suggesting the lessons should continue regardless of the parents' objections



SpineyNorman said:


> But if they're going to tell their kids bigoted shit at home the kids will be told it's hateful nonsense when they go to school. If they don't like it then tough shit.



Their choice, and the kids will, hopefully, learn it's wrong. What would you do - sterilise all the Muslims/Catholics/whoever or remove their kids at birth?



SpineyNorman said:


> Again, homophobes aren't on an equal moral footing to those who believe in equality. In drawing an equivalence you reveal a lot about yourself.



What's happening here is one group is claiming moral superiority over another based solely on their own opinions of right and wrong.
The danger is how far do you take that? We've already seen kids being forced into relationship education the parents feel is objectionable, and that forced opinion being defended on this thread.

I'm hardly against anyone for their lifestyle and, as I said, I got hammered by some bastards (some I thought some were friends until then) for being in a mixed race marriage, so there's no fucking way in this wide world I'm going to have a pop at anyone for being whatever they are, or loving whoever they feel is right, but I'm very much unsure about anyone forcing an opinion on any other group - That's a dangerous path, and one I don't want to be on.


----------



## David Riley (Apr 19, 2019)

Its not the teacher that their protesting againt, its what their teaching


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> That's OK then - The teacher was never there and there isn't a thread about it
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm out, you win. 

Never argue with a fuckwit with too much time on his hands.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

David Riley said:


> Its not the teacher that their protesting againt, its what their teaching


That's not strictly true, I don't think. The teacher at the Birmingham school is a pioneer in this stuff. He's developed a lot of it himself. Indeed, he's won international awards for it. And he is openly gay. We shouldn't pretend that isn't a big part, perhaps the biggest part, of this - an unapologetically gay teacher teaching kids that it's ok to be gay. Some of the protesters have even admitted as much, revealing a lot about themselves when they tried to deny they were homophobic when they said, and I paraphrase, that they didn't care that he is gay as long as he keeps it to himself.

He normalises the idea that there's nothing wrong with being gay by teaching that there is nothing wrong with being gay and also by being openly gay himself. And that second bit is really the bit they can't stand.


----------



## tim (Apr 19, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> Would you defend a scab?





SpineyNorman said:


> The moral relativists here are essentially saying that those who think being gay is not normal and not socially acceptable should be given equal weight to the views of those who believe in equality. I completely reject that. I'm not a Liberal moral relativist. I'm a communist. We take sides.




In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.


----------



## Wookey (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm out, you win.
> 
> Never argue with a fuckwit with too much time on his hands.



We must be getting old man. I did the same calculation.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

tim said:


> In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.


I haven't taken a side in that cos I don't know enough about the case. My only post even vaguely related to that ought to be taken as support for her if anything.

Stop making shit up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

tim said:


> In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.


No it's not. You've got this as painfully wrong as you got the parent protest. If a train driver gets caught drinking on the job, he or she will be sacked. I'm not going to defend that driver or criticise the employer for sacking them. And guess what, most of the other train drivers wouldn't either. Get that fucker out of the trains would be their response.

Defending worker rights doesn't mean defending any and every person who is ever sacked. This case is not about worker rights. It's mostly about evangelical Christians trying to push their agenda at British schools. Get those fuckers out of the classroom.


----------



## tim (Apr 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not. You've got this as painfully wrong as you got the parent protest. If a train driver gets caught drinking on the job, he or she will be sacked immediately. I'm not going to defend that driver or criticise the employer for sacking them. And guess what, most of the other train drivers wouldn't either. Get that fucker out of the trains would be their response.
> 
> Defending worker rights doesn't mean defending any and every person who is ever sacked. This case is not about worker rights. It's mostly about evangelical Christians trying to push their agenda at British schools. Get those fuckers out of the classroom.




Odd that you  have such strong feelings about the dangers of nonexistent deities, but such a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses and their use of Big Brother techniques.

As she was sacked for something she did in her private life bit whilst working, I don't really get the train driver analogy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

tim said:


> Odd that you  have such strong feelings about the dangers of nonexistent deities, but such a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses and their use of Big Brother techniques.


You've just made that up. I don't have a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses, and I stated earlier that I'm uneasy about social media spying by bosses. Maybe try arguing against the things people are actually posting.

Oh and have a read of those links about the group whose information you've been going on about this case. You're acting like their useful idiot at the moment.

Also, have you tried that test I suggested earlier. Substitute racist campaigning on social media for homophobic campaigning on social media. Would you still be defending her right to do that and keep her job as a teacher? If not, why not?


----------



## tim (Apr 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've just made that up. I don't have a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses, and I stated earlier that I'm uneasy about social media spying by bosses. Maybe try arguing against the things people are actually posting.
> 
> Oh and have a read of those links about the group whose information you've been going on about this case. You're acting like their useful idiot at the moment.



Her bosses spied upon her and sacked her not on a welfare issue but because she might damage the brand. That's still the truth whatever the legal group supporting her is. It's the justification given by the school itself.


----------



## tim (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't taken a side in that cos I don't know enough about the case. My only post even vaguely related to that ought to be taken as support for her if anything.
> 
> Stop making shit up.



Fair enough, sorry!


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 19, 2019)

More relativist shite.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

Wookey said:


> Sex isn't talking about relationships at all. Maybe in your head, but then I've peaked inside your head and it's mucky in there



Bollocks - Apart from anything else, there are cartoon pictures of two men in bed together. Yes, it's a cartoon and, yes, they don't mention sex, but that picture is objectionable to the group this teacher was trying to force it upon.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Again, they can believe what they want but in science classes people should be taught science and not mythology. If they want their kids taught about the book of genesis they can send them to fucking Sunday school.



I'm quite a fan of science (not chemistry), but nobody has claimed these people are advocating flat earth or whatever, and what is mythology to me and you is fact for them.
Perhaps you'd like to make religion illegal and imprison them for their thoughts.



SpineyNorman said:


> *I wouldn't have had you down as a fan of the US religious right, strange that you should parrot their arguments so freely, knowingly or not.*



I'm not and I think they're a bunch of silly cunts, but they have to right to believe what they want within their own group.
I will suggest religion is a load of old bollocks and, if their opinions spill out into trying to force their opinions on society in general, I will stand and oppose them, but I won't try to force them to abandon their way of life if they leave everyone else alone.

That's what's happening here - One group is trying to force their opinions on another, and that's wrong.

The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

Wookey said:


> It's not alien to any culture, ever, on earth, since humans had culture. You're repeating a homophobe lie, and doing it shamelessly. Who the fuck are you and who let you in?



It's alien to Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, even if the latter has abandoned their silly opinion. I don't know enough about about Judaism to comment but, since that religion came from the same roots, there's a fair chance their culture has similar rules.
Of course homosexuality is a normal part of being human, always has been and always will be, but some societies see it as alien and immoral.
I disagree with them, but the only way to stop them is remove religion, and that means wars or camps, or extermination.
Re-education camps would be appealing to some, but not me.

Perhaps you could say how you would go about removing their opinions from the planet, and why you feel it's justified to oppress someone for their thoughts.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2019)

Don't say you weren't all warned about this one.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Bollocks - Apart from anything else, there are cartoon pictures of two men in bed together. Yes, it's a cartoon and, yes, they don't mention sex, but that picture is objectionable to the group this teacher was trying to force it upon.



Anyone angry about a _cartoon_ needs laughing at.



Don Troooomp said:


> I'm quite a fan of science (not chemistry), but .....
> 
> I think they're a bunch of silly cunts, but ......
> 
> I will suggest religion is a load of old bollocks and, if their opinions spill out into trying to force their opinions on society in general, I will stand and oppose them, but.....



It's been said elsewhere, anything before 'but' is mealy-mouthed shite. Maybe you can do better, maybe not. Don't feel obliged to try.



Don Troooomp said:


> they have to right to believe what they want within their own group



But not to insist a whole school follows them in that.



Don Troooomp said:


> The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme



Is criminalizing eg. paedophilia 'oppressing a minority'? Comparing one group trying to harm kids (religious fundamentalists) with another group harming kids in another way seems fair. So?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Should this woman's politics be opposed, of course it should, but they should be confronted _politically_, rather than retreating behind a legal opposition. A no platform imposed by a community is not the same as the state/bosses excluding people with political opinions they don't like.


This needs repeating. It’s exactly what people seem to not bother reading every time an argument like this happens. Break it down, people.

1. Should inegalitarian attitudes be confronted? Yes, by working in communities, through communities, with communities.  

2. Should bosses be sacking people for voicing their opinions, even if outside work? No, of course not. Even if we don’t like the opinions. Why? Because what if the bosses don’t like my opinions and yours?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Force suggests resistance, and there is clearly a lot of that.
> Sex is talking about relationships, and the teacher did that.
> 
> Yes, the teachers was forcing kids to learn about stuff that is alien to their culture, and the parents objected.


There is so much wrong with this post that I doubt you’d understand if I tried to parse it all. But suffice it to say that you are a dangerous fool.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 19, 2019)

The other point here is that by not fighting such attitudes on a community based politics approach but rather by letting the state/bosses "protect" us from them we are weakening our future ability to oppose such view politically. Which only allows such inegalitarian attitudes, and the politics they are associated with, space to grow.

