Education, recent, Religion, Top Stories

When Protected Characteristics Collide

This weekend, the city of Birmingham hosted a dazzling array of colourful floats, sparkling costumes, and groups bearing a message of love and equality as part of its annual celebration of Gay Pride. However, in an unprecedented move, this particular march was led by LGBT Muslims. Often subjected to discrimination and ostracisation by their own religious communities, and shunned by certain sections of wider LGBT communities for adhering to any form of religion, LGBT Muslims are in a bind. Some people even maintain that the term is an oxymoron. Yet it is precisely young Muslims—who might be experiencing profound questions about their sexuality or identity, and torn between two different sets of expectations—who have the most to lose as a result of the LGBT schools row engulfing the city.

It was therefore encouraging to see them front Gay Pride this year, alongside someone who has done more for equality and diversity than 99 percent of the UK population: Andrew Moffat, Assistant Headteacher of Parkfield Community School. In 2017, Moffatt was awarded an MBE, and subsequently shortlisted for the 2018 Varkey Foundation Global Teacher Prize, for introducing the pioneering “No Outsiders” programme to the school in 2015. Under this scheme, children are taught to welcome all people, regardless of race, disability, sexuality, or gender identity. Moffat taught this lesson in tolerance with the use of story books: one was about two princes getting married, another starred a boy who wanted to wear a dress, and another featured children who were wheelchair users. As far back as 2014, Moffat was getting pushback for the LGBT-inclusive part of this initiative. He was forced to resign from a different Birmingham primary school, the Chilwell Croft Academy, after Christian and Muslim parents complained they did not want their children to learn that “it’s okay to be gay.”

Once he transferred to Parkfield Community School—at which 99 percent of the pupils are Muslim—the No Outsiders programme seemed to get a more positive reception, at least for a while. Moffat deftly responded to parents’ concerns by carefully explaining the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act, and pointing out that it benefited several different minority groups in the UK, including Muslims. In the words of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, “The Act simplifies, strengthens, and harmonises the current legislation to provide Britain with a new discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society.” Situating minority rights in the context of a broader civil rights framework, and doing so in small group discussions, initially paid off. As one Muslim parent remarked, “It’s just about people who are different. It’s about respect.”

Predictably, many children responded with curiosity, followed by insouciance. In a 2016 interview with the Independent, Moffat recalled an exchange with a nine-year-old pupil at Parkfield School: “Is it true you’re gay, sir?” the pupil had asked, while walking back from a Christmas celebration at a local church. Before Moffat could reply, the pupil added, “It’s okay if you are. Because there are no outsiders at our school!” Moffat affirmed that he is gay. The child simply nodded and then asked whether his class had PE that afternoon.

Fast forward to February 2019, when weekly protests staged by an organised group of Muslim parents and a 400-strong petition have halted this award-winning equality programme. In a move designed to cause maximum disruption, 600 children, aged between four and 11, were withdrawn from classes for the day on March 1. Moffat himself was threatened and targeted via a leafleting campaign, and the school was harried into making concessions. Despite enjoying the full support of Amanda Spielman of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED), the school confirmed that No Outsiders lessons would only resume after Easter, following a full consultation with parents.

Consultation is a thorny area which has also affected a neighbouring primary school, Anderton Park. This school closed early for half-term due to protests from 200 people, during which parents crossing picket lines were subjected to the refrain: “If you take your kids to school today, you’re not a Muslim and will burn in hell.” LGBT campaigners were pelted with eggs for tying rainbow ribbons and messages of love and tolerance to the school gates. All of this was triggered by the Government’s recent consultation over their new relationships education guidance for schools. True to form, religious activists flocked to the issue with an alarming zeal that seems to be reserved for issues relating to sex, relationships, and girls’ dress codes. During an interview I conducted as part of my research into mental health and radicalisation, another primary school headteacher confirmed that few Muslim parents turn up to parent-teacher meetings to discuss other educational issues. But when the permissibility of religious clothing in school was under discussion, the assembly hall is packed to the rafters.

In a recent interview with the Guardian, Anderton Park Headteacher Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson expressed her concern that consultations with parents would only inflame the situation. She worries that parents understand the process as code for “We get to tell headteachers what to do,” and will use their status as an organised religious lobbying bloc to undermine the school and its curriculum. But if they think they will railroad the school into dropping its commitments under the Equality Act, they are mistaken. Hewitt-Clarkson understands the dangers of appeasing religious fundamentalists: “We can’t give in.”

Local MPs have also become involved, some of whom have failed to appreciate the dynamics of the situation. Birmingham Ladywood MP Shabana Mahmood said the Government should ensure that the rights of minorities are protected, but that includes the rights of people with orthodox religious views, including Jews and Christians. Perhaps surprisingly for an MP who voted for same-sex marriage, Mahmood accepts the fallacious arguments of some of the protesters. During a recent Commons debate, she announced: “It is all about the age appropriateness of conversations with young children in the context of religious backgrounds.”

Of course, religion is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, but case law shows us that where two protected characteristics collide—and it is usually religion and sexual orientation—religion is usually defeated. This is because, in many of those cases, religious doctrines are invoked as an excuse to discriminate against others. These conflicts between different characteristics, or equality considerations, were a recurring theme of my work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission over ten years ago.

Mrs Naeem, one of the Anderton Park parents, told the Guardian she would not be protesting if teachers at Anderton Park had waited until pupils were 10 or 11 before teaching about LGBT families. In the meantime, she thought it sufficient for children to turn to their parents for information. This is a flawed approach, for several reasons. At primary school age, some children will come from families with gay parents or (more rarely) will have a relative who is transitioning. They might be experiencing crushes on the same sex themselves. Homophobic and transphobic bullying can start very early in a school environment and attention should be paid to prevention as well as cure. Schools are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty to not only address discriminatory incidents as they arise, but to proactively foster good relations between people who have a protected characteristic and those who don’t. The kind of parents who think it is acceptable to disrupt their children’s education due to their personal religious beliefs, who threaten fellow parents with religious sanction for stepping out of line, and who believe that gayness is something that can be “fixed” with prayer, will not create a supportive environment for young people who might be struggling with these issues.

This is a crucial point that another Birmingham MP, Jess Phillips, appreciates. She visited Anderton Park last Monday and clashed with protestors. “What [the protesters] seem to want to do is unravel equalities legislation in their image. They have got to understand that equalities legislation protects them, and you can’t pick and choose.”

Phillips also understands that these protests could be replicated all over the UK, should they be appeased. “If we give in, this is the beginning of something, not the end. If we give in…”—here, she paused, before echoing Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson—“We cannot give in.” However, Phillips was quite wrong to say that the worst thing about this ugly fiasco is the poor reputation it gives Muslims; the worst thing about this fiasco is the impact it has on LGBT people, especially LGBT Muslims.

“There is no place for protests outside school gates,” said the education secretary Damian Hinds recently in response to the ongoing row. “They can frighten children, intimidate staff and parents and, in the worst cases, be hijacked by individuals with a vested interest and no links to the schools. It is time for these protests to stop.” It is noteworthy that the main ringleader of the Anderton Park protests, Shakeel Afsar, only has a niece and nephew at the school, and that his own children attend a different school. Preachers from as far away as Yorkshire have turned up outside the school gates with megaphones.

This has chilling echoes of the campaign against Headteacher Neena Lall at St Stephen’s School, which was ranked the UK’s best state primary school by the Sunday Times in 2017. In September 2017, Lall held a meeting with parents to inform them of a restriction on headscarves for girls under the age of eight. The petition which sought to overturn the ban attracted signatures from all over the UK, not just the school’s catchment area in Newham, and Whatsapp groups were used to drum up additional support.

Which brings me to another disturbing subtext of religious fundamentalist activism: many of these protests are staged by groups of men against female headteachers who have received inadequate support. As Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson told the Guardian: “I know one of the phrases that’s associated with domestic abuse is the crushing of the spirit of a woman. And that’s what I feel is happening.”

These patterns of intimidation and mass withdrawal are not new. As far back as 2010, I was writing about Muslim pupils being withdrawn from music lessons, which have no bearing on the Equality Act. Two things are now crucial: the Department for Education must issue clear guidance, rather than the guidance they issued in February 2019, which had “no specific requirement” for primary schools to cover LGBT content. Second, they must actively support headteachers during these conflicts instead of letting them flounder.

 

Tehmina Kazi is an equality and human rights professional with over 14 years experience. She was the Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy from 2009 to 2016, sits on the OFSTED Advisory Board on Countering Extremism, and is currently managing two projects on hate crime and restorative justice for the Why me? charity.

164 Comments

  1. Photondancer says

    I do not share the author’s confidence that the muslins will be defeated. From what I have read the UK has been caving to their demands for quite some time now.

    • Anonymous says

      I thought they lost all control of the situation with the Satanic Verses affair.

      • ga gamba says

        Seems right. BTW, in 2016 a group of Iranian news media organizations, including the official Fars agency, raised the bounty on Rushdie’s head to $3.9 million. This was a page 10 story in the New York Times (literally, I checked), indicative of an effort to downplay these events, unless it involves Saudi Arabia in which case they are over amplified. Iran murders journalists as well, for example Canadian Zahra Kazemi-Ahmadabadi who was beaten to death whilst in Iranian custody. She was one of many dozens murdered by the regime, the most infamous being Iran’s chain serial murders of writers and journalists throughout the 80s and 90s. Reporters Without Borders states Iran murdered at least 860 journalists between 1979 and 2009. More recently, Iran murdered Briton Saeed Karimian and his Kuwaiti business partner Mohammed al Mohktari in 2017 for launching a Farsi-language broadcaster the regime claimed was of a “soft war” launched against Iran by the West and its allies.

