Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

School expels kid for having gay parents

Bob_the_lost said:
The child was already there, so either they don't demand that the pupils are religious or she was a christian, and how do we know that the parent's weren't christian, oh i forget. Fags are the devil's servants.

The school is kicking someone out for having the wrong parents, i see no difference between that and kicking someone out for having "coloured" people in thier bloodline.


It is discrimination, and I don't like it, but I also agree with the ability of a church or denomination to set up a school for its children, and to exclude those who don't fit the criteria for entry.

And considering how the school has reacted, it perplexes me why they would want their kid to continue going there in any event.

It's like a black guy going to court to get membership in the Klan. Ok, say you win, and there you are at the first meeting at the clubhouse: now what?
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
Y'see that's the kind of attitude that means it's really difficult to address this issue seriously, sensibly, and openly. You've just proved my point. Thank you.

The fact that racism is assumed and brought into the equation as a motivation of me, the poster, because the perpetrators are generally non-white, generally maghreban... :rolleyes:

There is a factor of the authorities going softly, softly on issues with particular cultural, racial, religious sensitivities, even in this country, hence the widespread consultation about proposals to create a new crime relating to forced marriages. Such widespread and extensive consultations are *very unusual* in the process of drafting legislation, and it has been acknowledged in radio interviews by politicians that this is to ensure that the communities don't feel singled out or discriminated against (and the communities particularly, but not exclusively, affected by this are Bangladeshi and from certain regions in Pakistan). The authorities are very aware that targeting certain non-white sections of society with legislation may be perceived to be racist by those sections of the community, hence there's a lot of pussyfooting.

But back to the issue of gang rapes of non-hijab wearing muslim women in France:

Check out the "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores nor Submissives) section of Wikipedia. Some of the HLMs (housing projects) are quite lawless areas...

"... Two high-profile cases gave a particular impetus to NPNS during 2003. The first was that of Samira Bellil who published a book called Dans l'enfer des tournantes ("In Gang Rape Hell") in which she recounts her life as a girl under la loi des cités (the law of the housing projects) where she was gang raped on more than one occasion, the first time at age 13, afraid to speak out, and ultimately seen only as a sexual object, alienated and shunned by her family and some of her friends..."

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni_Putes_Ni_Soumises ]

I could put up loads more links, there's plenty of information out there.

You can google the issue if you like, and then come back to me with a decent argument when you've bothered to do your research :rolleyes:

My source of information over the years about this issue is not FN, but I've read and heard about it through mainstream French media organisations when I lived there, and I've occasionally read about it in British broadsheets and also heard about it on Radio 4, and it's probably come up on bulletins like Channel 4 News... hardly well known organs for virulent racism, wouldn't you say?

But then you wouldn't know that, would you? Because I guess the plight of young French muslim girls being gang raped by their 'friends' and neighbours in their own communities would go under your radar, you're more interested in accusing people of white on non-white racism and assuming that someone who mentions a serious issue like this has got their information from FN, says a lot more about you and your prejudice than about me and mine.

For the record (and not that I should need to justify myself but because I feel I now *have* to - thank to you, cheers - to dissociate myself with such twisted motivations as you have incorrectly assumed: I'm a muslim woman. My knowledge about and interest in this issue is based on my concern for my muslim sisters.

Thanks AnnO'Neemus, I found that interesting to read. We studied a bit about 'la laïcité' in French class (I went to the Lycée Français in London) but my teacher was a boring old trout who could make a funfair on drugs seem boring..... :)
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
It is discrimination, and I don't like it, but I also agree with the ability of a church or denomination to set up a school for its children, and to exclude those who don't fit the criteria for entry.

And considering how the school has reacted, it perplexes me why they would want their kid to continue going there in any event.

It's like a black guy going to court to get membership in the Klan. Ok, say you win, and there you are at the first meeting at the clubhouse: now what?
They don't, it's in the article and it's been mentioned several times.

I'm disgusted that in the "land of the free" this is accepted as ok. The klan is outlawed isn't it? Maybe you want to use the BNP as an example.

You're still avoiding the point, she was expelled because of her parent's. HER PARENTS, not very bloody christian if you ask me. If i'm not mistaken it would be illegal for a school to exclude students based upon thier skin colour. Let alone because of thier parent's, why should the parent's sexual orientation be different.

It's not a school, it's a christian training camp.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
This isn't a case of kicking someone out for not conforming, something that is iffy enough, this is a case of punishing someone for somthing they couldn't change or chose.

No its about freedom.

Aperently you don't like it.

But seeing as how you guys are allways bitching and complaining about the go'vt why would you trust them to fairly decied who you get to hang out with?
 
pbman said:
No its about freedom.

Aperently you don't like it.

But seeing as how you guys are allways bitching and complaining about the go'vt why would you trust them to fairly decied who you get to hang out with?
That's freedom? Suppose it would be freedom to make a school white only then.

Could you answer the question in post #51 please?
 
Bob_the_lost said:
The lesbian parents didn't join the school did they. It's discriminating against people because of who thier parents are. You think that's the right thing to do? (Yes/No if you could be so kind)

Yes its descrimination.

People discriminate all the time with who they hangout with.

It's not only legal, its somthing we all have to do in our daily lives.

I quit hanging out with people who drink heavily.

I discriminate against them.

For my benifit.
 
pbman said:
Yes its descrimination.

People discriminate all the time with who they hangout with.

It's not only legal, its somthing we all have to do in our daily lives.

I quit hanging out with people who drink heavily.

I discriminate against them.

For my benifit.
That's not what i asked, this is discrimination based soley upon the parents. Deciding that gays aren't allowed in your school is bad enough in my eyes, but almost defendable. Deciding people who's parent's are gay aren't allowed in is awful.