Liberal, state-supported anti-fascism is not just ineffective, it's actually counterproductive. Criticising Hope not Hate is not being an apologist for fascism, opposing Labour/Democrats/ALP/etc is not being an apologist for Trump. Much of the resurgence of the hard right we've seen over the last decade is precisely because the "left" has been utterly unable to make a political argument against such views, instead falling in behind the state and ceding the space it might have once occupied to the hard-right.

A proper community based anti-fascism/hard right does not just need to oppose the hard right it will also need to be built in opposition to state/captial anti-fascism. (Credit to butchersapron for the link).


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme.


I’m reminded of a talk by Howard Zinn that I have on cassette somewhere. (It was a very long time ago). It was the Christopher Columbus 500th celebrations in the US, and he was talking about taking a view on the attitudes of the Conquistadors. He was amazed at those saying “but those were different times, so we mustn’t judge”. He said “mustn’t judge? Of course we should judge!” Or something along those lines.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> There is so much wrong with this post that I doubt you’d understand if I tried to parse it all. But suffice it to say that you are a dangerous fool.


Whatever anybody else's view I think we can all agree on this.


----------



## newbie (Apr 19, 2019)

tim said:


> As has been made clear, elsewhere, this is about school image management; the belief that by posting she could have caused reputational damage. They are not interested in student welfare. They want to protect their brand.


The reputation of an ordinary local school isn't a commercial brand, it's a significant component of the lives of the communites it exists for.  A school that condones a pastoral care worker posting homophobic rants aimed at preventing teenagers receiving sex and relationship teaching is clearly going to offend one group of parents, of teachers, of governors while attracting a very different set. It will also send a very clear message to every child in the school.  That has much more profound implications than the term 'brand' denotes.



> I'll be out in London tomorrow supporting Friends involved in thr Extinction Rebellion protests. I shan't be breaking the law, but presumably my mere association with such groups might be considered to cause reputational damage to my employer; a potentially more realistic threat to my well being at work are my sporadic postings on social media about the current situation in Saudi Arabia as takes state sponsored students from Saudi Arabia some of whom I teach. I'm not ashamed of what I do and have no desire to self-censor. I don't want to refrain from such activities, even though if a link were made it could cause "reputational damage". I actually believe that what I do in my private life, as long as I don't break the law is of no business to my employer. I don't think they should have a right to discipline me for what I do or say in my private life. I would clearly expect my Union to support me not to tell me to fuck off.


sure, your concern is this is the thin end of a wedge that could be applied across the board.

It's not, it's very much case specific.

Are your students children or adults?  Do you have a specific (rather than general) pastoral care role for dealing with children struggling to understand their own sexuality or gender, or that of parents, friends, acquaintances and those in the media, SM or porn, or with those tormenting some of them because of that?  If so, and if you campaign to de-normalise some students because god said so, then, then your position may be similar.  Otherwise nah.  If your position is directly comparable you're in the wrong job and quite possibly should be removed in the interests of safeguarding all of those children. 

I don't know your situation but eg a college teaching international adult students is not the same as a local school. If your job is threatened because of commercial pressure based on (non hate-speech) political posts I would expect and encourage your union to stand up for you.  However, if you went running to something akin to the Christian Legal Centre I'd question the motivation behind your behaviour.



> Finally, all the "reasonable" boss crap spouted here makes me want to puke. We should be supporting workers against bosses, even workers we distain.


and expose the children of workers to pastoral care based on discrimination and religious based intolerance, potentially scarring some.  And the communities in which they live to discord. And some workers to feeling isolation or that S28 style history is set to repeat itself.

Have you ever noticed this is a funny old world without a single, all encompassing, dead simple, uncompromising and above all consistent position that's applicable in all circumstances?


----------



## likesfish (Apr 19, 2019)

I think a state should enforce equality before the law for all its citizens.
 If your god/social group objects to that bare minimum then Tough.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 19, 2019)

[QUOTE="n
Have you ever noticed this is a funny old world without a single, all encompassing, dead simple, uncompromising and above all consistent position that's applicable in all circumstances?[/QUOTE]

Piers Morgan is always twat though
occasionally he has a point buts still a TWAT


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> There is so much wrong with this post that I doubt you’d understand if I tried to parse it all. But suffice it to say that you are a dangerous fool.



Try me.
I'm not too thick and I'm always open to listen to well laid out points of view.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> But not to insist a whole school follows them in that.



Given 80% of the parents withdrew their kids for the protest, there goes democracy.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 19, 2019)

Or, up to 80% of parents were browbeaten into withdrawing their kids, by a vocal minority who used shaming tactics to make themselves appear more important / powerful than they actually were.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Sex is talking about relationships


Gay people are not “sex people”, they’re people. 

If a child asks a question, the trick is to answer what’s asked, then stop talking. “Joseph has two daddies” is enough. There’s no need to go into whether they enjoy rimming and how that’s done.



> Yes, the teachers was forcing kids to learn about stuff that is alien to their culture, and the parents objected.


 “Alien to their culture”.

Culture is not uniform, immutable, or in any given iteration a necessity for any given group. That’s racist essentialism. 

You are arguing that you can’t criticise homophobia “because it’s their culture”, and that to do so is oppression. Can I get round that by explaining that I’m an oppressed minority? It’s my culture to oppose homophobia. If you tell me not to, that’s racism. This is a mess of intersectionality top trumps. We can’t go on that way.

So, the answer is to oppose homophobia (or misogyny, or whatever), by supporting and following the lead of, for example, gay Muslims, feminist Muslim groups (or whatever).  

Or, you could be a good liberal top-down multiculturalist, and decide that it is authentically Muslim to be homophobic, and knock down all criticism of homophobia within Muslim cultures, including from within those cultures.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> You are arguing that you can’t criticise homophobia “because it’s their culture”, and that to do so is oppression. Can I get round that by explaining that I’m an oppressed minority? It’s my culture to oppose homophobia
> ........
> Or, you could be a good liberal top-down multiculturalist, and decide that it is authentically Muslim to be homophobic, and knock down all criticism of homophobia within Muslim cultures, including from within those cultures.



Odd argument.
These parents objected to their kids being told about relationships at a very young age. They didn't express homophobic views (at least not in any of the reports I've read), just objected to their kids being indoctrinated with someone else's idea of relationship education.
None of them attacked the gay community, nor did they take to the streets demanding gays be stoned to death, but they did object to someone interfering in their families and, most crucially, forcing an opinion on them.
In other words, the school was wrong to allow it, and bigotry is showing its ugly head on this thread.
Here's the bit I really dislike - Many on this thread know they are so right, they're sure everyone else is wrong to the point they have no interest in the people they're attacking, or even realise they're attacking them.
Removing the right to believe in and observe a religion risks taking the world down a dangerous road where thoughts are wrong if they aren't the right thoughts.

In case you think I'm defending homophobia, I'll say this clearly and directly, homophobia is fucking crap, as is racism and all other forms of bigotry.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Odd argument.
> These parents objected to their kids being told about relationships at a very young age. They didn't express homophobic views (at least not in any of the reports I've read), just objected to their kids being indoctrinated with someone else's idea of relationship education.
> None of them attacked the gay community, nor did they take to the streets demanding gays be stoned to death, but they did object to someone interfering in their families and, most crucially, forcing an opinion on them.
> In other words, the school was wrong to allow it, and bigotry is showing its ugly head on this thread.
> ...


Utter mince.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Here's the bit I really dislike - Many on this thread know they are so right, they're sure everyone else is wrong to the point they have no interest in the people they're attacking, or even realise they're attacking them.
> Removing the right to believe in and observe a religion risks taking the world down a dangerous road where thoughts are wrong if they aren't the right thoughts.



Like when religious people get in charge of a place and make everyone do what they say (aka what god says)

Religion, eh? Believe what you want and keep it to your self.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Utter mince.


I concur. And not worth bothering discussing further with this Troooomp idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> They didn't express homophobic views (at least not in any of the reports I've read),


Either you've not read the same reports as me, or you missed the homophobia. Several of the parents were keen to stress that they had no problem with the fact that Andrew Moffat is gay. However, that wasn't actually true, because they went on to express an objection to him being openly gay at school.

I've no idea if he's married or in a long-term relationship, but let's say that he is. Maybe he talks to the kids about their holidays.

'Where did you go on your holiday, Mr Moffat?' asks one of the kids.

'Oh we went to the Lake District. My husband loves it there.'

'Your husband? But you're a man. How can a man have a husband?'

Mr Moffat explains that sometimes two men may get married or two women.

Kid goes home and tells parents about Mr Moffat and his husband. Parent gets on the phone to express outrage.