        Yet somehow a narrative has been fabricated that the Iranians are the good ones.

    • Alan Gore says

      When Nigel Farage takes office as PM, things over there are going to get…interesting.

    • jimhaz says

      [Moffat deftly responded to parents’ concerns by carefully explaining the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act, and pointing out that it benefited several different minority groups in the UK, including Muslims]

      Whenever, yank pro-gunner turns to the “The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution” I dismiss them as self-serving fools.

      Same for those who refer to religious books as if they were the utter truth.

      Same for those who desire open borders to acceptance.

      For me the purposes of codification is too allow or disallow certain acts and does not extend to the forced acceptance of the PROMOTION of what is allowed or disallowed. eg. divorce is legally allowed, but I would not accept advertisements that promoted where the aim was for more people divorce.

      Let me just say – there is no chance of me ever thinking of a highly feminised male as not being an inferior person. This is something so ingrained either by instinct and/or by learning, and certainly not by legal means, that I cannot see ever changing.

  2. Lydia says

    It is absolutely amazing to me that you cannot see that you all embraced Islamic patriarchy even to the point of having over 82 Sharia courts in your country because…. oppression. Lol. What did you expect? You guys set the table for this.

    I can only believe that England really hates women and approves of their subjugation via Islam.

    I am afraid my compassion meter is full. What you wrote here is nothing but indoctrination of children. Not teaching. School ceased being about academics a long time ago. My view is that people care way too much about other people’s sexual orientation. Let’s stick to the mission.

    • Jack S says

      https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

      We allow ‘Sharia courts’ in the same way we would allow a school or sports club to make non-legally binding decisions. It would go against liberal British principles more to ban these courts than to allow them, no matter how illiberal and backwards the ideology behind them is.

      • Bill Miller says

        You sound like Mr. Biedermann in “The Fire Raisers”

      • Lydia says

        That makes you nothing but an illiberal misogynist, Jack. Lol. But nice try.

        • Amin says

          @ Lydia

          You are bigot. He put you in your place. You did not have a response other than to call him out personally.

          • Amin, You must be a misogynist, too, if you find anything good about sharia courts. Sheesh!

      • Jeremy H says

        @Jack S

        From your own link:

        “Similarly, the government now says that ‘there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved’. It has commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being ‘misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law’, to report in 2017.”

        They are quasi-legal religious based tribunals that deal with marriage, arbitration, and “religious law”; it’s not hard to see how, as such, they could be used to abuse vulnerable members in a close-knit and insular community. English Law may still supersede them but that presupposes that the relevant cases even make it to the attention of the Law.

      • sorethumb says

        The are too types of liberty: positive and negative. By that sharia courts are negative in that people can do as they wish provided it doesn’t hurt anyone else. The fact that UK has these courts is positive liberty: imposed on the population by the Blair govt: “let’s rub the rights nose in diversity)

    • Jason says

      Exactly this. I also like the part where ,early primary education aged, children should not look to their parents for information.

    • EK says

      @Lydia

      The English/British ruling class have been supercilious fops since the Restoration. That’s what the Restoration was all about; getting the fops back up on top where they think they belong.

  3. AJ says

    I don’t have much skin in this game as I don’t think the outcome is very significant but this article simply asserts there arguments are fallacious without giving any reason why.

    The protestors I heard interviewed were not protesting against equality for LGBT people or arguing that children should not be taught to accept people with different sexualities. Their argument was solely that children were being taught about homosexuality and trans-sexuality at an innapropriately young age. I think this argument has some weight even if there is a suspicion that it is in fact a cover for a more profound disagreement with the policy.

    The transgender part of this policy is potentially dangerous. There is quite a lot of evidence that at least some young transgender people are homosexuals confused about their sexual identity for whom teh best outcome is to recognise this. There is also evidence from ROGD that here is a social aspect to transgender self identification. Hormone therapy or surgical transition have irreversible negative consequences so there is harm associated with this if people who later regret it transition. If they become adults and maintain their conviction having fully understood it then that is their choice but young gender transitions are not a good idea and anything to encourage them is increasing the probability of harm for someone who later regrets it.

    • This ^

      I live in the East end of Toronto and last year, in honor of Pride day, the middle school added the gay flag to the flag pole. Of course that didn’t take it off and it is still there. Do we really need to teach middle school children about gay rights and transgenderism? I don’t know if you recall but when you are 10 years old your priorities are your friends, recess and finding ways to have fun.

      This is so much more about the parents and the state, dare I say it, indoctrinating children more than anything. Truth be told I am fine with teaching kids about those things but can it wait until late high school when teenagers have brains developed enough to grasp those concepts?

      • Just Me says

        10y ears old may be too young, but late high school is too late.

        I would say around 12 or 13 is the right age, when most children are on the cusp of puberty and they have friends a few years older maybe, and they start taking and wondering about sex, and these issues become relevant. Particularly girls, who reach puberty earlier.

        It certainly became relevant to me at that age.

      • Kencathedrus says

        @Philippe: The students at the college I teach at are sick to death of the gay and progressive agenda. One class told me it’s totally ruined entertainment for their generation. Most programs these days come with heavy-handed and propagandistic ‘messages’ designed to ‘teach’ their viewers. Even commercials are now doing it as espoused by the Gillette ads with their ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘transgender’ messages.

        As an educator I can see a huge backlash coming to all this unhealthy gay lifestyle nonsense and it can’t come soon enough. Young men in particular are looking for role models and they aren’t going to find them in the gay ‘community’ which tends to prey on the innocence and vanity of youth.

        • Amy says

          What I really don’t understand is why schools feel that they need to insert themselves into this matter at all.

    • David J says

      AJ – I fully agree, especially with your point about age appropriateness.

      It seems to me that coverage of the issue has been focused almost exclusively on those who believe homosexuality wrong, and those who are diversity and inclusion zealots. In between sits everyone else, most of whom simply believe that any lessons about equality and diversity (whether about sexuality, race or gender) in the classroom at such a young age, are absurd and an indulgence. I think those concerns entirely reasonable and that those who urge the teaching of such issues to this age group are doing so to serve themselves and their own agenda, not out of any interest in the well being of pupils. It’s particularly insidious because it tries to silence any opposing view by shouting it down as prejudiced.

    • AJ. The author doesn’t seem to have time to give reasons why this ideology be taught to children at such a young age. Or to believe that the ideology embedded in this “education” needs defending at all.

      The obvious reason is that children’s minds are pliable only for so long. Must hurry before it’s too late.

      Parents should decide when and what their children are taught about sex and sexuality. Even if it’s “wrong”. People like Tehmini who don’t have children of their own and are dead set on indoctrinating yours…should be all the warning parents need to opt their kids out of these educational curriculums.

      It’s easy. Ask for the curriculum involved in sex and sexuality Ed, if you disagree with the message, keep your kids home from school on those days where it’s taught.

    • Ian says

      Totally agree. No need to talk about LGBT issues before ages 13-14. With respect to trans issues, “watchful waiting” rather than immediate affirmation is a more appropriate neutral stance with the best long term consequences for the child in mind.

    • EK says

      The LGB demimonde made a huge mistake inviting trannies with their attendant flagrant narcissistic personality disorder into their tent. The demimonde always understood the necessity of limits when dealing with the real world, trannies don’t.

  4. Respek Wahmen says

    Nice trap you’ve set for yourselves, UK. If the Dept of Education does anything of the sort suggested/implied, they’ll have the hate police called on them.

    Serves you right for taking complaints of offense seriously in the first place. Play absurd games win absurd prizes.

    Grats.

  5. KoosKleurvol says

    Roll footage

    Happy muslim at prayer, smiles at camera. Scenes of Muslims circling Kaba at meca
    Spliced in footage of happy lesbian couple staring deeply into each others eyes. Scenes of rainbow parade ,sexual deviants perverts galore.

    Que David Attenborough voice over:

    “Here we see the ideologues in their natural habitat. When the ideologue gets into a confrontation with a normal easygoing person, it gets its way through intransigence with minimal effort”

    Cut scene

    Cue spliced footage of purpled haired transsexual blob and bearded brown man in white robe. Both in highly agitated state. emotional , protesting ,screaming. Police Bobby in yellow vest looking concerned.

    David Attenborough voice over:
    “However great trouble arises when two ideologues of different persuasions meet in the wild. Neither can give ground, compromise is uncertainty, uncertainty is weakness.”

    Que children in uniform walking to school.

    Voice over:

    “a good ideologue knows that the battle ground is the mind. The young human is defenceless against such trickery. The battle of the ideologues becomes the green pastures of the minds of the young.”

    “The young indoctrinates ultimately become the ideologues in the majority of cases.”

    Cue young people in Madrassas and others in gender studies classes.

    Final voiceover fading visuals:
    “And as so the generations pass in the inevitable and eternal struggle for ultimate dominance of the one true way of life”

    • Perceptive comment, Koos, and brilliantly made.

      In general, many (most?) of our current political conflicts make much more sense if we see the opposing sides as different species competing for the same ecological niche, rather than members of a single polity trying to reach a consensus over controversial issues. In that light, calls for “more civility” seem pointless.

