Tinpot fanatical war criminal regime and its supporters teaching homosexuality to primary school children
Guardian:
"A pilot scheme introducing books dealing with gay issues to children from the ages of four to 11 has just been launched in England's schools.
It is being argued that the books, one of which is a fairytale featuring a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love and marrying a man, are necessary to make homosexuality seem normal to children. Fourteen schools and one local authority, backed by teaching unions and a government-funded organisation, are running the controversial scheme, which has been attacked by Christian groups.
Twenty years ago the publication of Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin for use in schools led to an angry public debate. In response the government passed Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act 1988, that prevented local authorities and, by extension, schools from 'promoting homosexuality' or its acceptability as a 'pretended family relationship'. The amendment was repealed in 2003 and this is the first large-scale attempt to put similar books back into the curriculum. Other books on the list of recommended texts for the schools, which have not been named, include a story about a spacegirl with two mothers and a baby penguin with two fathers. If successful, the scheme will be extended nationwide.
'The most important thing these books do is reflect reality for young children,' said Elizabeth Atkinson, director of the No Outsiders project that is being run by Sunderland and Exeter universities and the Institute of Education (IoE) in London. 'My background is in children's literature and I know how powerful it is in shaping social values and emotional development. What books do not say is as important as what they do.' Atkinson argued that leaving images of gay relationships out of children's books was 'silencing a social message', and could end up with children being bullied later in their school lives if they were gay or were perceived as gay. Atkinson and co-director Renee DePalma have received nearly £600,000 in funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and backing from the National Union of Teachers and General Teaching Council."
This is a couple of days old, and I really didn't want to write a about a topic like this. It almost would be one of those distraction issues, but sadly it does need looking at because of its gravity and what it speaks to more widely.
One has to ask what is next ? Teaching kids that the Iraq war is good and dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi kids is normal? Teaching kids that destroying swathes of Lebanon is good and normal ? Teaching kids that having a chip implanted in them is a reflection of reality ? Teaching kids that having their DNA stockpiled is normal ?
Actually, I think this is just beyond abnormal. And look any gay readers may take umbridge at what I am saying. Well I would say on this issue they would be plain wrong for doing so if they did.
Now I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, I need to do more research on this quite frankly so currently I can only speak in broad terms about this. In the UK, there was a militant gay lobby that grew more powerful it seemed, groups like Stonewall and people like Peter Tatchell (and I guess to some credit, at least time I looked Tatchell was strongly anti-ID cards) and so on, although there were various divisions between some individuals and organisations.
But if you listen to people like Ted Pike, and I should add I don't agree with everything Ted says, but in the US it would seem that a militant gay political axis if you like, didn't really have teeth or direction or perhaps even intent, until groups like the Anti Defamation League starting taking an interest in this and weaving it, along with other disconnected causes into their own curriculum and that is when it started to become a hammer to attack the non-gay and often traditionally Christian everybody else and society in general.
Now I don't know if that is what has happened here and I'm not saying it is, I just don't know, I think part of it is probably the alliance that started welding itself together and solidifying in the 80s with the Labour party with various minority issues, but what was happening in general though, and I think there is something of a vague consensus emerging on this, is that gay issues in terms of policy in particular have been so heavily promoted (and the key is the heavy promotion) not because there is an interest in gay issues per se but because they reflect a means of demeaning and undermining the position and natural exepectations of the state for everyone else, and if the lid can be lifted off this, then the lid can be lifted off of everything else policy wise.
And I don't believe that any semblance of a serious argument could ever be made that the rights of gay people were being encroached by not having a state-recognised 'marriage' or by not adopting children.
And it's probably worth pointing out that people like Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, leaving aside her pro-War on Terror, pro-Israel is a victim nonsesne, has been a strong critic in particular of this idea of putting sexual orientation above religious and indeed other cultural values in terms of both policy and legislation.
So sadly, you have to wonder, what kind of reality does this Elizabeth Atkinson reside in, that she and her axis, think they have some divine right to make victims of children with this kind of horrendous, potty self-indulgent social engineering ? Why are these people having an influence on our education system ? Why are they getting £600,000 and being endorsed by the National Union of Teachers?