Of course, if Mr Moffat had told the kids that he and his wife had gone to the Lake District, parent would not have got on the phone. That's homophobia, right there, and of a kind that this approach to teaching is intended to counter - in order to normalise gay relationships to a point where they are no big deal. It is exactly that normalisation process that the parents object to - and as noted earlier, we must not pretend that those driving these protests do not see homosexuality as a sin against god, because they do, and that is what is at the root of this.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 19, 2019)

Also the poster at the protest (as in physical handheld poster, not a person posting on here) that said "protect our children's innocence" _is_ homophobic. Children don't lose their innocence by being told that some men love men and some men love women and so on. Unless you object to kids being told that love exists between people at all then there's no innocence being lost just because the relationships involved aren't hetero.

If the gay people concerned are parents of young kids - which is how it's being brought up, that some kids have parents of the same gender - the odds are they aren't having much sex anyway


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Also the poster at the protest (as in physical handheld poster, not a person posting on here) that said "protect our children's innocence" _is_ homophobic. Children don't lose their innocence by being told that some men love men and some men love women and so on. Unless you object to kids being told that love exists between people at all then there's no innocence being lost just because the relationships involved aren't hetero.
> 
> If the gay people concerned are parents of young kids - which is how it's being brought up, that some kids have parents of the same gender - the odds are they aren't having much sex anyway


It very specifically _isn't_ sex education. Those saying that it is are just factually wrong about that. As the saying goes, we're entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 19, 2019)

In their world people might be told that gay people exsist once they reach a reasonable age say 21  but only the filthy kaffir need to know .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2019)

likesfish said:


> In their world people might be told that gay people exsist once they reach a reasonable age say 21  but only the filthy kaffir need to know .



Can you stop using racist terminology.  I don't give a flying fuck what point you are trying to make. You are failing.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2019)

likesfish said:


> In their world people might be told that gay people exsist once they reach a reasonable age say 21  but only the filthy kaffir need to know .



Are you thinking of that word for "infidel"? 

Because I think you may have gone a bit wrong.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 19, 2019)

Whatever not my sky fairy don't really  care, but the sort of people who complain are the sort to object at any age to anything remotely mentioning sex including the hpv vaccine.

Islam isn't a race its a relegion although the price for walking away is excessive.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Whatever not my sky fairy don't really  care, but the sort of people who complain are the sort to object at any age to anything remotely mentioning sex including the hpv vaccine.
> 
> Islam isn't a race its a relegion although the price for walking away is excessive.




What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know what _Kaffir _means and how it is used? It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race.

It is very much your problem if you think you can post shit like that.

Cunt.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Do you know what Kaffir means and how it is used?
> 
> ...



I was trying to gentle with him there, but yeah, I think likesfish  was aiming for the Arabic_ "kafir", _then being a bit too puffed-up to think about the responses that were coming back_._


----------



## likesfish (Apr 19, 2019)

My mistake meant Kafir insulting term fir infidel not the racist one


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Whatever not my sky fairy don't really  care, but the sort of people who complain are the sort to object at any age to anything remotely mentioning sex including the hpv vaccine.
> 
> Islam isn't a race its a relegion although the price for walking away is excessive.


You're the mirror image of Don Troooomp.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Do you know what _Kaffir _means and how it is used? It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race.
> 
> ...



TBF on Likesfish he posts up lots of non-discriminatory stuff too (he has in this thread, for example, not just about gay people either - he's used words like "fundies," and not made it sound like he thinks all Muslims are fundies). Kaffir's a dodgy as fuck word but I'd be more inclined to put it down to a mistake than intentional bigotry. So it's a teachable moment, really, IYSWIM


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Odd argument.
> These parents objected to their kids being told about relationships at a very young age. They didn't express homophobic views (at least not in any of the reports I've read), just objected to their kids being indoctrinated with someone else's idea of relationship education.
> None of them attacked the gay community, nor did they take to the streets demanding gays be stoned to death, but they did object to someone interfering in their families and, most crucially, forcing an opinion on them.
> In other words, the school was wrong to allow it, and bigotry is showing its ugly head on this thread.
> ...


If, for religious reasons, 90% of parents wanted a school to stop teaching evolution, would that be ok with you?

What about if part of young children’s relationships education told them that mixed race relationships were normal and healthy, but a bunch of parents objected to that on cultural grounds?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> If, for religious reasons, 90% of parents wanted a school to stop teaching evolution, would that be ok with you?



Schools barely teach evolution anyway tbf, but then these squabbles always seem to be over relatively miniscule bits of the curriculum.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> If, for religious reasons, 90% of parents wanted a school to stop teaching evolution, would that be ok with you?


I made the same point and he basically accused me of wanting to put creationists in concentration camps, he's essentially already said he's fine with that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 19, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> What if these parents were complaining about kids being taught evolution in science and insisted they taught creationism instead?
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the next step.





Don Troooomp said:


> What is these parents insisted on a magical figure that created and controls the world? - OMG - STOP THEM!
> Ban religion, ban thoughts that don't conform to yours, ban reading, ban .......



Quite remarkable.


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 19, 2019)

To reiterate.

Kafir - Arabic for infidel.

Kaffir - racist term for black South African.

I know likesfish got it wrong unintentionally. I wonder if his critics even know the difference.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> To reiterate.
> 
> Kafir - Arabic for infidel.
> 
> ...


Wonder away.

Kafir is the root of _Kaffir._..wonder if you even know that. 

If someone wants to say _infidel_, it's probably better that they do.

It's not solely used to describe Black South Africans either...Whilst it festered there, the usage has spread. I've been called it myself here in England more than once in my life.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 19, 2019)

Forget it, I hate the word


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Wonder away.
> 
> Kafir is the root of _Kaffir._..wonder if you even know that.



Yep, I did. But I think you were too busy trying to make a “you’re racist” point to likesfish than anything about etymology weren’t you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Yep, I did. But I think you were too busy trying to make a “you’re racist” point to likesfish than anything about etymology weren’t you.


Yeah of course you did. That's why you waded in trying to draw definitive lines between the two spellings as if there's no relationship and insisted that it's only used to describe Black South Africans.  You were wrong on both counts.

I have a problem with racist terminology. I couldn't care less what you think.


----------



## planetgeli (Apr 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah of course you did. That's why you waded in trying to draw definitive lines between the two spellings as if there's no relationship and insisted that it's only used to describe Black South Africans.  You were wrong on both counts.
> 
> I have a problem with racist terminology. I couldn't care less what you think.



No of course you don’t. That’s why you’re replying to my posts.

#lastwordism


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> No of course you don’t. That’s why you’re replying to my posts.
> 
> #lastwordism


 All you have left I see.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Quite remarkable.



Yes, I am - Thanks.
The point is, you don't have to believe or even like something to understand and respect other people do.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> If, for religious reasons, 90% of parents wanted a school to stop teaching evolution, would that be ok with you?
> 
> What about if part of young children’s relationships education told them that mixed race relationships were normal and healthy, but a bunch of parents objected to that on cultural grounds?



They teach their kids about a magical, all powerful deity (That being mutually exclusive to evolution) - You seem to be suggesting refusing to allow them to teach their religion, or maybe banning it. Perhaps you'd like to comment.

They also teach their kids they can only marry other Muslims - up to them as long as they don't stop me or anyone else doing what I feel is right.  Their kids, when they're old enough to be independent, can tell their families to fuck off, then marry who the hell they like, regardless of sexual orientation or whatever. 
If they attack me for being in a mixed race marriage, or attack people for being in a gay relationship, I'll have something to say - until then, they're the ones being told to change to suit another group's ideals, thus are the victims.

Posters here don't seem to get it's wrong to impose their views and ideals upon all. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to accept any loving relationship between anyone, but these parents are not, and that's their choice in their community, so should be respected unless they try to impose their values on other people.

If you allow a minority to be oppressed by other groups, where do you draw the line? I read a pretty disgusting story about gays in Brunei risking being whipped or murdered by stoning for being who they are, that monstrous law being so wrong it's beyond what any human should even consider but, if you accept the principle one group is allowed to impose its values on minorities because they don't like them, you also have to support that inhuman behaviour.

I suppose you could kick all Muslims and Catholics who refuse to give up their religion out of the country, or maybe bung them in re-education camps, but that seems a little too nazi for my tastes.

So, where would you draw he line when it comes to forcing people to accept others points of view, and what action would you take against them? 

What was that phrase? ah, Thoughtcrime.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe



That looks after that post - Making up a possible narrative in order to make a point is a bit of a crappy debating style.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Like when religious people get in charge of a place and make everyone do what they say (aka what god says)
> 
> Religion, eh? Believe what you want and keep it to your self.



Frankly, I think religion is a load of old shit, but I feel I have to respect others believe and feel it's right for them.
Would you make their thoughts illegal?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You seem to be suggesting refusing to allow them to teach their religion, or maybe banning it. Perhaps you'd like to comment.


No she doesn’t. 

You, however, seem not to be reading or understanding people’s posts. Perhaps you could start with that. Instead of making stuff up.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2019)

Good on you for trying Danny but I think you're whistling into the void with this wanker.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Good on you for trying Danny but I think you're whistling into the void with this wanker.



What would you do if a bunch of parents went into Balans in Soho and tried to tell you how you should live your lives?
I'm guessing you'd tell them to fuck off and stop trying to impose their values on you.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> What would you do if a bunch of parents went into Balans in Soho and tried to tell you how you should live your lives?
> I'm guessing you'd tell them to fuck off and stop trying to impose their values on you.




