Parents gather outside Birmingham school to protest against gay teacher

[Lurdan]

Story on the BBC site :

Protest leaflets claim relationship education teaches infants masturbation - BBC News

It includes an image of the leaflet that claimed this :

Apparently the RSE Schoolgate Campaign which produced it "has now removed" this claim from it's literature. Here is the current wording on their website :

Sexualising Children

Some recommended resources describe sexual intercourse to children in infant school. Others introduce nudity, graphic images and terms like anal intercourse and masturbation to Juniors. First sexual intercourse will be encouraged from the age of 13 – which is illegal. No moral framework will be offered for any of this behaviour.

Well that's a massive improvement on the leaflet isn't it. Then there is an account of the dark forces behind it all

UN & WHO promoting radical sexualisation of kids

Much of the ideology behind the R(S)E curriculum in the UK comes from Comprehensive Sexuality Education. Alarmingly, this is endorsed at the highest levels by organisations like the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

Followed by a short video, "The War On Children", from Family Watch International, a US based anti-LGBT and anti-abortion campaigning group which does a lot of international outreach work.

Family Watch International - Southern Poverty Law Center
Why is the religious right attacking UNICEF? - Salon.com (archived version)

The RSE Schoolgate website says they are connected with "Anglican Mainstream" a traditionalist grouping inside the Church of England, formed in 2004

as part of a united international response of Anglicans from different backgrounds (Reformed, Charismatic and Catholic) to re-state and support traditional understandings of marriage, the family and human sexuality in the face of erosion of these values in church and society

Looks as if every sect and denomination is now busy producing small groups of activists anxious to adopt a "missionary position" over the State sponsored 'sexualisation' of children in schools.

 

[agricola]

Looks as if every sect and denomination is now busy producing small groups of activists anxious to adopt a "missionary position" over the State sponsored 'sexualisation' of children in schools.

Indeed, and of course the more appalling they are the greater the chance of their message being spread on the news.

Also that BBC report is appalling - anyone reading that article without fact-checking it themselves (or without reading the explanation you've provided) would probably look at the mention of east London, look at the reference to Parkfield and come to the conclusion that the School Gate campaign was one run by Muslims. The BBC must know who the RSG are - as they appear to have spoke to them - so why not tell people they are an Anglican crank group?

 

[Lurdan]

Dull Saturday so did some idle browsing 'research'.

Neither the BBC article, nor the item on the Victoria Derbyshire show yesterday that it was based on, identify who was actually handing the leaflets out in Newham. Only the group which originally wrote them, which may well not be the same thing.

In the TV item the Newham Councillor interviewed briefly referred to organization through local Whatsapp groups, and to pressure on Councillors from unspecified local opponents of RSE.

(There is some possibly related local political background. This is the same Councillor referred to in this news story :
London gay man loses LGBT officer role in Labour party to a straight man - Gay Star News
which led on to this one :
Labour general secretary urged to suspend West Ham constituency party over 'homophobic bullying' - OnLondon
However I know nothing about any of that and care less. My relatively strong stomach when it comes to looking at obnoxious religious sites is balanced out by a strong allergic reaction to reading about the soap opera inside the Labour Party).

The Schoolgate Campaign seem to take a fairly ecumenical approach to campaigning. They link to a number of other websites. These include a group launched at a meeting in Parliament hosted by the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson, and another set up by UKIP; another associated with the rather more upmarket looking Values Foundation which brings together Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (nominally non-denominational but strongly associated with Roman Catholicism); and an Islamic one, STOPRSE.COM founded by Kate Godfrey-Faussett.

Many of the groups campaigning against RSE are engaged in producing material intended to be of use to any 'concerned parents'. They are often not active locally anywhere themselves (they may have supporters who are) and rather than recruitment are primarily focused on encouraging local activism by other people. (When a SPUC leaflet was delivered to houses in Nottingham in June, SPUC themselves denied having been involved or aware of it).

Obviously this is rather different to the activities of Christian Concern (mentioned earlier in the thread), looking for causes they can stage manage high profile legal action around.

But my guess is that where this kind of activism does take off local organising through social media will be far more significant than the role played by outside campaigning groups or the specific religious or political agendas of those groups.

 

[scifisam]

Dull Saturday so did some idle browsing 'research'.

Neither the BBC article, nor the item on the Victoria Derbyshire show yesterday that it was based on, identify who was actually handing the leaflets out in Newham. Only the group which originally wrote them, which may well not be the same thing.

In the TV item the Newham Councillor interviewed briefly referred to organization through local Whatsapp groups, and to pressure on Councillors from unspecified local opponents of RSE.

(There is some possibly related local political background. This is the same Councillor referred to in this news story :
London gay man loses LGBT officer role in Labour party to a straight man - Gay Star News
which led on to this one :
Labour general secretary urged to suspend West Ham constituency party over 'homophobic bullying' - OnLondon
However I know nothing about any of that and care less. My relatively strong stomach when it comes to looking at obnoxious religious sites is balanced out by a strong allergic reaction to reading about the soap opera inside the Labour Party).

The Schoolgate Campaign seem to take a fairly ecumenical approach to campaigning. They link to a number of other websites. These include a group launched at a meeting in Parliament hosted by the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson, and another set up by UKIP; another associated with the rather more upmarket looking Values Foundation which brings together Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (nominally non-denominational but strongly associated with Roman Catholicism); and an Islamic one, STOPRSE.COM founded by Kate Godfrey-Faussett.

