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.'

The exclusion was based on a history of disruptive behaviour in school, along with publicly posting a secretly filmed video of a member of staff on school premises.

Regardless of reason for exclusion (which I would have thought would be highly confidential, considering this boy was a minor when it happened) - this lad was removed from class for stating his belief that there are only two genders. There was video evidence of this.

Not only that, but the teacher showed signs of intense irritation - anger, even - at a child stating a view that was not in line with the "school's stance" on gender. This is intolerance.

Once the new CPS Guidelines for school are introduced, there is every chance that this would be reported as a "hate incident" to the police.

I personally do not want to see any child's beliefs on gender - whether that belief is that there are infinite genders, or just two genders - criminalised by the CPS and police.

Moffat has framed his project as being about the EA and all the protected characteristics.

This is from an article about Moffat from 2017 after he started working at Parkfield school.

schoolsweek.co.uk/andrew-moffat-assistant-head-parkfield-community-school/

He chose a school that was 99 per cent Muslim pupils in an area heavily affected by the so-called Trojan Horse plot to radicalise pupils (though it wasn’t one of the schools in question) and became assistant head there. His first resources went into the bin, along with its focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, and he produced new resources based around both the Equality Act 2010, and the government’s emphasis on “British values” such as democracy and respect for others who are different, which he called ‘No Outsiders’.

“You’re talking about thousands of years of religious belief. You can’t just say ‘tough’.

“Instead you say ‘there are different people everywhere’, and it’s not about ‘we are right’ or ‘you are right’, but that we are helping prepare the children for all the different people they will meet. They can decide themselves.”

It’s working. The mostly Muslim governors at the school support Moffat. The parents know he is gay, and either support him, or “tolerate” it, he says.

What happened to change the parents' view of him and what he was teaching?

But some perfectly legal practices are viewed as immoral by some religious groups.

Including any sex outside a heterosexual marriage (including fully consenting sex between a monogamous heterosexual couple in a long term relationship). Who are schools to say that a child’s parents are wrong to instil this view in their child?

I'd like to say two things here.

The first is that I think many people have internalised a particular view of secularism that is dominant in some other places, notably France but many Americans who think of themselves as secular also take this view - this is where the idea has come from in the UK, and Canada, IMO. This view sees secularism as a philosophy or ideology with it's own values, it's simply "not religious." From this viewpoint, a secular state and secular state schools would have values around things like sexual ethics that they would promote.
The more historic understanding of secularism, which has dominated in some other countries, is that the sate does not take a position with regard to ideology beyond very basic positions necessary for the good of the state. You can be a Muslim or a Marxist, and send your child to the state school which will not favour one over the other.

I'd also like to point out that for religions that have views about sexuality, they are rarely as flat as "homosexual sex is wrong." I don't know enough about the details of Muslim sexual ethics to say anything about that, but the Catholic view and until recently the view of all Christians isn't specifically about homosexuality at all - it says that the only time people should have sex is when it is oriented toward procreation, and the people are married. That is for all people, not just a particular class of people who are gay - if that was followed in an ideal way it would mean a lot of people not having sex.
There are a lot of nuances and details to that if you dig into it, but that is the basic position, and it's quite logically laid out and it's fundamentally a ideological, moral or ethical position about the right use of sex. To say it's objectively wrong from a scientific perspective doesn't really make any sense and it the state can't argue it's wrong on the basic of some sexual objective facts.

All I know about the Muslim position is that anal sex is forbidden as is being public about your homosexuality.

But if religious beliefs are a protected characteristic under the Equality Law, they should not be able to ride roughshod over them with these programmes.

There is no "Muslim Position" on anything. There are muslims with positions, and none of them has any more authority than any other muslim.

I stand corrected

This is where the blanket, unthinking fetishisation of diversity and tolerance become unstuck. Some ideologies are fundamentally incompatible. What will happen is whichever ideology holds its frame with overpower the weaker one.

There are muslims with positions, and none of them has any more authority than any other muslim.

Sure, but this is true of all kinds of ideological positions, and we can still talk about them i terms of what they entail. Feminism, for example, or idealism, materialism.

What happened to change the parents' view of him and what he was teaching?

That is a good question.

Part of it may be that the parents disliked their kids being used by him as examples of proto terrorists who saw the light after reading some books about gay people in the Guardian.

Because if it were my children, I’d be furious.

Very good point Endofthedays.

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.

Moffat actually singled out a non compliant little boy who says something offensive in one of the interviews he did and is quite scathing about him. A lot of people pointed out how inappropriate it was to speak about a child like that while promoting not leaving anyone out.

And yes I think you're spot on with what you say there.

What do people think the safeguarding concerns are with No Outsiders? Am interested to hear more on the paedophile point.

Daffs this will tell you more than any forum post!

www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/

Thank you