I'll ask it again : It's discriminating against people because of who thier parents are. You think that's the right thing to do? (Yes/No if you could be so kind)
 
Bob_the_lost said:
The child was already there, so either they don't demand that the pupils are religious or she was a christian, and how do we know that the parent's weren't christian, oh i forget. Fags are the devil's servants.

The school is kicking someone out for having the wrong parents, i see no difference between that and kicking someone out for having "coloured" people in thier bloodline.

So what should be the consequences for the school? What should the authorities do in this case?
 
mears said:
So what should be the consequences for the school? What should the authorities do in this case?
Fine the school, prosecute it to the limits of the law. Examine it's educational status and look at revoking it.

But none of that's going to happen is it.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
That's not what i asked, this is discrimination based soley upon the parents.)

So what?

Deciding that gays aren't allowed in your school is bad enough in my eyes, but almost defendable. Deciding people who's parent's are gay aren't allowed in is awful.

If they kept it to themselves and didn't get pushy about it, i would tend to agree with you.

But if they did that, no one whould know they were gay.

Anyway, its fair if they don't allow adultury and other such sins.

They are agaisnt people sinning.

They are a church what do you expect?

Turn sins, into things you can do but shouldn't?

If thats their additue, why bother with any of it?

I'll ask it again : It's discriminating against people because of who thier parents are. You think that's the right thing to do? (Yes/No if you could be so kind)

I don't care why they discriiminate, its their right to do so.

And all of our rights depend on respecting the rights of others.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
That's not what i asked, this is discrimination based soley upon the parents. Deciding that gays aren't allowed in your school is bad enough in my eyes, but almost defendable. Deciding people who's parent's are gay aren't allowed in is awful.

I'll ask it again : It's discriminating against people because of who thier parents are. You think that's the right thing to do? (Yes/No if you could be so kind)


Let's face it: the people at that church probably think that the lesbian parents are the spawn of the devil.

Should they be forced to associate with the offspring of the spawn of the devil, in their very own private church camp?
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Fine the school, prosecute it to the limits of the law. Examine it's educational status and look at revoking it.

But none of that's going to happen is it.


I thought you said it wasn't a school, it was a christian church camp.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Let's face it: the people at that church probably think that the lesbian parents are the spawn of the devil.

Should they be forced to associate with the offspring of the spawn of the devil, in their very own private church camp?
They shouldn't be allowed to pass it off as a school. (i'll use whatever term i like to describe this place :p )
 
pbman said:
So what?



If they kept it to themselves and didn't get pushy about it, i would tend to agree with you.

But if they did that, no one whould know they were gay.

Anyway, its fair if they don't allow adultury and other such sins.

They are agaisnt people sinning.

They are a church what do you expect?

Turn sins, into things you can do but shouldn't?

If thats their additue, why bother with any of it?



I don't care why they discriiminate, its their right to do so.

And all of our rights depend on respecting the rights of others.

So as long as you don't tell anyone you can be gay? Very generous of you peebs, i don't see how you can comment about adultery, it doesn't fit in any way here. I expected exactly that from a church, see my first post on this topic, doesn't mean i'm not disapointed.

It's the same thing as deciding that black kids can't study there. But you don't want to think about that.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
So as long as you don't tell anyone you can be gay? .

No,it means you can get away with it.

Thats not the same.

But thats true for about anything.

It's the same thing as deciding that black kids can't study there. But you don't want to think about that.

Hardly,being black or white or any other color isn't a sin.

But the point is that you liberals learn to repect other people rights, if you want them to respect yours.

And were talking real rights, not made up liberal ones.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Over here, religious groups are allowed to set up their own schools, consonant with their own beliefs.

And people can also home school if they so choose as well.

Why would anyone want to depend solely on the gov't for such an important thing?
 
I think some of the stuff that gets taught in those places is totally whacked, but I wouldn't take away their right to have those schools, or to educate their children.
 
pbman said:
And people can also home school if they so choose as well.

Why would anyone want to depend solely on the gov't for such an important thing?

Does the US gov offer a tax break for home schooling?
 
I try hard to understand the leftist position set out in this thread. I equally dislike discrimination, but I also dislike the interference with individual rights.

I suppose it boils down to whether or not you're prepared to allow others to hold beliefs that are at odds with your own.
 
rocketman said:
Does the US gov offer a tax break for home schooling?

No.

The states have control over education.

Several do pay parrents the same per student as they pay local school districts.

If they want.

We have 50 differnt sets or laws in this regard.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I suppose it boils down to whether or not you're prepared to allow others to hold beliefs that are at odds with your own.

Correct.

And that goes both ways.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I think some of the stuff that gets taught in those places is totally whacked, but I wouldn't take away their right to have those schools, or to educate their children.

Why do liberals allways preference their remarks on religiouse schools that way?

I think most of what is tought in liberal schools to be totaly whacked, but i don't harp on and on about it.
 
pbman said:
Why do liberals allways preference their remarks on religiouse schools that way?

I think most of what is tought in liberal schools to be totaly whacked, but i don't harp on and on about it.


Who's harping?

It shouldn't come as any surprise that I think that way, just as I was pretty sure what you thought about a 'liberal' education.

Point is, freedom includes those whose beliefs you consider 'whacked', and that goes for both of us.
 
spring-peeper said:
It was a common belief of that time that slaves had no soul and therefore were not human.

WTF?

Their is no need for that when the bible doesn't condem slavery.

It spicificly instruces slaves not to rebel against their masteres, and similare things. B

But slavery was more of a charity/pubic workfare thing in those days.
 
Back
Top Bottom