I’ve not heard of Balans in Soho, but I’m guessing from context it’s a gay bar.  It’s interesting that you think we all frequent it. But leaving that aside (and assuming that it is indeed a gay bar), let’s think for a moment whether there is any parallel here. Is the analogy you’ve set up in any way apt?

What you been told is that schools teach societal norms. That families can teach whatever religious values they wish in their homes. But that it would be best if schools taught _about_ religions, rather imposing religious observance, and that religious observance is a matter for the home.  Which part of that sounds like “banning religion”?

Your stance is akin to the liberal establishment deciding what constitutes “authentic” Muslim culture, alighting on the most reactionary elements of Muslim cultures and deciding them to be essential, and seeking to entrench those values, believing that to equate to anti racism. This is in fact what top down multiculturalism has done. (I recommend reading Kenan Malik for in depth description of the history of this effect). 

Rather, what needs to be done is for those of us who would support and enhance liberatory impulses to support  and amplify those voices within Muslim cultures who seek to fight the forces of conservative reaction: in other words gay Muslims, feminist Muslims, and so on. And in this way enhance inter community solidarities and cooperation. 

This is not in any way the same as bursting into a mosque kitchen and “telling people how to live their lives”.  

Your moral relativism is actually a force for reaction.


----------



## High Voltage (Apr 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I’ve not heard of Balans in Soho, but I’m guessing from context it’s a gay bar.  . . .



A quick Google shows that it's a caff - a nice caff - but a caff never the less and, let's be honest here, their FEB would NOT go down well on _that thread_


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Frankly, I think religion is a load of old shit, but I feel I have to respect others believe and feel it's right for them.
> Would you make their thoughts illegal?



Of course not.

I would make it illegal for the religious to proselytize in public or display religious symbols in public places, to open religious schools, to stop their childen attending a class at regular school, or to disfigure their children's bodies in any way. I would also make religious groups pay tax like other businesses. And completely disestablish religion from the state.

Off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more to be done but that would be a good start.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I would make it illegal to proselytize in public or display religious symbols in public places,


I don’t support you in this.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

That's ok, many people would not and there are arguments against everything I wrote there. But I feel religion has had too much public space for too long, and anything that can reduce that should be done.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Of course not.
> 
> I would make it illegal for the religious to proselytize in public or display religious symbols in public places, to open religious schools, to stop their childen attending a class at regular school, or to disfigure their children's bodies in any way. I would also make religious groups pay tax like other businesses. And completely disestablish religion from the state.
> 
> Off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more to be done but that would be a good start.


Then you're just becoming the monster of this idiots brain.

if anything the above should be compulsory for the religious.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> This is not in any way the same as bursting into a mosque kitchen and “telling people how to live their lives”.



It is - The guy went into a school that has a mostly Muslim takeup, and tried to tell them what they should and should not allow.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It is - The guy went into a school that has a mostly Muslim takeup, and tried to tell them what they should and should not allow.


No it isn’t.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Frankly, I think religion is a load of old shit, but I feel I have to respect others believe and feel it's right for them.
> Would you make their thoughts illegal?


Here I would draw a distinction between respecting a person's right to practise their religion and hold beliefs on one hand and respecting those beliefs on the other. I would support the former but not the latter. Nobody should have a right not to have their beliefs questioned. Indeed thinking that religious belief is stupid or damaging or even evil itself can be framed as a belief. 

So: you have the right to believe what you want, but I have the right to take whatever attitude I like towards your belief. No special protection.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I would make it illegal for the religious to proselytize in public* or display religious symbols in public places*



OMG - How would you punish a Catholic for wearing a crucifix, or a Muslim for wearing a headscarf? 
Ye godz, you're a dangerous fucker


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Then you're just becoming the monster of this idiots brain.



But it's an idiot's brain, so no biggie. Callous this morning, I'm working this weekend!

I'm not sure what should be compulsory, from what you posted. Please explain (or not)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It is - The guy went into a school that has a mostly Muslim takeup, and tried to tell them what they should and should not allow.


He did this on his own then? Or was it an attempt to comply with collectively agreed standards and practices? Why am i bothering?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> OMG - How would you punish a Catholic for wearing a crucifix, or a Muslim for wearing a headscarf?
> Ye godz, you're a dangerous fucker



Oh ffs. Clutch those pearls, go on!


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No it isn’t.



Please explain how entering a mostly Muslim area and telling them they have to abandon parts of their belief system is not telling them what to do.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Please explain how entering a mostly Muslim area and telling them they have to abandon parts of their belief system is not telling them what to do.


See my post, above.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Or was it an attempt to comply with collectively agreed standards and practices



Agreed by whom, and standard where?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> OMG - How would you punish a Catholic for wearing a crucifix, or a Muslim for wearing a headscarf?
> Ye godz, you're a dangerous fucker



There is no rule in Catholicism that says 'wear a crucifix', likewise in Islam about headscarves. It's not like wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike, or a seatbelt in a car. It's decoration, lke wearing a band t-shirt or a fashion logo.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Agreed by whom, and standard where?


Is this some sort of joke? A child's jape? What on earth is wrong with you?


----------



## tim (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> It is - The guy went into a school that has a mostly Muslim takeup, and tried to tell them what they should and should not allow.



He's an employee of the school, not some random enthusiast who wandered in from the street


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> There is no rule in Catholicism that says 'wear a crucifix', likewise in Islam about headscarves. It's not like wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike, or a seatbelt in a car. It's decoration, lke wearing a band t-shirt or a fashion logo.



You failed to explain what punishments you would impose for their faith


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

tim said:


> He's an employee of the school, not some random enthusiast who wandered in from the street



and that changes what?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You failed to explain what punishments you would impose for their faith



I said belief is fine, just keep it to your self. For the rest, there are real-world precedents. Have a read around, compare historical punishments for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, with say punishments in France or the Soviet Union or China for various religious crimes.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Is this some sort of joke? A child's jape? What on earth is wrong with you?



Where is it standard?
I gather it isn't part of the national curriculum at the moment, but some want it to be, however, some schools that have attempted this in Manchester are also facing problems.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

I still can't believe some here are advocating religious people be punished for showing their faith.
That stupidly dangerous idea is way too nazi for my tastes, and I'm absolutely amazed their bigotry is applauded by others.
Jesus fucking whatever, the thread is about stopping bigotry against one group, but the same against others is being actively discussed and encouraged.
I'm honestly shocked anyone would even consider that shit


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I said belief is fine, just keep it to your self. For the rest, there are real-world precedents. Have a read around, compare historical punishments for apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, with say punishments in France or the Soviet Union or China for various religious crimes.



You said 





> I would make it illegal for the religious to proselytize in public or display religious symbols in public place


s - How would you punish the criminals your law would create?

or have you realised you're a bigot and are trying to back out?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2019)

I'm going off to go up Glastonbury tor then for a few pints in a beer garden listening to the football. I suggest you all do the same/similar. Not don though - he has reading on the Syrian revolution (and many other things) to get on with.


----------



## tim (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Oh ffs. Clutch those pearls, go on!



I suspect you are alluding to the following Biblical passage:

_*Matthew 7:6* 
¶ Give ye not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your *pearls* *before swine*, lest they tread them under their feet, and turning again, all to rent you._

This is inconsistent given your secular iconoclastic desire to purge public life of religious images and references. I think the following in an apposite response:

*Matthew 7:5 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)*
5 Hypocrite, first cast out that beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> How would you punish the criminals your law would create?
> 
> or have you realised you're a bigot and are trying to back out?



Happy to wear the label 'bigot' in this case, religion has had it too good for too long. It's a memetic virus that humanity could do with a cure for. I'll think on punishments (should be fun!), but meanwhile let me get on with helping these vulnerable adults have a nice weekend. Bye.


----------



## tim (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> and that changes what?


 
It's all to do with rhetorical nuance. Something that quite possibly changes very little for you.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Happy to wear the label 'bigot' in this case, religion has had it too good for too long. It's a memetic virus that humanity could do with a cure for



OMG - Now religion is a disease - didn't some twats think the same thing about being gay a hundred years ago?
FUCK! talk about going backwards


----------



## tim (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Happy to wear the label 'bigot' in this case, religion has had it too good for too long. It's a memetic virus that humanity could do with a cure for. I'll think on punishments (should be fun!), but meanwhile let me get on with helping these vulnerable adults have a nice weekend. Bye.



I think your making a cryptoreliguous Dawkinian leap of faith there.


The word _meme_ is a shortening (modeled on _gene_) of _mimeme_ (from Ancient Greek μίμημαpronounced [míːmɛːma] _mīmēma_, "imitated thing", from μιμεῖσθαι_mimeisthai_, "to imitate", from μῖμος_mimos_, "mime")[15] coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkinsin _The Selfish Gene_ (1976)[11][16] as a concept for discussion of evolutionaryprinciples in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catchphrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I'm going off to go up Glastonbury tor then for a few pints in a beer garden listening to the football. I suggest you all do the same/similar. Not don though - he has reading on the Syrian revolution (and many other things) to get on with.


