Parents gather outside Birmingham school to protest against gay teacher

[SpineyNorman]

Anyway, what the fuck am I doing getting drawn into a back and forth with this tedious ignoramus? I've got more productive and less shameful things to do. For example a furtive wank in the back yard.

 

[Wookey]

Anyway, what the fuck am I doing getting drawn into a back and forth with this tedious ignoramus? I've got more productive and less shameful things to do. For example a furtive wank in the back yard.

*watches*

 

[SpineyNorman]

I wouldn't if I was you, some things cannot be unseen

 

[littlebabyjesus]

homophobes aren't on an equal moral footing to those who believe in equality.

Goes for the whole thread, this bit. Has been said a few times already on the thread, but bears repeating.

 

[Wookey]

Or, SpineyNorman put it another way:

In drawing an equivalence you reveal a lot about yourself.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Nobody is doing that. They can think whatever the fuck they want, even tell their kids whatever the fuck they want to tell them.

That's OK then - The teacher was never there and there isn't a thread about it

Nobody is imposing anything on anyone.

Plenty of posts here suggesting the lessons should continue regardless of the parents' objections

But if they're going to tell their kids bigoted shit at home the kids will be told it's hateful nonsense when they go to school. If they don't like it then tough shit.

Their choice, and the kids will, hopefully, learn it's wrong. What would you do - sterilise all the Muslims/Catholics/whoever or remove their kids at birth?

Again, homophobes aren't on an equal moral footing to those who believe in equality. In drawing an equivalence you reveal a lot about yourself.

What's happening here is one group is claiming moral superiority over another based solely on their own opinions of right and wrong.
The danger is how far do you take that? We've already seen kids being forced into relationship education the parents feel is objectionable, and that forced opinion being defended on this thread.

I'm hardly against anyone for their lifestyle and, as I said, I got hammered by some bastards (some I thought some were friends until then) for being in a mixed race marriage, so there's no fucking way in this wide world I'm going to have a pop at anyone for being whatever they are, or loving whoever they feel is right, but I'm very much unsure about anyone forcing an opinion on any other group - That's a dangerous path, and one I don't want to be on.

 

[David Riley]

Its not the teacher that their protesting againt, its what their teaching

 

[SpineyNorman]

That's OK then - The teacher was never there and there isn't a thread about it



Plenty of posts here suggesting the lessons should continue regardless of the parents' objections



Their choice, and the kids will, hopefully, learn it's wrong. What would you do - sterilise all the Muslims/Catholics/whoever or remove their kids at birth?



What's happening here is one group is claiming moral superiority over another based solely on their own opinions of right and wrong.
The danger is how far do you take that? We've already seen kids being forced into relationship education the parents feel is objectionable, and that forced opinion being defended on this thread.

I'm hardly against anyone for their lifestyle and, as I said, I got hammered by some bastards (some I thought some were friends until then) for being in a mixed race marriage, so there's no fucking way in this wide world I'm going to have a pop at anyone for being whatever they are, or loving whoever they feel is right, but I'm very much unsure about anyone forcing an opinion on any other group - That's a dangerous path, and one I don't want to be on.

I'm out, you win.

Never argue with a fuckwit with too much time on his hands.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Its not the teacher that their protesting againt, its what their teaching

That's not strictly true, I don't think. The teacher at the Birmingham school is a pioneer in this stuff. He's developed a lot of it himself. Indeed, he's won international awards for it. And he is openly gay. We shouldn't pretend that isn't a big part, perhaps the biggest part, of this - an unapologetically gay teacher teaching kids that it's ok to be gay. Some of the protesters have even admitted as much, revealing a lot about themselves when they tried to deny they were homophobic when they said, and I paraphrase, that they didn't care that he is gay as long as he keeps it to himself.

He normalises the idea that there's nothing wrong with being gay by teaching that there is nothing wrong with being gay and also by being openly gay himself. And that second bit is really the bit they can't stand.

 

[tim]

Would you defend a scab?

The moral relativists here are essentially saying that those who think being gay is not normal and not socially acceptable should be given equal weight to the views of those who believe in equality. I completely reject that. I'm not a Liberal moral relativist. I'm a communist. We take sides.

In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.

 

[Wookey]

I'm out, you win.

Never argue with a fuckwit with too much time on his hands.

We must be getting old man. I did the same calculation.

 

[SpineyNorman]

In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.

I haven't taken a side in that cos I don't know enough about the case. My only post even vaguely related to that ought to be taken as support for her if anything.

Stop making shit up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the case of the woman who was sacked you take the bosses side, funny sort of Communism. The argument is about worker rights.

No it's not. You've got this as painfully wrong as you got the parent protest. If a train driver gets caught drinking on the job, he or she will be sacked. I'm not going to defend that driver or criticise the employer for sacking them. And guess what, most of the other train drivers wouldn't either. Get that fucker out of the trains would be their response.

Defending worker rights doesn't mean defending any and every person who is ever sacked. This case is not about worker rights. It's mostly about evangelical Christians trying to push their agenda at British schools. Get those fuckers out of the classroom.

