Andrew Moffat and Parkfield School: Weaponizing LGBT against the Muslim Minority

Moffat_PREVENT.png

The weaponization of LGBT concerns is not new in the West.  In 1994 the US military reportedly sought to develop a “gay bomb” that would be spread by the Air force behind enemy lines. The aim was ultimately to increase distraction and reduce military efficacy.  In the runup to the 2003 Iraq invasion, the CIA floated the idea of shooting a fake video of Saddam cavorting with a teenage boy. The aim? Destabilisation of his regime. More recently, Israel has been using LGBT promotion as propaganda to deflect focus from the suffering of Palestinians.

This mode of abusing a contentious issue to cause disruption in pursuit of an agenda seems to be surfacing in a recent set of events in the Saltley area of Birmingham.

Once again, the area has become ground-zero for Muslims becoming the subject of national debate.  Per the norm with such “debates”, the negative framing sees Muslims couched as the regressive aggressor battling enlightenment, equality and the “victim”; in this case a white gay headteacher who is, he professes, merely teaching what is law.

Background

Andrew Moffat is the 46-year-old assistant headteacher of Parkfield Community School, which has a high population of Muslims.

In 2014, he developed his own syllabus – Challenging Homophobia in Schools (CHIPS) – which focussed on promoting homosexual relationships and tackling homophobia.

As early as 2015, opposition to CHIPS was used to demonise the Muslim community by bolstering the then renewed, Islamophobic Trojan Horse claims made by the head of Birmingham school, Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson.   These claims, as I repeatedly exposed during that period, were found to be baseless if not a complete fabrication.

Returning to Moffat, he resigned from his previous school after exposing children to CHIPS without knowledge or consent of parents.  Moffat changed his tack and used indirect means to promote his views through the discourse of British values and the Equality Act, giving emergence to a set of teaching resources and approaches called “No Outsiders”. According to Schools Week, Moffat saw Muslims as a challenge to be overcome for the distribution of his syllabus and his civilising mission.

What followed seems like efforts to subject mainly Muslim children to social engineering experiments.

With a personally-written piece in the Independent, and glowing puff pieces in the slightly left-of-the-right Guardian praising Moffat’s civilising mission, the No Outsiders project up until recently was touted as a success story. In 2017, he was awarded an MBE for services to equality and diversity in education, and a year later short-listed for the annual Varkey Foundation Global Teacher Prize.

This perception of success and successful placating of Muslim parents was shattered when a group of Muslim mothers earlier this year protested and petitioned against the No Outsiders programme. One of the mothers was reported to have removed her child from the school. Another asserted that her four-year-old child came home asking her whether it was acceptable for her to be a boy. Their concern was that the programme was “putting ideas into their heads”.

The school played down the level of dissent claiming that it was a “small group of parents”. Hundreds have been engaged in community events and protested outside the school to oppose Moffat’s project.

Alum Rock councillor Mohammed Idrees supported the mothers before rapidly being forced into an apology after being reported to the Birmingham City Council’s Standard Committee by gay councillor Gareth Moore.

“Threatened”

With mainstream media coverage, Moffat told the press, that his sexuality triggered the opposition and that he should be “able to teach safely”. In a Trojan Horse-esque spin, he told BirminghamLive that he “felt threatened” due to the protestors.

The victimised narrative is interesting. The parents have virtually no institutional or mainstream media support.  Moffat however, not only has the media framing his views in a positive light with some light-touch interviews but is supported by various central and local government individuals and organs.

During an interview with ITV’s Good Morning, Adil Ray, the presenter, declared parents opposing the No Outsiders project homophobic.

Speaking to the BBC, Moffat said,

“what keeps me going is the support from the school which is absolutely brilliant, the DfE, Ofsted, the city council.”

Earlier this month, Cllr John Cotton, outlined his support for the “No Outsiders” project, with his statement being published on the Birmingham City Council (BCC) website. Welcoming the apology from Cllr Idrees, Labour MP Liam Byrne also supported Moffat’s project.

On Twitter, support came from Brigid Jones and Colin Diamond.