  6. Fuzzy Headed Mang says

    Competing groups: freedom of religion vs. freedom of equality The school’s program would be very provocative to muslim fundamentalists. Is it about education, or indoctrination? Either way, pelting people with eggs is not cool, sounds like there is definitely intimidation. Check out the nature of equality in Sharia law dominated countries like Saudi Arabia.

    • Fuzzy — Promoting sexual identities and practices to young children is “not cool.” Indoctrination of young children by social engineers who masquerade as educators is “not cool.” Interfering with parents’ raising of their children is “not cool.”

      Yes, I am pelting you with figurative eggs.

      • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

        Charles, are you a fundamentalist Muslim? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

        • Well, no. My eggs are limited to figurative ones, and I admit to being “not cool.” And I suppose it’s rude of me to even throw those at you. In fact, I oppose sharia and Islamic fundamentalism. Still, if children are being indoctrinated by social activists and the state to welcome sexual behaviors that conflict with their parents’ traditional morals, I don’t blame parents for refusing to sit by idly and let it happen. And let’s face it, what’s really being pushed is opposition to traditional morals, not respect for the rights of others. And that’s very, very “not cool.”

          • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

            Charles, indeed, I remember when tradition and parental beliefs were more aligned, I recall a very scary movie and several classes in my “Guidance” class back in 72, where a young lad gets a girl pregnant. Premarital sex leads to instant pregnancy, and shotgun weddings we were told. Well, some truth to that. And then there were the movies about teens smoking marijuana and afterwards touching hot plates and rolling around in straitjackets. I think schools have always had aspects of social engineering, it’s just that nowadays fundamentalist religious people are against the type of engineering taught. I agree that teaching very young children about gay pride is premature and concerning, just like it would be to teach them about safe sex at that age, kids should be at least 12 or 13 to start discussing this stuff.

          • James Hamilton says

            Absolutely right! I think both sides are caricaturing each other. The program probably goes too far by explicitly referring to things like princes getting married and transitioning children. Both are likely to concern religious people and others. The references to gender identity in particular promotes an ideology based on a badly understood and potentially harmful view of the development of a child’s gender identity which can often be better explained in the well-observed domain of adolescent confusion that usually settles down into the normative position. This gives parents reasonable grounds for anxiety and concern, particularly in the background of non-disclosure and court-sanctioned medical interventions (not sure if the latter occurs in the UK but the former definitely does).

            That said, much of the material appears to be quite innocuous – a book about a chameleon that keeps trying to change colour to suit other chameleons until it realises that it’s OK to be the colour it likes for example. I have no issue with promoting that line of thinking, but I share the discomfort that the Muslims feel when they perceive their children being told that something they think needs to be handled in a way that is concomitant to their religion is being promoted to their children in a different way on the arbitrary grounds that other pressure groups prefer that line of thinking.

            Many Muslims, like many Christians, try to hold a nuanced and theologically grounded view of things like homosexuality which acknowledges the humanity of gay people and tries to square our understanding of homosexuality with the relevant prescriptions of our religion regarding how sexuality should be practised.

            The way these debates are run often seems to present a dichotomy which believers feel forced to choose between. The more extremists there are in the debate, the more binary that choice becomes: Faith or the sinful culture.

            For Christians in particular, the fact that mainstream churches so often seem to idolise the culture by professing views which are contrary to biblical teaching or at the other end of the scale hypocritically single out gay people for opprobrium whilst ignoring the sins of heterosexuals places them in a difficult position, and they often choose loyalty to God over the culture. Fortunately there are churches out there which manage to balance the two viewpoints – for example my own church, which is a baptist evangelical church, sticks to biblical teaching in terms of accurately relating what the bible says, but doesn’t pretend that we’re all saints and need to live a perfect life to be saved. The practising gay people in our church are as welcome as those who indulge in other practises that are contrary to Jesus’ teachings.

            Similarly, the lack of a nuanced voice in the Muslim community means that Muslims often choose the Qu’ran over the culture. Muslims seem to feel their religion is under attack from all sides, this makes them sympathetic to hardliners, and the apparent lack of an authoritative theological position that balances the Qu’ran with the culture creates a serious dilemma. This means that when people like Jess Phillips who neither understand nor care about Muslim theology try to railroad their ideology into their children’s classroom the situation becomes further inflamed and the hardliners gain more support.

  7. Owntown Darts Scene says

    In other words, Multiculturalism turns out to be hard, with intractable contradictions. Who’d have thought?

    Oh right. Maybe some of those people the author has been railroading for “hate crimes”.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Owntown Darts Scene

      That’s right. It is Hate to point out that the Rainbow people and the Muslims hate each other and probably it is a waste of time to try to force them to love each other. There is a certain perverse irony in all this tho: the only people in the country (they having Victim status) who would dare to speak up for sexual normalcy are the same ones who’s religion teaches that it’s ok to marry a nine year old. But having to rely on Muslims to hold the line against homosexual and trannie grooming of the young is like a Jewish capitalist in 30’s Germany having to rely on the Nazis to protect him from the Commies. The word ‘awkward’ comes to mind. Anyway, by the end of this century Britain will be under sharia law, so all this noise will end. But, between now and then things are likely to become strained as the SJ/multicult left begin to understand that the mullahs are not really their friends.

      • Just Me says

        I dunno.

        The one ray of hope is that young Muslims raised in western societies, particularly women, start to take their freedom for granted and rebel against the fundamentalist s when they realize they are being asked to go back to their second-class status, and lead the way to a Reformation of Islam.

        It certainly won’t come from the majority Muslim countries.

        • Shamrock says

          Just Me

          I hope you’re right, but some studies in Europe show 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims are more radical than their parents.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Shamrock

            That’s exactly what makes this migration different from all others. Every ethnic group has more or less success in integrating but they do integrate eventually. As you say, Muslims seem to show what I call negative assimilation — they get more disintegrated with each passing generation. But then again Islam has almost never been able to coexist with anyone else. There have been exceptions but they seem almost to prove the rule. It is built in to Islam that it must dominate or destroy. And tho we might dream of some future reformation, at the moment the entire Muslim world is getting more extreme. Indonesia was their great hope and even it might fall to fundamentalism.

  8. BS G says

    We are going to continue to face problems between those who subscribe to intersectionalism and Islam. Both have issues with extremists, both are incredibly loud, and both have more sway in our modern discourse than they should really.

    We have made these two small sub-populations and the issues that surround them into cultural battle grounds. We will only see more of this in the future and eventually our society will have to pick a side and tell the other to piss off.

  9. scribblerg says

    Anyone shocked that Islam is incredibly intolerant, illiberal and essentially a pre-modern system for organizing every aspect of humanity is a moron. It’s 2019. Wake up.

  10. One problem is the inability of many people to distinguish between “respect” for individual rights and “celebration” of individual differences. The former merely requires us to leave others alone — live and let live — while the latter demands we embrace and welcome and pretend to like differences that we might well find harmful, immoral, or offensive.

    The hideous “No Outsiders” program is a case in point. Islam is a false belief system. Transsexualism is a mental illness. Homosexuality is sinful perversion. Homosexuality is a beautiful lifestyle. Some people are simply assigned the wrong sex at birth and gender has nothing to do with chromosomes. Islam is a wonderful faith.

    “No Outsiders” would have us accept and celebrate all of these viewpoints, right? Or are certain ones to be anathema, outlawed, pushed “Outside?”

    It’s possible — not necessarily likely, but possible — that people with widely differing opinions and lifestyles can live together, granting each other space to be themselves, perhaps grudgingly. It’s impossible that they celebrate and welcome each other’s differences. Multiculturalism is a preposterous and contradictory ethic of no use to actual human beings.

    • Olek says

      ^This.

      And the first paragraph needs to be put in neon signs everywhere.
      “One problem is the inability of many people to distinguish between “respect” for individual rights and “celebration” of individual differences. The former merely requires us to leave others alone — live and let live — while the latter demands we embrace and welcome and pretend to like differences that we might well find harmful, immoral, or offensive.”

  11. Aerth says

    Maybe stories like this one will show radical Left that identity wars are not only about “oppressed” minortities fighting against “evil” majorities, but also very much about interests of several identity groups clashing against each other.

  12. Geofiz says

    I am with the Muslim parents on this one. The only reason this is a “Muslim Issue” is that they are considered a “protected class”. But Christians and Orthodox Jews also oppose teaching sexuality , (hetreosexual or homsexual) to preteens . I oppose it.

    I understand the logic. The sooner the state can indoctrinate children into politically correct beliefs the better. But children at that age really do not understand any type of sexuality. Is it such a crime to leave them innocent for the first ten years of their life? And when did we stop including parental input ( Muslim, Christian Jewish Atheist etc.) into discussions about their children’s education. The only result of policies like this will be to drive those parents and their children further away from cultural assimilation

    I have a totally original idea that apparently no one has ever thought of. How about we teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic? In fact here in the U.S., we could teach immigrant children to speak English. Wow!!! Isn’t it amazing that I am the first one to think of this (Grin).

    • Lydia says

      I”have a totally original idea that apparently no one has ever thought of. How about we teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic? ”

      Because it has not been about academics for decades. It’s been about the nanny State indoctrinating children. And besides the left-wing is positive that you would not teach your children correctly.