Enjoy your day. My younger daughter is home and my older daughter is coming back tomorrow. We’ve all got Monday off and plan to spend it outdoors. Life is good.


----------



## Sue (Apr 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Enjoy your day. My younger daughter is home and my older daughter is coming back tomorrow. We’ve all got Monday off and plan to spend it outdoors. Life is good.


Have fun rolling your eggs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Sue said:


> Have fun rolling your eggs.




Everything’s a double entendre.


----------



## Sue (Apr 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Everything’s a double entendre.


 I'm ashamed of you, danny la rouge.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> OMG - Now religion is a disease - didn't some twats think the same thing about being gay a hundred years ago?
> FUCK! talk about going backwards



...because homosexuality and religion are totally comparable things


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> ...because homosexuality and religion are totally comparable things



I see you're trying to deflect.
What punishments would you hand out to people displaying their religion in public, and why do you feel criminalising someone for their thoughts is acceptable?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I see you're trying to deflect.
> What punishments would you hand out to people displaying their religion in public, and why do you feel criminalising someone for their thoughts is acceptable?



And do you still beat your wife?

A virus is not, in and of itself, a disease. It is a self-replicating organic vector which transfers information, often information which corrupts or overrides valid information in the host organism. Any disease is either a result of the bad information or the suppression of good information. So a virus is a pretty damn good analogy for a religion.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

Sue said:


> Have fun rolling your eggs.



Openly celebrating a religious event - Watch out for mojo pixy or you might be arrested.
Still, he won't understand as my post will have fallen on stony ground - Oh, Jesus, I'm next for using a biblical quote.
Oh, shit, I said, "Jesus", a double sentence for me.

The very idea of persecuting someone for their religious beliefs is middle ages at best, but at least the poster seems to have realised they're being a silly cunt and is backing away from it.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> And do you still beat your wife?



Hang on, your best argument is a insult suggesting I hit the lady I love?
Fucking hell, you're a moron, and a nasty one at that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> OMG - Now religion is a disease - didn't some twats think the same thing about being gay a hundred years ago?
> FUCK! talk about going backwards


I can't believe you wrote this and have missed the most  obvious point here.

Why on earth are you pretending that that is the belief of 100 years ago? Many of the ''twats' you are blanket defending in this 'religous freedom at all costs" crusade still do think that way hence them campaigning against it being acknowledged in school.

That is just one aspect of how homophobic religious beliefs continue to manifest.

That is so obviously key to this thread, are you deliberately ignoring it?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Apr 20, 2019)

I'm leaving this thread as I can't stand bigoted twats. Yes, the Muslim community does a lot I dislike, but I refuse to accept racism or religious  bigotry in exactly the same way I refuse to accept homophobia as reasonable or acceptable in any way.
Frankly, I don't want to to see it as it makes me puke.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2019)

But you are okay with religious people being homophobic and using their religious beliefs as leverage to promote their homophobia. Because any push back against them doing that is punishing them. Right, okay.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> ...at least the poster seems to have realised they're being a silly cunt and is backing away from it.



nope, not backing away at all. hth


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I'm leaving this thread as I can't stand bigoted twats.


It’s very thoughtful of you to remove one of them.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I still can't believe some here are advocating religious people be punished for showing their faith.
> That stupidly dangerous idea is way too nazi for my tastes, and I'm absolutely amazed their bigotry is applauded by others.
> Jesus fucking whatever, the thread is about stopping bigotry against one group, but the same against others is being actively discussed and encouraged.
> I'm honestly shocked anyone would even consider that shit



Well, one person is, sort of, and they're not being applauded. You're making the rest up in your head. Like the way you've decided that kids being told that some kids have two parents of the same gender is the same as them being told about sex.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 20, 2019)

Norfolk a suitable place to corral the god bothered round them all up they will bound to get on as they all belive in god

Oh wait


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

So Don Troooomp has pissed off after all. A simple thank you will suffice


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 20, 2019)

Well it's nice the div has pissed off but some of the stuff you were coming out with was rank... unless you were on a wind up.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Religion is rank. I was raised in a religion and I think it's poisonous. The sooner humanity divests itself of it, the better.

There was an element of wind up, but my feelings on the matter are pretty strong and I wouldn't dream of apologizing for them.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 20, 2019)

No disagreement there. If that was all you'd been saying earlier, I'd have no issue.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Thing is, how can there ever be real social justice for all, when most people (or a sizable minority) a. take their morals and ethics from an ancient book, and b. think everything will be great after they die.

It's not going away by itself. So what is the answer? How does society best deal with corrupting, regressive forces? Religions are at the heart of patriarchy, justify empires and all manner of cruelties.

What I was posting was moderate, under the circumstances. Look at this shit in Brum, that's religion, right there. Fascism with a pious face.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Thing is, how can there ever be real social justice for all, when most people (or a sizable minority) a. take their morals and ethics from an ancient book, and b. think everything will be great after they die.
> 
> It's not going away by itself. So what is the answer? How does society best deal with corrupting, regressive forces? Religions are at the heart of patriarchy, justify empires and all manner of cruelties.
> 
> What I was posting was moderate, under the circumstances. Look at this shit in Brum, that's religion, right there. Fascism with a pious face.


I used to take a similar line. I've mellowed a bit as I've got older, partly due to the realisation that most religious people don't take their religion nearly as seriously as I take it. Fundamentalists take their belief and its implications seriously, but they are in a minority among the religious. For many people it is a rather fuzzy background thing, as much to do with belonging as belief.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

fair enough, I used to be more tolerant but a few experiences have hardened my views as I've got older. I'm not even necessarily atheistic, it depends on my mood, and I can be as sentimental and superstitious as the next human. but anti-religious, yes. fuck yes.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 20, 2019)

I know anarchists who, as people, act like utter cunts. I know religious people who, apart for their weird belief in a magic man who lives in the sky, are basically sound, don't cross picket lines and really really don't want to kill people with different views and lgbt people. 

The issue is capitalism and how to fight it. That means bringing working class people onside and switching people on to revolutionary politics, irrespective of their private or personal religious superstitions. Alienating them will never create class unity or a mass culture of resistance. 

That said, I've no problem with you seeing off that Don Toooomp fool, as long as he continues to talk bollocks


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

But religion justifies capitalism. It's the rulebook by which capitalism as we know it was built.

I don't care if anarchists act like twats at times, because anarchism is a sound philosophy and people can be twats I don't care if some religious people are sweet, their positive behaviour is despite religion not because of it. The two are really not comparable.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 20, 2019)

Voting in elections also justifies capitalism but I'm not going to call voters cunts. I'd rather remind them that the bosses win either way they vote.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Voting doesn't justify capitalism. At best it's a fig leaf for it.

Incidentally, priests and imams are not elected.

And I honestly never called religious people cunts. I wouldn't. They aren't. Gullible, cowardly, lazy, maybe. but not just 'cunts'.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 20, 2019)

As I'm 100% atheist, you're preaching to the converted, mojo pixy. Our difference is mainly in how we address religious people.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

Bah, some of my best friends are religious 

I'm less interested in being rude to and about religious believers and religions, than I am in just being rid of them. There are good things in religions, I note the Eightfold Path of Buddhism in particular. The character of Jesus has some great lines. Ancient stories and myth are interesting and valuable. But the wisdom and stories aren't the same as the religious superstructure, and it's the superstructure, the rules and potential for social control which us the problem, that's what attracts the control freaks and bullies and poisons society.

_That's_ the bit we call "religion", and IMO we can and should be rid of that while keeping the actual wisdom which is wrapped up in it .. whose main religious purpose is justifying the existence of the religion itself. As if you can't have one without the other (well, religious believers would say you can't)

Belonging, I get. But in that case keep it private .. like a social club. But it's a club whose members actually consider themselves better people for being in, even if they pretend not to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't care if some religious people are sweet, their positive behaviour is despite religion not because of it.


That's questionable imo. The various religious groups that run food vans for the homeless are an example of how people organising their behaviour via religion can do good things. On balance, I'm with you about the destructive nature of religion, but people can find good things both in the world and in themselves in a way that they express in religious terms. I say that as someone who would describe himself, like serge forward, as 100% atheist.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The various religious groups that run food vans for the homeless are an example of how people organising their behaviour via religion can do good things.



Perhaps at one time humans needed religion to act with compassion, but now we don't. Needing a pretext for compassion, more than just compassion itself, kind of exemplifies the issue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Perhaps at one time humans needed religion to act with compassion, but now we don't. Needing a pretext for compassion, more than just compassion itself, kind of exemplifies the issue.


The morality of religions comes from us. It's bottom up, not top down. I think humans can collectively move beyond organised religions and religious belief systems. It won't happen in our lifetimes, though.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The morality of religions comes from us. It's bottom up, not top down.



I agree, which is why I wrote _perhaps_. I think compassion is innate, which is another reason I'm so anti religious. Religion has usurped and stolen morals from _us_. I for one resent that.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 20, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> Posters here don't seem to get it's wrong to impose their views and ideals upon all. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to accept any loving relationship between anyone, but these parents are not, and that's their choice in their community, so should be respected unless they try to impose their values on other people.