Jones is the deputy leader of the BCC. She is a “passionate supporter of and advocate for the terrific #NoOutsiders programme”.  It is worth recalling that the debunked anti-Muslim conspiracy theory that was the Trojan Horse was initially fuelled by Jones who provided the trash paper Daily Mail statements suggesting “hundreds” of reports, some of which “directly connected to the Trojan Horse letter” were received by the BCC. During that period, Jones also contributed to a “debate” by the BBC entitled, What Faith in Our Schools? She concurred with the presenter’s assertion (based on the bogus Kershaw report) that there was a “culture of fear” of being labelled Islamophobic. In other words, she was happy to pass the buck of the Council’s failings to the already demonised Muslim community, whilst devaluing the reality of Islamophobia.

Pertinent here is Jones’ support for “subliminal” messaging as an approach to developing Muslim “resiliency”. The following part of an interview with Chamberlain Files is frankly disturbing:

“Birmingham city council has been working behind the scenes to address some of the difficult cultural issues exposed by the various Trojan Horse inquiries… A new series of books written and designed in Birmingham is being used to introduce children to the idea that some people are different. It’s all done very gently, almost subliminally, along the lines of explaining that some children might have two mummies for example, or two daddies, “and that’s fine”, says Jones.”

Moffat’s support comes from someone who is “fine” with secret brainwashing.

Diamond, as deputy education commissioner for the DfE, came in soon after the Trojan Horse incident started to manage the affair. There are a bevy damaging allegations against Diamond and his influence during the Trojan Horse. He was alleged to have been instrumental in directing various changes at Park View School, through a proxy, Kamal Hanif.  Diamond allegedly also facilitated the takeover of Oldknow School by ARK – an academy chain known to have connections with the head of Ofsted Michael Wilshaw, big corporations and Zionists who fund the Tories. Allegations from Springfield Primary school in 2015 suggested that Diamond was involved in forcing an IEB to replace the governing body.

Support from anti-Islam Hatemongers

Support for Moffat has also been acknowledged from some insidious quarters.

Ex-Muslim Yasmine Mohammed praised Moffat. Moffat reciprocated this with his gratitude to her before condescendingly claiming that the protesting parents “do not understand” the No Outsiders project.

MoffatYasmineThans.PNG

Yasmine’s circle closely aligns with deplorable neocons and their enablers. Her website described the following as her friends:

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali – is a virulently anti-Muslim neocon with a dubious back story, who declared that Islam had to be “defeated” and “crushed”. Anders Breivik cited Ayaan in his 1,500-page manifesto.
  • Sam Harris – has stated that “we are at war with Islam”, which is a “threat to us” and that fascists “speak most sensibly about the threat Islam poses”.
  • Maajid Nawaz – is the founder of Quilliam Foundation, which has received funding from Harris and Tea Party conservatives and has links to the Islamophobia industry’s finest. He co-authored a book with Harris, despite Harris not recanting his statements. In 2015, Nawaz endorsed Ayaan’s anti-Islam book.

Yasmine also engages with the Council of Ex-MuslimsMaryam Namazie and Jimmy Bangash.

These connections are relevant because Moffat thanked Bangash for his support on Twitter. Bangash has declared that “Islam is backward and barbaric”. He stated, “legislate against Islam & prohibit Muslim from job”.

Bangash has spoken on the same platform as Namazie and has been praised by Gita Sahgal, all of whom have a frothing hatred of Islam. Namazie believes that “religion kills” but Islam in particular should be singled out for further discriminatory treatment.  She has called for the banning of the face veil and supported the “illiberal” ban on Hijab.  Sahgal has praised Namazie whilst similarly advocating for the banning of the Hijab. She also negatively exceptionalises the treatment of Muslims.

This is quite the circle of supporters for Moffat’s project!

Support from PREVENT

Support, unsurprisingly, also came from those connected to PREVENT.

Sean Arbuthnot’s Tweet was retweeted by Moffat. Arbuthnot is the PREVENT coordinator for Leicestershire. PREVENT, from inception and to continued application today, discriminatorily targets Muslims. Arbuthnot, however, spends his efforts trying to spin and sell PREVENT as a policy that is not discriminatory by arguing that increased far-right referrals prove it is a fair and non-discriminatory policy.

The support from PREVENT profiteers and whitewashers is not surprising.

No Outsiders, PREVENT and “Community Cohesion”

Parents protesting elements of the No Outsiders have been attempting to tackle the branch rather than the root: PREVENT.

PREVENT is an academically baseless, Muslim-demonising policy that entrenches war-based, enemy-identity logics. Moffat and his work, however, is fully embedded in this agenda.

