Stonewall Shames, And Seeks To Help Criminalise, Young Gay People

I've no doubt you've got used to my overly dramatic style of headlines on certain articles. But in this case I really don't think I'm going over the top.

In a joint initiative with O2, Stonewall has decided to seek to shame, berate and, I kid you not, criminalise the sexuality of young gay people (I say gay rather than LGBT because we are talking about S'onewall here). 

They've released a document entitled "Staying Safe Online" which is really a deeply conservative and sex negative piece of corporate "advice" to parents and teachers on how to control teenager's sexuality. 

Ruth Hunt's opening words seek to blame pornography for over-sexualising young gay people (when young gay people have had no problem in being over-sexualised since the year dot). Full disclosure: I lost my virginity at 14 to a boy my age and never, ever looked back. Whilst most of my teenage life was shit, I can safely say that sexually it was a fantastic time. The idea that sexualisation is a bad thing in itself (rather than discussing specific problems such as STDs, consent etc.) is a piece of conservative feminist propaganda put out to shame everyone into following a strictly defined sexuality as laid down by others rather than exploring and defining their own sexual needs, wants and preferences. 

It goes on to equate pornography to a host of real problems:

"Sadly, going online can also expose young people to risks, from the increasing prevalence of online pornography to cyberbullying, grooming and exploitation"

Let me make this clear: shaming someone over their use of pornography is the sort of tactic one finds in the Latter-day Saints or in the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not healthy. There you are as young gay person wondering how it all works and getting bugger all of use at school (because school is about safe sex and relationships and not about what turns you on, for good reason too) and you are now unable to even view porn because of internet filters (supported by Stonewall except for their website, strangely) and because you're told it is something truly awful that might be equivalent to sexual grooming!

When I was a teenager I thought "bumming" involved two men rubbing their bums together, and didn't really find that at all appealing. Turns out porn was pretty good at showing what it really was. Thanks porn. I'm pretty sure porn has served to be quite useful in giving some basic examples of what sex between men (and perhaps even between women though I'm sure those representations are a little less educational given their context) is like.

And in supporting filters that block relatively safe (as compared to the cruising and cottaging there was in "my day", I'm getting old) ways to meet other gay folk for chats and perhaps more Stonewall is almost forcing kids to go out, just as I did (though I had nothing untoward occur to me that I hadn't explicitly decided I wanted), to bars, clubs and cruising areas to meet others. The idea gay kids are going to be lucky enough to just wander into another gay kid and hit it off and explore their sexuality in some sort of sanitised "safe" environment is just not one that is going to get off the ground in most cases. Do Stonewall have some Americanised image of gay kids meeting at school, holding hands on dates and waiting until they get married to have sex? Probably not given their reluctance to support marriage but I think the rest probably does hold true.

And what about this for basically shaming gay kids and implying their are sluts?

Grindr is a gay dating app for over 18s and matches users up by location. Although designed for dating, the app also attracts gay men looking to meet other people for casual sex. Many underage gay young people sign up with fake details, sometimes leading to inappropriate conversations, unsafe sex and exploitative relationships. 

"There is a 14 year old lad who has managed to download Grindr (a ‘social media’ app – let’s be more honest – it’s an app for men who have sex with men to meet and hook up for sex). Well this 14 year old has been nipping out of his bedroom window, sideling over to the local park at midnight and made himself available to all and sundry after agreeing to meet them on Grindr. Clearly he has put himself at a huge risk of HIV and all the other STIs and of course statutory rape. MSM (Men who have sex with men) Communities worker (South East)"

Inappropriate conversations? Oh HEAVENS! Making himself available to all and sundry? THE SHAME! When I was 14 I was putting personal ads up on gay sex newsgroups (I told you I'm old) and having an awesomely fun time. But obviously I was a victim of the evil internet and must feel deeply shamed about how risky I was being. 

What is this? The 1950s? Was he "clearly" putting himself at risk of STIs or was he being safe? Did he need more safe sex education or are we now operating an abstinence only policy for gay kids? And "statutory rape" was not a risk, it was something that was happening. Because that is how the law works. 

And then it goes into discussing the evils of sexting and how any cases an adult finds of a young gay person sending a picture of themselves to someone else (regardless of whether it was, for example, their long term boyfriend) should be reported to the police! Because criminalising young people for expressing themselves sexually is certainly the appropriate response in all instances. 