It’s really fucking simple to work this out and can’t understand why you don’t get it, unless this is deliberately playing the ignoramus for attention.

Homosexuality isn’t a view, ideal, belief system or a ‘value. It’s people. A real, tangible thing. Opposing it is opposing people, a refusal to accept their existence/reality. Other people don’t get a right to do this, and need no defending. 

Write it on a blackboard fifty times or something and maybe it will sink in.


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Thing is, how can there ever be real social justice for all, when most people (or a sizable minority) a. take their morals and ethics from an ancient book, and b. think everything will be great after they die.
> 
> It's not going away by itself. So what is the answer? How does society best deal with corrupting, regressive forces? Religions are at the heart of patriarchy, justify empires and all manner of cruelties.
> 
> What I was posting was moderate, under the circumstances. Look at this shit in Brum, that's religion, right there. *Fascism with a pious face.*




But fascism with little opposition.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

opposition is in fact called intolerance, bigotry. whodathunkit.


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I used to take a similar line. I've mellowed a bit as I've got older, partly due to the realisation that most religious people don't take their religion nearly as seriously as I take it. Fundamentalists take their belief and its implications seriously, but they are in a minority among the religious. For many people it is a rather fuzzy background thing, as much to do with belonging as belief.



they are doing a pretty effective job in Birmingham , stirring it up, I wonder if you would be so sanguine if it was say the EDl.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 20, 2019)

Like 'the rich should give their money to the poor'. That fascism?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 20, 2019)

that's not religion, that's ethics. that, we need more of.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2019)

Large package on the issues on Newsnight last night, including interviews with the radical organisation which Newsnight says is helping orchestate the, some appalling language,
One campaigner said relationship lessons due to start in _schools_ in 2020 "*proselytise a homosexual way of life*".

intimidation of teachers, today Sky has a package where it links the protests to the Operation Trojan events, protests spreading across UK, time for the left, civil society, to get off the fence.



> Now an investigation by the BBC Newsnight programme has found letters opposing the lessons have been sent to schools in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Croydon, Ealing, Manchester, Northampton and Nottingham.



The parents who say their kids are being 'indoctrinated' by UK schools

plenty of areas where Urbanites can now go in their locality and express their solidarity


----------



## Riklet (May 17, 2019)

Depressing seeing the videos of this. I really hope that these biggoted religious loonies don't get their way. Seems like theyre organising pretty well on a national level now.

And clearly what with growing islamophobia and muslims endlessly being painted as the 'victims' as a consequence, it becomes harder to argue against these shouty conservative types. Clearly there is less fuss than there would otherwise be due to risk of 'offending'.

Even though we really should be critical - their views and actions are a threat to secular values. And equality. Obviously schools are not secular in the UK like in France, so maybe it's just harder to deal with the me me me offended religious brigade, whatever their backgrounds.


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2019)

Sky News led on it tonight, a very very aggressive protest and outsiders coming en masse, it is bewildering and shaming that the progressive movements are nowhere to be seen, what price solidarity?

remember this is a primary school, ffs..


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2019)

Riklet said:


> Depressing seeing the videos of this. I really hope that these biggoted religious loonies don't get their way. Seems like theyre organising pretty well on a national level now.
> 
> And clearly what with growing islamophobia and muslims endlessly being painted as the 'victims' as a consequence, it becomes harder to argue against these shouty conservative types. Clearly there is less fuss than there would otherwise be due to risk of 'offending'.
> 
> Even though we really should be critical - their views and actions are a threat to secular values. And equality. Obviously schools are not secular in the UK like in France, so maybe it's just harder to deal with the me me me offended religious brigade, whatever their backgrounds.



they shouldn't get a pass at all, there are fascists organising amongst them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2019)

treelover said:


> they shouldn't get a pass at all, there are fascists organising amongst them.


Wasn't aware of fascist involvement. Any more info on that?


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2019)

I mean the Radical Islamists are basically fascists, i don't think the far right would be there, although it won't be long before they do make some kind of intervention.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 17, 2019)

Ah right got you, thought you meant fascist in the strict sense. Wouldn't surprise me at all if there were a few involved. They've always been prepared to make surprising alliances.


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2019)

> Protests have been taking place outside the school for weeks but the row escalated on Sunday night when local residents clashed with activists who had turned up to display rainbow flags and banners supporting the school’s policy. Police were called to the scene and were stationed outside the school on Monday. Activists claimed they had been threatened and had eggs thrown at them.
> 
> 
> One of the LGBT+ rights campaigners, who gave their name as Tracy, told _Birmingham Live_: “It was awful. I was shaking. We had no intention of disturbing anyone – we were putting up the banners and messages we had made to show solidarity with staff. We wanted them to see something positive when they turned up for work, and to see they had our backing.”
> ...



Police launch investigation after disorder outside school


Altercation today, LGBT, counter protesters say they were abused, had eggs thrown at them, Jess Philips was there calling for an exclusion zone, progressives now at a crossroads...


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 20, 2019)

I'm so sad this is happening 30 years after we fought against section 28. Schools should be inclusive of all their pupils.

Having grown up and being schooled when queer people really were invisible in the 60s and 70s - LGBT students really deserve better now.  Edit to add - all students deserve better now. 

Keep all religion out of schools I say.


----------



## Poot (May 20, 2019)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm so sad this is happening 30 years after we fought against section 28. Schools should be inclusive of all their pupils.
> 
> Having grown up and being schooled when queer people really were invisible in the 60s and 70s - LGBT students really deserve better now.  Edit to add - all students deserve better now.
> 
> Keep all religion out of schools I say.


Did you see Jess Phillips in action FoD? Worth watching just to see something sensible being said to the protesters. I <3 Jess Phillips.


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2019)

This is a bit .... provocative!



> A teacher whose lesson programme covering LGBT relationships has been at the centre of recent protests is leading the Birmingham Pride parade.
> 
> Andrew Moffat, assistant headteacher at Parkfield Community school, has been teaching No Outsiders classes at the school since 2014.


Have to admire his bravery.  Whether his political nous is spot on will remain to be seen.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2019)

East Anglian vicar throws in the dog-collar over primary school children being allowed to self-identity. 

Vicar resigns as school imposes transgender policy


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

tim said:


> East Anglian vicar throws in the dog-collar over primary school children being allowed to self-identity.
> 
> Vicar resigns as school imposes transgender policy



I can see why you put this here, but
I’m wondering whether this is different enough to the case we were originally discussing to merit being on another thread.


----------



## friedaweed (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I can see why you put this here, but
> I’m wondering whether this is different enough to the case we were originally discussing to merit being on another thread.


It's an interesting aside all the same.

I found the mermaid training recording very interesting especially the tension at the end during question time.


----------



## cybershot (May 31, 2019)

Has the original school got one of these as well?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I can see why you put this here, but
> I’m wondering whether this is different enough to the case we were originally discussing to merit being on another thread.



Either way he sounds like a twat.  Yeah, let's target kids at their most vulnerable part of their lives and consequently make their lives hell. 

xtian concern is quoted so it is automatically suspect...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Details of that trans case appear to be coming from the Christian Legal Centre. Regardless of anything else, they are a bunch of total cunts. The end of the recording is interesting - Mermaids woman not interested in engaging beyond 'what about intersex children?' as if that's a killer blow point. Mermaids also has objectionable (to me) views, such as (what I consider to be) the damaging nonsense that is the idea that we are all on a 'gender spectrum'. They have a degree of certainty about this stuff that is not warranted. So it's a clash of two rather unpleasant dogmas. 

I agree with 8ball though. Perhaps the subject of a different thread.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> they are a bunch of total cunts



This.  They are utter bigoted cunts.


----------



## friedaweed (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So it's a clash of two rather unpleasant dogmas.


Yup.


----------



## treelover (May 31, 2019)

Exclusion zone for protests around school from Monday.

hasn't been liberal/left/civil society's finest hour, threw teachers under the bus, etc.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 1, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Either way he sounds like a twat.  Yeah, let's target kids at their most vulnerable part of their lives and consequently make their lives hell.
> 
> xtian concern is quoted so it is automatically suspect...



The only people targeting vulnerable children in this story are this Mermaid organisation. It's grooming, plain and simple.


----------



## Dandred (Jun 2, 2019)

I don't really care about religion, if you want to follow a book written by a bunch of dessert dwellers from hundreds of years ago, fuck you. Let people be people. There is no god, it's just a man made construct.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> It's an interesting aside all the same.
> 
> I found the mermaid training recording very interesting especially the tension at the end during question time.




That’s a really interesting recording - thanks for posting that.

I think the speaker/trainer knew the material really well but it did go wonky with the questions at the end.

With regard to the Christian man right at the beginning of questions, talking about freedom of expression - she could have just have asked exactly which things were restricting that ie. what could he have said before that he cannot say now - that might have led somewhere interesting.


----------



## tim (Jun 2, 2019)

Dandred said:


> I don't really care about religion, if you want to follow a book written by a bunch of dessert dwellers from hundreds of years ago, fuck you. Let people be people. There is no god, it's just a man made construct.