      • Barney Doran says

        Oh, come on, reading, writing, and arithmetic are hard. So much easier to cram DIE down their little throats and set them up for a zombie lifetime in the nanny state. Hey, with a guaranteed income, who the hell will need to know anything? Except, of course, the state, which will know everything. Remember when we used to read books like 1984 and Brave New World and said ‘That will never happen.’ We were wrong.

    • @geofiz. Yeah, it’s telling that the educators in the video clip are insistent that parents don’t get to tell educators what they teach their children. Ummm. Yeah, they actually have the final say on whether their children are present for sexuality indoctrination and kudos to them for doing the right thing and pulling their kids away from a curriculum that goes against their morals. Conservatives should be pouncing to support these Muslims.

      I side with the Muslims on this issue too. When teachers are indoctrinating kids with lgbtq, equity, and diversity ideology starting at age 6…it’s going to be accepted without the nuance and discussion that even adults struggle with on these issues.

      Also crazy lady on the vid clip blew my mind when she chastises the muslim man for putting the Muslim community at risk. Also, she’s “protecting” the Muslim community. This is just another example of overeducated rich White people nonsense run amok.

      • Brian says

        That “crazy lady” is Jess Phillips, an MP. She is a bigot herself. She laughed out loud in a committee hearing when a fellow member of the committee wanted to discuss issues disproportionately affecting men (like suicide).

        I enjoy some schadenfreud(sic) seeing her baffled by Muslim resistance to Social Justice school indoctrination. Maybe she will get red-pilled a bit (but who am I kidding, there isn’t enough beer).

        FWIW I am with the Muslims on this one. Social issues which lack any sort of scientific consensus (like trans issues) are best left to the parents to address with their children.

  13. Barney Doran says

    It is this blind pursuit of and loud insistence upon diversity that it getting the West deeper and deeper into this cultural/moral morass of cross purposed goals and intentions. Before we get any deeper, perhaps we should ask ourselves just what is this sacrament of diversity and what god does it serve.

  14. Cedric says

    People need to stop leveraging children to push their agendas, no matter what side of the argument they are on. Talk about the effect on children all you want, but stop involving them directly.

    • Alf says

      Agreed. Just like it is completely inappropriate to use children as pawns in a marital conflict, there is justifiable reason to involve children in such controversial topics.

  15. TheSnark says

    The author writes about a leader of the protests: “Shakeel Afsar, only has a niece and nephew at the school, and that his own children attend a different school”. Hmmm…does the author have kids at that school? Do the education authorities? Do the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations? Does that disqualify them from having a valid opinion?

    And “Of course, religion is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, but case law shows us that where two protected characteristics collide—and it is usually religion and sexual orientation—religion is usually defeated. This is because, in many of those cases, religious doctrines are invoked as an excuse to discriminate against others.” So traditional religion, based on centuries of tradition, practice, and belief, is automatically wrong when faced with a more modern belief, one that is at best dates back a couple of decades? Religious folks could just as easily throw back that “”Progressive” doctrines are invokes as an excuse to discriminate against religion”.

    The article does a good job describing the difficulty of accommodating different “equalities”. But most of the author’s arguments as to how to solve the problem boil down to “I’m right, the others are wrong”. Heck, the author may even be right, but the case is poorly made.

  16. dmm says

    Just more “people with different values should continue to be forced to live together in one huge nation state” idiocy. Decentralize now!

  17. E. Olson says

    Why can’t children simply be taught to read, write, and do some math and coding without be indoctrinated into the joys of homosexuality and transgenderism? Or perhaps a more subtle approach might be taken with lessons on how it isn’t nice to throw people off buildings or stone them to death for being different, rather than starting off with stories about two princes getting married, and how miserable Jim is transforming into a much happier Kim.

  18. Klaus C. says

    Amusing and predictable that the Right see a situation like this as a “two birds with one stone” opportunity. But that unfortunately also exposes the fact that their “argument” with Islam is based more on xenophobia than anything else, since the doctrines of the Christian Right are pretty much identical to those of the Islamic Right, and just as out of place in modern Western society.

    • Geofiz says

      Although, I am a conservative, on this one, I sadly have to agree with you. Substitute Christian for Muslim in the article. If your opinion changes then you have a problem. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. ALL RELIGION!!!;

    • Lydia says

      You might want to do some research on the number of private Christian schools in this country. Most Christians have their kids in public school and their learning all this stuff. How can that possibly be according to your comment? what I have found interesting in our Public School system here which is in the top 20 in size in the country, if that a large percentage of principals administrators and teachers have their kids in a private school.

      You can’t really even count parochial schools in this because most of them have Islamic students. Methinks you need to get out more.

    • scribblerg says

      Your ignorance of both Islam and Christianity would be amusing if they weren’t so vicious. Tell me, what is your knowledge of Islam based on? What authors have you read, what histories of the Islamic world have you read?

      Me? I knew almost nothing of Islam beyond the typical education an American got in high school and college – in other words, almost nothing. But 9/11 was a wake up call and the answers on offer from all from all sides – particularly they one about Muslims being victims of Western civilization and various attacks on the U.S. and West being payback – were insufficient.

      Then I began reading actual histories of Islam and was pretty surprised. The Crusades always loomed large to me as some kind of “original sin” of Christendom. But then I read that they only occurred after hundreds of years of conquest and harassment by Muslims on Christians and taking their lands (I’ve met leftists who actually don’t know that Islam conquered Christians in the mideast, not the reverse, lol). Finally, when the Muslims stopped welcoming pilgrims to Bethlehem and other holy sites, then and only then did Christianity attack.

      Even then, the imbalance all runs to Islam, not the West. In fact, if you look at the various caliphates since the 7th century, you’ll see Islamic empires conquered and invaded and enslaved (including sex slaves) the West 60 times more frequently than the West did to Islam. Here is 3.5 min vid that presents Islam’s imperial history visually, you’ll like it. https://youtu.be/c7y2LRcf4kc

      As for the similarities between Christianity and Islam, please just show me where Jesus beheaded enemies, took sex slaves and fought in bloody battles and then told his followers to do as he did? Mohammed did all this and far more, and such has been done in his name for centuries. Even more concerning for a modern, moral human being would be that Islam began reforming in the 15/16th centuries but then by the 17th century it begins turning away from modernity specifically. Its leaders reverted to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, call Salifist (whether quietest or Islamist) or Deobandi or Shia 12erism, all are radically fundamental and necessarily violent interpretations oIslam with eyes wide open.

      At that time, Christianity was going through massive reformations to resolve itself with the modern world peacefully and did so. It’s also so that Christian society gave birth to the modern world, so there is that. But please, lay out your case.

      • Geofiz says

        1) It is important differentiate Muslims in the U.S., most of whom are citizens and fully assimilated, from those in Iran, Saudi, Pakistan and other Muslim theocracies. Is is also important to differentiate U.S. Muslims from those in Europe who have arrived in huge floods and have not assimilated. Yes there are nutcases among U.S. Muslims and some become terrorists. But this an extremely small minority. We had many Muslims in my Boy Scout Troop (I was an Asst. Scoutmaster for many years) and mostly they wanted to be engineers and scientists like their dads. I had a Muslim accountant who worked for me for several years and we become good friends. The fact that I was Jewish and he was Muslim was irrelevant.

        2) The idea that evangelical Christians would execute gays is highly offensive and hateful. This statement, more than anything, speaks to the intolerance and hatred that spews from the left. It is beyond disgusting.

        3) The past is the past. Muslims and Christians killed each other in great numbers for several hundred years. So did Catholics and Protestants. They all killed Jews.

        4) The greatest percentage of victims of Muslim terrorism worldwide are by far, other Muslims. Does anyone really believe that they support the people that are killing their children in marketplaces?

        5) According to Pew 90% of American believe in a higher power. Of those, 80% believe in G_d. 75% pray to G_d. So Klaus, is it your opinion that 90% of the population of the U.S is out of place in modern Western society? Or Herr Klaus, do you just believe you are smarter than everyone else. I guess we should all be in awe of your great wisdom, huh!

        “Human rights’ are a fine thing, but how can we make ourselves sure that our rights do not expand at the expense of the rights of others. If we do not wish to be ruled by a coercive authority, then each of us must rein himself in…A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation: by the principle that we are always duty-bound to defer to the sense of moral justice.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    • Jeremy H says

      @Klaus C.

      You completely miss the point here: this article is about the clash of “protected” identities in the West. The Christian right may be “out of place in the modern West” but they are an ostracized “oppressor” group so don’t matter. Islam has been granted an “oppressed” status and yet seems to have many of the same attitudes as the “oppressor”, hence this inevitable clash with another “oppressed” group – LGBT.

      The West has had no problem vilifying the Christian Right for its regressive views but has so far floundered at calling out the same bigotry in Islamic communities. And the doctrines of Islam and Christianity are hardly identical. One can be legitimately concerned about how a culture that actively rejects the concept of separation of Church and State might fit into a culture founded on that premise without being a “xenophope”.

    • Klaus, you have no idea what you are talking about. The “doctrines of the Christian right” do not call for execution of gays. There are eleven countries in the world where homosexual behavior is a capital offense, and every one of them is a Muslim country that professes to be under Islamic law. In the modern West, there are no “Christian right” politicians or parties calling for persecution of homosexuality. You are simply inventing this equivalence of the “Western right” to the “Islamic right” in your own imagination. And it is bizarre to call Islamists “right-wingers.”