A great many people would say that they can't think of anything more debasing and more horrendous and more reckless , but I would also say I can't think of anything more divorced from reality than the gratuitous promotion of homosexuality to young children, and it speaks of something gone disastrously wrong in terms of thinking. This isn't 'capitalism' or something, this is politics, this is activism at work in the system that is full of burning hatred and personal amibition and it speaks to something gone so monstrously wrong that one wonders how something so wrong could have been left to fester for so long without any restraint.
Obviously there was a very strong case for Section 28 as it turns out.
education children Section 28 Elizabeth Atkinson No Outsiders
"A pilot scheme introducing books dealing with gay issues to children from the ages of four to 11 has just been launched in England's schools.
It is being argued that the books, one of which is a fairytale featuring a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love and marrying a man, are necessary to make homosexuality seem normal to children. Fourteen schools and one local authority, backed by teaching unions and a government-funded organisation, are running the controversial scheme, which has been attacked by Christian groups.
Twenty years ago the publication of Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin for use in schools led to an angry public debate. In response the government passed Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act 1988, that prevented local authorities and, by extension, schools from 'promoting homosexuality' or its acceptability as a 'pretended family relationship'. The amendment was repealed in 2003 and this is the first large-scale attempt to put similar books back into the curriculum. Other books on the list of recommended texts for the schools, which have not been named, include a story about a spacegirl with two mothers and a baby penguin with two fathers. If successful, the scheme will be extended nationwide.
'The most important thing these books do is reflect reality for young children,' said Elizabeth Atkinson, director of the No Outsiders project that is being run by Sunderland and Exeter universities and the Institute of Education (IoE) in London. 'My background is in children's literature and I know how powerful it is in shaping social values and emotional development. What books do not say is as important as what they do.' Atkinson argued that leaving images of gay relationships out of children's books was 'silencing a social message', and could end up with children being bullied later in their school lives if they were gay or were perceived as gay. Atkinson and co-director Renee DePalma have received nearly £600,000 in funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and backing from the National Union of Teachers and General Teaching Council."
This is a couple of days old, and I really didn't want to write a about a topic like this. It almost would be one of those distraction issues, but sadly it does need looking at because of its gravity and what it speaks to more widely.
One has to ask what is next ? Teaching kids that the Iraq war is good and dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi kids is normal? Teaching kids that destroying swathes of Lebanon is good and normal ? Teaching kids that having a chip implanted in them is a reflection of reality ? Teaching kids that having their DNA stockpiled is normal ?
Actually, I think this is just beyond abnormal. And look any gay readers may take umbridge at what I am saying. Well I would say on this issue they would be plain wrong for doing so if they did.
Now I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, I need to do more research on this quite frankly so currently I can only speak in broad terms about this. In the UK, there was a militant gay lobby that grew more powerful it seemed, groups like Stonewall and people like Peter Tatchell (and I guess to some credit, at least time I looked Tatchell was strongly anti-ID cards) and so on, although there were various divisions between some individuals and organisations.
But if you listen to people like Ted Pike, and I should add I don't agree with everything Ted says, but in the US it would seem that a militant gay political axis if you like, didn't really have teeth or direction or perhaps even intent, until groups like the Anti Defamation League starting taking an interest in this and weaving it, along with other disconnected causes into their own curriculum and that is when it started to become a hammer to attack the non-gay and often traditionally Christian everybody else and society in general.
Now I don't know if that is what has happened here and I'm not saying it is, I just don't know, I think part of it is probably the alliance that started welding itself together and solidifying in the 80s with the Labour party with various minority issues, but what was happening in general though, and I think there is something of a vague consensus emerging on this, is that gay issues in terms of policy in particular have been so heavily promoted (and the key is the heavy promotion) not because there is an interest in gay issues per se but because they reflect a means of demeaning and undermining the position and natural exepectations of the state for everyone else, and if the lid can be lifted off this, then the lid can be lifted off of everything else policy wise.
And I don't believe that any semblance of a serious argument could ever be made that the rights of gay people were being encroached by not having a state-recognised 'marriage' or by not adopting children.
