Mother challenges school over compulsory Pride march

[Imnobody4]

This looks like an important case.
christianconcern.com/news/mother-to-challenge-school-that-forced-4-year-old-to-take-part-in-pride-event/

A Christian mother whose four-year-old son was required to take part in a school’s LGBT pride parade against her will is to have her legal case heard in court this week.

Izzy Montague made national headlines after being aggressively told by the headteacher of Heaver’s Farm Primary School in Croydon, South London, that her son could not opt-out of the Pride event, despite the families’ Christian beliefs.

The case is the first time that a UK court will scrutinise the legality of imposing LGBT ideology on primary schools. The court will look at the impact it has on religious discrimination, the human rights of parents and their children, the right to opt out of sex education, and a schools’ duty of political neutrality. The case is set to be heard at Central London County Court for eight days, from Wednesday 1 February 2023.

The deputy head teacher was a trained Stonewall ‘champion’ who was given a brief by the school to focus on the theme of “no hierarchy of equalities” during so-called Pride month (June). No advance warning was given to parents, and Izzy only learnt of the parade from a newspaper article.

After requesting that her son be withdrawn from the parade, Izzy was told that if her son did not attend it would be seen as a behavioural issue.

Absolute rubbish Blair was elected in 1997 and that is more than 20 years ago.

Of course we were allowed to mention them - you just had to be careful not to do so in a way that was considered 'promoting'. I was very glad when section 28 was got rid of, but it is daft to exagerate its effect on the teaching of the time - little would have been different. To be fair I was in my 20s but most of my colleagues had completeled their training in the late 60s of the 70s and were mainly of an age not to be all that confortable with the subject full-stop. There was no clamour amongst staff to discuss it never mind promote it. But the way you put it makes it sound like there was a deathly, difficult silence if anyone brought the subject up - which there was not. Kids told their form teachers about things, we dealt with homophobic bullying, sometimes issues came up in lessons - and these were discussed though admittedly not in depth and pure facts, no opinions. And frankly more facts and fewer staff opinions are what's needed in schools now.

We don’t force religion on children. Why should we force this?

Agree.

as a member of the LGB community, I love Pride, and look forward to the marches, but they are for us, not for heterosexual people, or their children.

Why would it be compulsory in a school? That is totally NOT what Pride is for.

I would complain about that

I hope she wins big.

Why would you force 4 year olds into a pride parade wtf?

It is an extremely bad thing imo that a 4 year old has to be Involved with anything other than that there are are all sorts of families and loving and caring and looking after each other is what matters. That’s it.

No one of any age should ever have to go on a march of any kind. Schools have no right to act like the stasi with their private political and sexual agendas.

This will not help gay people.

Absolute nonsense.

I left school just before S28 was removed and I distinctly remember homosexuality and transexuality being discussed in (1) biology lessons and (2) religious studies lessons and (3) extra-curricular debating society.

We actually debated 'This house believes Section 28 should be repealed'. How's that for 'literally weren't allowed to mention'?

RS was called RS but it wasn't really, it was a weekly topic set by the teacher in advance which we debated as a class. Looking back now that will have been how he got around S28 - setting a topic and having us debate it ourselves. I.e. no 'promotion', just student-led debate. Brave of him to do that I guess.

But you're just plain wrong when you say 'literally weren't allowed to mention'.

Yep, so arguably what the mother wanted to do here is use the same rights as parents and sixth formers already have in relation to religion.

VoodooQualities I agree and it was much healthier to have a debate around a topic (even if only for a discursive essay in English e.g. pro or anti death penalty/abortion/preferred type of electoral system etc).
It meant that teachers had to present impartially and so allow all shades of opinion to emerge or prompt them.
Far healthier than having a political group like Stonewall coming in and indoctrinating kids to their 'way' and allowing 'no debate'.
I even had a history teacher who used to like to dramatise topics (eg you be the factory owner, I'll be a cotton worker let's negotiate terms and conditions in the 19th century) and thus in covering trade unions for O'Level History, I was convinced he was a Labour voter. It turned out he was a life-long Tory on free speech grounds.
Impartial presentation but allow all views to emerge. Allows pupils to learn critical thinking skills....clearly been sorely lacking for many years.

Apologies...it seems despite having the first openly gay Cabinet Minister in 1979, Section 28 was not repealed by the Blair Government till 2003 in England and Wales but no doubt the climate changed sooner; and indeed it was repealed earlier in Scotland in 2000 as devolution got going.

Imnobody4 · Yesterday 21:10

In state-funded schools in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, parents do have the right to opt their children out of collective worship...

Oh, pish and tish! None of that matters in Mardy Pie land, what's important is to be loud, confident and wrong; and to expect rational people to believe you.

