Christian mother of 4-year-old forced to partake in LGBT ritual vows to appeal judge's ruling in discrimination suit



A Christian couple took a London school to court after it reportedly coerced their 4-year-old into participating in an LGBT activist parade.

The presiding judge ultimately ruled against Christian parents Izoduwa and Shane Montague, claiming that the activist ritual did not advance "LGBT issues over other lifestyle forms" and was actually aligned with their Christian beliefs. He also underlined the importance of teaching LGBT issues in schools to ensure that "those who adhere to that lifestyle" receive a favorable treatment.

Despite this setback, the parents have not given up. They are going to appeal their case.

The inescapable LGBT ritual

According to the London-based nonprofit Christian Concern, the Heavers Farm Primary School in Croydon, South London, held a pride celebration in 2018. Parents were notified of the event only a few days in advance with a rainbow-colored invitation to attend.

Ahead of the event, young students were reportedly taught popular "gay anthems," which they were ultimately tasked with singing while marching around the school.

In addition to LGBT hymnals, the children "were also required to create rainbow themed art, which the school’s lesson plan held out as an assignment to show support for the diverse LGBT community."

Mrs. Montague, 38, asked that her son be excused from participating in the ritual since she was "concerned with him being involved in a public display of adherence to views which she did not accept," reported the Times.

According to the Christian mother, school staff and administrators became "hostile" toward her for questioning their promotion of LGBT doctrine in the school and told her that a failure on her son's part to take part in the ritual "would be seen as a behavioural issue."

Other parents were allegedly told that the parade was a "legal requirement."

Internal emails detailed in court revealed that headteacher Susan Papas suggested that the resistance of religious parents to LGBT indoctrination was the very reason why the pride parade must be mandatory, reported Christian Concern.

Concerning the Montagues' concerns about their son's compulsion to take part in the LGBT ritual, Papas said in an email to a supporter of the event, "This parent really does have a strange (and offensive) take on the world; we are working hard to make sure that the children in our schools don’t share these views!"

In one of Mrs. Montague's subsequent meetings with school staff regarding withdrawal, Papas' daughter, who also works at the school, made a show of wearing a T-shirt with the caption, "Why be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, when you can just be quiet," reported the Christian Post.

After Mrs. Montague complained, her son was penalized, receiving consecutive days of detention.

When the Christian mother attempted to inquire as to the nature of her son's misconduct, she was banned from the property.

The lawsuit

Izoduwa and Shane Montague removed their son from the woke school and placed him in a Catholic school but weren't willing to let the Heavers Farm Primary School off easy.

They filed suit in 2019 with the help of the Christian Legal Centre, accusing the school of running afoul of the 2010 Equality Act as well as the Human Rights Act. They further alleged that the "Pride parade" was unlawful "discrimination against children who follow their Christian or any other mainstream religion."

Their complaint stressed that the pride march was not simply part of a broader curriculum, but rather "proselytism towards a specific worldview, whereby certain lifestyles are promoted and celebrated in a manner which runs foul of the school's obligations to respect the right of parents to raise their children according to their own religious and philosophical beliefs."

"No matter what happens, this has always been about just having our voices heard, knowing that ... we're not all going to just jump in line and just accept whatever is thrown at us," Mrs. Montague told GB News. "We are the parents. We are the primary educators."

Dismissal

The Central London County Court dismissed Montague's religious discrimination claim last week.

While members of the school's leadership team all suggested in oral testimonies that Christian views about homosexuality were hateful, Judge Christopher Lethem suggested that the pride parade's values were nevertheless in keeping with the parent's religious views.

"The Claimants have focussed [sic] on the use of the word 'celebrate' seeking to instill it with the suggestion that it was advancing LGBT issues over other lifestyle forms. The delivery of the teaching does not bear this out," wrote Lethem. "The celebration was of diversity and acceptance of the differences between people; no hierarchy of equalities. Thus there was little in the Parade that was inconsistent with their beliefs."

Lethem added, "The Claimants have argued that the Parade and the teaching in general amount to weaponizing education to undermine parental teaching and foster the school's view. In the cold light of day, I cannot ascertain the divergence between the teaching and the Christian views."

Despite siding with the LGBT activist educators overall, Lethem did acknowledge that it was "entirely reasonable" for the parents to view the T-shirt worn by the headmaster's daughter "as a hostile message."

