Mums Protest Outside Birmingham School For 'Promoting Homosexuality' To Kids

First topic message reminder :

A group of around 20 parents are threatening to remove their children from a primary school with a gay assistant head teacher, after claiming it is “over-promoting LGBT movements”.

Parkfield Community School in Saltley, Birmingham, has been criticised by some parents for piloting a programme called No Outsiders, run by Andrew Moffat MBE, which challenges discrimination, including homophobia, in schools.

Books being read as part of the programme at the 770-pupil school, where 23 nationalities are represented, include Mommy, Mama and Me and King & King – stories about same-sex relationships and marriages.

But furious mum-of-three Fatima Shah has already taken her 10-year-old daughter out of school in protest, and has started a petition to halt the lessons.

She told HuffPost UK: “It’s inappropriate, totally wrong. Children are being told it’s OK to be gay yet 98% of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community.

“I’ve taken my daughter out and other parents have too. I’ve been threatened with a fine and told my daughter will be removed from the school register if I continue but I have no choice.”

In 2016 Parkfield Community school was awarded Outstanding status by Ofsted and the No Outsiders scheme was highlighted as a key strength. A year later, Moffat was awarded an MBE for services to equality and diversity in education.

But Shad said Moffat’s programme is against her Islamic beliefs. “My daughter  came home and told me am I OK to be a boy? It’s confusing children about sexuality.”

Shah said she would be keeping her daughter at home until “something is done”. The mother said she had been paying for £20-per-hour home tuition instead.

While Shah is against the programme at Parkfield, the 29-year-old insists “gay people should be treated with mutual respect”.

She added: “We believe in fundamental British values and believe gay people should be treated with mutual respect and without prejudice or discrimination just like any other human being.


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mums-protest-outside-school-for-promoting-homosexuality-to-their-kids_uk_5c4f0fb0e4b0e1872d45e941

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/councillor-backs-Muslim-mums-who-15736394

The bottom line here is that Muslims frown on homosexuality in a big way. There are currently around 10 countries that still hold the death penalty for being homosexual. All of them Muslim.

HoratioTarr wrote:The bottom line here is that Muslims frown on homosexuality in a big way.    There are currently around 10 countries that still hold the death penalty for being homosexual.  All of them Muslim.

How is that the bottom line here, when a number of African Christian countries are also and hold criminal laws against homosexuality?

Is the death penalty, only the poor aspect here, or criminalizing homosexuality?

72 countries criminalize homosexuality

That to me is the bottom line here as to what is wrong

The bottom line here. Is that some Muslim families want to enforce their beliefs on to British laws and society.

That they want to be treated inclusive, but want their kids, to not be taught to treat others as inclusive on their beliefs.

Which means they do not treat homosexuals equally. They want to have their kids, be taught to have exclusive views towards others.They would be up in arms and yet show the worst tolerance here. Claiming its okay to be intolerant based on beliefs.

Imagine the outrage, if people were taught to not teach to be inclusive towards Muslims, based on a belief. Its wrong to treat Muslims equally within society. That parents took their kids out of school over this?

Everyone needs to speak out against these Muslim parents against this inclusion. That they are hypocrites and are being intolerant. That they are trying to push a view that is unequal. A view to say, they do not have to treat others euqally through British law. That based on their laws, their kids, should grow up. Being allowed to be exclusive to homosexuals.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I don't care about how 'well intentioned' you claim it is...


The targeting of young children with any kind of politically motivated agenda based propaganda is fundamentally wrong!


I'm sure the Nazis thought they were 'well intentioned' when they were bombarding young children with their agenda based propaganda too...!


But as far as I'm concerned... I don't care what the agenda is or how well intentioned/justified anyone tries to claim it is... IT IS WRONG TO TRY TO TARGET ANY YOUNG CHILDREN WITH ANY TYPE OF MANIPULATIVE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROPAGANDA FOR ANY AGENDA!!!

You keep repeating that line. Are you a stuck record, tommy?

What is the agenda?

Their agenda is to ingrain it into the mind of a child that being gay is fine and normal and ok and it's just not, that's what!!

is that it, Tommy?

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You keep repeating that line. Are you a stuck record, tommy?

What is the agenda?

Their agenda is to ingrain it into the mind of a child that being gay is fine and normal and ok and it's just not, that's what!!

is that it, Tommy?

