Reaming, ‘riting, ‘rithmetic

Via a reader, this article:

The headteacher of Heavers Farm Primary School in South London suspended two 10-year-old Christian students after one of them asked for permission not to participate in an LGBT lesson during “Gay Pride Month.”

In the Middle East “respecting” Islam means participating fully in Ramadan or risking punishment. In British schools, “tolerance” for homosexuality means actively celebrating it.

The headteacher, Susan Papas, who obliged schoolchildren to participate in a “Gay Pride” parade last year, told the two children, who are both of African descent, they are “a disappointment to the school,” Christian Concern reported Monday.

Oh, they’re black. I’ve suddenly detected racism in Ms. Papa’s remarks.

On June 20, pupil Farrell Spence asked his teacher Alex Smith for permission not to take part in a lesson when Mr. Smith handed out LGBT material for coloring. The teacher denied the permission, insisting that the LGBT lesson was part of the curriculum.

This has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with indoctrination of the sort Section 28 was designed to prevent.

After class, Mr. Smith allegedly accused Farrell of using “homophobic language” and saying, “LGBT sucks and LGBT’s dumb,” which the child categorically denies.

Which is what children say about anything they don’t like.

The teacher asked Farrell where he was from and the boy responded that he was of “African Jamaican” heritage, and there “everybody is Christian and Catholic, so they don’t accept LGBT.”

If he’s capable of expressing himself like that perhaps he’s a little past colouring exercises? It would equally explain the reluctance of a 10-year old to take part as any in-built homophobia.

Later, head teacher Papas reportedly called in the two children and shouted at them: “How dare you? You are a disappointment to the school.”

Ms. Papas, whose daughter Attie is a lesbian and the School Manager, next put the children in separate rooms and scolded Kaysey: “How dare you say that you want to kill LGBT people?”

In other words, you have an LGBT political activist masquerading as a teacher and abusing their position to indoctrinate children.

Heavers Farmer Primary School educates 750 pupils in a multicultural and multi-religious borough of South London. Along with the School Manager, the Assistant Headteacher Robert Askey is also openly gay.


The mothers of the two children complained to the Principal Officer, citing school regulations that state it is unlawful to suspend a student for “a non-disciplinary reason.”

The parents insist their children did not make homophobic comments and have accused the headteacher of failing “to eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief.” They also cited the European Convention of Human Rights, saying it requires that schools respect the manner in which parents seek to raise their children in accordance with their Christian faith.

And we’re back to where we were with the Muslim parents in Birmingham a couple of months back. Now normally it would be easy to dismiss these Christian parents as bigots, but with they’re being African it’s not so easy. Who wins this hand of victimhood poker?.

This is not the first run-in the school and its headteacher has faced over LGBT activism.

In June 2018, the school organized a “Gay Pride” parade in its playground, posting rainbow flags around the school, and telling students to wear bright colors for the event.

Ms. Papas also invited parents to watch the “Proud to be Me!” parade and join in celebrating “the rainbow of things that make them and their family special.”

At that time, 14 Christian parents complained that Papas was “forcing a very aggressive LGBT agenda on to young children in a manner which abuses parental rights and victimises parents.”

Well yes, it’s run by political activists. Welcome to compulsory state education.

In response, Papas declared she was standing against homophobia: “We stand by our decision to celebrate national Pride Month by teaching British values.”

The subject matter may be different, but these values sound more Soviet than British.

Izoduwa Montague, the mother of one of the students and a Christian, refused to allow her four-year-old son to take part in the parade and complained to the Education Secretary that the school had embarked on “systematic proselytism of its young and vulnerable pupils.”

Which is exactly what opponents of teaching children this stuff in schools predicted would happen.

Montague says she felt “bullied” after she complained that her child was “forced to take part in an event that goes against our Christian beliefs,” and later transferred her child to a Catholic school.

Where I expect they received a better education.


29 thoughts on “Reaming, ‘riting, ‘rithmetic

  1. “a Catholic school. Where I expect they received a better education.”

    Albeit at slightly increased risk of sexual interference.

  2. Where I live there’s an incredible amount of state Catholic high schools. What’s more, they’re expanding, and taking over other schools. This is despite there being little evidence that where I live is very Catholic.

    The reason seems to be that they’re better than the usual secular state school, so parents actively want their kids to go there to get a better — or less bad — education.

