Tim Dieppe, our Head of Public Policy, exposes the overwhelming evidence that Heavers Farm was indoctrinating young children with LGBT ideology, saying that the judge’s decision against concerned parents, Izzy and Shane Montague was, therefore, “manifestly unreasonable”.
Heavers Farm Primary School is at the centre of a dispute about enforced participation in a Pride event for young children. Christian parent Izzy Montague complained after her 4-year-old son was made to participate in a Pride Parade to celebrate Pride Month. She was told that participation in the Parade was mandatory. She had no right of withdrawal from the parade.
Izzy Montague lost her case brought against the school for discrimination this week. The judge determined that, “In truth Izayah was not taught any LGBT issues”, and that posters saying “Mum+Mum=Love” or “Dad+Dad=Love” are “not promoting any LGBT lifestyle.” (§145).
While the judge may think differently, it is quite something to conclude that LGBT issues were not taught at the school. It is worth examining what we know about the various ways in which LGBT indoctrination has taken place at Heavers Farm school.
Posters promoting LGBT lifestyles
There were posters in the school displaying the slogan: “Some people are gay, get over it!” This is a well-known Stonewall slogan used to promote homosexuality. This slogan has been branded “highly offensive to fundamentalist Christians and other religious groups” in a High Court judgment in 2013 (§135). As an offensive slogan it clearly is not a poster that should be displayed in a primary school environment. Additionally, there were other posters saying: “I am gay, get over it!”
Other posters, as mentioned, said “Mum+Mum=Love” and “Dad+Dad=Love” which clearly promote alternative family structures and seek to normalise same-sex relationships and even same-sex parenting.
Furthermore, children were encouraged to create their own posters celebrating LGBT Pride.
The Pride flag
Rainbow Pride flags were prominently displayed around the school. This is a political flag used to campaign for LGBT political rights. As such it has no place in a school environment.
Teacher’s LGBT T-shirt
The headteacher’s daughter, who performs a senior role at the school, wore a t-shirt with the words “Why be racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic when you could just be quiet?” This t-shirt was worn by Ms Papas in the meeting which Izzy Montague had with the school about her complaint and was understood by Izzy to be deliberately threatening. Ms Papas still has a tweet up boasting that she doesn’t care about offending people with her t-shirt.
The school argued that the t-shirt was commonly worn in school. The t-shirt slogan is clearly intended to intimidate anyone who disagrees with LGBT ideology and to brand those who are critical of transgenderism as similar to racists.
The judge seemed to think the t-shirt was little more than one with a slogan on it.
Getting young children to promote transgenderism
The school displayed a picture on its website of a young child holding up a placard with the words: “I have a dreem if bois could go to the saim toilet as gerls” [Sic]. This is clearly promoting transgenderism to very young children before they can even write properly. It is deliberately undermining the differences between the sexes and presenting them as meaningless. Also, in linking it with the famous “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther, it likens disagreement with transgender ideology to racism.
Celebrating Pride
Of course, pride is not a virtue to be celebrated or promoted. Pride is actually a sin. Why would a school, therefore promote pride as if it were a virtue? The local MP, Steve Reed, attended the celebration, and tweeted photos of the event with the caption “With the wonderful staff and children at @HeaversfarmSE25 for their Pride celebration.” The pictures show gay pride flags decorating the school, being held or being worn by young children. Why celebrate Pride?
This tweet also made clear the widespread understanding that the mandatory parade, was a Pride march. The MP certainly understood if that way when he put out his tweet.
182 children withdrawn
Izzy Montague was not the only parent concerned about LGBT indoctrination at the school. Far from it. On the day of the Pride parade, as many as 182 children were withdrawn by their parents from the school. This is a huge portion of the children at the school. The school was aware of parental concerns about the parade and re-named it a “Proud to be Me” parade. The re-branding made little or no difference to the actual content. As shown, the local MP understood that he had attended a “Pride celebration.”
10-year-olds excluded for 5 days for alleged homophobic comments
10-year-old Kaysey, a star pupil at the school was excluded from the school for five days for alleged homophobic comments. In class she had a conversation with her friend Farrell in which they were alleged to be critical of LGBT ideology. They didn’t want to participate in the parade.Both pupils were shouted at by the headteacher, placed in isolation for five hours and then excluded from school for five days – a punishment usually reserved for a pupil who has assaulted a teacher.
When Kaysey returned to school after the exclusion, she was heartbroken to discover that the headteacher had told her peers not to speak to her. In spite of having been described as “a delight to have in class” in a recent school report, she was now treated as if she was a ‘danger to other children’.
Reporting parent’s church to police
The school reported one of the families’ churches to the police for a hate crime. The implication was that it was the teaching of the church that was to blame for the alleged anti-LGBT behaviour of the children. Social services and the government’s counter-terrorism body were also contacted by the school when children objected to LGBT indoctrination.
Promoting trans surgery
Kaysey described how a year 4 class was made to watch a video of an 11-year-old undergoing surgery in an attempt to ‘transition’ from a boy to a girl. Kaysey spoke about how upset and disturbed the children in her class were from watching the video which was so disturbing that the embarrassed teacher had to turn it off.
LGBT across the curriculum
It is not only lessons on sex education or relationships education which feature LGBT indoctrination. Maths lessons had questions with LGBT themes. Stories told or shown on video encourage and normalise same-sex relationships and transgenderism. For example, a video of “And Tango Makes Three” was shown in class. Art lessons involve colouring rainbow flags. It seems like the school found ways to include LGBT indoctrination in virtually every lesson.
Conclusion
When 182 children are withdrawn from a school, you know that something has gone seriously wrong. When the school encourages young children to promote transgenderism you know that the teachers have a clear agenda. When a teacher wears a t-shirt with a confrontational LGBT slogan, you know that they are not neutral. When young children are excluded for objecting to LGBT ideology then you know that this school is intolerant.
The evidence that this school is aggressively indoctrinating young children with LGBT ideology is overwhelming. Not withstanding all this evidence, the judge somehow managed to find that Izzy Montague’s child “was not taught any LGBT issues.” This is manifestly unreasonable.
A few years back, but under the same headteacher, the school was found to be cheating in Sats exams. Thirty-four tests were torn up by the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) after investigators found evidence of cheating. In claiming that the Pride Parade was nothing to do with LGBT I think we can conclude that teachers were being less than honest once again.
Izzy will be appealing this judgment. It is an important case.
Should 4-year-old children be forced to participate in Pride events? 182 families thought not and were prepared to withdraw their children to avoid it. It is notable that 5 years later only one of them is ‘still standing’. With a costs bill against her for £75k it is little wonder that anyone would take the risk of standing up to the agenda.
So far, the court says yes. But this is not the end of the story.
If you can donate to help us support Izzy take this case forward, please make a gift today.