So what do we learn from Stonewall? Naked pictures are evil. The internet is bad unless you are on the Stonewall website. And sex is something only for grown-ups and kids should bloody stop having fun and get back to being abused in the playground where it is far safer. 

Ok. There is some over the top rhetoric here. But read the report yourself and try not to come away with the feeling that Stonewall is writing moralising nonsense about the evils of sex. If you manage it, well done!

Come Quick Christian Warriors, Lest You Be Considered Hypocrites! #section28lives

The anger and fear over teachers being forced to promote homosexuality (or at least not speak their conscience) that was expressed during the same-sex marriage debates couldn't be anything other than genuine could they?

I mean if we had a case where a school (or schools) was enforcing a policy which kept a teacher from speaking their conscience, those same people would be up in arms right? The Christian Institute and Anglican Mainstream would be churning out article after article about it surely? 

When a teacher was investigated for refusing to say all opponents of marriage equality were homophobes, they were all over it. So when all teachers at Catholic schools are at risk of the sack for speaking their conscience and teachers at 45 other schools have the limits of their conscience defined in school policy, it'd be all over their sites right? 

Nah. One article (making no comment) on Anglican Mainstream and nothing on the Christian Institute. Hmm... 

Anyone seeing one of the MPs, Lords or anti-equality activists who has spent the last 6 months fighting for freedom of conscience for teachers mentioning the latest "Section 28"-lite story please let me know... I won't hold my breath though. 

Whilst Our Opponents Moaned About Hypotheticals, Their Kin Were Banning Free Speech In Schools

Remember during the same-sex marriage debates how often the plight of teachers being stopped from saying what they believed was brought up? Oh it was going to be awful, teachers would be sacked, lives would be ruined. 

Meanwhile... three schools have been found to be operating policies that use similar language to the much loathed Section 28. I've said it over and over... whilst those who want to oppress others campaign for their own freedom from imaginary enemies, LGBT friendly teachers have been put under threat of the sack in Catholic schools and we have schools introducing bans on "promoting homosexuality" (how one promotes homosexuality I don't know, saying "Being gay is okay" to a child counts as promotion?). 

Christians (be it on the Church of England's freedom to discriminate or their own freedom of speech), and their allies like Ben Bradshaw, spend forever making every debate about them whilst LGBT people get their rights compromised again.

Catholic Church Admits You Can Sack Teachers For The Beliefs They Hold

Opponents of LGBT liberty love to try to scare off the general population from allowing greater freedom due to the fear that it might lead to teachers being sacked. Given teachers aren't usually flavour of the month (just look at all the moaning from media talking heads over teachers getting the day off during school closures due to the snow) it seems an unusual strategy but they use it anyway. It is a position Catholic spokespeople advance quite often.

I've pointed out the hypocrisy of this stance before. But now the Catholic Church has only gone and given us even more evidence of their hypocrisy. So you mustn't sack someone if they disagree with marriage equality but Catholic run schools can sack people for doing all sorts of things they don't like (and that isn't just for doing them in the classroom). The National Secular Society reports on this and quotes The Tablet as saying:

"Under the heading of "substantive life choices", Mgr Stock includes marriage in a non-Catholic church or register office without canonical dispensation, remarriage after divorce and "maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship".  

This also applies to all staff in a Catholic school." Other "substantive life choices" he rules unacceptable include "maintaining the publication or distribution of, or by any other means of social communication or technology, material content which is contrary to gospel values".

"Contrary to gospel values" as defined by the Catholic church I suspect. Freedom of belief for Catholics only appears to be the official policy of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Whether I Get To Marry Appears To Be Dependent On Employment Contracts, Oh The Romance!

Facebook has a lot to answer for. But so does the Trafford Housing Trust. An idiot posted on his Facebook aghast that the Government would dare force equal marriage upon churches (the plans aren't even about religious organisations!). An even bigger idiot decided that this person deciding to express his personal opinion on his personal social media page in his personal time constituted a reason to demote the original idiot.

I used to work at a housing trust. I know they can be dumb. They once told off the LGBT group (of which I was a member) for the use of the word "queer". So it is good to see sanity prevailing and the idiot won his case against THT.

