Father starts judicial review over 'No Outsiders' programme

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/father-says-hed-go-to-jail-over-trans-lessons-m3hhhsf5m?fbclid=IwAR0qzRTd3g_2Ql1O4seZtm1gcdj87gqTPbGR1AG5p1yKtV4dCLvKVbRas2Y

'The first parent to face prosecution after withdrawing his child from a school because it offers LGBT lessons says he is willing to go to jail.'

Here comes the backlash!

Hopefully, this time we'll deal with resurgent homophobia with facts, reason and daylight. The 'get over it' campaign was early-stage cancel culture and it's only got worse since then.

We need to consider that parents, even conservative/religious/homophobic ones, do get to decide how to bring up their children and teach them their values - this isn't 'LGB people exist' any more, it's 'and you must hold this opinion of us'. It's state over-reach and just not very sound pedagogy. Educators should offer facts, let learners think critically and draw their own conclusions.

Ahem. Fascinating quote from the link Endofthedays posted:

But for now, parents and children are not thinking about terrorism, they are deciding how they would welcome a polar bear from the North Pole escaping from melting ice caps to take refuge in their jungle. How would he feel leaving his home and what could the jungle animals do to make him feel welcome? What can they learn from each other? Does having new people from different places make the class better?

There is standing room only as families help their children with art work and messages to welcome the polar bear. Some paint Norwegian flags and icy scenes, others write messages. “You are welcome at this school where there are no outsiders,” writes one girl, while her mother uses her phone to look up “welcome” in Norwegian.

I see the point he is trying to make. But applying this to the current trans ideology is telling.

Polar bears are dangerous predators. Introducing to an environment where they don’t belong (the jungle) would have devastating consequences for the animals that belong in the jungle, as they have no protection from this kind of predator. We know this. If something went wrong in a polar bear enclosure at the zoo, no one would suggest chucking the polar bears in with the lemurs.

And yet, we are teaching that not only should the polar bears be put with the lemurs, it’s the lemurs responsibility to welcome the polar bears with flags and make them comfortable.

Of course, we need to look after the polar bears, especially if they themselves are vulnerable. But it’s not acceptable to put another vulnerable community at risk rather than find somewhere more appropriate for the polar bears.

Comments are interesting , the whole thing could be rather nuanced

Some people believe you can be born into the wrong body. The rest follows from that. Eg children must be aware of that fact otherwise life could be really difficult for them, that children must be in every segmentation put into the class they feel part of. It's totally logical.

I am happy to accept and accommodate (within reason) the idea that some people think they are born in the wrong body. But because I think it's a belief not a fact, I would accept that children need to understand that it's just a personal expression the same as punk for example, but I would not see a need to teach it any more than we should teach about the Plymouth brethren or veganism . I would not see a need therefore to treat people with respect, but not to allow their belief to dictate other peoples actions.

Midge I agree with you. We don't need to teach children contested metaphysical points as fact in order to teach them to treat people with respect and to be aware of and accept that some people are different to them or have very different beliefs and feelings. I expect the bloke's legal team think they could demonstrate that the ideological/metaphysical position being taught re T is contested and goes beyond the EA but that what's being taught re LGB is more uncontroversial and fits the law.

That’s part of the problem though isn’t it, lumping the T in with the LGB. It’s difficult then to separate out the true homophobes and intolerant people from the ones who object to many transgender issues being taught as fact to impressionable children.

Yes. We know that its a common tactic of TRAs to purposely lump the T in with LGB in an attempt to make all parents look like bigots (Tracy Shaw from SSA mentioned this in her video with Posie this week).

So when I approached my child's Stonewall Champion school to register my concerns over the 'teaching' material, it was clear that the head couldn't distinguish between gender ID and sexuality and therefore concluded that I must be both transphobic and homophobic . He replied that Stonewall is a reputable organisation.

I pointed out that while Stonewall, a lobby group, does have some robust material on the LGB side and has done a sound job in terms of handling bullying in schools etc around homophobia, the 'T' material is sexist, regressive, homophobic, sensationalist and factually incorrect.

But my paper is clearly blotted at that school now.

a need therefore to treat people with respect, but not to allow their belief to dictate other peoples actions.

Absolutely. Which is why Maya Forstater's case was disappointing. We need clarity on this - the belief that one can be born 'in the wrong body' - in this case, that there are 'male/masculine' brains and 'female/feminine' brains - needs to be carefully and closely examined. It's certainly not a given, and I'm astounded that so many people seem to readily accept it as straightforward fact.

If you force beliefs (not facts) on people's children, they'll end up removing them from school.

And then different people stop learning anything about one another. Fractures that already exist between the cultures will widen. Tribalism gets worse. Intolerance of difference breeds. The purity spiral spins on.... Bad things happen.

And you can apply that to the no platforming debarcle too.

Everyone knows the protests in Birmingham are about LGBT rather than just T, no matter how The Times might try and spin it. Videos of the protesters, their banners and leaflets have all shown them to be homophobic. If you support these people you're attacking the lesbians and gay men you claim to be standing up for.

Everyone knows

In other words, everyone who is objecting to the No Outsiders programme is homophobic. Realising that an LGB human shield would enable all kinds of dodgy stuff to be steamrollered through was a genius move.

Watch a few of their interviews, look at their banners. Far more homophobia than transphobia going on.

Go on, just say it snowblight: everyone realises these protestors are Muslim.

Go on, just say it snowblight: everyone realises these protestors are Muslim.

Most of the ones outside the schools in Birmingham are. So?

If you support these people you're attacking the lesbians and gay men you claim to be standing up for.

