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.'

If you want to discuss the protests, start another thread to avoid confusion of the two issues.

I don’t want to, I was just sticking up for the other poster who was being called a liar and accused of being racist.

I was just sticking up for the other poster who was being called a liar and accused of being racist.

It was patiently explained to the other poster that this thread is discussing the article in the Times about the judicial review, not the protests.

The other poster was called racist for assuming that all Muslims ("these people", in their words) are homophobic.

Just to correct you there theflushedzebra - gender identity is not a protected characteristic. Gender reassignment is.

This father has voiced objections to teaching about the existence of gay relationships and the existence of trans. But the focus of the coverage changes depending on the news source.

So does anyone else feel that the homophobia that has ( reportedly, I ain't checked but am taking the the other posters word for it) been expressed openly by the father may be used against him and distract from the question ( as it did here !)

Knowing how the TAs like to twist the narrative - this week we saw the misguided student on GMB liken the subject of gender ID to racism - then it will be used against him.

If they stick to the issue of gender ideology being taught as fact, then I would like to see the counter arguments.

Is it any different to religious indoctrination?
www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/couple-who-sent-children-church-3557974

We used to do a lot of equal ops promotion and the strap lines we chose were always inclusive e.g. Everybody here., All Together, Everybody's different. I think it's significant that this programme emphasises a negative.
No Outsiders.
I was always taught that cognitively negatives confirmed e.g. don't think of an elephant.
This programme is bad because it's agenda is not tolerance but indoctrination. No Outsiders deliberately excludes, the unsubtle message is not affirmation but the threat that you will only be included If you conform. It could equally be called No Dissent.

So does anyone else feel that the homophobia that has (reportedly, I ain't checked but am taking the the other posters word for it) been expressed openly by the father may be used against him and distract from the question ( as it did here !)

That's the plan. In his description of the Dentons document and its advice, James Kirkup said: This is an issue that is ‘difficult to win public support for’ and best hidden behind the ‘veil of protection’ provided by a popular issue such as gay rights. In the same way, any argument against the T specifically, used by this parent, can be obfuscated and turned into LGB hate instead. Therefore his argument is invalidated.

Don’t need to take anyone’s word for it he’s quoted in the Birmingham Mail. They discussed him on LBC today as well.

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

That would not open for me, Turkey. But if what you are proving is that there is LGB hate, well yes there is. But I don't have to agree with every view he holds to feel he is right about the T. And my point is proven if people believe that his whole argument is invalidated because he does not approve of the LGB as well. The T has piggy-backed well.

"We are not against anyone expressing their sexuality or being homosexual if that's what they want. We have no issue if Mr Moffat wants to put on a dress, or dance around like a ballet dancer, or put on a skirt, we have no issue. We have an issue with teaching that nonsense to our kids."

has more in it than simply that Hussain is homophobic.

This kind of issue needs more nuance than: inclusive vs homophobic.

That was back in July-he has since decided to focus on the teaching of trans ideology which he feels is harmful to children-I would support him in that view.

Anything else is a distraction.

Just to correct you there theflushedzebra - gender identity is not a protected characteristic. Gender reassignment is.

You are absolutely correct, Clymene - slip of the keyboard on my part, but it's a very important distinction.

Good luck to this man. I hope he wins.

I’ve never understood why the trans issue is lumped with feminism anyway. If self-id and so forth goes ahead, it will affect EVERYONE negatively (not just feminists).

Very well said, Michelleoftheresistance

The Muslims I know deal with the prohibition of homosexuality as being for them personally, not as something they should impose on other people.

Schools should work towards increasing tolerance of other people's differences, but deliberately teaching children that the beliefs of their parents are wrong is a step too far.

theflushedzebra - easily done!

coyoacan but the parents beliefs are wrong. If children don’t hear that at school where will they hear it?

Cuckoo which of their parents’ belief are wrong? That the Conservatives form a better government? Voting remain? That marriage is the preserve of heterosexuals? That there is one God? That the welfare state is too extensive? That parents should be able to home educate or private school their children? That utilities should be renationalised? That Scotland should be independent?

Which of these beliefs should the state be ‘correcting’?