In a presentation by Parkfield School head teacher, Hazel Pulley, No Outsiders is shown to be developed specifically to “reduce radicalisation” in children “from nursery onwards” and respond to “ideological challenges” to the PREVENT-defined British values.  In other words, Muslim children are to be treated as potential terrorists and remedied with the cure of No Outsiders indoctrination.

The No Outsiders project is based on two books authored by Moffat: No Outsiders in Our School and Reclaiming Radical ideas in Schools. In a Guardian article firmly locating the narrative in a mainly Muslim context, radicalisation and the Trojan Horse conspiracy theory, readers are informed that, with his second book, Moffat is “looking at counter-radicalism”.

Moffat’s biography on the “Tackling Radicalisation in Education Conference” website echoing this view states,

“Andrew’s new book, ‘Reclaiming radical ideas…’ uses No Outsiders parent workshops to foster community cohesion and reduce potential for radicalisation.”

Moffat believes that PREVENT is necessary and that “community cohesion” should be adopted to tackle radicalisation. Moreover, this community cohesion is to be done by using the “equality ethos” vis-à-vis the No Outsiders project.

The issue for Muslims in particular, is that “community cohesion” is a demonising extension of PREVENT-based logics: the warring, Rumsfeldian doctrine of pre-emption. The aim is to “target and pre-empt the conditions of emergence of radical subjects” and govern an impossibly knowable future:

“Through an engagement with a premediated future that envisages the non-British as ever-threatening, community cohesion seeks to generate and maximise normalised, British identities and values, and to minimise those that are disassociated from this normality. [This] bears marked similarities to… contemporary US counterinsurgency doctrine.” (Martin, 2014)

In other words, community cohesion entrenches Muslims as a demonised identity to be targeted.

Moffat replicates this logic. Writing in his bookand explicitly citing the Prevent Duty, Moffat explains the agenda behind his agenda:

“In the original No Outsiders book I referenced radicalisation briefly; however since then I have been developing the resource with a specific aim to prevent young people from being drawn in to terrorism, rather than as a resource simply to promote equality and diversity… Of course, the two courses go hand in hand; we reduce radical ideas by promoting community cohesion through an understanding and celebration of diversity and equality. To advocate radical ideas is to reject the ideals and values of community cohesion. The No Outsiders strategy ensures an equality ethos is clear from the outset; we not only respond to radical ideas if and when they emerge, but more importantly we proactively promote an alternative narrative to reduce the risk in the first place.” (Moffat, 2018, pp. 1-2)

Various aspects of the No Outsiders book are therefore identified by Moffat as being in response to PREVENT (Moffat, 2016, pp. 15, 30).

This agenda is not limited to his proclamations in his books.

His Twitter timeline shows that this structural demonization is driven further in to Muslims children at Parkfield.

Counter-Terrorism and Negative Framing

Moffat believes “we must talk in schools about terror attacks but use our equality ethos”. He regularly publishes material on his blog and encourages its use for assemblies because “schools must talk” about attacks that have occurred (see examples, herehere and here).

Moffat justifies this by arguing that “children hear these news stories and are searching for answers” (Moffat, 2018, p. 2).  One would reasonably assume that parents would be contacted if a child did raise a question. Moffat believes, however, that he is fit to provide these answers.

His answers, though, seek to reconstruct the Muslim mind along the way. Moffat advises:

“When talking about tragic events such as terror attacks to young people, explain that not everyone agrees with us and no outsiders.”

His No Outsiders programme is thus posited as the benchmark for normality. Any difference to this is impliedly associated with terror attacks.  This view is further reinforced in his book. Thus, for Moffat, a “rise in radicalisation” is linked to views that diverge from “the messages of equality that they hear inside [school]” (Moffat, 2016, p. 3)

Outlining a lesson plan, Moffat disturbingly links children being stopped from talking about “difference and diversity” to Nazis before identifying “no outsiders” as a solution (Moffat, 2016, p. 76). The implication is that opposition to the No Outsiders project is akin to Nazi repression.

Ironically, however, the repression of beliefs and ideas is exercised by the school.

In one example of Moffat’s counter-terrorism efforts, despite its ostensibly positive framing, a negative incident (terrorist attack) is brought to attention to young Muslim children, thereby reinforcing the connection between the Muslim pupils and terrorism. In No Outsiders the Charlie Hebdo attacks are cited, with Moffat highlighting how he shared an image of Muslim women holding placards reading “I am Muslim, not a terrorist” (Moffat, 2016, p. 19).

