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

[Spero]

If you haven't seen this, I think you should.

www.faircop.org.uk/post/police-must-not-patrol-trans-discussion-in-schools

In brief, the CPS have published guidance about hate crimes in school - but won't let parents see the guidance. Its for teachers only. I've emailed for a copy and so have others. I have a child in the school system. I want to know how serious the risk is that she will be arrested and charged for discussing biology.

I think anyone else who is also worried should email the CPS and ask to see the guidance.

Teachers and schools can download the pack from this website. This is a resource for schools, so a password is required to download the pack. This can be requested by emailing [email protected].

Thank you.

And thanks to all the others who have joined forces. This is too much for one person to absorb and understand without help. My eyes only started opening about a year ago.

Here is the link to the statutory guidance:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/805781/RelationshipssEducationRelationshipssandSexxEducationRSEanddHealth_Education.pdf

There are a list of resources provided at the back. The only organisation listed under LGBT is Stonewall.

Sorry that's the new PHSE guidance, not the hate crime guidance! Meant to link it back to theflushedzebra's post

The discussions about parents not being allowed to withdraw children from PSHE were rooted in fears that some children were being denied access to information about their bodies, their sexual orientation and about the facts of life due to the parents' agenda. It's like the difficult issues around more unusual forms of homeschooling: when does the child's right to information and wider society overtake the parent's right to parent as they wish. Reducing teen pregnancy, vulnerability of certain groups, reducing LGB bullying all relevant goals with long histories tied in.

Sensitive ground, but the child's needs are easy to see and should be the priority.

However if that teaching has now become loaded with biased political messaging that is not about need but about a political agenda, much of which conflicts with the above aims for children in particular female children and straightforwardly against child safeguarding, then all the above becomes null and void. The argument starts coming down hard on the right of the parents to protect their child from exposure to something harmful. And the harmful isn't things like 'how a baby gets made'.

It's the trojan horse that gets used over and over again. Every child has the right to know how their body works and what sex is/how to do it safely (and be indoctrinated on highly dodgy rightthink)

Just to add: compare this to teaching of religious studies in school, also compulsory and heavily tied in with equality and tolerance goals and aims.

Children are required to learn about the range of the major religions and beliefs within the UK. The aim is that to know and understand builds tolerance, cohesive communities, understanding. However even in faith schools where one faith is part of the daily culture, staff and curriculum strictly observe that no one religion can be taught as more important or significant than others, and the whole ethos is 'some people believe that...' Neutral facts. Neither encouragement to move away from one faith to another, nor encouragement (certainly not threat of police involvement and punishment) for failing to follow the specific tenets and perform a prescribed faith.

If transgender ideology was presented in this neutral, some people believe and that's fine way, and the normal until five minutes ago rights and needs of non believer female children were protected at the same time, I doubt anyone would have an issue.

What the fucking fuck is this?
Spero and Fair Cop, thank you.
And yes, Samphire beat me to it but what did Lang always say about secrecy?

Michelle I couldn't agree more with your comparison with Religious Studies teaching. A significant minority of very young girls cover their hair at my child's school. This is somewhat controversial both inside and outside of Islam. However it is of course hugely important that this controversy doesn't lead to the girls in question being bullied or ostracised. This is achieved by teaching tolerance and acceptance of difference. Not by teaching the reasons behind why those families have decided to make that decision for their very young daughters and certainly not by teaching those reasons as fact.

Going back to the title of the thread - yes please. I want a judge to assess whether the decision to introduce the guidence was lawful, and whether the guidence is lawful. But wouldn't it need a case to be based on? In the mean time the more publicity the better.

RE may now acknowledge a range of fairytale belief system instead of just one, but it still vociferously promotes the idea that irrantional beliefs are a good thing and athiesm is an illegitimate position.

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.

Michelleoftheresistance

It is possible I could be wrong.

And so could you.

XXX

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?

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.

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 have got the CPS guidance in front of me and am conducting my own impact assessment. I will email the CPS now and ask if they are ok with me publishing this on either the Child Protection Resource or the Fair Cop website.

If the problem is that they don't want wider publication of the 'sensitive' case studies, then fine. I won't include them.

But you may be interested to know this for now....

P7 Section 4 deals with identifying criminal charges ‘these are optional and additional. Teachers can use as many or as few of them as they wish… However we strongly recommend teachers consider them as they will deepen the students’ understanding of impact of anti LGBT behaviours…’

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

Page 16 "What do we mean by LGBT+? … represents other sexual identities including pansexual, asexual and omnisexual and questioning people exploring their sexuality"

I wonder where we will find the definition of 'omnisexual' and an explanation as to how it differs from being 'bi sexual'?

doesn't 'questioning people exploring their sexuality' simply mean 'teenagers'?

Poor teachers. Lets hope they all have Urban Dictionary to hand.

O for goodness sake.
They have provided a 'glossary of terms'

Pansexual and omnisexual are NOT included.
So WTAF do they mean?

If someone is accused of being panophobic, don't we have to have a least a vague grasp of what they are being phobic about?

Page 23. Lesbian erasure
Everyone has a sexual orientation … it is the part of a person’s identity that describes who people experience attraction to, commonly based on gender.. gender identity is a person’s sense of themselves as being a boy/man woman/girl both or neither. Gender identity is not necessary dictated by a person’s physiology.

So if that 16 year old lesbian girl says she doesn't want to date someone with a penis - is this 'dislike and discrimination' sufficient to warrant a call to the police?

I think it is these days 🙄

The answer to that question is at page 25.
The answer is 'yes'

Examples of what constitutes 'hate'

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

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?

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?

theinebriati

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

spero

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