This is the fundamental challenge of liberalism. How do you deal with conflict when you have committed to uphold the right to different religious beliefs with the commitment to uphold people’s right to live as gay and lesbian men and women? There just is a conflict and it’s no good preaching tolerance because the true believer cannot show tolerance to something religiously forbidden.

The state could have avoided this standoff but chose to go all in with LGBT education, egged on by some dodgy lobby groups. The result is particularly cloth eared by all accounts.

The T bit is obviously a total nonsense of supernatural thinking and gaslighting but I also think that there is too much overreach in LGB materials generally. I am not happy with how it’s done in my daughter’s secondary school - too dogmatic with young girls going through a lot of changes. And I’m not religious. I am fairly liberal and my children are very familiar with different family types. So going in all guns blazing in a primary school with a very different cohort was always going to cause division and upset.

I don’t particularly want to throw my support behind some religious conservatives with whom I disagree on homosexuality. But their beliefs and wishes have been trampled all over by this ideology just as mine have. Nobody asked women. Nobody asked religious groups. Nobody asked safeguarding experts. We were all sidelined.

coyoacan but the parents beliefs are wrong. If children don’t hear that at school where will they hear it?

There's generations now of literature - decades of it - by gay writers describing growing up in a religious faith and choosing to move away from it when they discovered their sexuality in their teens. There's a mix of those who separated from families and those who have cultures and families and cultures who found ways to come to terms with it. When I was growing up there were no lesbian role models of any kind anywhere on tv or in books, nothing whatsoever, and it was the time of section 28 so no discussion of LGB issues at all. I managed just fine to figure out who I was attracted to and in the days before internet and social media also managed to find groups and phonelines when I wanted support. So did the other gay kids. It wasn't dependent on adults sitting us down and teaching us how to do it or how to deal with it.

There's a huge difference between teaching that there are different kinds of families, different kinds of sexualities, different kinds of relationships and in the UK this is ok, and these are the things (bullying included) which are protected in law and aren't tolerated. And here is where you find information, helplines, support groups. The kids for whom that is especially relevant will draw their own conclusions without being spoon fed. That's very different from actively teaching children that their family and their family's beliefs are wrong and unacceptable.

coyoacan but the parents beliefs are wrong. If children don’t hear that at school where will they hear it?

You want to teach children that their parents' beliefs are wrong? Really? Where is the tolerance of people who have different beliefs?

What sort of effect do you think it would have on children who are told in school that their parents' beliefs are wrong, and at home that what the school is teaching them is wrong?

The trans-promoting press has demonised the parents as all being homophobic bigots, and clearly some are, but I have no idea how many parents who are protesting at parkfield are against the no outsiders program but not against teaching acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. Does anyone know this? Have there been any vocal parent protestors who would like their children to be taught tolerance but not under the no outsiders program?

Frankly I don't think it matters, and the problem is that people are assuming that "tolerance" is the same as pro-LGB (whatever that would mean, it's really a bizarre configuration.)

The main point is that while the state has a reasonable place in teaching students that we need to get along with and respect others, even if our views are very different from our own. That's what tolerance is - not that you have to make their views your own or agree with them. I'd have thought that was implied in the word "tolerate" but it seems like it has changed meaning for many people.

tWhat the state doesn't have is a place usurping the parents role in teaching kids what the role of sexuality is in human life. That's not a factual or scientific point, it's ideological, whether you are religious or not. It's no different than if they began to take a position on monogamy vs pansexual relationships.

The reason this sort of thing has become a problem is not just about the inclusion of the T, it's because the way they are teaching about LGB topics has changed.

So did the other gay kids.

It's worth mentioning that there are gay members of many religious groups who ultimately agree with the teachings of their faith and live according to them. It's their right too, to live according to the views that make sense and seem compelling to them.

I sometimes get the sense that people think religious teachings about sexuality exist in a sort of vacuum.

I think it's significant that this programme emphasises a negative.

Now that you mention, it Imnobody, it does have an air of 'forced teaming' about it.

aesopfable
That homosexuality is morally wrong when it isn’t. That is the position of the state. Clearly that is the debate we’re having here. If you want to discuss other issues on which teachers need to contradict parents I’m very happy to. As a science teacher who has worked in some very religious schools I have disagreed with parents on many issues. Obviously there’s a way to phrase these things respectfully but teachers are not bound to agree with everything children’s parents say and children should be encouraged to question everything!