Dublin school cancels workshop on homophobic bullying, saying “both sides should be r

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Why do you (and also those that thanked you) feel that John Waters would be a suitable person to represent the 'unrepresented' here and argue in favour of homophobic bullying? John Waters is not a homophobe and nor has he ever expressed homophobic viewpoints, no matter what some idiot has to say on the Saturday Night Show. If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, lets hear it. Otherwise though, all you are doing by posting the above sly remark is indulging in the very thing which you appear to suggest you are opposed to: bullying.

John Waters wrote:

This is really a kind of a satire on marriage that is being conducted by the gay lobby. It is not that they want to get married; it is that they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they are envious of it ….

Nope, John Waters would never say anything homophobic :rolleyes:

The actual thrust of the workshop is more "It's okay to be young and gay"

The opposite is that "It's not okay to be gay". Which is all sorts of bigoted.

Casen Obedient Jumper wrote: »

Well, the government's new anti-bullying policy document for schools says schools must state in their anti-bullying policy that they are fully committed to the key principles of best practice in tackling bullying behaviour including implementing education and prevention strategies (including awareness raising measures) to tackle bullying, with explicit reference to identity based bullying such as homophobic and transphobic bullying. I think schools are obliged to provide specific education on this matter.

I think what you may be referring to is this part of the Education Act, 1998 -

(d) promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students and provide health education for them, in consultation with their parents, having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school,

The circular referenced by aunt aggie (M4/95) states that -

At post-primary level, the Department of Education will accept, for the purposes of a teacher's timetabled class-contact hours, hours spent teaching Social Personal and Health Education in any school where Relationships and Sexuality Education is included as a distinct element of that subject.

The optimum delivery at both levels would be by way of a timetabled core, where appropriate, with cross-curricular links and whole-school support, within the framework of resources available to schools.

It is recognised that many schools, at primary and post-primary levels, are already making good provision for Relationships and Sexuality Education and, indeed, for the wider aspects of Social, Personal and Health Education. It is essential that the entire process of development should benefit from this experience. Equally it is recognised that many schools and their teachers and parents feel the need for guidance and support in developing their policies and programmes. The role of the Department will be one of providing leadership, support and guidance by outlining the overall direction of Relationships and Sexuality Education and by facilitating and supporting the involvement of the Partners in planning for implementation.

In deciding to include a Relationships and Sexuality Education programme as part of Social, Personal and Health Education in school curricula, the right and duty of parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children is acknowledged. While the home is the natural environment in which Relationships and Sexuality Education takes place, most parents look to schools for support in fulfilling their obligations to their children in this area of development.

Consequently, the school is seen as playing a supportive and complementary role to the home in this task. It is envisaged that this will be achieved by involving parents, with management and teachers, and, where appropriate, with pupils, in a collaborative exercise towards school policy development. This policy will make provision for the rights of parents who hold conscientious or moral objections to the inclusion of such programmes on the curriculum and will state how the school intends to address these situations.

According to Section 4 of the Rules and Programme for Secondary Schools, it states -

All schools should have in place an agreed school policy and a suitable Relationships and Sexuality Education Programme in place for senior cycle pupils

And according to the SPHE website -

In planning for the RSE module individual schools will be guided by its RSE policy which will have been prepared in consultation with parents, teachers and management authorities.

There is no legal obligation on the school to include anything in the RSE module that parents, teachers, or the school, have a conscientious or moral objection to. This way schools are able to say they are meeting their obligations, while avoiding delivering a comprehensive RSE program, because it is up to the school how they deliver the programme. Some schools will outsource the teaching, some schools will barely address it, and this was one of the barriers noted in a 2007 report on the delivery of the RSE programme -


RSE in the Context of SPHE: An Assessment of the Challenges to Full Implementation of the Programme in Post-primary Schools.


Not much has actually changed since.

Thr whole need for anti-bullying classes bugs the hell out of me. Used to do some youth work and I found that some parents basically wanted us to do their jobs raising their teenagers. If parents actually parented their kids properly then there wouldnt be a need for schools to teach them that bullying is wrong. As what most would call one of those Born-again Christians, I have definite views on homosexuality...but I also know what the bible says about judging others so you can be damn sure that my son will hear it from me if I ever find him treating someone different based on their sexuality. More Christians need to start following Christ's example that way. I wont comromise my standards with what I believe is right and wrong and I see judgement as a big no1 on that list. Got enough crud to sort out in my own life that i have no right.

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Thr whole need for anti-bullying classes bugs the hell out of me. Used to do some youth work and I found that some parents basically wanted us to do their jobs raising their teenagers. If parents actually parented their kids properly then there wouldnt be a need for schools to teach them that bullying is wrong. As what most would call one of those Born-again Christians, I have definite views on homosexuality...but I also know what the bible says about judging others so you can be damn sure that my son will hear it from me if I ever find him treating someone different based on their sexuality. More Christians need to start following Christ's example that way. I wont comromise my standards with what I believe is right and wrong and I see judgement as a big no1 on that list. Got enough crud to sort out in my own life that i have no right.

what would you do if you have a gay child? tell the their behaviour is evil but you wont judge them

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Pretty much. It's not easy I know but I'd show my son the same love regardless.