THT should be ashamed of themselves. Their policies are an insult to free speech and have succeeded in bringing the marriage equality movement into disrepute through association with such an abuse of power. But the case does now strengthen freedom of speech and belief. It flies in the face of the accusations from the anti-equality crowd that courts will send them all to a gulag for daring to speak their mind.

Speaking of which.... the Coalition against for Marriage has declared their fear that teachers may well be sacked for refusing to "promote" equal marriage. This amuses me for several reasons.

1) their position implies a school shouldn't sack (or at least discipline) a member of staff who refuses to do their job.
2) it flies in the face of the previous policy of anti-equality activists that was disgusted that the previous Government would force them not to sack LGBT people (and force them to consider hiring that person if they were the best candidate for the job).
3) it is not like they haven't previously tried to sack LGBT teachers in this country or actually sacked them in other countries

Personally I think it would be a rather authoritarian and unnecessary step for a school to sack someone for this reason. I think it is healthy that kids get different view points. But I also think schools have a right to sack teachers and staff that don't toe the line on what they teach children. I'm not saying a Catholic school should be allowed to sack a gay teacher, nor that a secular school should be able to sack a Catholic teacher. But if that teacher doesn't follow the lesson plans and school curriculum then they aren't doing their job and should be disciplined in the appropriate way.

If a teacher "promoted" equal marriage in a private Catholic school should that school be allowed to sack them? That is the question one should ask anyone who spreads this sort of fear. I'd be interested to hear their answers.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Teachers Face Sack For Personal Morality (By Religious Schools)

Spreading fear is something religious organisations are good at. Right now they are scaremongering over the consequences of marriage equality and their leading with the possibility of teachers being sacked for expressing anti-marriage equality views.

So I wondered about how people expressing their personal beliefs are treated at religious schools, obviously I expect they are given the space to hold views contrary to the organisation that runs the school?

A Seventh Day Adventist Church school in Melbourne, Australia sacked a teacher because he expressed support for marriage equality on Facebook.

A Catholic school in St. Louis, Missouri, USA sacked a gay teacher for... getting married.

A Catholic school in Minnesota, USA sacked a teacher who dared to say she disagreed with the church on marriage equality.

These cases are all outside of the UK, I couldn't find recent cases involving teachers on either side of the debate here in the UK (feel free to point them out). But I'd be interested to know where our religious friends stand on this matter. Do they support sacking teachers for their personal morality or not? And are they saying that a school has no right to tell a teacher what they can and can't tell the children?

Ultimately I suspect you'll find hypocrisy somewhere in their arguments....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Catholic Hypocrisy Over LGBT Issues, Education and Marriage Equality

Peter Kearney, a director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, only recently suggested that marriage equality would lead to teachers being sacked for expressing moral views. It's not a frivolous suggestion given past experience and I have the tiniest little bit of sympathy for him on this (although my views on freedom and employment are best summed up in this excellent article from the Law Society Gazette).

However I was slightly amused to see this news story break within days of his comments. A pro-marriage equality (or at least an anti-anti-marriage equality) teacher at a Catholic college has been suspended for taking issue with his Principal's stance on the matter. So do Catholic's only value free speech and moral values when they are their own? Would it be right for Catholic teachers at secular schools to have the promotion of their own personal moral values protected but not at a Catholic school? I'd love to know where Peter Kearney stands on this story!!

The same issue holds true for this story about a new Catholic school in Cornwall. The educational ethos there goes something like this:

"The whole population is taught that homosexuality is fine and children should accept they can have two mums or dads but they should not be taught that nonsense. It is not right"

Yeah that is nonsense but, of course, teaching Jesus was born of a Virgin makes perfect sense.

Again we must ask: will it be okay for a teacher there to teach about marriage equality or some similar issue in a positive manner and express a personal opinion in favour of it? Or would that be something they'd need to be spoken to about? The article suggests they have a rather strict policy on exactly what moral values can be taught but this opens up the question of why it's okay for them to restrict free speech and not secular Government run schools.

It all stinks of rank hypocrisy. Either schools should set the guidelines or it should be a free for all. None of this having your cake and eating it too!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Rights Of Parents In The Education System

To be honest I feel everything comes down to money, and who is paying it. Even the ever present controversy over teaching about homosexuality in state schools. Personally I find the views of parents opposed to such teaching baffling.