 

[tim]

No it's not. You've got this as painfully wrong as you got the parent protest. If a train driver gets caught drinking on the job, he or she will be sacked immediately. I'm not going to defend that driver or criticise the employer for sacking them. And guess what, most of the other train drivers wouldn't either. Get that fucker out of the trains would be their response.

Defending worker rights doesn't mean defending any and every person who is ever sacked. This case is not about worker rights. It's mostly about evangelical Christians trying to push their agenda at British schools. Get those fuckers out of the classroom.

Odd that you have such strong feelings about the dangers of nonexistent deities, but such a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses and their use of Big Brother techniques.

As she was sacked for something she did in her private life bit whilst working, I don't really get the train driver analogy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Odd that you have such strong feelings about the dangers of nonexistent deities, but such a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses and their use of Big Brother techniques.

You've just made that up. I don't have a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses, and I stated earlier that I'm uneasy about social media spying by bosses. Maybe try arguing against the things people are actually posting.

Oh and have a read of those links about the group whose information you've been going on about this case. You're acting like their useful idiot at the moment.

Also, have you tried that test I suggested earlier. Substitute racist campaigning on social media for homophobic campaigning on social media. Would you still be defending her right to do that and keep her job as a teacher? If not, why not?

 

[tim]

You've just made that up. I don't have a touching faith in the benign nature of bosses, and I stated earlier that I'm uneasy about social media spying by bosses. Maybe try arguing against the things people are actually posting.

Oh and have a read of those links about the group whose information you've been going on about this case. You're acting like their useful idiot at the moment.

Her bosses spied upon her and sacked her not on a welfare issue but because she might damage the brand. That's still the truth whatever the legal group supporting her is. It's the justification given by the school itself.

 

[tim]

I haven't taken a side in that cos I don't know enough about the case. My only post even vaguely related to that ought to be taken as support for her if anything.

Stop making shit up.

Fair enough, sorry!

 

[Serge Forward]

More relativist shite.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Sex isn't talking about relationships at all. Maybe in your head, but then I've peaked inside your head and it's mucky in there

Bollocks - Apart from anything else, there are cartoon pictures of two men in bed together. Yes, it's a cartoon and, yes, they don't mention sex, but that picture is objectionable to the group this teacher was trying to force it upon.

 

[Don Troooomp]

Again, they can believe what they want but in science classes people should be taught science and not mythology. If they want their kids taught about the book of genesis they can send them to fucking Sunday school.

I'm quite a fan of science (not chemistry), but nobody has claimed these people are advocating flat earth or whatever, and what is mythology to me and you is fact for them.
Perhaps you'd like to make religion illegal and imprison them for their thoughts.

I wouldn't have had you down as a fan of the US religious right, strange that you should parrot their arguments so freely, knowingly or not.

I'm not and I think they're a bunch of silly cunts, but they have to right to believe what they want within their own group.
I will suggest religion is a load of old bollocks and, if their opinions spill out into trying to force their opinions on society in general, I will stand and oppose them, but I won't try to force them to abandon their way of life if they leave everyone else alone.

That's what's happening here - One group is trying to force their opinions on another, and that's wrong.

The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme.

 

[Don Troooomp]

It's not alien to any culture, ever, on earth, since humans had culture. You're repeating a homophobe lie, and doing it shamelessly. Who the fuck are you and who let you in?

It's alien to Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism, even if the latter has abandoned their silly opinion. I don't know enough about about Judaism to comment but, since that religion came from the same roots, there's a fair chance their culture has similar rules.
Of course homosexuality is a normal part of being human, always has been and always will be, but some societies see it as alien and immoral.
I disagree with them, but the only way to stop them is remove religion, and that means wars or camps, or extermination.
Re-education camps would be appealing to some, but not me.

Perhaps you could say how you would go about removing their opinions from the planet, and why you feel it's justified to oppress someone for their thoughts.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't say you weren't all warned about this one.

 

[mojo pixy]

Bollocks - Apart from anything else, there are cartoon pictures of two men in bed together. Yes, it's a cartoon and, yes, they don't mention sex, but that picture is objectionable to the group this teacher was trying to force it upon.

Anyone angry about a cartoon needs laughing at.

I'm quite a fan of science (not chemistry), but .....

I think they're a bunch of silly cunts, but ......

I will suggest religion is a load of old bollocks and, if their opinions spill out into trying to force their opinions on society in general, I will stand and oppose them, but.....

It's been said elsewhere, anything before 'but' is mealy-mouthed shite. Maybe you can do better, maybe not. Don't feel obliged to try.

they have to right to believe what they want within their own group

But not to insist a whole school follows them in that.

The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme

Is criminalizing eg. paedophilia 'oppressing a minority'? Comparing one group trying to harm kids (religious fundamentalists) with another group harming kids in another way seems fair. So?