This type of imagery contributes to an unhealthy collective guilt dynamic that embeds the need to respond to acts of political violence. Against a backdrop of continuous demands of Muslims to condemn disconnected acts of political violence around the world, this serves as a toxic method of teaching that internalises Islamophobia.

There is also the “selective outrage” problem with Moffat’s approach. Why does Moffat not mention the harder implementation of his civilising mission has resulted in RAF “precision airstrikes” killing innocent Muslims?  Or the Jewish settlers killing Palestinians? Or the disabled Palestinians that are shot in the back by murderous Israeli forces?

The desire to regulate discourse and indoctrinate is selective for Moffat.

Referring Muslim Children

The aforementioned Hazel Pulley presentation disconcertingly highlights how staff at Parkfield “must report anything they feel uneasy about.” Between 2014 and 2015, the school referring eleven cases to the PREVENT lead. Of these, shockingly, three were referred to the Counter Terrorism Unit.

To understand the types of cases being referred, it is worth looking at the case of a ten-year-old Muslim child who attended Parkfield. In 2015, it was reported that the child “raised concerns” when he asked for a prayer room on a residential trip, encouraged girls to wear a hijab, and expressed an “alternate view” on the Charlie Hebdo attack.

The experience of the child referred for potentially terrorist signs or, “anything” teachers “feel uneasy about” is something that must be taken seriously. Moffat and the school are in effect bullying children into submission to state-sanctioned ideology and Moffat’s personal beliefs. The traumatic experience of going through a PREVENT referral must also be considered: self-censoring and psychological harm are outcomes that have already been well-document in other PREVENT-referrals.

Militarism

I have already extensively covered the brainwashing effects of subjecting children to militarism, as well as how particular symbolism, like the red poppy, contributes to the propagandising of skewed, colonialism-friendly history, and a reformation of Muslim identity concordant to a neoconservative worldview.  Moffat promotes these themes.

One of the books Moffat prescribes is Where the Poppies Grow (Moffat, 2016, p. 72). The book shows children digging trenches and joining military services whilst explaining the purpose of the poppy.  The materials impress upon children the need to “never forget”.

Among his online resources, under the theme “British values” and “community cohesion”, Moffat has a picture of Ahmadis selling poppies as part of Remembrance day along with the “acceptable Muslim” narrative where the positive role models for Muslim children are those who died for colonialism and empire.

Incidentally, this sits rather awkwardly with other material Moffat proposes.  Other lesson plans, for instance, cover managing differences, and how people should communicate instead of engaging in fights (p.64). How does one reconcile this with messages of children going on to join the army precisely to fight, and exposing young Muslim children to militarism?

Concluding Remarks

Between state and media-supported cries of victimisation by Moffat and hundreds of protesting and petitioning parents, lies the noxious policy of PREVENT.

Alongside problems already raised, parents protesting the school’s materials must bring focus to this root of the problem.

The affair presents a conundrum for those, like Moffat, who speak from their high chairs of moral rectitude as they coerce acceptance upon the brutish Muslim caricature through the lingua franca and the mechanics of PREVENT: how can you even speak of respecting differences when you wield a structurally Islamophobic policy that mimics US counter-insurgency doctrines against little Muslim children? How does one reconcile anti-bullying initiatives with the state-sanctioned bullying of kids through PREVENT?

The questions will continue for Moffat.

In the next piece, I will examine how Moffat employs misleading statements about the law to intimidate and enforce his No Outsiders agenda. I will also demonstrate how, by doing this, Moffat circumvents regulations of SRE delivery.


References

Martin, T., 2014. Governing an unknowable future: the politics of Britain’s Prevent policy. Critical Studies on Terrorism, pp. 62-78.

Moffat, A., 2016. No Outsiders in Our School. London: Speechmark Publishing.

Moffat, A., 2018. Reclaiming Radical Ideas in School. Oxon: Routledge.

 

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Andrew Moffat and Parkfield School: Weaponizing LGBT against the Muslim Minority

  1. How is it that one can Propagate the idea of no outsider Whilst pushing Muslims to the fringe of society by making them feel as the ultimate out. What do you suppose it will be that outcome of these kids in years to come

  2. If trying to promote tolerance towards homosexuals is a “social engineering experiment”, then so is trying to promote tolerance towards Muslims. So is teaching children that homosexual relationships are sinful. I’m in favour of the first two examples of “social engineering” but not the third. Why oppose the promotion of tolerance towards those who have not deserved intolerance?