Homosexuality is real. Almost everyone will have dealt with the issue on a personal basis (be it explore it, have a gay friend, meet a gay person or simply see depictions of it on the television) by early adulthood. It is a real thing and something children should thus be taught about. Just as one introduces children to the basics of mathematics, science, language and history from an early age, we should also introduce children to the diversity of relationships and lifestyles they will encounter in the course of their lives.

The idea of with holding information from children is, to be frank, idiotic. There's no point having publicly funded schools if we aren't going to teach them everything possible. Of course I'm not suggesting they learn about the mechanics of sex at the age of 5, but then again I'm not suggesting one teaches them the full horror of the Second World War at that age either. But it's good to lay a groundwork so that when they are taught about sex it is within the framework of a complex world of relationships just as when the Holocaust is taught it is helpful to have an understanding of the basics of the Second World War.

People don't complain about Horrible Histories like The Rotten Romans or the Vicious Vikings (in all their gory, dirty detail) so why complain about "And Tango Makes Three"? Schools are paid for collectively and thus must serve us all collectively. If parents wish to have the right to stop certain subjects, which our elected Government sees fit to allow, then I suggest they stop their anti gay campaigning and start campaigning for an end to publicly funded schools and the National Curriculum. I don't agree the country would benefit from such a move, but it would be the only logical way of then allowing parents to send children to schools which brainwash them in a way more to their liking.

Now in reply to this article...

THE CASE AGAINST GAY LITERATURE IN SCHOOLS
by Andrew Hibbard - The Parent Organisation Ltd
The value of marriage has been eroded in the past decade and the emphasis switched to same-sex relationships and single parenthood.

Erm... you're point being?

Schools now teach children as young as five that both are acceptable, although neither is condoned by any religion.

Oh you're a God botherer, makes sense. You do understand that being condoned by a religion isn't all it's cracked up to be? Public execution, slavery and genocide are all condoned in the Bible. Hardly a ringing endorsement of religious endorsement!

Schools call it 'relationship' education. It is the start of sex education.

Whereas teaching them marriage isn't? I thought marriage was all about sex (joke)! Used to be you could get your marriage annulled if you hadn't done the nasty. And homosexual relationships are not just all about sex. A bit like marriage, it's complicated!

Why teach them?
Infant school children are not naturally racist or homophobic.

No it takes religious/bigoted parents and teachers to make them so.

If they make comments, they rarely understand them. Why teach them?

And there I was thinking schools were all about educating people who don't understand things... that's why we teach them!!

Homosexual subject matter may be suitable for older primary school children but by age 10 most would see a story of two male penguins hatching an egg as nothing but childish fiction.

Yes totally fictional, except in the real world... and are you saying that because a story is completely fictional it has no moral value, nor ability to educate? If so then I think an entire educational tradition of fables and parables just went out the window. Jesus taught in fucking parables!

Last year my 10-year-old announced he had been shown in class how to put on a condom.

Why did he need to know? It is irrelevant and inappropriate.

Well last I checked one day he will be a man and may just need a condom. It's a life skill.

It is not appropriate to teach infants about homosexuality any more than it is appropriate to show 15-year-olds graphic images of genitalia and oral sex – images stronger than they can see legally outside the classroom.
There is huge inconsistency in sex education - some schools go much too far while others barely touch it.

Imagine! Showing 15 year olds pictures of genitalia when they are meant to be learning what to do with... genitalia... next they will be showing cross sections of rivers when talking about sediment in geography or, heaven forbid, reading books in English Literature.

Consistency is important, but why has government not sought the views of parents?
Why do some organisations want five-year-olds taught about sex?
It can come as little surprise that having been shown, in detail, how to do sex, and given access to free contraception, morning after pills and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent, that teenagers get pregnant.

I hardly think the books mentioned teach 5 year olds about sex. Again Mr Hibbard is allowing his sick ideas of what homosexuality is to rule his brain. Because that is what they are, Mr Hibbard is sexually obsessed with homosexuality as are most homophobes. It's disgusting that he then infers the same obsession onto innocent children.

Plus free contraception and morning after pills are causing teenagers to get pregnant????? This is as bad as the stuff stupid "MMR" jabs cause autism crazies say. It makes no logical sense!