To think this absolutely is homophobic

[HuntIdeas]

Muslim families have successfully argued for Birmingham primary schools to stop the No Outsiders programme

"Morally we do not accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship to have. It's not about being homophobic... that's like saying, if you don't believe in Islam, you're Islamophobic."

AIBU to think:

1. This absolutely is a homophobic thing to say
2. There are plenty of places in the world where you would get stoned for stating you didn’t believe in Islam!

Hopefully this link works: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47613578

Homophobia is never acceptable in any place or any context.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47742085

Which is why homophobia needs to be called out every time.

Transgenderism is homophobic and being taught as part of the No Outsiders programme. You are right, it needs called out. Ban No outsiders because it is teaching homophobia to children.

Saying they don't accept homosexuality as a valid sexual relationship is homophobic though!

Oh yes. Just like these examples. Although Stonewall don't even recognise the existence of same-sex attraction nowadays.

I am far, far less worried about religious homophobia than I am about homophobia from the alphabet soup community, because that's considered "woke".

breeze more than happy to answer, but can I first be absolutely clear that I couldn't care less where someone was born, whether that was next door, the EU, a muslim nation or some distant place I've never heard of. To me they're ALL welcome, just so long as they're here legally, can make a contribution and are happy to live within our common laws

That brings me naturally to the "pick n' mix" thing, which stated quite simply is the desire for parallel systems of law. Again I don't care where they originated or how benign they may or may not be; it's the principle involved which worries me, though certainly some of the effects do too (an example of this might be where the dictates of such courts fail to reach the threshold of womens' rights as enacted in common law)

FWIW I absolutely agree with you about the current protests - even while they're quite legal in themselves - and about the conflict they can create. You're right again that under current law they could simply have removed the children, but no; just like folk everywhere, some will always want to sow strife instead

Finally, and on a slight tangent, can I thank you for your continued patience and courtesy on here. As a reincarnationist I have issues with the tenets of many organised religions, but I see no reason at all to be rude to the actual people who live by them - and it's nice to engage on a thread where there can be disagreement without the flinging of insults

"Transgenderism is homophobic and being taught as part of the No Outsiders programme. You are right, it needs called out. Ban No outsiders because it is teaching homophobia to children."

It isn't though. Some trans people believe things that, with a bit of spin, can be portrayed as homophobic (in a similar sort of way that you could call me hetero-phobic if I was to suggest that so-and-so might be in the closet but in denial about it). But there is nothing in the core concept of transgenderism about this, or in accepting transpeople that requires believing this.

There are enough issues with the 'No Outsiders' scheme of work insofar that it misrepresents the Equality Act2010 re sex ( a protected characteristic) & gender (not a protected characteristic) that in any other circumstance it would be temporarily withdrawn for review.

This specifically impacts girls.

There's also a great deal of good in the scheme of work & resources though.

What is needed is calm nuance and critical informed evaluation with the needs of children centred.
Sadly at the moment that seems unlikely.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385878-anyone-know-about-the-no-outsiders-in-our-schools-book-pack

Puzzled, thank you and I agree that we should try to debate without resorting to insults etc.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were unwelcoming to immigrants or anything like that, just that when I saw your comment about choosing to raise a family here I wanted to point out that many of the Muslims here are not really choosing to be here and are just trying to get a balance that allows them to both practise their religion and adhere to the requirements of their residency or citizenship.

Ok, so if I understand correctly, your worries are mainly in relation to the existence of Sharia courts in the UK. I would argue that having official courts like this means that it's more likely for those running them to be knowledgeable both about Islamic law and the UK law, and thus to very clear about the limits of their remit and how they can advise people in a way that means they will fulfil the requirements of their religion without going against the law. Also, the practitioners in such courts will be known to the authorities and a working relationship would be established which allows for communication about any concerns or misunderstandings.

The danger if you ban said courts would be that unofficial courts might emerge where the practitioners might not be knowledgeable enough about either legal system, wouldn't have a clear idea of the limitations of their remit, and would be unknown to people outside of their community so no-one would know what was or wasn't going on.

I understand that some people are concerned about decisions in Sharia courts which don't conform with their view of women's rights e.g. sons receive double the share of daughters in inheritance.