  3. From Secular Scotland’s comments on this article:
    Trying to encourage children to be tolerant towards homosexuals = a social engineering experiment.
    Trying to encourage children to be tolerant towards Muslims = promotion of social harmony.
    Teaching children that homosexual relationships are sinful = moral guidance.

  4. Imagine, if you will, growing up as a gay person in such an environment.

    We know people do not choose to be gay, no matter what a gay person’s upbringing, they will be gay, whether society likes it or not.

    Imagine, feeling that you are the only one who feels the way you do, living in fear ever day of being disowned, probable violence for being who you are, being so alone, taught to believe you are worthless and have no value?

    Having to grow up living a lie, accepting a relationship of rape with someone of a gender you feel no attraction to.

    There are more gay people growing up in Muslim households that you may believe.

    Is their suffering of no value?

    The notion of “punishing” people who want to continue the view that some people are simply worth more than others is reprehensible.

    May the high suicide rate of gay people play on your minds.

  5. The above messages from Robert Canning, Garry Otton and Jan contain the following key arguments:

    1. The school is promoting tolerance of homosexuals.
    2. This tolerance is akin to promoting tolerance of Muslims
    3. Stigma/there is a high suicide rate.

    In response:

    1. The school isn’t merely promoting tolerance of homosexuals. It is promoting particular lifestyles as normal and “ok”. This isn’t tolerance. Its indoctrination.

    2. I wasn’t aware “tolerance” meant accepting another person’s beliefs and set of actions as acceptable, normal and “ok” as Moffat states. Imposing this would be a form of despotism, and I am sure the likes of JS Mill, RP Churchill etc would agree. Let’s take an example. Jan for example believes in the nature perspective of homosexuality. Other scientists would disagree. To impose something antithetical as normative, acceptable and ok, to Jan’s beliefs would be considered unacceptable. Similarly if, under the rubric of tolerance, homosexuals had to accept the religious perspective on homosexuality as normal and “ok”, would this be considered acceptable? If homosexuals rebuffed this as Robert and Garry do above, would this be considered “intolerance”?

    3. Suicide is a multifactorial phenomenon. What is described – rejection, social stigma, living as “secret” lives, violence, many non-Muslims whom accept Islam and become Muslim also go through. They also then become subject to political Islamophobia as a specifically demonised group. There is no political homophobia or at the very least is not tolerated. Having said this, the high suicide rate is indeed unfortunate. I do not believe imposing a view on another and undermining another protected groups rights is a solution to this, however. This will create more problems.

  6. In response.

    Being gay is not a “lifestyle” by definition.

    People do not choose to be gay, no evidence exists for such a choice.

    There is nothing logically, or materially wrong with being gay.

    Put yourselves in the shoes of a gay Muslim, brought up in such an environment, they do exist, and by law of averages, some kids at this school will turn out gay.

    Think about how awful it must feel, the response here is that these lives simply do not matter.

    Do not confuse “normal” with “common”.

    There is no political homophobia? Maybe you should check your straight privilege there.

    Try walking around with your same gender partner and holding their hand, the threat of violence is constant.

    The shame associated with being gay and the threat of violence is that the vast majority of gay people still libe double lives.

    Having know gay people who have come from Conservative religious backgrounds, my heart weeps for them.

    It’s quite telling that you place ideology over human life.

    Tolerence is a vile concept. I do not “tolerate” the existance of Muslims in the UK, I value their commitment, their dedication and their contribution to society.

    Are gay people not to be afforded the same rights?

    Being gay is normal, whether you like it or not, it is a fact of life. The relationships of consenting adults is none of your business, however much you believe, personally, that they will suffer eternal pain for it.

    Muslims are going to come into contact with gay people, they are going to have gay colleagues, see them on the street, interact with them, for all your claims of bigotry aimed at Muslims, why is the homophobia seen as okay?

    What is the outcome of this? The outcome is for gay people to be genuinely accepted within society.

    This is no different to anti-racist policies which had non stereotypical western names being introduced into children’s literature.

    I hope you can understand, for gay people, accepting that religious people view them as lesser humans, damned to an eternity of suffering, is not something thats going to happen.

    You’re very clear that Muslims may feel oppressed by No Outsiders, but you make no admission that your own bigotry and oppressive views should be debated.

    The privilege of religion reserve the right to discriminate is not one to be afforded in a secular society. It goes against the values of society and it is right that this is being challenged.

