It is this simple – Anti-gay texts are no different from anti-semitic texts or racist texts and should be banned. I consider faith based anti-gay literature in schools to be no different from allowing the KKK to leaflet children.
I think its time that any books that make one person, race, or sexual orenation to be wrong, be banned from all schools
Anti-gay texts are inappropriate and should not be on any school curriculum.
It’s that simple,
I am curious though. Who in the TUC is making the claim that some texts are impossible to teach without being homophobic.
Surely the TUC accepts and understands that homophobia and racism are inappropriate to teach to children.
I detect the stench of religion in the TUC.
Being as intrinsically dishonest and bigotted as they are, I suspect that religious groups have infiltrated the TUC and are trying to pervert our education system with their bigotry.
This booklet ‘Pure Manhood’ is a completely inappropriate teaching material.
Why on earth is this Brendan Barber trying to claim that there could ever be a situation where teaching toxic bigotry like this booklet could be acceptable.
Does this Barber person have links to Christian Concern’; or Christian Care or any other religious hate groups.
This story stinks of religions meddling in our secular democracy again.
I think you will find that there are some exceptions where “unacceptable” material may need to be shown as part of a higher education, such as showing race riots and apartheid material to demonstrate racism, or things such as the Stonewall riots and Harvey Milk against homophobia.
One must not hide the truth from people, however unpalatable it may be.
There is no circumstance on which a booklet which was shown to Roman Catholic school pupils in Lancashire and suggested a young boy’s gay feelings may “stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse can EVER be appropriate though.
Of course when discussing history racism and bigotry is discussed and it is placed firmly in context.
A booklet which claims that homosexuality is caused by a distant father is telling barefaced lies and can never be an acceptable teaching material.
I agree that this particular document is poison, and should not be allowed, however your statement was “Anti-gay texts are inappropriate and should not be on any school curriculum.” – That is what I replied to. There are exceptions to the rule. I find things like this funny and bizarre and should be used to demonstrate how far we have come:
Brendan Barber is on our side.
Why does he seem unable to grasp the very simple fact that a bigotted booklet like this ‘Pure Manhood’ which tells blatant lies about the ’cause’ of homosexuality should never be allowed in a classroom.
It really is not difficult.
The only time ‘Pure Manhood’ should be mentioned is in reference to the bigotry of the catholic cult.
That is part of the point that Brendan Barber is making. I think you need re-read. He is clearly saying that it is not acceptable for this school to use this booklet. He wants the government to clarify how the use of this booklet can be lawful, when there is no conceivable way to use it that doesn’t “result in less favourable treatment of harassment of ” LGB pupils.
…as per usual: you’ve completely missed the point…
Did you even read the article?
What’s with the ‘I suspect that religious groups have infiltrated the TUC and are trying to pervert our education system with their bigotry’…?
READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE! As someone else has said below: They’re on OUR side you daft sod!
Lord Hill is right. Banning historically and culturally important material from schools because it has offensive aspects is a suppression of debate and free access to information totally at odds with what education is about. The crucial point is to criticise and contextualise the material presented – surely that is what education is! ‘Educational leaflets’ deliberately aimed at school pupils which present prejudice as fact are clearly another matter, but even these can be contextualised as tendentious messages which need critical examination.
This ‘Pure Manhood’ booklet has no place in any classroom as it positions catholic bigotry as fact.
You really don’t understand the concept of scholarly criticism, do you?
Yes, such text should be used, presented and most of all compared to scientific texts, texts concerning human rights and similar material contradicting racism, homophobia etc.
How, precisely, would you teach students to take a critical approach to any text if they are not to see the questionable texts and more importantly have the flaws in such texts pointed out to them?
It never created autonomous, critical thinking to ban anything anywhere.
As a single book, intended to be adequate for teaching a subject, the pamphlet is of course entirely inappropriate.
I’m trans and I split with my wife about 18 months ago. I’ve recently found out she has enrolled my daughter at a Roman Catholic school.
She is 6 years old and I’m terrified about what she will be taught about LGBT people in the coming years.
The TUC are seeking clarification from government. The point about The Merchant of Venice is well made. The question is – how does one define the distinction between literature that is educational and material that is purely malicious. It cannot be left to common sense as there are some bigots in the teaching profession.
Please keep in mind that your readers are not all from the UK. I had to look up what TUC meant but didn’t bother to look up SRE. You don’t have to define what an acronym is when you use it, but it really helps if you do. Thank you.