Firstly, this double share takes place in a context in which men are expected and required to spend some of their wealth on their dependents while a woman's wealth is for her alone, and although she can spend it on others if she chooses she is not obliged to do so.

If Sharia courts were banned and a civil court to rule that all siblings receive an equal share regardless of sex, most practising Muslim women would gift the excess in their share back to their brother voluntarily, so nothing would really change.

The most pressing issue imo is divorce. In Islam a man can unilaterally issue a divorce while a woman must go to the Islamic court to obtain a divorce. If a non-Islamic civil court grants her a divorce certificate (and Muslims would have to do this if they have registered their marriage with the local Registrar under English/Scottish law) all she will have is a piece of paper saying she is divorced from so-and-so, but that won't have any effect on the Islamic marriage. So both spouses will consider that the rights and responsibilities that they both have within marriage continue unaltered. So I'm not sure what the solution would be in that case for a Muslim woman with a valid reason for divorce.

I know

Sorry, posted too soon. I know you disagree in principle with parallel legal systems but I'm not sure what your solution could be to these issues.

Apologies if I have repeated things you know about, just trying to put my opinion in context.

I don't think the British government should be condoning such a misogynistic system.

And what's the practical solution to the problem of the woman who wants a divorce?

Sorry that was to Arrays

She can either be treated equally to her husband, or can get a civil divorce.

In my experience the UK court system still favours the man, religion aside. Money also helps.

Hence why my abusive ex-husband was awarded 50:50 shared custody of our two boys. The courts are scared of the "Father's have equal rights" movement so much they've swung too much the other way.

He also contested the divorce initially and was taken seriously. Despite as I say years of vile control.

Sharia courts in Britain are an abomination and should not be legally recognised. The type of sharia law we have here is an extremely regressive one that severely disadvantages women. Women in very abusive marriages are routinely counselled to try and make their marriages work, when they approach the court for a divorce. Women with abusive exes are told to give the ex unsupervised access to their children, even when those children have been abused by the ex.
Sharia courts did not used to exist in Britain, women went to a proper court to get divorced.

What we have in this country is a parallel legal system where women who use sharia courts are given a far worse deal than they would in a UK court. They should be banned.

@clairemcnam

Mine was a UK court (see previous thread). Abusive ex-husband and system screwed me over big time.

Definitely not a "parallel legal system" in my experience.

Ella I accept the UK court system is less than ideal and screws abused women over.
But in a UK court abused women seeking a divorce do not get told to go back home with their husbands and try and make the marriage work.

Well technically, no. But for me it would have made sense unfortunately. I was initially left homeless and penniless when I walked out. Lost my two boys aged 3 and 6 for half of the time. Five years on and we're still in a two bed damp rented home with two adults usually working ft whilst he remains in the five-bed executive family home earning in excess of £105k with his unemployed gf. Did the courts support me or my kids? No. Do I regret escaping abuse as a result of what we have had to go through? Probably.

It isn't though. Some trans people believe things that, with a bit of spin, can be portrayed as homophobic

Actually, a considerable number of trans ideologists share the objectively homophobic belief that exclusive same sex attraction is bigoted, and that lesbians have no rights to organise for themselves without males. No "can be portrayed as" or "bit of spin" needed. Here are some examples.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3294339-cotton-ceiling-evidence-thread

At least UK law doesn't say that women automatically get half the inheritance of men.

clairemcnam, you say that sharia courts didn’t exist before but many women would have gone to a court in their own country of origin, or possibly used an unofficial court.

Women who use sharia courts in the UK today would still have to go to the civil courts in the UK alongside that to end their civil marriage.
But I’ve already explained that divorce issued by the civil courts doesn’t have any effect on the Islamic marriage so that wouldn’t be a solution for her to get out of the marriage and away from her husband.

I remember a good lecture by an Islamic scholar in the UK who had very good Islamic knowledge as well as understanding of the situation of being a minority in a non-Muslim country and one of the things he mentioned was that he would be the first to say that as a community we have to tackle any abuse of women that goes on, but we have to do so within the parameters of our religion.
Ideally I would like knowledgeable people with these same priorities to take on the decision-making roles in sharia courts to ensure that abuse of women is not minimised and that the decisions are correct.

Arrays but UK courts expect that women would take on half of the financial responsibility in the family. you’re not comparing like with like