    • Thanks for your comments Jan.

      I am happy to discuss or debate any of my views thus far expressed. You are throwing slurs and making some points, of which some are based on assumptions you’ve made whilst at the same time throwing your own “privilege” around. So let’s narrow this discussion, point by point. Hopefully that’ll cover the points you’ve made in your second comment.

      Do you believe that person A must accept person B’s beliefs and actions as acceptable, normal and “ok”, even if they fundamentally run counter to person A’s worldview, in order to live in a plural society?

  7. I will choose to over look your accusations of “slurs” as you have rather overlooked homophobic language and perpetuated homophobic views in your article and comments.

    I called out straight privilege. When dealing with matters of homophobia, this is a key aspect. As someone who has never and will never experience this, it is not something you have displayed an understanding of.

    I fundamentally disagree with your reasoning.

    You do jot have the right to accept or not accept the actions of someone which do jot cause measurable harm.

    These actions just “are”, they exist, quite rightly, outside of my scope of influence.

    For example, I cannot disagree with someone else’s relationship, if that relationship is between consenting adults and causes no harm to myself.

    I don’t have the right to claim the very existence of such a relationship is harmful to myself, as this would be illogical.

    I take issue with “world view”, religion, even Islam, is not a fixed viewpoint, people in this country are free to act, as they like, within the law, the advent of gay Muslims and gay friendly Muslims becoming more and more prominent being an example.

    Persons and or groups/religions cannot have special privileges to harbour views which could, very potentially, affect the safety and well being of other members of society.

    The No Outsiders program is not simply aimed at Muslims, but all young persons in school.

    Are you arguing for all schools to stop the policy, or simply special permission for persons of your faith to be removed from the classes?

    There is no consideration in your comments for gay people, do they simply not matter in your world view?

    Your last comment seemed to be suggesting that for Muslims (note, all Muslims are assumed to have agreement on this issue, when in reality, this is not the case) to be part of this society, we must pair back gay rights in order for Muslims to not feel attacked for their beliefs?

    There is a real risk that stopping No Outsiders and accepting that Muslims are unilaterally against gay people and this must not be challenged, could result in a society, within a society and not an integrated, multicultural community, but rather insular communities, fearful of each other.

    Such issues have been brought up in the Orthodox Jewish communities, where Ofsted has found that some young persons aren’t even taught English.

    • As I said, a topic at time. I am “choosing” to overlook a lot of your “privilege”, blindsiding and baseless assumptions for the sake of brevity and a reasoned discussion.

      To the point at hand.

      You haven’t really answered the question of imposition of certain ideas, beliefs, practices etc:
      Do you believe that person A must accept person B’s beliefs and actions as acceptable, normal and “ok”, even if they fundamentally run counter to person A’s worldview, in order to live in a plural society?

      In your response, you state:

      “You do not have the right to accept or not accept the actions of someone which do not cause measurable harm. These actions just “are”, they exist, quite rightly, outside of my scope of influence.”

      You state that you cannot disagree, but by implication, you cannot agree with a set of actions too (as you state, “you do not have the right to accept or not accept”). This seems to posit a philosophically (morally) nihilist, relativist position. If harm is the only criteria for you to consider, then I ask the following question:

      Do you agree with consensual incestuous sexual relations? If Yes, do you think it should be legalised? If not, why not?

      Further, if one “can neither accept or not accept actions of someone which does not cause measurable harm”, then what do you make of Andrew Moffat who advocates that there needs to be a shift from acknowledging existence to instilling the idea that “being gay lesbian or transgender or bi sexual is normal acceptable and OK” (No Outsiders, p.2)? This seems to conflict with your value-free judgement position.

  8. Firstly, many thanks for your reply.

    Incest? Is that a serious response?

    I am utterly taken aback by such egregious and outright homophobia.

    There is no more a connection of homosexuality to Incest than there is for a connection with heterosexuality.

    Such a poor understanding of basic facts actually points favourably to No Outsiders.

    A “consensual” incestual relationship is a misnomer, Incest is either the result of abuse or ignorance, such is the rarity of ignorance, it makes world news.

    As such, this point is void. Such a relationship is deemed to cause harm to a party, therefore, wrong.

    A, consenting, same gender relationship is not materially different than a consenting, opposite gender relationship.

    No harm is caused to either party, it is a moral neutral

    Incest is not a sexual orientation, your lack of facts does not put your argument in a favourable light.