If I support a man who is arguing against the trans agenda of brainwashing kids, I have to support everything else he believes? I that what you're saying? So do I have to become a Muslim as well just because I agree with his arguments against his child being taught in school that he can change sex?

All or nothing is it, snowblight?

Realising that an LGB human shield would enable all kinds of dodgy stuff to be steamrollered through was a genius move.

Yup. It's even endorsed explicitly as a tactic in that Dentons document that was around a couple of months ago. In Ireland, self-ID was brought into law by piggy backing on same sex marriage legislation.

Similarly, back in the 1970s, PIE tried to piggyback on gay rights to endorse paedophilia. If you supported the rights of adults to have sex with other adults of the same sex, then what could be more logical than supporting the rights of children to have sex with adults?

It still amazes me that people are stupid enough to fall for this shit.

All or nothing is it, snowblight?

These people have an issue with the whole LGBT. This isn't like they're holding a protest against trans people one day and have a totally separate, unrelated campaign against gay people a couple of weeks later. It's all lumped together for them in one anti-LGBT protest. If you want to pick out the bits under those circumstances that suit your agenda then feel free.

Are we actually supporting the protestors or are we talking about the case as presented in the times?

Or are you saying that because he is Muslim he must automatically be homophobic? It's racist to suggest He must automatically be objecting to the teaching around homosexuality and that has just been obsfucated by the newspaper

Have a read and watch for yourself then

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/protest-parents-back-parkfield-school-16554048

Some religions, faiths, beliefs are homophobic, they are not compatible with agreeing with homosexual relationships. (Note the total lack of homogenderal: it's the homosexual bit that is not ok).

It's illegal to act on homophobia by verbally or physically intimidating or insulting someone gay, or discriminating against someone gay in the ways protected in the equality act.

It's not illegal to hold homophobic beliefs, or to follow a religion that does not accept homosexuality.

It is and should be illegal to teach children in schools that homosexuality is wrong. However when you teach children that not just acting on homophobia but holding homophobic beliefs and faiths, you are teaching children that their family, their culture, their parents are wrong. You are setting up direct conflicts of loyalty. You are intentionally trying to discredit a faith and belief system and break children away from it. You can't expect parents and faiths to see this as a jolly good thing and that your view is superior enough to go along with it.

There's a line. After 5 decades of being lesbian, what I've seen in my lifetime is a gradual increase of tolerance and acceptance and familiarity, it happens through not nagging and bullying and ordering people about and trying to damage their family relationships but by positive life experience of being around gay people. Stonewall have forced this to the point of re arousing intolerance, and teaching parents that this isn't live and let live: this is Rightthink and Wrongthink.

It's done damage. It's the arrogant belief of superiority and the need to destroy conflicting beliefs to establish the One True Faith instead of live and let live.

And for the above:

Think about if Catholicism was the thing being seen as the One True Faith and schools and government and police were insisting your children MUST be taught about hell and taking mass and going to confession, you couldn't withdraw your children from this teaching and the fact that you as a parent didn't believe in this was just your old fashioned bigoted Catholicphobia?

Veganism.
Anti abortionism.
Marxism.
The list goes on and on.

Some religions, faiths, beliefs are homophobic, they are not compatible with agreeing with homosexual relationships.

E.G:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-51233003

snowblight This is from the article in the OP:

In a letter sent to Birmingham city council on Friday, outlining the grounds for bringing a judicial review, Paul Conrathe of Sinclairslaw said Hussain’s concern was “that the school has adopted a ‘salesman-like approach to transgender identity’ ”.

I agree with this legal action being taken.

The father in this case is quoted as saying:

“The school teaches that some children are born in the wrong body,” said Hussain.

“This can cause confusion. If my son gets confused about this and about his own body, he might think he is a girl. The school thinks this is OK and has to be accepted, even though transgender can mean medical treatment and surgery which could damage my son mentally and physically for life.”

I think these concerns are reasonable. By agreeing with him on this one point, it doesn't mean that I agree with any homophobic views he might hold. I also don't agree with the views of some Muslims that women shouldn't go outside without covering their heads. He doubtless holds many other views which I would disagree with.

I know this is a very unfashionable attitude to have, but it is possible to totally agree with someone on one issue and vehemently disagree with that same person on another.

We are all different. I find this idea that if you agree on one thing therefore you have to agree on everything else bizarre. It's not how we win campaigns.

There is also a difference between what a religion teaches and what individuals who are part of that religion , from birth, may actually think and believe. The catholic religion doesn't believe in birth control but that doesn't stop many catholics from taking precautions

I am not interested in whatever good and bad traits the man has. I never really like it when people start digging for dirt or throwing allegations at people to try and discredit them or to destroy support for what they are doing

I am interested in what he is actually pushing through the court.

He has been quoted in the press as being opposed to the teaching of tolerance towards homosexuality as this is at odds with his religion. It’s not racist to call him homophobic- he has said as much himself.

Not agreeing with someone doesn't mean that they should be silenced, stamped out of existence or prevented from holding the views you don't share in.

That really is the issue here and always has been. The whole #nodebate

The whole idea that someone holding views you can stick a label on are to be shunned and untouchable as if they're infectious somehow. As opposed to a society that accepts a range of views in a live and let live way, accepting different faiths, cultures, beliefs, but prevents those views being enacted in ways that disadvantages a group of people. Such as by redefining female and removing single sex female spaces .

michelle many children (including my own) are taught in religious schools. I can not withdraw my dc from the schools religious teaching and there are no alternative schools. We manage just fine with explaining to our children that we disagree with what their teachers say. Children can cope with alternative viewpoints!