      • Klaus C. says

        “Bizarre” to call Islamists “right-wingers”? Himmler certainly didn’t think so, when he praised Islam as a fine warrior’s creed.

        Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, with its emphasis on extreme patriarchy, complete subjugation of women, supremacy of superstition over reason, glorification of violence, total intolerance of dissent etc, is pretty much the quintessence of far right authoritarianism.

        “The “doctrines of the Christian right” do not call for execution of gays.”

        Not now, because they couldn’t get away with it. But let’s remind ourselves that the Bible calls for the death penalty and from the 13th century such punishments, including castration, dismemberment and burning became more frequent in Christian Europe.

        Do you really think the Christian fundamentalists of today, if given their way, would not execute gay people?

        “there are no “Christian right” politicians or parties calling for persecution of homosexuality”

        Huh? What planet do you live on? The gay rights movement has seen a constant battle against the Christian right, who fiercely resisted every attempt to decriminalise homosexual relationships in every country where such laws were in place. As recently as the 1990s I was one amongst many gay activists fighting the Christians to remove criminal penalties for gay sex here in Tasmania. It’s a familiar story in nearly every Christian-majority country.

        • Klaus, you are wrong on several points. 1) No Christian politicians or movements are calling for persecution of gays. You know this. 2) I know many Christian fundamentalists. I don’t know even one who wants to persecute gays. Also, while I’m not a member of the Christian Right, I do read their writings; your characterization of their position is simply wrong. 3) your equation of Nazism with Right is a Marxist interpretation; Nazis themselves agreed with Marxism in opposition to Capitalism; Hitler was among those who observed that Nazis’ most fertile recruiting ground was among communists, because of similarity of ideas. 4) But even if you don’t accept point 3, to equate conservatives with Nazis is really dishonest…or else you’re so blinded by your own ideology you can’t even analyze someone else’s position from their own perspective.

          If you are interested in what American Christian Evangelical Right actually says, here’s an example:

          https://stream.org/gay-activist-end-game-nuclear-destruction

          You asked me what planet I live on. My answer: Earth, in 21st Century America.

          In return, my question for you: do you really think conservatives and especially conservative Christians are equivalent to Nazis, to be purged from society by violence?

          • Klaus C. says

            Amusing to see the hard right pardon themselves for their past excesses by saying: “It wasn’t us, guv, ‘onest! Them Nazis and fascists wuz all Marxists, innit.”

            The very fact that the Right disown their own past in such a brazen and laughable manner should remind us to be extremely wary of these people.

            As for the hate site you linked, it’s typical of the homophobic hysteria that’s rampant on the Christian Right. But apparently you think it should reassure me that those critters “don’t want to persecute gays”.

            To use a phrase that’s so frequently and sadly needed these days: it’s beyond satire.

          • Klaus, since there’s a limit to length of threads, I’ll post my reply here. You are being dishonest. I’m not a right-winger nor a conservative, but I try to understand conservative viewpoints, and they are respectable. To say conservatives “disown their own past” by condemning Nazis is nonsense, because they are quite different. Conservatives aren’t Nazis. And Stream.org isn’t a “hate” site. That’s quite a dishonest claim you’ve made. You may disagree with them, but they never espouse hatred. I’d have thought you were capable of making a rational argument, but you’re simply spewing invective.

      • EK says

        “Don’t let the past remind us of who we are not now….” CSN; “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes” (1969).

      • scribblerg says

        In what way? Care to give an actual example in the real occurring world to back up your inane bullshit?

  19. gda53 says

    Afghanistan and other Muslim countries have their own culturally accepted pederasty.
    All the males get to practice on certain young boys and it somehow doesn’t get “counted” against them when it comes to deciding who gets thrown off the tall building.

    Them they come to the West and the true homosexuals have a difficult time adjusting.

    Why on earth didn’t we listen to Enoch?

    A 99% Muslim school in Britain? Good God.

  20. I really can’t help having a very lukewarm attitude when watching the various lefty groups fighting each other. Trying to conciliate an Abrahamic religion with homosexuality is like trying to mix water and oil. So the LGBTZXTYUUUIQATXC6785% is having problems with Islam? What a surprise! Usually theocratic far right groups are sooooo tolerant.
    I wish religion was kept out of the classroom and I include the secular religions that the left likes to peddle, that includes Mr Moffat’s gay gospel. No, we can’t tolerate everyone, we obviously can’t tolerate people that want to kill us, or force women to use certain garments or throw gays from the top of tall buildings. Children will grow and some of them will realize how idiotic is mr Moffat’s gospel and some of them will put all into question including the good bits.
    I wish schools concentrated in teaching our children how to read, how to think critically, a bit of history and philosophy (yep, the dead white guys stuff), that alone is hard enough.

  21. Gordon the Gopher says

    You lost me at the dog whistle to anti semitism.

    And bringing Jess Phillips into anything should -like invoking Hitler- invalidate any arguments. All she has is double standards and her own brand of intolerant bigotry.

    • George G says

      @ Gordon the Gopher

      i think your crediting Jess Phillips with to many standards, she only has one criteria – is it publicity for me?

  22. Gordon the Gopher says

    Also claiming it’s all a conspiracy against female head teachers by men but your two main examples were against male head teachers, organised by mother’s at the school.
    The agenda is strong in this article.

  23. Homosexual behavior was standard in Athens and Sparta during the classical period and the participants were not all born that way. People who promote homosexual behavior refuse to acknowledge the negative consequences for society. Boys are often approached by predatory homosexual men, as Roman Catholics have been forced to acknowledge. I recall reading that Sophocles was considered odd because he was not attracted to boys. A woman who claimed to have known many homosexual men told me that every one that she knew had been initiated by an older man as a boy. It can be argued that homosexual behavior is a socially negative behavior that should be discouraged. Promoting homosexual behavior will cause young people who would not have thought of it to be drawn into it.

    • TarsTarkas says

      ‘Respectable’ women in Classical Greece (not just Sparta and Athens) were kept locked up by their fathers and husbands. In addition female infanticide was very common. The resultant unavailability of females led to high levels of pederasty (sexual relations between adult men was considered disgusting).

    • This is an interesting subject which no public figure except Milo has touched, and look at what happened to him. He was recently able to discuss it and try to amend his ‘mistake’ in an interview with Peterson. Like many problem areas, it is only when you are looking in at it from the outside that a proper condemnation can be made. If you are in the whirlwind you will get caught along with it. That is a problem with no obvious solution.

  24. AndrewS says

    Both sides of society in britain, liberals and religious are becoming more extreme. The art of compromise needs to be preserved as it s the most undermining of any kind of ideologues. Asking for the lessons to be taught at a later age is not unreasonable, talk to the moderates and thus marginalise those extremists who would probably prefer more conflict than a solution.

  25. Andreas K. says

    By culture, religion, and inclination, I suppose I’m officially one of the “haters” and “bigots” for persevering in the old sentiment that such things aren’t respectable activities. However, because my sentiment has been duly and entirely rejected by my country and her institutions, I don’t pitch a fit about it. Countries come to reflect their majority sentiments, and I’m a minority attitude for the rest of time.

    Now, having provided that full disclosure, my continued interest in these things simply concerns the sustainability of our civil compacts and the institutions we all make common use of. Therefore, what concerns me here is the potential problems of unconditional diversity: it seems to me that the most complete and perfect diversity is when two things are mutually exclusive. I don’t see that anything can get more different than that, ergo perfect divergence, which is to say diversity. I’m sincerely hoping the new paradigm can settle on a coherent and internally consistent system of rules. We all need that to know where we stand, what are the rules, in order to get anywhere, and even in my pessimism about the reasonableness of the new ways, it is a matter of practicality and an obligation of self-preservation that we all cooperate for the survival of our shared country.

    If things someday collapse because they’re innately unsustainable, that will happen regardless anyone’s ideology or sentiments. We will find out when it happens. In the meantime, it is simple practicality that I cooperate to shore up the foundations of our common house. What, then, are the rules going to be, and how can I help? That is the question.

  26. Lest we forget it was less than 30 years ago that the British government passed into law legislation requiring schools not to:

    “intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

    If we like to think of ourselves as historically enlightened and liberal it is worth remembering that this was an actual battleground issue in British politics very recently.

  27. Michael Skrzypek says

    These are the most disappointing comments I’ve seen on Quillette, and they give serious credence to its critics who claim it is merely a modern, intellectually dressed up front for good old fashioned intolerance. I’m not ready to give in to that characterization just yet but when descriptions of gay people as “perverts” and “deviants” are responded to with “well said!” it’s pretty disappointing.

    Comments here are siding with religious extremists because they are against teaching respect for people who are different. Commenters are agreeing that conservative religious protests at a school are good because they hate multiculturalism. I’m not seeing much of the vaunted intellectual curiosity that Quillette is supposed to be about. Though of course one shouldn’t confuse a few angry commentators for the mission of the publication, I suppose.

    What’s interesting about this article seems to have gone almost completely uncommented on–what happens when two minorities have unreconcilable views, and which side should the government and school system be on? I think religious extremists should have a right to exist but not to impose their views on others. They should be free to live by their beliefs, but if they go to a government-funded school that largely reflects the values of the larger culture (and I think tolerance for sexual difference is a majority value, broadly speaking), they should abide by the government’s rules, or they should form their own schools.

    But it sounds like there are still folks who are Christian or secular humanists who usually dislike conservative Islam–and in fact possibly voted “leave” in part because of Muslim immigration–who will then happily agree with the Koran when it preaches against acceptance homosexuality and sexual difference. Which, of course, shows why there is a need to teach tolerance in schools in the first place.