    Incest is a choice, the attraction to a particular gender or genders, for bisexual persons, is an automatic process.

    Being gay should not be seen terms of “acceptable or not acceptable”.

    There is a difference between “acceptable” and “acceptance”

    We do not judge mixed race relationships in the same light, we do not need to use terms like “acceptable”, it is an understood aspect of life.

    Do you honestly believe that such teaching will turn your children gay?

    If you do, let me assure you, there’s as much chance of that happening as me being the ghost of Princess Diana.

    The exact terms used do not matter, it should be a given that gay people exist and that they are part of society.

    How would you feel if your identity was questioned in such a way? “are disabled people acceptable?” are Chinese persons “acceptable” “are mixed race relationships ” acceptable”.

    Person A believes mixed race relationships are wrong

    Must we accept the viewpoint of person A, to the detriment of persons in mixed race relationships, for the plurality of society?

    You may believe person A has wrong views, person A may feel these are their rightly held values and they must be respected.

    From what I can see, your view boils down to the belief that viewing gay people as somehow “wrong” must be respected and gay people who are upset about this are “attacking” you.

    Can you tell me why a particular religious belief, which does cause harm to gay persons, should be respected as policy?

    And also, how this is any different from other persons harbouring “strong views”?

    • Your most welcome.

      Instead of declaring arguments you disagree with as homophobia, its worth actually responding to the questions being asked. This isn’t happening however, and therefore this is my final response.

      You are building speculative assumptions into your statements, and then based on these proceeding as if what is being said is factual. Nowhere did I draw a parallel between homosexuality and incest. The incest point was raised because you stated the following:

      “You do not have the right to accept or not accept the actions of someone which do not cause measurable harm. These actions just “are”, they exist, quite rightly, outside of my scope of influence.”

      You further explained your statement thusly:

      “For example, I cannot disagree with someone else’s relationship, if that relationship is between consenting adults and causes no harm to myself.”

      I wanted to understand your moral nihilism. You then bypassed answering the question and claimed it was harmful and its not the same as homosexual relationships because its not a sexual orientation, even though you yourself reduced your moral epistemology to “two consenting adults” and “harm”. My question is based on your own moral epistemology.

      So let’s not skirt the issue. If you want to talk “facts” then I recommend you read the following:

      https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/29/incest-legal-german-experts_n_5900672.html

      Once done, then I’ll let you ponder the question I initially raised:

      Do you agree with consensual incestuous sexual relations? If Yes, do you think it should be legalised? If not, why not?

      RE Moffat, on the one hand you claim one does not have the right to accept or not accept. When presented with Moffat’s quote in which he is teaching the kids to “accept” homosexuality, you ignore the question and instead state:

      “The exact terms used do not matter, it should be a given that gay people exist and that they are part of society.”

      Terms do matter. Moffat is making a moral judgement and teaching it as fact – something which conflicts with your own view that no one has the right to “accept or not accept” actions which don’t cause harm. Moffat is not only exercising this right, he is wielding it with the backing from the state, through the structurally Islamophobic PREVENT policy (which you have very conveniently omitted in your discussion) upon those who do not want it.

      And again, you still haven’t answered the question:

      Do you believe that person A must accept person B’s beliefs and actions as acceptable, normal and “ok”, even if they fundamentally run counter to person A’s worldview, in order to live in a plural society?

      Democratic liberalism which underpins this society doesn’t seem to be your thing. You are trying to rationalise despotism. You’ve used words like “should” and made statements that are treated as a priori – a form of dogmatism. These are your beliefs Jan. Throughout this thread you’ve repeatedly made my point entirely. You are imposing your own (nihilistic) moral epistemology on people who do not agree with your set of fundamental philosophic premises. These differences in epistemology is precisely the reason why even the ECHR recognises the right of parents to raise their children according to their own “religious and philosophic convictions” and the long established principle found in DfE guidance of teaching sex and relationship education in a manner that is sensitive to religion – something which No Outsiders actively removes. You seem hell-bent on wanting to remove these rights and recommendations too.

  9. NOTE: any further comments which are beyond the scope of the article – i.e. how LGBT topics have been used by PREVENT to the further the demonisation of the Muslim minority – will be removed.

  10. Hello there, I have read your very interesting article. Before I begin, let me say that I am British Chinese, a leftwinger, a Guardian reader and someone whom Britain First and EDL members call a “dhimmi”. If dhimmi is about fighting racism then I am all for it. Ok back to the article.

