"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:YIGdnRLZ-sCLzI_bnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:OomdndKsV91a1Y_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com...

[snip]

They were cleared:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm

Hi June, what's new in your world?

Hi Robert. Not much new in my world at the moment - I'm just enjoying
watching the garden getting green again in this rather nice spring weather
we're having. How about you? Still playing in the band?

Interesting article.

Yes - see my response to BTR1701 for my views on it.

--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html

"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-4DC902.20085003042007@news.giganews.com...

In article <OomdndKsV91a1Y_bnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:

"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-B811F8.19364530032007@news.giganews.com...

In article <1175273607.068010.323190@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote:

On 30 Mrz., 13:01, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <1175228715.586581.291...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:

These parents have every right to be concerned about the content
of
the discussion in question. What are these teachers trying to
hide?

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr07/Art_Apr07_
...

DEERFIELD, Ill. - A group of Illinois parents took out a full-page
newspaper article in their local newspaper March 1 demanding that
Deerfield High School officials "rein in" the staff for promoting
a
one-sided view of homosexuality.

I can't wait until this sort of thing is considered a crime like it
is
in Europe. We'll be so much better off when free speech takes a back
seat to political correctness.

Please, tell me where in Europe.
I've been living for more than 14 years in Austria and have contacts
with friends in France, England, Germany, Italy and Sweden and I've
never heard of such a thing.

In England, two men who called Islam "wicked" were indicted and now
faced seven years in prison. The British law under which they were
charged blatantly says "truth" cannot be used as a defense to speech
that "stirs up racial hatred", a vague term that ripe for government
abuse if I've ever heard one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6105946.stm

The Recorder of Leeds, Judge Norman Jones QC, warned the jury that the
case involved "both politics and issues relating to criminal law".

He said: "You will hear in the course of the evidence that is given
strong criticism and speeches on the Muslim religion and issues of
racism, together with criticism of elements of present government
policy.

"Members of the jury, such criticism can sometimes raise conflicts in
people's minds.

"It is very important that the jury who are selected to try this case
try it as it is, that is the charges brought that the defendants have
committed criminal acts."

They were cleared:

Good news. But it should still scare the hell out of anyone who
cherishes a free society that they were even charged and tried to begin
with.

It does scare me - and appals me too. While I have no time for the BNP
(British National Party), of which the accused is the leader, he has every
right, in my opinion, to voice his views, as long as he doesn't incite
others to take criminal action against his target. I find it surprising
that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brought charges of inciting racial
hatred, since clearly what was said wasn't aimed at any race. Virtually
everyone in the UK knows very well that the BNP is a racist organisation,
and that the accused had Pakistanis in mind, but what everyone 'knows' is
not admissible evidence, when he is being tried on what he said. It's
difficult, however, to know what charges could have been brought against him
successfully, because our blasphemy laws only apply to the Church of England

(and one has to wonder how the C of E would have reacted had it been called
a 'wicked, vicious faith' - probably a 'holier-than-thou' sniff), and the
new Racial and Religious Act 2006 wouldn't cover it either, because it is
quite specific in its limitations: "A person who uses threatening words or
behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening ... if he
intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and
insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the
possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
So, alt.atheism is safe ... for the moment. :)

In article <1175370052.063969.92...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,





gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 31 Mar., 01:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <1175253593.749337.31...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:

On 30 Mar., 13:04, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <1175233932.096283.110...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 30 mar, 06:25, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com> wrote:

"This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for
Cultural
Issues with CWA. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High
are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to
unhealthy
and high-risk homosexual behaviors, but they've essentially been
told by teachers to lie to their parents about it.

because some parents can be too dumb to understand the importance of
being properly informed...

Yeah, that's what I want. Some state bureaucracy deciding I'm too
stupid to be fully informed about what my kid is being taught at school.

Because it's not like there hasn't been example after example after
example of idiotic behavior on the part of school officials recently.

These people are omniscient and I'm just an idiot.

Right.

Sure.

Do you really believe that the school was keeping the entire project
secret? Before you get upset, it might be a good idea to get your
information from a somewhat more reliable source than Young.

Doesn't matter. I was addressing the comment by Parsifal that said it's
okay to keep parents in the dark about things because they're just
stupid.-

Since the parent's were not being kept in the dark, he was wrong.

Even if it wasn't true in this case (and I haven't seen anything
definitive either way),

okay for a bunch of school bureaucrats to keep parents from knowing
what's being taught to their children because they too stupid to be
trusted with the truth.

It's that sort of elitist "government knows best" attitude to which I
object.-

In article <87abxutctd.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> writes:

In article <11jq03la4otn1gvt7uqhmn0bp5uvndnkpn@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:

A real can of worms, the parent may teach their kids, that gay sex
is natural, and heterosexually is a sin. Do you support not allowing
the school to teach the opposite? Or the school could teach children
to despise gay people, would you support that?

Or the school could stay the hell out of it and just teach my kid to
read, write, and add, a job they've been failing more and more in the
last decade or so. Once they've achieved the basics and they're not
turning out illiterates who can't even read their own diplomas, then
they can worry about using the schools as a social experiment.

The reason for school programs that promote tolerance is so that
kids who would otherwise be harassed can get through the day without
being so scared that they can't learn at all. I.e., it is so that
*all* the kids can learn the "basics".

I'd prefer it the old way, where *most* kids learned the basics as
opposed to now where we waste so much time on "diversity" and
"sensitivity" and "tolerance" to the point where ever increasing numbers
of kids can't do a simple algebra problem.