New Year New Judicial Review? CPS Hate Crime Guidance for schools

Bold and italic fail

Bold and italic fail

If anyone could PM me a copy of the CPS guidance (anonymously if need be) I would be grateful. We're still working on the EHRC guidance, but what Spero posted suggests to me that the CPS guidance potentially violates articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Keeping it secret from parents already potentially breaches

Article 5 (parental guidance and a
child’s evolving capacities)

^Governments must respect the rights and
responsibilities of parents and carers to
provide guidance and direction to their
child as they grow up, so that they fully
enjoy their rights. This must be done in a
way that recognises the child’s increasing
capacity to make their own choices.^

Article 18 (parental responsibilities
and state assistance)

^Both parents share responsibility for
bringing up their child and should always
consider what is best for the child. Governments must support parents by
creating support services for children and
giving parents the help they need to raise
their children.^

Keeping the guidance secret means parents cannot adequately protect their children from falling afoul of the law.

Thank you so much Spero
It really is unbelievable that the CPS and police are prepared to police what should be individual autonomy, boundaries and rights to consent.

Is the inability to draw lines around anything that does not prioritise/include straight men the ultimate result?

If legislation still had a different age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex that would have to be state that either gender identity was or was not a factor which would make writing a lot of guidelines and practice less blurry.
I can’t actually think of any differences which exist (good) which would aid the difference being pointed out (bad).

Child benefit used to be universal regardless of income and was designed to provide unemployed mothers with direct access to money in order to feed/ clothe children regardless of family income to aid with financial control/abuse. It also gave national insurance contributions protecting future pension. - Gone. So high earning men can make sure their wives cannot access any money without their say so and the women have no national insurance contributions to state pension.

Shared parental leave - great in theory, the more men who take equal time off the better but I do wonder if women are being coerced by their partners to sign off the sharing. It’s not an extra government benefit for the other parent it’s only possible if the mother gives up some maternity leave which women fought for. The amount of time, the amount of pay all fought for by women. Be nice, share.

And then there is all the how do you protect sex based women’s rights if you can’t define what is a woman.

But it’s okay, we have the Equalties Act and discussion and oh yeah, no. We have No Debate and prosecution of hate crime instead.

Rejecting someone or not wanting to work with them because of their sexual orientation, trans identity or perceived trans identity

Are disability, race / pregnancy (and the rest of the protected characteristics) not included in that definition? If this is the CPS guidance, then why have they just selected these two? Are they telling children that there's a hierarchy and that race and disability don't count? (knows the answer but is ever optimistic)

And what is the definition of 'rejecting someone"? As a sexual partner? As a friend?

Why on Earth are they including examples that cannot be shared? And if they cannot be shared then why are they sharing them with hundreds of thousands of teachers and teenagers?

spero

That's totally shocking what you've just posted. Thanks for giving your time to this.

theinebriati

Would those in power care if women became excluded from public life?

Where does this commonly based on gender come from?

Homosexual
Bisexual
Heterosexual

Same sex civil partnership with the later addition of same sex marriage. Sexual orientation is based on the sex of the other person in relation to your own if you are monosexual.

I don’t remember the age of consent being different for homogenderal sex. I don’t see gender being considered when men were criminalised for same sex activity. Oh look nothing about gender
www.gov.scot/news/pardon-for-gay-men-convicted-under-discriminatory-laws/

I bet if I went through them I could find some where one of the men convicted were presenting as the opposite gender.

The laws did not care about gender when criminalising and discriminating against homosexuals.

5 years of equal marriage as the last discriminatory law to change. Why was it such a big deal to change it if you can find a sexual/life partner based on gender?

Conduct a thought experiment;
what would society look like for women, if the most extreme MRA's were put in charge?

Would women be permitted to name male pattern violence?
Would women be permitted to say no to men?
Would women be permitted to self organize?
Would women be permitted to name men at all? I'm thinking of how in some religions, man as the lesser being is not permitted to speak the name of God.

Who would vote for this outcome? Who benefits from it?

I think it is these days 🙄

Look forward to reading it Spero. I wonder how close to coercive control the techniques used will be?

Mockers2020Vision

Yes to atheism in RE teaching.
I had a somewhat robust discussion about this after said ASD child was told off repeatedly for being unable to conjure up some god link to write about how a picture of the universe made you feel.

I’d like to see impact assessment on this.

No one is teaching my ASD child any beliefs presented as fact. It’s dangerous for my child irrespective of the particular belief.

ASD means that the chance of not understanding social nice versus truth is always going to be challenge in all areas. This disability doesn’t come with a bypass switch for LGBT so I sincerely hope the conflict of protected characteristics is being taken seriously.

A thread by Malcolm Clark of LGB Alliance (it's about LGBTQ+ groups in schools but relevant here)
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220842147311734786.html

Here's the first Stonewall guide to setting up LGBTQ+ groups in schools.
stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/…
11./ It makes clear groups are set up by adult teachers FOR kids; and for kids ....of all ages. The guide includes quotes from a Year 7 student praising their group (yes an 11 year old). I'm not saying 11 year olds don't ever know if they're LGBT. Some later say they did know.

12./ Most don't and are just pondering. The age range of many of the groups is 11-17 yrs old. Any 11 year old is also at a distinct disadvantage to 15 & 16 yr olds in the group. Whose monitoring interactions? Stonewall recommends "anything discussed in the room stays in the room".

13./ Err. Ok. All of this would just be vaguely concerning if we could be sure that Stonewall and the army of people it's trained to march through schools really cared about safeguarding. But here's Stonewall's Aimee Challoner talking about her work in schools (last para).

14./ That's the same Aimee that failed to tell the Green Party her dad was on a child rape charge for which he was eventually jailed. She was later suspended from the Lib Dems after her fiancee's child sex fantasies were exposed.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dems-suspend-trans-campaigner-over-tweets-jcsg0tdtq
15./ And then there's the mental confusion caused by other Stonewall so-called mentors. Believe it or not Alex Drummond the bearded lesbian goes into schools where "she" elucidates the mysteries of being "gender-queer and gender-fluid". To 11 year olds?
(continues)

The same organisation that sends a bearded male "lesbian" to teach kids about gender is influencing hate crime guidance in schools? I'm sure AD themself is a thoroughly decent person, but really, who does it serve to teach kids that adult men are whatever they say they are, and it is a non-crime-hate-crime to say otherwise?

Michelleoftheresistance

It is possible I could be wrong.

And so could you.

XXX

Ohmygod my belief system just got called a fairy tale... help, help I'm being erased!

I've supported a parent recently with a faith based school that's got a bit... shall we say over enthusiastic with assembly messages and thoroughly confused their child with Autism who is convinced that anything said by an adult, particularly at school, is therefore Fact and True and Law. That's the school overstepping, it's not supported by policy and the school did apologise.

It should be that respect for other people believing things you don't is promoted on a live and let live basis, but certainly not encouraging a child without a faith to have one, I don't think that's supported in national or local policy. (Or by many teachers, certainly at primary level.) But this is one of the tricky aspects which is why clear, neutral regulations are needed; that you always run the risk with a sensitive subject of a member of staff's personal feelings and involvement running away with them. Professionalism is one of the boundaries around that, which is another reason schools and teachers should be very clear, no political bias or agenda in the classroom.