    First of all homosexuality is genetically defined and not a lifestyle choice. Religion, including Islam, is a lifestyle choice. I totally understand that as a muslim you abhor homosexuality and all that goes with it. The aim of this “No Outsiders” program is not to promote homosexuality like you promote a restaurant or product but to make children understand that other sexual orientations exists. And that people with these sexual orientations should be treated no differently. I full understand that the parents involved and yourself come from a cultural background that finds this uncomfortable. If you find this to be social engineering then so be it, would you find acceptable if it was the other way round where kufr parents removed their children from classes which taught about islam? Don’t think so!

    As a multiculturalist, this article and case raises again the horrible question for us leftwingers “are muslims compatible with Western liberal society”? The protests make it more difficult for us multiculturalists to fight islamophobia and more difficult for us to be antizionist. You mentioned Israel early in your piece, and I have to admit that I wish the Islamic world shared Israel’s tolerance for LGBT rights.

    • “Hello there, I have read your very interesting article. Before I begin, let me say that I am British Chinese, a leftwinger, a Guardian reader and someone whom Britain First and EDL members call a “dhimmi”. If dhimmi is about fighting racism then I am all for it. Ok back to the article.”

      Nice to meet George. And thanks for commenting.

      “First of all homosexuality is genetically defined and not a lifestyle choice.”

      And this is where we disagree. The scientific basis for claiming biology as basis isn’t the purview of the article (its never intended to have been) , but suffice to say, it’s not clear cut or as a priori as your claim suggests. Furthermore, even if one claims to an uncontrollable desire, acting on it is a choice.

      “The aim of this “No Outsiders” program is not to promote homosexuality like you promote a restaurant or product but to make children understand that other sexual orientations exists.”

      This is not what no outsiders does. It does much more than that and I’ll be writing on this soon. RE homosexuality Moffat makes this very clear at the beginning of his book where he states we have to move beyond saying gays exist to say its acceptable normal and OK. This is an imposition of a value judgement not acknowledging a fact.

      “I full understand that the parents involved and yourself come from a cultural background that finds this uncomfortable.”

      George, I appreciate your empathy, but your knowledge of the no outsiders means you don’t have the full picture.

      “If you find this to be social engineering then so be it, would you find acceptable if it was the other way round where kufr parents removed their children from classes which taught about islam? Don’t think so!”

      It is social engineering. I like how most of the comments here choose to fundamentally ignore PREVENT. The title here is the weaponisation of lgbt through PREVENT, a baseless policy which uses epistemic violence to coerce behavioural and thought change. No Outsiders is explicitly developed to “reduce radicalisation” and fulfil the PREVENT duty. How does this fair with your leftist credentials, structural violence and thoughts on oppressive systems?

      As for you last question, of course I would support it! It’s the right of the parent to withdraw their child! Why would I oppose a parent from exercising his or her right to remove their child? You think wrong George.

      “As a multiculturalist, this article and case raises again the horrible question for us leftwingers “are muslims compatible with Western liberal society”?”

      George, that’s frankly a disgusting statement to make. Have you asked that about the Jews, Christians and even non abrahamic members of British society who don’t agree with homosexuality whether they are compatible with British society? Or is this just your anti Muslim bias starting to creep in?

      “The protests make it more difficult for us multiculturalists to fight islamophobia and more difficult for us to be antizionist. You mentioned Israel early in your piece, and I have to admit that I wish the Islamic world shared Israel’s tolerance for LGBT rights.”

      Israel was mentioned in the context of how Israel pinkwashes its crimes. It uses its purported political tolerance of homosexuality (in contrast to societal acceptance of it) to PR wash its killing of palestinians. As for “islamic World”. It isn’t the Islamic world. Its a postcolonial leftover of a destroyed premodern Muslim world, which, thanks to colonialism implemented mainly British laws on sex.

      There needs to be a distinction between the beliefs and what Muslims are encouraged to do. The belief is that its sinful. However, as per the Quran, to you your set of beliefs, to us, ours. I am not going to impose it on you, and you aren’t going to impose it on me. As for the choice argument, People have volition, people choose to act on it or not.

      In terms of interaction, Islamically we have to treat everyone with good conduct (literally commanded to do this), moreover we want everyone to enjoy Islam, its perspective on life, how can Muslims call people to Islam if we wish harm upon those very people? It makes no sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s