Many of the groups campaigning against RSE are engaged in producing material intended to be of use to any 'concerned parents'. They are often not active locally anywhere themselves (they may have supporters who are) and rather than recruitment are primarily focused on encouraging local activism by other people. (When a SPUC leaflet was delivered to houses in Nottingham in June, SPUC themselves denied having been involved or aware of it).

Obviously this is rather different to the activities of Christian Concern (mentioned earlier in the thread), looking for causes they can stage manage high profile legal action around.

But my guess is that where this kind of activism does take off local organising through social media will be far more significant than the role played by outside campaigning groups or the specific religious or political agendas of those groups.

It won't be the first time someone who is straight has won an election representing LGBT rights - I can think of a few I've personally known (and because I personally know them, I don't want to name them). They did, at least, try to represent people well, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind standing as a representative for a group you're not part of when there are other candidates who are part of that group.

For this particular candidate it does sound like there's a reason and it's shitty that he managed to manipulate the tiny number of voters that way.

 

[GarveyLives]

Homosexuality is much less accepted in Islam. At my kids primary there was serious misgivings about this ‘many shaped families’ message. Liberal ideology promotes multiculturalism but doesn’t have answers for when those cultures have different concepts of morality.

See also:

LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says

 

[tim]

See also:

LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says

Or probably this

LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says

A retired "Judge" from the Manchester Beth Din the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia Tribunal. It's a body that seeks to settle civil/religious disputes between consenting members within the Orthodox Jewish community, not a court of law

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Or probably this

LGBT teaching an abomination, Jewish judge says

A retired "Judge" from the Manchester Beth Din the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia Tribunal. It's a body that seeks to settle civil/religious disputes between consenting members within the Orthodox Jewish community, not a court of law

That's not entirely correct. You're right that it is a body that people choose to use, but the decisions of a Beth Din do carry legal weight. They are courts that are right at the bottom of the hierarchy, in that a person can take a Beth Din judgement to a civil court and contest it. But you do have to go to that civil court to contest it - its decisions do carry legal weight once you have agreed to arbitration by that court for a civil matter. For instance, if you're ordered to pay compensation to someone and you refuse, then that person can take you to a civil court to force you to pay on the basis of the Beth Din's judgement. You'd have to appeal against that judgement to avoid paying up.

See here

decisions made within the parameters of the Arbitration Act (1996) are legally-binding, subject to the approval of civil courts. Both parties must freely agree to accept the judgment as legally-binding; by signing an arbitration agreement with the Beth Din individuals are choosing to be judged by Jewish law. In the event of non-compliance, the arbitration agreement may be taken to secular courts for enforcement. Civil courts, however, retain the right to intervene in any case where the award of the Beth Din is considered unreasonable or contrary to public policy.

These things have quite a long history. For context, I think they did make sense back when the main courts were far more explicitly Christian in nature. But with proper secularisation of the main court system, the need and justification for any subordinate courts based on faith disappear.

 

[WouldBe]

Not sure what the problem is. I was taught sex education and how to put a condom on at junior school and that was over 40 years ago.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Not sure what the problem is. I was taught sex education and how to put a condom on at junior school and that was over 40 years ago.

Its the gay stuff they have a problem with, being the good homophobes that they are - god forbid any of their kids turn to Satan.

 

[tim]

That's not entirely correct. You're right that it is a body that people choose to use, but the decisions of a Beth Din do carry legal weight. They are courts that are right at the bottom of the hierarchy, in that a person can take a Beth Din judgement to a civil court and contest it. But you do have to go to that civil court to contest it - its decisions do carry legal weight once you have agreed to arbitration by that court for a civil matter. For instance, if you're ordered to pay compensation to someone and you refuse, then that person can take you to a civil court to force you to pay on the basis of the Beth Din's judgement. You'd have to appeal against that judgement to avoid paying up.

See here



These things have quite a long history. For context, I think they did make sense back when the main courts were far more explicitly Christian in nature. But with proper secularisation of the main court system, the need and justification for any subordinate courts based on faith disappear.

The point I was trying to make is that the person in question was no more a Judge in a British civil or Criminal Court anymore than a judge in the largest marrow compettion at local garden society is.

As to people making recourse to religious arbitration tribunals, I can understand why you might disapprove of them, but I don't see how in a free society you can stop people using them if they want to. As far as actual legal limitations on their rulings, there is more information here The Arbitration Act 1996: does it allow religious tribunals to make rulings that can be enforced by the civil courts?

 

[Jay Park]

It won't be the first time someone who is straight has won an election representing LGBT rights - I can think of a few I've personally known (and because I personally know them, I don't want to name them). They did, at least, try to represent people well, but I don't really understand the reasoning behind standing as a representative for a group you're not part of when there are other candidates who are part of that group.

For this particular candidate it does sound like there's a reason and it's shitty that he managed to manipulate the tiny number of voters that way.

So straight politicians should not run on a platform of equality because there are other campaigners with less tenuous claims to the idea of LBGT progression within the Organisation of the UK?

 

[Jay Park]

Sorry I meant ‘straight’. Cos that word is redundant afaiac

 

[scifisam]

So straight politicians should not run on a platform of equality because there are other campaigners with less tenuous claims to the idea of LBGT progression within the Organisation of the UK?

Not even remotely close to what I said.

 

[WouldBe]

Its the gay stuff they have a problem with, being the good homophobes that they are - god forbid any of their kids turn to Satan.

Better stop teaching religious education as well then but I doubt the same parents would go for that.