If you really don't care why bother posting?  Don't you really want to put the boot into what you perceive as an easy target? To me you comnent comes across as crassly Orientalist. 

As regards the books, neither the fundamentalists nor you (admittedly your own admission) read them seriously. Non-white people living in deserts,neven thousands of years ago, were more sophisticated than you assume. They weren't written to be taken as literally as both you and the fundies think. Try reading them reflectively and critically, and you might get something out of them.


----------



## A380 (Jun 2, 2019)

tim said:


> If you really don't care why bother posting?  Don't you really want to put the boot into what you perceive as an easy target? To me you comnent comes across as crassly Orientalist.
> 
> As regards the books, neither the fundamentalists nor you (admittedly your own admission) read them seriously. Non-white people living in deserts,neven thousands of years ago, were more sophisticated than you assume. They weren't written to be taken as literally as both you and the fundies think. Try reading them reflectively and critically, and you might get something out of them.


Actually I think one of the three is supposed to be the actual and literal word of god as dictated...


----------



## tim (Jun 2, 2019)

A380 said:


> Actually I think one of the three is supposed to be the actual and literal word of god as dictated...



Supposed is probably the appropriate term, it certainly wasn't collated until well after the Darth or even the death of Mohammed. Anyway I've just spent £36 on a big critical edition recommend by various non-muslim worthies and Karen Armstrong. So in the next few weeks I shall start reading and reflecting.


----------



## Celyn (Jun 2, 2019)

Dandred said:


> I don't really care about religion, if you want to follow a book written by a bunch of dessert dwellers from hundreds of years ago ...



I suppose the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## treelover (Jun 3, 2019)

Will the Birmingham contingent of the TRUMP! protests be making a detour to Anderton School, the bigotry there is as odious as anything Trump has said.


----------



## cybershot (Jun 9, 2019)

MP reported over LGBT school protest support


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 2, 2019)

This might be of interest to some - the National Secular Society is hosting a lecture at Manchester Art Gallery on 7 September by Andrew Moffat.

Bradlaugh Lecture 2019 | No Outsiders: Reclaiming Radical Ideas in Schools


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2019)

The equality teaching is to return to that school, with some modifications that are unknown to me at this time.

Equality programme to return at LGBT row school


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 3, 2019)

On June 25th Roger Godsiff, the local MP who sided with the protestors, led an adjournment debate in Parliament on the subject of "Parental Involvement in Teaching: Equality Act". Hansard report of the debate here - I found it quite interesting.

Named in the debate as amongst those instigating the activism underlying the protests were psychologist Kate Godfrey-Faussett of the Stop RSE campaign and Ustadh Aziz Torofdar of Islamic RSE which has published a number of guides for 'concerned' parents. 

In his opening speech Godsiff criticised the schools for failing to adequately consult and declined to address the behaviour of some of the protestors and their 'allies'. His viewpoint was strongly challenged by others, but Nick Gibb, responding for the Government, agreed with Godsiff that the onus was on schools to engage in "constructive dialogue" and in saying 





> The Department strongly encourages primary schools to teach about families with same-sex parents. In most cases that will be possible (...)


  seemed to leave open the possibility that in other cases where the issue was "sensitive" it might not be possible.

Godsiff has of course been strongly criticised. The following day he resigned from the Charlton Athletic Trust over the issue.


----------



## Poi E (Jul 4, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Named in the debate as amongst those instigating the activism underlying the protests were psychologist Kate Godfrey-Faussett of the Stop RSE campaign .



She of the ridiculous middle class surname said "That boils down to a form of indoctrination and erosion on our religious rights as Muslims, Christians and Jews to bring up our children in line with our beliefs and values."

i.e. our right to do whatever the fuck we want to children. What an autocratic mindset.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 4, 2019)

That's an American idea where children are in sole charge of their parents rather than the "state controlling them"

Rather than the idea that they are human with rights and wishes of their own.

In the States a child can't for example get vaccinatinated without their parents consent. 
  Pretty sure here social services would support a kid who wanted vaccines


----------



## scifisam (Jul 4, 2019)

likesfish said:


> That's an American idea where children are in sole charge of their parents rather than the "state controlling them"
> 
> Rather than the idea that they are human with rights and wishes of their own.
> 
> ...



It's not really relevant for most vaccines, because they are usually given way earlier than a child could reasonably give informed consent, but yeah, kids here do have the ability to make some life choices about their medical care that kids in the US don't. 

HPV vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 13 years old | nidirect

The key part:

It is important to note that if your child is between 12 and 16 years of age, the final decision to have the vaccine is legally your child’s as long as he or she understands the issues in giving consent.

Social services wouldn't need to be involved, just the child and their doctor or nurse. 

The same applies to some other medical choices when the child is over 12, roughly (it varies), so for meningitis, for example, I think a child could get a vaccine withou 

It is a very American idea, you're right. I'm sure it exists elsewhere but it's really strong there.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 4, 2019)

treelover said:


> I mean broadcast news, if this was a far right group outside a school it would be everywhere.



Havent seen anything else about this since you posted this in Feb, shame


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 4, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It's not really relevant for most vaccines, because they are usually given way earlier than a child could reasonably give informed consent, but yeah, kids here do have the ability to make some life choices about their medical care that kids in the US don't.
> 
> HPV vaccine for adolescents aged 12 to 13 years old | nidirect
> 
> ...



Gillick competency.  

Minors are judged to consent to medical treatment without parental consent, if they are believed to understand the pros and cons.  Most often comes up when allowing girls access to reproductive healthcare.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 4, 2019)

likesfish said:


> That's an American idea where children are in sole charge of their parents rather than the "state controlling them"
> 
> Rather than the idea that they are human with rights and wishes of their own.
> 
> ...



Sort of interesting that they are quite anti parents making decisions when the kid is in the womb but pro parents making the decision when they are out of the womb.

Alex


----------



## Gaia (Jul 9, 2019)

Poi E said:


> She of the ridiculous middle class surname said "That boils down to a form of indoctrination and erosion on our religious rights as Muslims, Christians and Jews to bring up our children in line with our beliefs and values."
> 
> i.e. our right to do whatever the fuck we want to children. What an autocratic mindset.



I'm of the mindset that the religious indoctrination of children is abuse. You raise them to believe that being anything other than straight is evil, they find out that they're gay/bi/trans, and then what fucking happens…? These twats need to be reminded of what 'freedom of religion' actually means; it means that you, personally, have the right to believe whatever bollocks you want to believe, what it does NOT mean is that you have the right to force anyone else - including your own children - to believe aforementioned said bollocks. 

LGBTQIA+ kids from religious families are overwhelmingly likely to suffer from mental health problems arising from their upbringing, and are also far more likely to end their lives. I try not to get involved in these debates but, as someone who doesn't identify as straight (or gay, bi, or trans, some days I wonder if I even identify as human), seeing those kids outside their school carrying placards they almost certainly did not write of their own volition (some of the kids I saw on the Beeb were too young to understand what they were protesting against).

Religion is the cause of, if not all the evil in the world, then a very, very, large percentage of it.


----------



## Southlondon (Jul 10, 2019)

Gaia said:


> I'm of the mindset that the religious indoctrination of children is abuse. You raise them to believe that being anything other than straight is evil, they find out that they're gay/bi/trans, and then what fucking happens…? These twats need to be reminded of what 'freedom of religion' actually means; it means that you, personally, have the right to believe whatever bollocks you want to believe, what it does NOT mean is that you have the right to force anyone else - including your own children - to believe aforementioned said bollocks.
> 
> LGBTQIA+ kids from religious families are overwhelmingly likely to suffer from mental health problems arising from their upbringing, and are also far more likely to end their lives. I try not to get involved in these debates but, as someone who doesn't identify as straight (or gay, bi, or trans, some days I wonder if I even identify as human), seeing those kids outside their school carrying placards they almost certainly did not write of their own volition (some of the kids I saw on the Beeb were too young to understand what they were protesting against).
> 
> Religion is the cause of, if not all the evil in the world, then a very, very, large percentage of it.


Suicide rates amongst lgbtq youths is several times higher than amongst heterosexual youths. Surely this is enough to say factual education should trump anyone’s spiritual or superstitious beliefs for all kids at school. I totally agree with your point that indoctrinating children with hate backed up by spurious texts claiming  to be the word of some imaginary superior being who encourages the hate of  and even the persecution of such minorities should be treated as child abuse, and social services should be proactive in assessing the safety of these kids if left in the family environment. 
Will we be pandering to the religious bigots when they follow their American cohorts on dena gong creationism is taught in schools instead of evolution?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2019)

Poi E said:


> She of the ridiculous middle class surname said "That boils down to a form of indoctrination and erosion on our religious rights as Muslims, Christians and Jews to bring up our children in line with our beliefs and values."
> 
> i.e. our right to do whatever the fuck we want to children. What an autocratic mindset.



It's fucking bonkers when religious people complain about indoctrinating children. What they're really mad about is their monopoly on indoctrination being challenged.