    Teaching “there are no others” should be supported in a pluralistic Western society. It doesn’t say you have to agree with anything, or live a certain way yourself, it merely says you shouldn’t be reflexively dismissive or hateful because someone is different that you. Isn’t that the point of Quillette, to have discussions where people can disagree intellectually without resorting to ad hominem, stereotypical attacks based on identity?

    • @Michael Skrzypek. Agreed. FYI – Some open-minded liberal folks read the article, but don’t comment.

      (And some traditional conservatives comment frequently, but apparently don’t read the articles – my admittedly uncivil jab)

      • Just Me says

        One frustrating thing about Quillette is the absence of like or dislike buttons, so you don’t know how many readers agree or disagree with which comments.

    • Robert Crandall says

      @Michael Skrzypek I read all the comments, maybe I missed it, but I didnt see anyone calling homosexuals “perverts” or “deviants”. So to me it seems like you made this up in order to discredit people who simply don’t agree with you.

      • Michael Skrzypek says

        @Robert Crandall It may seem to you that way, but you did indeed miss it.

        I would not make up anything to discredit people–getting tired of that kind of nonsense is why I found Quillette–and further I would not accuse someone I did not know of doing that. What good is Quillette if it is going to be full of comments by people who both do not read carefully and, more importantly, do not assume good faith arguments? It will just turn into another ridiculous call-out echo chamber.

        Here is what you missed:

        ‘KoosKleurvol
        May 28, 2019
        Roll footage

        Happy muslim at prayer, smiles at camera. Scenes of Muslims circling Kaba at meca
        Spliced in footage of happy lesbian couple staring deeply into each others eyes. Scenes of rainbow parade ,sexual deviants perverts galore.”

        RESPONSE:

        “Charles N. Steele
        May 28, 2019
        Perceptive comment, Koos, and brilliantly made.”

        • Koos Kleurvol says

          I guess your school skipped “Reading with comprehension” classes for “social justice for preteens”.

          You are not interested in good faith discussion of anything.

          How is it good faith:

          Deliberately and dishonestly equate of a rainbow parade for “homosexuals”.
          You mistake deviant used as a technical descriptor rather than an insult.
          You ignore the whole comment that you refer to is satarical and overdramatised for effect.
          You dishonestly use a partial quote without context

          Steele clearly wasn’t applauding the paragraph or the description you are refering to.

          You might have a brilliant career in political propaganda ahead of you. I suggest an internship at CNN.

        • Wow, Michael. You paid zero attention to what either of us actually said. You are simply dishonest here. Go back and read. And think.

    • Jeremy H says

      @Michael Skrzypek

      “…when descriptions of gay people as “perverts” and “deviants” are responded to with “well said!” it’s pretty disappointing.”

      There is no comment above yours that fits this description. The only comment with a “well said!” responding to it contains the following in regard to the protesters:

      ‘Their argument was solely that children were being taught about homosexuality and trans-sexuality at an innapropriately [sic] young age. I think this argument has some weight even if there is a suspicion that it is in fact a cover for a more profound disagreement with the policy.’

      That seems fairly nuanced and is hardly denigrating toward gay people.

      “I think religious extremists should have a right to exist but not to impose their views on others.”

      The protesters in this case might say, ‘I think sexual extremists should have a right to exist but not to impose their views on others.’ And this is the real problem that arises when minorities have irreconcilable views: most people, like yourself, simply solve the problem by arbitrarily declaring one side to be not quite as valid as the other. But who in a truly multicultural society gets to decide the “correct” viewpoint (and hence who’s worthy of government funding)?

      • Michael Skrzypek says

        You are right that some commenters were discussing the validity of discussing sexual difference with grade schoolers, but you are wrong that it was “solely” that. I was not making anything up, nor would I, as I value Quillette as a place that strives to be above such nonsense, which is why I made my original comment. In case you did not see my response to a similar comment above, here it is again:

        “KoosKleurvol
        May 28, 2019
        Roll footage

        Happy muslim at prayer, smiles at camera. Scenes of Muslims circling Kaba at meca
        Spliced in footage of happy lesbian couple staring deeply into each others eyes. Scenes of rainbow parade ,sexual deviants perverts galore.”

        RESPONSE:

        “Charles N. Steele
        May 28, 2019
        Perceptive comment, Koos, and brilliantly made.”

        I was not making anything up, nor would I, as I value Quillette as a place that strives to be above such nonsense, which is why I made my original comment.

        As for who should get to decide the validity of viewpoints between religious extremists and those who tolerate sexual difference, I would say that’s been largely settled in the 21st century in most Western democracies, but that, sadly, many leftists have joined you conservatives in being confused about that. However, if you think that conservative Islamic (or Christian) thought should be on equal footing as tolerance for sexual minorities, then by all means make that argument. I side with tolerance.

        • Jeremy H says

          @Michael Skrzypek

          You seem steadfast in your determination to miss the point of both the original article as well as the comment by Koos you reference. I skipped Koos’ comment when looking for the one that offended you because it was such obvious parody (and fairly well done at that) that it shouldn’t need to be stated. To suggest that the point of that comment was to denigrate gays and that the reply was complimenting that specifically is a willful leap of interpretation typically only seen from the SJW crowd (which you don’t seem to be).

          There are actually other comments in this thread that are denigrating to homosexuals, but I’m not sure why this should dissuade from reading Quillette. Most of the commentary seems genuine and respectful.

          “I would say that’s been largely settled in the 21st century in most Western democracies,…”

          I agree with every point you make in this paragraph, but again that’s not the issue here. It doesn’t matter that you or I think religious thought should not be on equal footing with sexual rights: in a society of competing identities (thank you progressives), the strongest group and their values will eventually win. The issue of sexual freedom is only “settled” to the degree that Western liberalism remains the strongest force; if/when the religious right unites in the West (that is Muslim + Christian + other conservative religious) then it might not be all that “settled” any more.

    • I think you do not understand either the article or the bulk of the comments here. Multiculturalism is itself is a dogmatic religious faith; the article exposes, perhaps unwittingly, the incoherence of the multiculturalist position, and most comments are highlighting this.

    • Jake Dee says

      I don’t think we can say that this “No Outsiders” course is based on “teaching respect for people who are different”. I haven’t read their material so I am suspending judgement, but I have lived long enough to learn never to take promoters claims about their products at face value. Human motivations are complex and the love of self and sexual desire are certainly a powerful motivators.
      I cannot agree that respect for those who are different is in itself a worth while goal. Put a little bit of though into that proposition and it will quickly collapse. What of the lazy, the dishonest, the unhygienic ? These are all personal characteristics that differ from the social norms, what respect are they owed ? I may respect an unhygienic person, but in spite of rather than because of his difference. Shall I be required to respect them ? Shall I be made to respect all people equally ? How is that different from having no standards at all ?
      I am also quite interested to learn how the story of the two Princes turned out, I guess that it stopped at the wedding and didn’t address the rather profound dynastic implications.

    • AJ says

      One swallow doesn’t a summer make. The general tone of comments i spoliet respectectful and to teh point. That is what one of the good things about Quillete.

      The problem with the article and your comment is that it characterises those with whom you disagree as intolerant as a means of silencing a point of view without engaging with any of the arguments made against teaching quite young people about homosexual relationships and transexuals at quite a young age. The fact the authour does not engage at all with the protesters arguments suggest that they know that they are strong arguments and has no real answer to them.

      I heard the a local labour mP interviewed on LBC. He supporte dteh protestors saying that he did not mind children being taught tolerance and being taught about homosexual relationship sbut he though the school was doing this far too early. The interviewer constantly sought to portray him as a bigotted extremist homosexualhater which he obviously was not and when the interview was over described him as disgusting. Not once di teh interviewer acknowledge that the argument he made could have any validity at all. This is the problem with the modern victim centred politics of the left. It has detached itself from teh concerns and values of the majority of society and supports anything or anyone that can claim victim status. The absurdity of feminists claiming victim status for women when they live longer lives, are less likely to be imprisoned or homeless and are better educated than men is mirrored by claims that homosexuals are a persecuted group in Britain today. They aren’t whatever the past may have been.

      An argument the protesters do nto make but I would make is that anything which portrays trans-sexuality as positive, or natural as a life style at a young age pre-adulthood is dangerous as there is a lot of evidence that most people with gender confusion pre-puberty become happy and comfortable with their biological sex post-puberty and that there is a social influence effect in gender dysmorphia. There is real harm in hormonal therapy never mind surgery and by far the best response for the majority of children is to wait until adulthood for any actions. Anything which encourages children to be anything but comfortable in their biological sex is for the majority potentially damaging.

      I am happy that we should advocate tolerance and respect for all but we shoudl be careful not to influence children in ways that are potentially damaging.

  28. Andrew Scott says

    The arguments for including LGBT stuff earlier in school don’t hold up. Will kids get bullied over it? You can teach children at any age to respect other people regardless of differing beliefs without endorsing, normalizing, or even going into detail about what those beliefs are. It’s easy and practical to teach children at an early age that they will encounter others who will think and act differently, even in ways that they strongly disagree with. Don’t bully them. Be respectful. If that doesn’t work, nothing else will.

  29. Harrison Bergeron says

    What happens when you have a society where one half thinks you should drive on the right side of the road and one half thinks that you should drive on the left side of the road?