Well why would that not be fine/normal with Tommy or anyone else?

Since when did two consenting adults in love not be normal?

Which is the question here Gelico

Does he apply his reasoning against people smoking, drinking, laughing, loving, caring, working etc based on his warped principle to discriminate?

I mean does anyone think its an agenda to accept people, for no wrong they have committed?

Imagine the reality, that smoking was a view to shun people and hold them in distain?

Hence i cannot understand how inclusion, is seen as some form of agenda. A child only is taught to not get along with some people, based on the discrimination of ther parents/siblings/friends etc. When a child, the moment they are born, has no concept to exclude anyone.

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:


Their agenda is to ingrain it into the mind of a child that being gay is fine and normal and ok and it's just not, that's what!!

is that it, Tommy?

Well why would that not be fine/normal with Tommy or anyone else?

Since when did two consenting adults in love not be normal?

Which is the question here Gelico

Does he apply his reasoning against people smoking, drinking, laughing, loving, caring, working etc based on his warped principle to discriminate?

I mean does anyone think its an agenda to accept people, for no wrong they have committed?

Imagine the reality, that smoking was a view to shun people and hold them in distain?

Hence i cannot understand how inclusion, is seen as some form of agenda. A child only is taught to not get along with some people, based on the discrimination of ther parents/siblings/friends etc. When a child, the moment they are born, has no concept to exclude anyone.

Is not the agenda, then not actaully coming from those that teach to exlude others, they hold a prejudice against?

Thor wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well why would that not be fine/normal with Tommy or anyone else?

Since when did two consenting adults in love not be normal?

Which is the question here Gelico

Does he apply his reasoning against people smoking, drinking, laughing, loving, caring, working etc based on his warped principle to discriminate?

I mean does anyone think its an agenda to accept people, for no wrong they have committed?

Imagine the reality, that smoking was a view to shun people and hold them in distain?

Hence i cannot understand how inclusion, is seen as some form of agenda. A child only is taught to not get along with some people, based on the discrimination of ther parents/siblings/friends etc. When a child, the moment they are born, has no concept to exclude anyone.

Is not the agenda, then not actaully coming from those that teach to exlude others, they hold a prejudice against?

Of which i wll add again. How is two consenting adults effecting anyone else?

It only becomes a problem, when people hold perceived poor ideas taught to them. That some how someone teaching that some people are gay is contageous. That some people hold a unnatural fear of gay people born from those that have an agenda. Its based on aversion and dislike of attraction, they fear themselves to have. That seek to view love between two consenting adults. Who are gay as unnatural. To the view, this could make others gay. Which is blatantly absurd. You simple cannot switch on and off attraction or love. You simple are in love and are attracted to someone. What we can do is act on this attraction  and love. So what is the problem with two consenting gay adults being in love?

Nothing.

Hence the fear that people like Tommy has is misguided. As they fear, people can be turned to be gay and that they have a prejudice against gay people. Which was only taught to him. Which is the sad reality of how once black people were once seen as inferior. Just as Jews were. These were aspects taught to people, in order to hate. Where its not based off a wrong, they never actually committed, but by association over their group identity. To allow such hate to become accpetable. Is used to deny them equal rights.

So the question to ask, is how is two consenting adults in love a crime?

Based on them being attracted to the same sex?

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I don't care about how 'well intentioned' you claim it is...


The targeting of young children with any kind of politically motivated agenda based propaganda is fundamentally wrong!


I'm sure the Nazis thought they were 'well intentioned' when they were bombarding young children with their agenda based propaganda too...!


But as far as I'm concerned... I don't care what the agenda is or how well intentioned/justified anyone tries to claim it is... IT IS WRONG TO TRY TO TARGET ANY YOUNG CHILDREN WITH ANY TYPE OF MANIPULATIVE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROPAGANDA FOR ANY AGENDA!!!

You keep repeating that line. Are you a stuck record, tommy?

What is the agenda?

Their agenda is to ingrain it into the mind of a child that being gay is fine and normal and ok and it's just not, that's what!!

is that it, Tommy?

Pretty sure that is it

Sad he didn't have the balls to say it himself

Because of course, he knows saying it makes it contentious.

Whereas blabbering on about a 'sinister politically motovated propaganda agenda' makes it sound like something wicked anyone would oppose