Evil? Good grief.
Do you think he would be born evil? Or just decide to be?

Anyway,

The school released a statement in which they had to consult their Catholic board of management and it's very clear they're a Catholic school.

Also it was never cancelled just postponed despite Shout Out not actually being told about it until a half an hour before.

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Ah but sure we're all evil......Everyone is equally good/evil. There's no one better or worse before God. By being gay, my son would be no more evil than I am and I would be no more righteous in my own nature than him.

I'm not going to argue your beliefs with you, but I would say it is important that you show your children that would be accepted and loved if gay from the minute they are born, not just if they came out to you.

The hardest part for a lot of lgbt choldren is the fear that the will never be accepted for who they are by the people closest to them.

PS - while I don't think there was any mala fides on your part, the analogies used were clumsy and not really comparable.

Murder and drugs is something you choose to do, for one reason or another. Nobody chooses to be gay. So if you consider homosexual acts to be sinful, then just know your god has placed an extra burden on them from birth, and your faith calls on them to forgo the happiness and support you take for granted in your own relationship.

How many straight members of your faith would forgo that? Could you?

So even we accept that homosexual acts are sinful (which I obviously dont), I don't think they should be compared to murder or drugs under any circumstances.

Edit - not meant as a criticism. Its one of the more reasonable and Jesus-like stances on the issues I've seen from Christians. Just wanted you to see it from the perspective of your hypothetical gay child.

floggg wrote: »

I'm not going to argue your beliefs with you, but I would say it is important that you show your children that would be accepted and loved if gay from the minute they are born, not just if they came out to you.

The hardest part for a lot of lgbt choldren is the fear that the will never be accepted for who they are by the people closest to them.

PS - while I don't think there was any mala fides on your part, the analogies used were clumsy and not really comparable.

Murder and drugs is something you choose to do, for one reason or another. Nobody chooses to be gay. So if you consider homosexual acts to be sinful, then just know your god has placed an extra burden on them from birth, and your faith calls on them to forgo the happiness and support you take for granted in your own relationship.

How many straight members of your faith would forgo that? Could you?

So even we accept that homosexual acts are sinful (which I obviously dont), I don't think they should be compared to murder or drugs under any circumstances.

Edit - not meant as a criticism. Its one of the more reasonable and Jesus-like stances on the issues I've seen from Christians. Just wanted you to see it from the perspective of your hypothetical gay child.

Fair points, I would hope mini Fuzzy would know that he's loved and accepted regardless of whatever circumstances (he's less than 4 months old so time will tell).

And apologies if I caused offence. My intention was not to compare murder/drugs to homosexuality but to illustrate that even if my son did things that are obviously wrong that I will still love and accept him.

On a side note, you'd be surprised how little choice some drug addicts have once they get started on that slope. I have a lot of friends who have lived in that world and if anyone needs love and acceptance rather than judgment, it's those with addictions.

floggg wrote: »

With homosexuality, nobody had that choice

You have a choice to be religious though.

It's an idiotic decision on the schools part and I suspect an 'inarticulate choice of words'. No child should be bullied because of their sexuality but it's disengenuous to suggest that the school is advocating that sombody should, for the sake of ballance, be there to promote homophobic bullying.

That said, I wouldn't let this group next or near kids. They tipify the societal balkanization that I see occuring everywhere. The problem isn't homophobic bullying, it's just bullying. The suggestion that the victims of such are somehow special cases or different to any other child who's confidence is demolished by other children's determination to wield power over them is stupid.
There absolutely should be classes and modules in schools that deal with the issue of bullying and specifically mention and address it in all it's forms, but making a special case for race, sexuality or gender only drives the atomization of our culture into nothing but a series of special interest groups and that's bad for society and marks those kids out as 'different to other victims' and thus seperates them from their fellow students.
I'd prefer the ginger kid with glasses to stand next to the gay kid and say, 'no more, not for him and not for me', then see them squabble over the pecking order of their status as victims. I'm sick of the way we've been importing US style interest group identity politics. It's devisive and corrosive to a healthy society.

conorhal wrote: »

That said, I wouldn't let this group next or near kids. They tipify the societal balkanization that I see occuring everywhere. The problem isn't homophobic bullying, it's just bullying. The suggestion that the victims of such are somehow special cases or different to any other child who's confidence is demolished by other children's determination to wield power over them is stupid..

Except it's actual Department of Education policy that all schools have mandatory polices on homophobic bullying.

The group who are not even an exclusive LGBT group is used to help schools with that. Their workshops are in line with the Dept of Education policy. They have more workshops around a whole range of youth/school issues.

No school is forced to use them and they can come up with their own polices.