  3. The ten year old pupil has a more sound notion of British values than the teachers and administrators in this nest of deviant activists.

  4. “Assistant Headteacher Robert Askey is also openly gay.”

    A primary teacher friend once told me of a job applicant who lied about being able to play the piano. I wouldn’t be surprised if some “gay teachers” are really straight and are ramping up their marketability. A simple practical test during the interview process should flush them out.

  5. So the parents are bigots, are bringing their sproglets up to be bigots, and believe their bigoted values should get some special rspct because some guy 2000 years ago also hates fags*.

    And the school is taking every opportunity to fill up as much bandwidth as possible with something that should be a trivial footnote to the “don’t be horrible to people” lesson**. And for some reason thinks it makes more sense to teach the bees and the bees (and the birds and the birds of course) before the birds and the bees.

    And the usual tolerance/=enforced public celebration blaa blaa blaa.

    Can I just observe that they deserve each other completely?

    *: He didn’t, by the way, have anything at all to say on the topic.

    **: ECHR doesn’t override that principle and neither does your sky fairy telling you, in your version of the belief system, to be horrible to people.

  6. Can I just observe that they deserve each other completely?

    Maybe. But we don’t know if these children would have passed any remarks on LGBT issues, much less voiced prejudice, if they’d not been set this exercise. The idea that every Christian reluctant to take part in Pride is a bigot is wrong, IMO. Tolerance is about just letting people be, even if you disagree with them.

  7. “The headteacher, Susan Papas, who obliged schoolchildren to participate in a “Gay Pride” parade last year”. Oh come on now, she didn’t oblige them she obligated them. I imagine someone will have their bottom caned, for that mistake

  8. If you don’t eat your meat participate in Pride Month, you can’t have any pudding!

    Hey teacher! Leave them kids alone!

  9. Izoduwa Montague, the mother of one of the students and a Christian, refused to allow her four-year-old son to take part in the parade and complained to the Education Secretary


    Ms. Papas, whose daughter Attie is a lesbian and the School Manager

    Family business.

  10. ” But we don’t know if these children would have passed any remarks on LGBT issues, much less voiced prejudice, if they’d not been set this exercise.”

    They wouldn’t have passed any remarks at all on LGBT issues if they hadn’t learned somewhere which remarks they should pass.

    C’mon we used to get this shit at school for having the wrong skin colour, and usually rather more serious than chummy ribbing of sheep shaggers for being sheep shaggers at bugry practice. That attitude problem didn’t, and the current one doesn’t, spring naturally from within, it comes from parents, or from the parents of kids who then pass it on to other kids.

    I totally understand why parents don’t want their kids in explicit lessons on doing it same-sex, but I’d ask them the same question I’d ask yer imam from the comment a few weeks ago. If the kids are of an age at which it’s unsuitable to talk about why same-sex relationships are OK (omitting the discussion of tabs and slots), how can it be suitable to talk about why they are not OK?

    I’d even accept for the sake of argument that the school is propagandizing excessively here (fine line, that), but even Christians and Muslims who want to live in a pluralist society need to accept that same-sex relationships are legal and you can’t be shit to people because of it any more, that’s da roolz, and they apply to everyone.

  11. They wouldn’t have passed any remarks at all on LGBT issues if they hadn’t learned somewhere which remarks they should pass.

    So what? I don’t care what attitudes parents instill in their children provided they don’t then start sharing those attitudes with people they meet. Or put it another way, I don’t care if parents are telling their children gays are evil provided they are also telling their children to remain polite at all times and not to go around telling gays they are evil.

    I know lots of people who are deeply prejudiced but largely keep it to themselves, and certainly don’t say stuff which would be impolite and breach the peace. This is how people have always rubbed along, but now activists want to force people to participate in stuff and they’re getting pushback.

  12. Put it this way, in all my time in Nigeria I never heard a single homophobic remark from my Nigerian colleagues. Does that mean they weren’t homophobic? No, it meant they were polite. But if you started ordering them to take part in a Pride march, you’d likely be lynched.

  13. If you need to go on a pride march to demonstrate your tolerance of homosexuals, do you not also need to observe Ramadan to demonstrate your tolerance of Islam?
    I say the school is islamophobe!
    Understandably perhaps, give how much tolerance the head and.her daughter can expect from Islam.
    And really, pre-puberty, kids have no way of understanding what they are being told.