And it's probably worth pointing out that people like Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, leaving aside her pro-War on Terror, pro-Israel is a victim nonsesne, has been a strong critic in particular of this idea of putting sexual orientation above religious and indeed other cultural values in terms of both policy and legislation.
So sadly, you have to wonder, what kind of reality does this Elizabeth Atkinson reside in, that she and her axis, think they have some divine right to make victims of children with this kind of horrendous, potty self-indulgent social engineering ? Why are these people having an influence on our education system ? Why are they getting £600,000 and being endorsed by the National Union of Teachers?
A great many people would say that they can't think of anything more debasing and more horrendous and more reckless , but I would also say I can't think of anything more divorced from reality than the gratuitous promotion of homosexuality to young children, and it speaks of something gone disastrously wrong in terms of thinking. This isn't 'capitalism' or something, this is politics, this is activism at work in the system that is full of burning hatred and personal amibition and it speaks to something gone so monstrously wrong that one wonders how something so wrong could have been left to fester for so long without any restraint.
Obviously there was a very strong case for Section 28 as it turns out.
education children Section 28 Elizabeth Atkinson No Outsiders
Labels: children, education, Elizabeth Atkinson, gay issues, gay lobby, New Labour, No Outsiders, regime, Section 28
posted by J.UL1R4 at 9:48 PM
2 Comments:
if the lid can be lifted off this, then the lid can be lifted off of everything else policy wise.
And I don't believe that any semblance of a serious argument could ever be made that the rights of gay people were being encroached by not having a state-recognised 'marriage' or by not adopting children
I think this is totally correct.
If you want to protect people from exclusion, you teach that all people have absolute rights and that all. When they leave the classrooms, they understand that everyone has the right to live how they please, and that you do not have the right to persecute someone because they are gay, a muslim or anything else for that matter. You mind your business, and everyone else minds theirs and we all live side by side in peace. This message alone will solve every problem that they are trying to get at.
In this way, you give a proper foundation against bigotry, without teaching things that are 'objectionable', like saying that all religions are equal (which is offensive to the religious) or by teaching statistically insignificant lifestyles that set people's hair on end. No one minds how people choose to live, what they do mind however, is that their children are being forced to learn this without the consent of the parents. That is wrong, and there are no two ways about it.
it speaks of something gone disastrously wrong in terms of thinking.
Once again, spot on.
These people, the ones who are explicitly using schools to engineer society, are amongst the most evil in society. They take their own personal beliefs and then ram them into the throats of children and short circuit the wishes of parents.
The meta principle, of which they have no concept, is what they should be not only aware of, but what they should be teaching in a separate 'civics' class, that deals with your rights as a human being inside a free country. In the USA, children used to be taught about the constitution and the bill of rights in 'Social Studies' classes. These lessons prepared every student for the day when they are stopped by a cop in the street so that they knew that they could not be frisked without a warrant. This is what needs to be taught in schools, not narrow, agenda driven nonsense of the kind that is being reintroduced.
Obviously there was a very strong case for Section 28 as it turns out.
OMW 'Maggie Thatcher was right'. Sad isn't it? What a world. for sure, despite all of her problems, Britain would be better off with the likes of Thatcher than it is under the boot of Bliar. And that's saying something.
Now that they have been let loose, these insane people will be teaching school children every nasty thing known to man, and all of the other fascist stuff like fingerprinting, ID cards and the other long term garbage that is being prepared and there will be nothing anyone can do to stop it, save the re-introduction of that legislation.
This is yet another reason why people are leaving the state school system in droves. School should be a neutral place with a very narrow number of things that are taught, none of which should involve anything like what this article is talking about and the parents should always be informed of the curriculum and anything that is happening in the school. Period.
Thanks Irdial, and you make some very good points about the kind of rights that really are important.
Afterwards I thought I should have toned down this article a bit.
It may be a little slapdash in places, but actually I don't regret the general thrust of it which I think is correct, and that I find a lot of people believe is correct as well.
I mean I agree with people like Peter Hitchens on this kind of area, (did you see him on Question Time tonight he was on good form) that basic politeness and decency is one thing, but this is completely different from 'political correctness'.
And yes I totally agree that the state school system, and I can say this from people I know, families I know has monstrously failed many kids.
Thanks for the comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home