    • Bignurse says

      Draw a boundary separating two regions. Those who would drive on the right go to one side and those on the left to the other.

      • TarsTarkas says

        Still, accidents will happen, mostly hit and run.

      • Harrison Bergeron says

        And build a wall between the two.

  30. A very similar backlash happened here in Ontario, Canada, over a very similar program. Again, those who were upset and protests where Muslims. And I agree, those that are hurt the very most here are LGBTQ Muslims. I am not opposed to immigration, but I do resent the fact that immigration is bringing with it a new set of intolerances. We have had to fight conservative Christianity for years to make sure the rights of LGBTQ people are recognized. It’s frustrating that now we have to fight against conservative Islam.

    • AJ says

      The thing is that this is not about the rights of LGBT people. It is about what is taught to young people revarding homosexuality and trans sexuals. What rights are affected if the protesters win?

  31. codadmin says

    The white working class who don’t agree with forcing trans and homosexual stuff down childrens throats, and who have no legitimate pathway of grievance, will one day start to ask…” maybe Islam isn’t so bad after all…”

    At that point, the teutonic shifts will start to happen.

    • codadmin says

      ^^ tectonic…although, Teutonic shifts also makes sense.

    • That is unlikely ever to happen for it would require the working-class white father to sacrifice his daughter to the predations of the rape and grooming gang.

      • EK says

        Rape-grooming gangs appear to be an Indian subcontinent (Hindu-Muslim) curiosity, not a purely Islamic thing.

      • Azathoth says

        The MUSLIM white working class fathers MUSLIM daughters would not be a target of the rape gangs.

        The rape gangs target infidels, not the faithful

  32. David George says

    There was a push (from now Coalition partner, New Zealand First) to require would be immigrants to have knowledge and acceptance of Kiwi culture. Jacinda Adern flatly rejected the idea on the grounds that we are a multicultural society; essentially that all cultural (and, presumably, religious and personal) values are welcome or, at least, acceptable.
    She subsequently showed her dishonesty/selectivity/stupidity/naivety with “these are not our values” claims when commenting on the visits of Southern and Molyneaux and the Israel Falau controversy.
    Culture is, above all else, a system or series of values; you can’t have any such thing as “our” values in a multicultural society. Adern can’t even see the dichotomy, never mind being capable of sorting it out in her own mind and offering anything other than meaningless cliches.

    • Peter Rowe says

      I agree David. Culture necessarily involves choosing from competing values. Multiculturalism therefore implies that all values are equal. This is not working out so well in the West. A country can certainly be multi-ethnic but cannot truly be multi-cultural if it is to maintain a sense of self amongst its peoples.
      Mind you, I would take my child out of any school that sought to demonstrate that surgical intervention was the road to gender fluidity happiness for all. These problems would not arise if institutions stuck to their knitting. Please teach my kids maths and English and history and science. Leave the social morality lessons to me as their parent thanks very much.

      • EK says

        If the parents or their church can’t or won’t indoctrinate then the state surely must.

        In the US, the courts began deciding all questions of this nature in favor of the state in 1940.

  33. David of Kirkland says

    “Protected characteristics” — that’s a good one, a legal coersion of anti-liberty, anti-thought, anti-free-association, anti-free-speech, anti-autonomy.

  34. X. Citoyen says

    Hewitt-Clarkson understands the dangers of appeasing religious fundamentalists: “We can’t give in.”

    You don’t have to give in because you’ll be pushed out by neglect (see the last point for the explanation).

    Like all activists, you cheered when Leviathan took up your cause, not caring about the precedent set or the power conferred because you deluded yourself into believing you were the Vanguard of History. But you were never more than a passing fancy, a useful tool to be dispensed with once used up. Now Leviathan has a new love and—thanks to you—she’s more powerful than ever. She will scorn you like every other love who’s become stale to her, and you’ll be writing about your disillusionment and submitting it to Quillette, all the while hoping she’ll cast her loving eyes on you again.

    …case law shows us that where two protected characteristics collide—and it is usually religion and sexual orientation—religion is usually defeated. This is because, in many of those cases, religious doctrines are invoked as an excuse to discriminate against others.

    How quaint. You won and religion lost because the Anglo-American legal system is dominated by progressives who use casuistry to get to the conclusions they want. Now those same progressives have decided M’s belong at the top of the Great Chain of Intersectional Being. You will lose your day in court, sooner or later, because Leviathan wills it.

    …she thought it sufficient for children to turn to their parents for information. This is a flawed approach, for several reasons.

    Children getting information from their parents? Perish the thought! Though by “information” I think you meant “values” because that’s what you’re complaining about: Parents being allowed to impart their values, instead of yours, to their children.

    “They have got to understand that equalities legislation protects them, and you can’t pick and choose.”

    No, they don’t. If you had a little self-awareness, you’d recall that when Leviathan loved you, she let you pick and choose. You admitted as much when you said teachers should be the ones giving children “information,” not parents. Of course, the teachers were merely the medium; the information came from you, and the order to teach it came from Leviathan.

    Second, they must actively support headteachers during these conflicts instead of letting them flounder.

    No decision has to be made to get the result. All Leviathan has to do to push you out is leave you hanging. The mob will do the rest. Everyone will get the picture soon enough. Again, doesn’t any of this ring any bells for you? From where I’m standing, it’s deja vu all over again.

  35. augustine says

    The kind of parents who think it is acceptable to disrupt their children’s education due to their personal religious beliefs…

    Are the beliefs you hold, leading to this kind of thinking, any less personal? From what sanctified place did they arrive?

    As another commenter wrote, you probably meant values here rather than beliefs. Most people hold values of family and social origin, even if they are not religious themselves. To aim to create a state that is so powerful that families, the religious, and libertarians will adopt your values, and suppress their own, is quite an aspiration.

  36. Defenstrator says

    There are no good guys here n this situation. Religious extremists who hate gays vs scum bags who want to teach sex to children. And thanks to the mindless stupidity that is intersectionality the brainless will call people who don’t like either bigots while being completely unable to cope when there are no white men to blame for the conflict.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Schools are a creation of the white patriarchy/sarc.

  37. Geofiz says

    There is a huge difference between”hating gays” and not wanting your preteen children to be taught about sexuality (homosexual or heterosexual).

    If not wanting pre teen children to be taught about sex makes me a makes me a fundamentalist Muslim…Well, that will sure come as a surprise to my fellow congregants at my synagogue (Grin).

  38. Just Me says

    There is a huge difference between believing homosexuality is a sin and that God will one day punish homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex, and wanting to protect your children from that, and believing it is haram and should be punished in the here and now by society in a very horrific manner, for one thing.

    Second, basic sex ed should in principe be part of basic education, just like reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., and while some parents may do a good job of it at home, just as they do a good job of reading to their kids, taking them to museums and camping, etc., others do not, and society as a whole benefits from schools stepping in as much as possible to teach those basics which some parents do not. (Basic info about different religious beliefs should also be part of everyone’s basic education btw. Too many people are totally ignorant about basic religious facts and beliefs.)

    What is appropriate at what age is trickier, but kids, especially today, become aware of these issues pretty early, earlier than many parents want to admit. Most gays realize they are gay or transgender at quite a young age, and are often teased or bullied about it at an early age, so it cannot be ignored by schools.

    There are ways to teach tolerance and respect for differences without getting into lots of detail at a young age, it usually isn’t about the physical details at that age, it is about emotions, crushes, preferences in toys, clothing and games, etc.

    Ignoring the issue totally is no longer possible imo.

  39. Craig Mocton says

    Intersectionality…..

    Muslims versus Gays
    Trans versus feminists
    Minority versus minority.

    Grab some popcorn, pull up an easy-chair, relax and enjoy the fight.

    • Herman says

      I’m running out of popcorn already…

  40. Taieri says

    Tehmina Kazi is an equality and human rights professional with over 14 years experience.

    “an equality and human rights professional” – This is a good one indeed!

  41. Peter from Oz says

    What is an ”equality and human rights professional”? It sounds like one of those made up jobs that depends upon government

    • Sounds a lot like a “cultural climate facilitator” I see in a lot of organizations making six figures. It’s like a thought police department.

  42. I just wanted to add that UNESCO has a document about teaching sexuality to children and has stated the concepts that should be taught by age. Maybe that could be used as a guideline

  43. Daz says

    “In September 2017, Lall held a meeting with parents to inform them of a restriction on headscarves for girls under the age of eight. The petition which sought to overturn the ban attracted signatures from all over the UK, not just the school’s catchment area in Newham, and Whatsapp groups were used to drum up additional support.”

    There’s a definite hypocrisy here.

    It seems the author sides with the education system when it declares that girls 8 or under are too young to be forced into religious indoctrination, but not too young to be forced into state indoctrination on the subject of sex education.

  44. S.Cheung says

    “Of course, religion is also a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, but case law shows us that where two protected characteristics collide—and it is usually religion and sexual orientation—religion is usually defeated.”

    This seems to summarize the issue in a nutshell. When you have 2 competing interests appealing to the same law (or to the same principle), how does one decide which should take primacy? Well that’s actually a fairly easy question. The difficult question is how to decide which interest takes primacy from a public policy standpoint. Unfortunately, the author passes on the opportunity here to explore that issue, or posit an argument.