  14. This is about propagandising.
    I think children before puberty, basically before yr 7, should be being taught literacy and numeracy first. That’s hard enough. What was dropped from the curriculum to make room for this exercise?

  15. It’s like this; I am a Christian. Scripture seems to indicate that same sex relations are not considered to be moral. Both new and Old Testament. I am therefore deeply uncomfortable in being forced to celebrate something I consider wrong. I don’t want anyone to be forced to celebrate my world view or faith – why do others want me to bow down before theirs?

    And Jesus spoke exclusively of life long heterosexual monogamy in marriage being the only moral expression of sexual intimacy (mark 10:7 referencing genesis). He didn’t then say but hey if you’re a dude that likes other dudes that’s cool too.

    I think what concerns us religious parents is that none of the presentation of same sex relations is factual; there is a dimension where 1) they are presented as laudable and brave and 2) anyone who is not on board 100% with every aspect of SS relationships is an evil bigot.

  16. I doubt very much if children require any input from their parents to find homosexual activity unpleasant. After all, viewing two men going at it causes the same sort of brain activity as viewing maggots (or other disgusting visual stimuli).
    Aversion to homosexuality is probably just as natural as in-group preference (aka racism). Hence why both require cradle-to-grave suppression, which is what this news story is all about.

    I’m not advocating the mistreatment of gays (some of my best friends are sodomites), but this indoctrination is appalling.

  17. Paul,

    Scripture is quite clear that the penalty for homosexual acts is identical to the penalty for working on the Sabbath.

    For consistency surely Christians should apply the same standard approach today to Sabbath working (whatever it is, and it isn’t stoning to death any longer), as to homosexuality.

  18. No offence BiG but why are you trying to teach me my own religion?

    The sabbath while important, is no longer considered as important in the new covenant –

    “Colossians 2:16
    Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.”

    But in nearly everyone of Paul’s letters “sexual immorality” is mentioned as something that will disinherit you as one of Gods people under the new covenant.

    And even Jesus includes sexual immorality as one of the things that defiles us
    Matthew 15:19
    For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

    In two places in the New Testament Paul includes homosexuality as one example of sexual immorality. Jewish culture included sabbath keeping and sexual purity as important distinctions for them as a covenant people. Moving into the new covenant only the latter maintains the same importance – probably because in the gentile Roman Empire sexual relations included temple prostitution, pederastry, frequent divorce and homosexual relations…

  19. Equally, and more importantly, there are no verses supportive of any form of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.

    You don’t have to believe any of this, but for most practicing, observant Christians, scripture is held as a high, if not the highest, authority for conduct and behaviour in our lives.

    We abide by the moral strictures, but we are no longer under the Law of the old covenant – read Paul’s letter to the Romans and letter to the Galatians. Meaning that ha ha we Are allowed to wear mixed fibres or eat shellfish….

  20. “On June 20, pupil Farrell Spence…”

    Aren’t kids’ names normally kept private in newspaper reports? Or does that only apply if they’re suspected of / charged with a crime?

  21. Names are only withheld if they are special classes. If they are not, are guilty of wrongthink or wrong speak, they will be named and shamed.
    Similarly with Tommy Robinson (whom I despise, but there we are), I listened with disbelief to the BBC referring to him as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, intending to lower him in people’s eyes by using his former double barrelled name. They wouldn’t refer to Elton John as Reginald Dwight, or Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce Jenner, or Cliff Richard as Harry Webb, so why this editorial decision? I imagined them giggling over the script when they decided to use Tommy Robinson’s deadname.

  22. Paul,

    The battle to keep religious beliefs out of the lives of those who don’t believe is, while largely won, still ongoing. I still can’t do my shopping on a Sunday because the Churches don’t like it. That is a trivial example of how your religious beliefs impinge on my life. Those of us who know we only get one life (or, in the unlikely event you are right, get 100,000,000,000,000 years of fiery torture as the Amuse Bouche to an eternity of yet more fiery torture, as commanded by the merciful, just and righteous Prince of Peace) would like to be able to live that single life unrestricted by sky-fairy dogmas.

    You’d have thought that the eternity in paradise that awaits you would be enough for you to say, “fair enough, in this sinful vale of tears go ahead and sin all you like, an it harm none”. But no, that’s not enough, your coreligionists demand laws that screw up my weekend and social consequences for sharing my bed with consenting adults you disapprove of.