 

[danny la rouge]

Should this woman's politics be opposed, of course it should, but they should be confronted politically, rather than retreating behind a legal opposition. A no platform imposed by a community is not the same as the state/bosses excluding people with political opinions they don't like.

This needs repeating. It’s exactly what people seem to not bother reading every time an argument like this happens. Break it down, people.

1. Should inegalitarian attitudes be confronted? Yes, by working in communities, through communities, with communities.

2. Should bosses be sacking people for voicing their opinions, even if outside work? No, of course not. Even if we don’t like the opinions. Why? Because what if the bosses don’t like my opinions and yours?

 

[danny la rouge]

Force suggests resistance, and there is clearly a lot of that.
Sex is talking about relationships, and the teacher did that.

Yes, the teachers was forcing kids to learn about stuff that is alien to their culture, and the parents objected.

There is so much wrong with this post that I doubt you’d understand if I tried to parse it all. But suffice it to say that you are a dangerous fool.

 

[redsquirrel]

The other point here is that by not fighting such attitudes on a community based politics approach but rather by letting the state/bosses "protect" us from them we are weakening our future ability to oppose such view politically. Which only allows such inegalitarian attitudes, and the politics they are associated with, space to grow.

Liberal, state-supported anti-fascism is not just ineffective, it's actually counterproductive. Criticising Hope not Hate is not being an apologist for fascism, opposing Labour/Democrats/ALP/etc is not being an apologist for Trump. Much of the resurgence of the hard right we've seen over the last decade is precisely because the "left" has been utterly unable to make a political argument against such views, instead falling in behind the state and ceding the space it might have once occupied to the hard-right.

A proper community based anti-fascism/hard right does not just need to oppose the hard right it will also need to be built in opposition to state/captial anti-fascism. (Credit to butchersapron for the link).

 

[danny la rouge]

The fact so many people can't see they're trying to oppress a minority is worrying in the extreme.

I’m reminded of a talk by Howard Zinn that I have on cassette somewhere. (It was a very long time ago). It was the Christopher Columbus 500th celebrations in the US, and he was talking about taking a view on the attitudes of the Conquistadors. He was amazed at those saying “but those were different times, so we mustn’t judge”. He said “mustn’t judge? Of course we should judge!” Or something along those lines.

 

[redsquirrel]

There is so much wrong with this post that I doubt you’d understand if I tried to parse it all. But suffice it to say that you are a dangerous fool.

Whatever anybody else's view I think we can all agree on this.

 

[newbie]

As has been made clear, elsewhere, this is about school image management; the belief that by posting she could have caused reputational damage. They are not interested in student welfare. They want to protect their brand.

The reputation of an ordinary local school isn't a commercial brand, it's a significant component of the lives of the communites it exists for. A school that condones a pastoral care worker posting homophobic rants aimed at preventing teenagers receiving sex and relationship teaching is clearly going to offend one group of parents, of teachers, of governors while attracting a very different set. It will also send a very clear message to every child in the school. That has much more profound implications than the term 'brand' denotes.

I'll be out in London tomorrow supporting Friends involved in thr Extinction Rebellion protests. I shan't be breaking the law, but presumably my mere association with such groups might be considered to cause reputational damage to my employer; a potentially more realistic threat to my well being at work are my sporadic postings on social media about the current situation in Saudi Arabia as takes state sponsored students from Saudi Arabia some of whom I teach. I'm not ashamed of what I do and have no desire to self-censor. I don't want to refrain from such activities, even though if a link were made it could cause "reputational damage". I actually believe that what I do in my private life, as long as I don't break the law is of no business to my employer. I don't think they should have a right to discipline me for what I do or say in my private life. I would clearly expect my Union to support me not to tell me to fuck off.

sure, your concern is this is the thin end of a wedge that could be applied across the board.

It's not, it's very much case specific.

Are your students children or adults? Do you have a specific (rather than general) pastoral care role for dealing with children struggling to understand their own sexuality or gender, or that of parents, friends, acquaintances and those in the media, SM or porn, or with those tormenting some of them because of that? If so, and if you campaign to de-normalise some students because god said so, then, then your position may be similar. Otherwise nah. If your position is directly comparable you're in the wrong job and quite possibly should be removed in the interests of safeguarding all of those children.

I don't know your situation but eg a college teaching international adult students is not the same as a local school. If your job is threatened because of commercial pressure based on (non hate-speech) political posts I would expect and encourage your union to stand up for you. However, if you went running to something akin to the Christian Legal Centre I'd question the motivation behind your behaviour.

Finally, all the "reasonable" boss crap spouted here makes me want to puke. We should be supporting workers against bosses, even workers we distain.

and expose the children of workers to pastoral care based on discrimination and religious based intolerance, potentially scarring some. And the communities in which they live to discord. And some workers to feeling isolation or that S28 style history is set to repeat itself.

Have you ever noticed this is a funny old world without a single, all encompassing, dead simple, uncompromising and above all consistent position that's applicable in all circumstances?

 

[likesfish]

I think a state should enforce equality before the law for all its citizens.
If your god/social group objects to that bare minimum then Tough.