    One meaningful aspect or metric might be “tolerance”: perhaps we anoint as winner the viewpoint that is more tolerant of the other, such that the “loser” suffers less of a loss, at least as compared to the opposite result. So if “sexuality” takes precedence, is it more tolerant of “religion” than how “religion” would view “sexuality” had “religion” won out? I would tend to think so. For instance, “LGBT” is unlikely to try to convert someone out of their “religion”, whereas “religion” does have a penchant for “converting” the sexuality that it deems unsavory. And yet, while such an argument is congruent with my worldview, i wonder if it scales to the society level.

    • Herman says

      Hi Cheung, everybody as a religious believe, a profond idea of what life is about, whether it is a common one or not. I believe the LGBT’s religious believes are not yet expressed into a standard form, such as a Bible yet. Jordan Peterson points out that prior to understanding ourselves with words, when enact our understanding.

      At the moment, the LGBT are expressing themselves in their actions, which is consistent with their thoughts, beliefs, faith, emotions, etc By doing so, they are setting the base for a view of the world, a mindset, which if it persist in time should be the base for a religion of sort.

      All this to say, I think the desire to express themselves to children of such a young age has nothing to do with awareness against bullying, but with converting someone to their view of the world, their suffering reality. Some children may feel attracted to join, although not enthusiastically admitting that they too have a suffering reality. They too could be a victim. Just a thought.

      Are we not in the Victim Age? Don’t you have a place in society but only if you can be a victim?
      Be heard, be protected, respected…. it is an attractive option “all things considered” 😉

      • Herman, this is an interesting idea, that we build our faiths gradually by our own actions.

        The early Church did exactly the same thing. The early church had no Bible, no buildings, no power of any kind. But what it did have was an experience, which its members lived out in their daily lives. It was that “acting out of moral values” that really caused problems, as it brought them into conflict with Roman civil and religious requirements. Similarly, modern sexual libertines have come into conflict with Christians in a “repaganization of the West.”

        Based on the Roman experience with the early church, Western Civilization may have reason to be concerned about the new religion of sexual autonomy. It took the Church 300 years to cease control of the levers of power in imperial Rome. The new secular-sexualism has seized control in most Western countries in less than 50 years.

  45. Herman says

    No surprisingly, when you start empowering the victims with “Special protection”, you can’t help wanting to play the “victim card” yourself. It’s just too sad, that protesters are men, this is abusive no doubt. Surely, the female headteachers had no desire to sign up for that kind of crap. Better in the end, let the “responsible men” solve the situation. Well done feminism; I’m just a women, solve my problem has historically been a working technique. Hasn’t it? Good luck to all the Victim and their groups in the world. Peace and love for bunnies.

  46. Monaogg says

    The only logical way out of this, is to prioritise Human Rights based on what is inherent and unable to change, as having priority over ideas and beliefs.

  47. Aylwin says

    Thank you for this article Tehmina, and for your work. Just one observation. Rather than saying “Parkfield Community School—at which 99 percent of the pupils are Muslim” it might be better to say “… of the pupils are children of Muslim parents”, given that they’re too young to be able to make decisions about ideologies.

    • Herman says

      That’s a valid point, after all let’s not give away the merchandise too quickly. The real thing for grab here is the attention and commitment of the children. Its kinda putting things at odd to start with the preposition that the kid’s devotion fall under their parents flag value, thus their allegiance needing to be stolen from their parents. Surely, we are not that kind of people who aim to create discord and tension within the familial core of already difficult lifes of Primary school students… Better start with the position that the interested party’s thoughts are independent and thus are free to choose to make the decision to up-out of the selected familial belief. Thread on them, cause you can, they have no voice, they are true victims, oppressed and silent. Go on, let’s see who can win their hearts, who can win the right to “protect them”. Solomon said to the 2 mothers claiming the child, “give each women half”. The loving mother hitherto stopped fighting. Luckily, the king was just and gave the child to the real mother.

  48. Mr Sandman says

    Did I read this right? Someone up in the government education department thought it was a good idea to place a principal, who got pushed out from one school because the parents didn’t agree with his LGBT inclusive agenda, to another school with a 99% Muslim population??? Wrong audience man.

  49. ossicle88 says

    How about just teaching academic subjects, and leave everything else to parents and neighborhood? Does that not make you feel important enough?

  50. dionysus says

    What is the point of Quillette anymore, it doesn’t seem to stand for anything. This article is very poor. This constant obsession with equality is nauseating. Does it’s author read any other paper than The Guardian? It’s one of the most left-leaning papers in UK that often puts down white people and UK native population. So much for the love of diversity.

    The statement from Jess Phillips MP is laughable. A crazed Labour MP who hates men and the country she lives in. Anything she says about equality is complete garbage. Like this article.

    • Kessler says

      It stands for allowing different people, express their different opinions or make their cases. I disagree with this article, but I don’t mind it being here. Quilette isn’t state run propaganda or Woke media, it can publish different views.

  51. This article is a illuminating window into the mind of committed secularists. It’s clear the author has absolutely no problem over-riding the moral and religious values of parents. After all, she’s a educated, progressive and the parents are backward, 3rd world refugees who just don’t know any better.

    The elitist condescension of both the author and the interviewees is just dripping off their words. However, I’m glad she wrote it. It’s a powerful reminder what those of us who value individual freedom are really up against: a competing religion.

    It’s time we started treating it that way.

  52. Kessler says

    In the conflict between parents and State, I would side with parents. The idea, that State’s designs override parent’s right to care for and protect their children is morally abhorrent. The case for allowing government bureaucrats control over children must be sufficiently extreme, such as abuse or truly reprehensible behavior. I do not believe this threshold is cleared in this case. Muslim, christian, atheist, doesn’t matter – it’s a human issue.

    • Herman says

      Spot on. Its a question of “skin in the game”. The whole thing started with the parents… or adults that grew up not fully mature. The Government has noticed for quite sometime that there was no “parents” around. Families are scattered, the idea itself is fading. How many parents can stand fast in the street as a shield in defense of their children? How many of them just couldn’t care less. Yeah sure, drop your second tear; ” I love my child”. The sort of behavior described is somewhat expected from a power hungry government which started to study, test and understand that there is no “parents” to resist its demands for more control on the destiny of their kids. Just a thought.

  53. Teddy says

    I, for the life of me, can’t understand why no one is pointing to the Children and Social Work Act as the root cause of this. It’s not the headmasters or teachers fault or the LGBT communities fault. It’s not the parents fault, Muslim or otherwise, or their children’s. The UK has legislated that it’s mandatory for family and relationship education must be taught in primary schools, a law that would of course have to abide by equal representation. Why would you ever think that it would be a good idea for the state and public schools to be the source of education on family life and relationships? Of course, sex education and relationship advice for teenagers is a good thing and should be taught in high school. But these parents have issues with their children being taught about gay marriage at the age of four. How is that a homophobic stance? Why would you ever think the state should be teaching family matters, at all, let alone before these kids can even write? Holy smokes Brits you have to retain some kind of semblance of control over your own lives.

  54. Alizarin says

    I’d protest too if a school where my kid was at was teaching trans ideology. It stuns me that with all the gender critical articles that Quillette publishes, that somehow it’s on board with teaching trans ideology to young kids when the kids are Muslim and there’s an opportunity to make Muslims look like bigots. It’s not bigoted to refuse to have your kid exposed to trans ideology particularly when there’s evidence of gender identity issues erupting as social contagion.

  55. Alizarin says

    “Which brings me to another disturbing subtext of religious fundamentalist activism: many of these protests are staged by groups of men against female headteachers who have received inadequate support. As Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson told the Guardian: “I know one of the phrases that’s associated with domestic abuse is the crushing of the spirit of a woman. And that’s what I feel is happening.”

    This is called playing the gender card which is intellectually dishonest. Ladies: if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This is a war of ideas and if yours are losing. It’s not because of aggressive Muslim men, it’s because your idea of forcing Muslim parents to accept that their kids learn trans ideology at a young age sucks.

  56. Rev. Wazoo! says

    That the parents protesting are Muslim is a red herring, and likely set up as such, as 99% of all parents at the school are Muslim, this is no distinguishing characteristic of the protesters. Instead it serves to obscure that a multi-faith coalition forced him to resign at his previous post. By putting him in a 99% Muslim school it can be made to look like religious orthodoxy, rather than common sense, is the motivation for the inevitable reaction of the parents.

  57. ga gamba says

    I say let the anthropophaginians sort out the mess. It’s an under represented community we haven’t heard much from recently. They may have some novel solutions to conflict resolution.

  58. A B says

    “This is because, in many of those cases, religious doctrines are invoked as an excuse to discriminate against others.”

    Actually, members of such communities simply wish to raise their children to a standard of sexual behavior different from yours. Of course holding people to any standard discriminates against people who have trouble meeting that standard. You may not find the standard appropriate or moral, but the answer is simple: Raise your own kids to your own standards while letting others who have different standards raise their kids to their standards.

  59. Rational Number says

    Muslims. Where they go, problems follow.

  60. Trav says

    This is truly where some of the left side of politics is struggling to rationalise positions and vision. It’s not easy.

    On one hand, it wants to uphold religious freedom to people of Islamic faith. Then, it wants to champion freedom of sexuality, which is not at all compatible with the former, but then, towards the end of this article it talks about women being bullied by men.

    I don’t for a second disbelieve any of the authors positions and experiences, but it’s shows that the left need to realise that they are playing in a world of contradiction and are performing globally very poorly.

Comments are closed.