    It’s really not about Galatians or 1 Corinthians, or which Old Covenant laws you think still apply to what extent, it’s about getting your irrational beliefs out of the lives of those who don’t wish to submit to them.

  23. So because you can’t go shopping on a Sunday I should be forced to celebrate something that I believe is wrong? That my kids should be turned against their parents because the state knows better? I’m not following the logic.

    I explained the orthodox Christian position on sex because every wiseacre seems to think that all Christians should, because we refuse to view homosexuality as normative and laudable, then be following the whole levitical code with its rules on mixed fibres, shellfish, mould, contact with menstruating women etc.

    I don’t care what anyone else does on Sunday – as long as those who do want to have that as a sabbath day have some provision under law to have that as a day of rest fine. Let the Jews have saturdays and let Muslims have time on Friday for mosque and we can all rub along happily.

    The relentless push to force others to celebrate relationships that for most of human history were considered illicit is not liberal in the true sense of the word.
    I don’t want to recriminalise same sex relationships, I don’t want people to be forced back into the closet either. I’m happy enough with tolerance.

  24. Ah yes that elentless push to force others.

    Remind me again when Christians stopped burning heretics and “witches”.

  25. About 500 years ago wasn’t it? I became a Christian 14 years ago – I haven’t burned a witch or a heretic yet, or been invited to a witch burning.

    Your attitude actually makes me think that gay rights are a cosh that can be wielded by less tolerant secular atheists to attack belief systems they deem “irrational” and unworthy of “modern” society. Bit like NuLabour using immigration to rub the rights’ nose in diversity. How’s that working out for us all?

    “Gay the pray away” is the real goal isn’t it….

  26. “Remind me again when Christians stopped burning heretics and “witches”.”

    I think you will find it was the ‘State’ was burning those witches and heretics. While Christians have given up participating in those activities of the state, the secular state is still happily attacking ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’.

  27. The Law Of Merited Impossibility – “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”

  28. It’s an axiomatic problem. I believe the only time you have a right to stop me doing something is if it causes you or some other person objective harm. The place of politics is (should be) the nuances and questions that don’t have straightforward answers (what if the harmee consents, what about things that might cause future harm, how do we weigh up whether we should harm someone to prevent them doing greater harm to others, how much harm can we legitimately do to animals, plants, rocks, etc). That’s reciprocated, by the way, in that I have no right to stop you doing something etc etc, including worshiping whatever entity you wish to in the manner that you believe best pleases said entity. I really couldn’t care less about it, until the point at which it starts intersecting with my chosen lifestyle and worldview. At that point it is very much my business.

    That’s simply bog standard vanilla classical social liberalism, by the way. It also happens to be brilliantly summed up in the Wiccan Rede, just for larfs.

    The (thankfully mostly historical) enforcement of Christian practice on nonbelievers, up to and including the death penalty for noncompliance, violates that principle, as do current societal restrictions that arise from Christianity. Sure, have a rule that everyone gets a day off work once a week, but why restrict it to the Christian holy day? Let everyone pick their own.

    Conversely, it’s really hard to see then how gay people being gay affects your lifestyle. If you don’t want it for yourself you will note it isn’t compulsory. But you don’t get a choice to not associate with gay people when you have to – public servants such as teachers for example. You have no right to dictate that you won’t interact with a gay teacher. Whether you choose not to in your private time is your business. Whether you choose to get your cakes baked by a gay baker is your business.

    I guess if there was a 3-hour pride parade past your door every day you might have a valid complaint about the noise. And parades are specifically designed to get up other peoples’ snouts (cf Northern Ireland). Far better to let people play dress up and flaunt around in stupid garb once a year than have an actual fight, isn’t it?

  29. BiG – I agree.

    Re day off – it kinda makes sense to have one day in the week. If I lived in UAE or Israel it wouldn’t bother me if that day was not Sunday. I’d work around that.

    The story that started this post was a school that was mandating that pupils took part in Pride based activity. That’s what I object to. This should never be mandatory, companies shouldn’t ask employees to be “allies” (whatever that means) parents should be allowed to make decisions on how this topic is introduced to primary age kids. I don’t care what people celebrate or how – I do care that my conscience and right not to participate is respected.

    States & religion is a tricky situation to balance – the established church in the UK in the past has not treated dissenters well. That’s in the past. But it would be ironic then that once one set of orthodoxies pass into history another set arrive and dissent is once more penalised.

Comments are closed.