Most Jehovah Witnesses I met withdraw their children from religious content or celebrations. They are accommodated. Why should this be any different for a different group of people about a different ideology?

Sorry 1997 for the first Cabinet Minister. 1979 is when Thatcher was elected.

When I was at a state Comprehensive in mid 1970s, one Jewish pupil (or her parents on her behalf lol) chose to sit on the balcony, so she was free to leave if anything in the assembly didn't sit right with her.

Imnobody4 · Yesterday 21:10
In state-funded schools in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, parents do have the right to opt their children out of collective worship – and in England and Wales, this right transfers from parent to pupil once the pupil reaches the sixth form

No, you are not correct here, unfortunately.

The law has changed and there is no right to opt out.

“There is no right to withdraw from Relationships Education at primary or secondary as we believe the contents of these subjects – such as family, friendship, safety (including online safety) – are important for all children to be taught.5 Apr 2019”
www.gov.uk › news › relatio...
Relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE ... - GOV.UK)

Written by PSHE Association | Apr 9, 2019 4:00:00 AM

1. What are the new requirements?

The Health Education and Relationships Education (primary) and the secondary Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) aspects of PSHE education will be compulsory in all schools from 2020.

I think these are two different things. Parents have the right to opt out of collective worship still, it is the right to opt out of relationship education that has been removed.

What has become concerning is that many schools are outsourcing this PHSE to unvetted, untrained outside agencies and not letting parents review the material. It's how absolute trash like the gender bread gender person got into schools.

I'm a lesbian and wouldn't touch "Pride" with a barge pole. I hate what it's become.

MoltenLasagne · Today 15:45
You are right. I misread Imnobody4’s post.

Please accept my apologies Imnobody

People put a line between ideology that they see as religious, and those they don't. It's pretty artificial, though.

I know a reception age girl who won’t use the toilet at her school because the toilet door opens straight into the classroom and she’s freaked out about the idea of boys being right outside her door when she has her pants down.

She comes home with painful tummy/ constipation, or wets herself during the day.

But sure, let others ‘dream’ about a world in which little girls have no privacy from the male gaze at all.

Yes, I think that about sums it up.

I know a reception age girl who won’t use the toilet at her school because the toilet door opens straight into the classroom and she’s freaked out about the idea of boys being right outside her door when she has her pants down.

I also knew of a mum who was sexually abused as a child who needed a lot of support and reassurance that her little girl would be absolutely safe in the school environment around toilets and changing for PE etc. I can't imagine the anxiety and stress she is going through as her daughter goes through the school system in such environments.

This was covered on BBC2 at lunchtime as was misogyny hate crime.

The BBC were very disingenuous. They had trans activist MPs and were not covering the topic from the view that misogyny hate crime being used by men against women.

There were three failed attempts to speak to the mother 😬, they were not accepting that there are potential sterilising of her son issues, safeguarding issues and gaslighting.

It was reframed as the only society that's acceptable is the world view of the panel, no inclusion of this family. Lots of bigot allusion, deliberately talking about two mums not a penis haver called Janet rubbing his thighs at the though of a four year old getting unfair detentions.

I raised an eyebrow at Emily Thornbury calling others deluded earlier in light of her opinions.

I was chatting to a man recently who brought up the unrealistic PC on the TV, he told me, how all the men he knew were complaining it's just not reality. Smug Emily thinks her world view is accepted by all, it's not.

The Head teacher is on the stand now being questioned by her own solicitor, I'll be interested in the cross examination. I can't get my head around a 3 hour detention for a 5 year old. Is this normal.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11723581/Christian-mother-banned-four-year-old-sons-school.html

Giving evidence Ms Papas said the mother was banned from the school because staff ‘did not feel safe around her’.

Ms Papas told the hearing the aim of the parade was ‘to pull everything together, to have a happy cheerful event at the end of the year.

‘Where we could bring everyone together and say they were proud of what they had learnt and reflect on topics we’ve covered over the year, bringing everyone together with everyone’s families.’

Ian Clarke, representing the school, asked the headteacher: ‘What was the purpose behind the teaching of the home in reception?

Ms Papas replied: ‘The teaching in reception was simply to know there were different kinds of families in the class and other families existed in the world.’

Judge Christopher Lethem said: ‘So, no hierarchy of equalities?’

Ms Papas said: ‘In reception level it was just how they could all feel comfortable that other families exist or if their family didn’t look like the others, that’s ok.’

Mrs Montague has claimed the school ‘picked on’ their son and teachers gave him a three-hour detention after she made the complaint.

She was banned from the school after a series of concerns surrounding her behaviour towards staff, the court heard.

‘What were you trying to achieve in banning Mrs Montague from the school?’ asked Mr Clarke.

Ms Papas said: ‘I was trying to support members of staff who said they did not feel safe around her.