----------



## Lurdan (Aug 30, 2019)

Story on the BBC site :

Protest leaflets claim relationship education teaches infants masturbation - BBC News

It includes an image of the leaflet that claimed this :







Apparently the RSE Schoolgate Campaign which produced it "has now removed" this claim from it's literature. Here is the current wording on their website :


> *Sexualising Children*
> 
> Some recommended resources describe sexual intercourse to children in infant school. Others introduce *nudity, graphic images and terms like anal intercourse and 								masturbation to Juniors*. First *sexual intercourse will be encouraged from the age of 13* – which is illegal. No moral framework will be offered for any of this behaviour.



Well that's a massive improvement on the leaflet isn't it. Then there is an account of the dark forces behind it all



> *UN & WHO promoting radical sexualisation of kids*
> 
> Much of the ideology behind the R(S)E curriculum in the UK comes from Comprehensive Sexuality Education. Alarmingly, this is endorsed at the highest levels by organisations like the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.



Followed by a short video, "The War On Children", from Family Watch International, a US based anti-LGBT and anti-abortion campaigning group which does a lot of international outreach work.

Family Watch International - Southern Poverty Law Center
Why is the religious right attacking UNICEF? - Salon.com (archived version)

The RSE Schoolgate website says they are connected with "Anglican Mainstream" a traditionalist grouping inside the Church of England, formed in 2004 


> as part of a united international response of Anglicans from different backgrounds (Reformed, Charismatic and Catholic) to re-state and support traditional understandings of marriage, the family and human sexuality in the face of erosion of these values in church and society



Looks as if every sect and denomination is now busy producing small groups of activists anxious to adopt a "missionary position" over the State sponsored 'sexualisation' of children in schools.


----------



## agricola (Aug 30, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Looks as if every sect and denomination is now busy producing small groups of activists anxious to adopt a "missionary position" over the State sponsored 'sexualisation' of children in schools.



Indeed, and of course the more appalling they are the greater the chance of their message being spread on the news.  

Also that BBC report is appalling - anyone reading that article without fact-checking it themselves (or without reading the explanation you've provided) would probably look at the mention of east London, look at the reference to Parkfield and come to the conclusion that the School Gate campaign was one run by Muslims.  The BBC must know who the RSG are - as they appear to have spoke to them - so why not tell people they are an Anglican crank group?


----------



## Lurdan (Aug 31, 2019)

Dull Saturday so did some idle browsing 'research'.

Neither the BBC article, nor the item on the Victoria Derbyshire show yesterday that it was based on, identify who was actually handing the leaflets out in Newham. Only the group which originally wrote them, which may well not be the same thing.

In the TV item the Newham Councillor interviewed briefly referred to organization through local Whatsapp groups, and to pressure on Councillors from unspecified local opponents of RSE.

(There is some possibly related local political background. This is the same Councillor referred to in this news story :
London gay man loses LGBT officer role in Labour party to a straight man - Gay Star News
which led on to this one :
Labour general secretary urged to suspend West Ham constituency party over 'homophobic bullying' - OnLondon
However I know nothing about any of that and care less. My relatively strong stomach when it comes to looking at obnoxious religious sites is balanced out by a strong allergic reaction to reading about the soap opera inside the Labour Party).

The Schoolgate Campaign seem to take a fairly ecumenical approach to campaigning. They link to a number of other websites. These include a group launched at a meeting in Parliament hosted by the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson, and another set up by UKIP; another associated with the rather more upmarket looking Values Foundation which brings together Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (nominally non-denominational but strongly associated with Roman Catholicism); and an Islamic one, STOPRSE.COM founded by Kate Godfrey-Faussett.

Many of the groups campaigning against RSE are engaged in producing material intended to be of use to any 'concerned parents'. They are often not active locally anywhere themselves (they may have supporters who are) and rather than  recruitment are primarily focused on encouraging local activism by other people. (When a SPUC leaflet was delivered to houses in Nottingham in June, SPUC themselves denied having been involved or aware of it).

Obviously this is rather different to the activities of Christian Concern (mentioned earlier in the thread), looking for causes they can stage manage high profile legal action around.

But my guess is that where this kind of activism does take off local organising through social media will be far more significant than the role played by outside campaigning groups or the specific religious or political agendas of those groups.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Dull Saturday so did some idle browsing 'research'.
> 
> Neither the BBC article, nor the item on the Victoria Derbyshire show yesterday that it was based on, identify who was actually handing the leaflets out in Newham. Only the group which originally wrote them, which may well not be the same thing.
> 
> ...



It won't be the first time someone who is straight has won an election representing LGBT rights - I can think of a few I've personally known (and because I personally know them, I don't want to name them). They did, at least, try to represent people well, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind standing as a representative for a group you're not part of when there are other candidates who are part of that group. 

For this particular candidate it does sound like there's a reason and it's shitty that he managed to manipulate the tiny number of voters that way.


----------



## GarveyLives (Nov 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> Homosexuality is much less accepted in _*Islam*_. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.


See also:

LGBT teaching _an abomination_, *Jewish* judge says


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2019)

GarveyLives said:


> See also:
> 
> LGBT teaching _an abomination_, *Jewish* judge says



Or probably this

LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says

A retired "Judge" from the Manchester Beth Din the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia Tribunal. It's a body that seeks to settle civil/religious disputes between consenting members within the Orthodox Jewish community, not a court of law


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Or probably this
> 
> LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says
> 
> A retired "Judge" from the Manchester Beth Din the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia Tribunal. It's a body that seeks to settle civil/religious disputes between consenting members within the Orthodox Jewish community, not a court of law


That's not entirely correct. You're right that it is a body that people choose to use, but the decisions of a Beth Din do carry legal weight. They are courts that are right at the bottom of the hierarchy, in that a person can take a Beth Din judgement to a civil court and contest it. But you do have to go to that civil court to contest it - its decisions do carry legal weight once you have agreed to arbitration by that court for a civil matter. For instance, if you're ordered to pay compensation to someone and you refuse, then that person can take you to a civil court to force you to pay on the basis of the Beth Din's judgement. You'd have to appeal against that judgement to avoid paying up.

See here



> decisions made within the parameters of the Arbitration Act (1996) are legally-binding, subject to the approval of civil courts. Both parties must freely agree to accept the judgment as legally-binding; by signing an arbitration agreement with the Beth Din individuals are choosing to be judged by Jewish law. In the event of non-compliance, the arbitration agreement may be taken to secular courts for enforcement. Civil courts, however, retain the right to intervene in any case where the award of the Beth Din is considered unreasonable or contrary to public policy.



These things have quite a long history. For context, I think they did make sense back when the main courts were far more explicitly Christian in nature. But with proper secularisation of the main court system, the need and justification for any subordinate courts based on faith disappear.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 16, 2019)

Not sure what the problem is. I was taught sex education and how to put a condom on at junior school and that was over 40 years ago.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 16, 2019)

WouldBe said:


> Not sure what the problem is. I was taught sex education and how to put a condom on at junior school and that was over 40 years ago.


Its the gay stuff they have a problem with, being the good homophobes that they are - god forbid any of their kids turn to Satan.


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not entirely correct. You're right that it is a body that people choose to use, but the decisions of a Beth Din do carry legal weight. They are courts that are right at the bottom of the hierarchy, in that a person can take a Beth Din judgement to a civil court and contest it. But you do have to go to that civil court to contest it - its decisions do carry legal weight once you have agreed to arbitration by that court for a civil matter. For instance, if you're ordered to pay compensation to someone and you refuse, then that person can take you to a civil court to force you to pay on the basis of the Beth Din's judgement. You'd have to appeal against that judgement to avoid paying up.
> 
> See here
> 
> ...



The point I was trying to make is that the person in question was no more a Judge in a British civil or Criminal Court anymore than a judge in the largest marrow compettion at local garden society is.

As to people making recourse to religious arbitration tribunals, I can understand why you might disapprove of them, but I don't see how in a free society you can stop people using them if they want to. As far as actual legal limitations on their rulings, there is more information here The Arbitration Act 1996: does it allow religious tribunals to make rulings that can be enforced by the civil courts?


----------



## Jay Park (Nov 17, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It won't be the first time someone who is straight has won an election representing LGBT rights - I can think of a few I've personally known (and because I personally know them, I don't want to name them). They did, at least, try to represent people well, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind standing as a representative for a group you're not part of when there are other candidates who are part of that group.
> 
> For this particular candidate it does sound like there's a reason and it's shitty that he managed to manipulate the tiny number of voters that way.



So straight politicians should not run on a platform of equality because there are other campaigners with less tenuous claims to the idea of LBGT progression within the Organisation of the UK?


----------



## Jay Park (Nov 17, 2019)

Sorry I meant ‘straight’. Cos that word is redundant afaiac


----------



## scifisam (Nov 17, 2019)

Jay Park said:


> So straight politicians should not run on a platform of equality because there are other campaigners with less tenuous claims to the idea of LBGT progression within the Organisation of the UK?



Not even remotely close to what I said.


----------



## WouldBe (Nov 17, 2019)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Its the gay stuff they have a problem with, being the good homophobes that they are - god forbid any of their kids turn to Satan.


Better stop teaching religious education as well then but I doubt the same parents would go for that.


----------