\u201c"This was not a fair trial. This was not somebody who was looking at it from a fair basis of a parent. I went in there and I was under fire. I was questioned. I was interrogated. I was basically told what I should be thinking." \n\nIzzy Montague responds to the remarkable judgment\u2026\u201d
— Christian Concern (@Christian Concern) 1682525400

Appeal

"Throughout this ordeal it has felt like I and my Christian beliefs that have been on trial," Mrs. Montague said after the dismissal.

"I am deeply insulted by the Court’s assertion that there is nothing inconsistent between my Christian beliefs and my 4-year-old being forced to march in a Pride event surrounded by rainbow pride flags and teachers wearing LGBT affirming campaigning shirts," said Montague. "This judgment bears absolutely no resemblance to the truth of what happened at the school and in the court room."

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre said in a statement, "What this entire case stands for is that there are some schools in this country where biblical beliefs and Christians are not welcomed. Today’s judgment has given a green light to ideological headteachers who wish to mould young minds into LGBT advocates, and abuse any parents who dissent."

Mrs. Montague vowed that she will appeal the "perverse judgment which has made the evidence fit with the school's agenda."

Christian mother takes her son's school to court for 'forcing' him to take part in a Pride parade youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Commentary: Trans mania will subside. When it does, there must be a reckoning and a registry.



Trans mania will peter out, as did the hysteria around COVID. It's not a matter of if, but of when, although a great many lives will likely be destroyed in the meantime.

When the spell breaks and the progressive masses withdraw their support for mutilating children and the mentally ill, it is unlikely they'll examine what they got wrong or check in on those they've savaged.

Instead, self-absolved of all wrongdoing, they will glom onto the next lunatic fad, just as the American left did after Krushchev spoiled their red dream in 1956. If the pandemic and its aftermath are any indication, they will do so seamlessly, painlessly, and uncritically.

It is important that those responsible for the mutilations that have already taken place do not go unpunished or at the very least unnoted — particularly not the physicians who violated their oaths, the parents who violated sacred trusts, the teachers who transformed schools into breeding grounds for transgenderism, the organizations that turned victims into lifelong dependents, and the lawmakers who made it all possible.

Since it is unlikely they can be tried retroactively for their crimes against humanity, it is prudent now to consider other ways to hold them accountable and in so doing ensure that the left’s transition to its next lunatic fad will not be so seamless, painless, or uncritical.

Reaching the tipping point

While the socio-political force the editor of First Things calls the “Rainbow Reich” remains incredibly powerful, it appears increasingly exposed on the transgender front, where its pronoun protectors are being flanked by an informal coalition of feminists, women’s sports organizations, parental rights groups, conservatives, and the common man’s common sense.

The resistance is presently piecemeal, but building.

For instance, late last month, two female ESPN hosts cosigned All-American swim star Riley Gaines’ protest of the invasion of women’s sports by transvestites.

Republican lawmakers in Montana followed the example of others around the country in passing legislation to protect children from confusion-affirming genital mutilation, experimental puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones, despite veiled threats from their Democratic colleagues and attempts at intimidation by leftist radicals who stormed the Capitol last Monday.

Twitter is no longer taking an active role in promoting transgender propaganda and punishing its critics, having recently rolled back its policy on penalizing users who refer to others in accordance with their biological sex.

The transgender movement is also suffering a break in its ranks with former proponents baring their hearts and showing their wounds.

Personal stories of detransition told by people who regret the irreversible medical interventions they suffered are now receiving greater attention and more serious consideration.

It would not surprise me if Jared Jennings – the boy whose parents sought to transition him at the age of five, then paraded around on television – will one day turn on the pronoun praetorians. After all, his regrets can serve as the dark cloud to a silver lining.

When we reach the tipping point, what can we expect to be said of people like his mother, Jeanette Jennings, who admitted on camera to daily forcing her son to keep his groin wound fresh? Will there be a reckoning for the Miami surgeon who cut off so many girls’ healthy breasts that she dubbed herself “Dr. Teetus Deletus”? Will the Washington state Democrats who passed legislation allowing strangers to more or less kidnap children keen on sex changes be forced to apologize?

The precedent does not breed optimism.

Rinse and repeat

Consider the ease with which Brown University economist Emily Oster wrote herself and others formerly supportive of lockdowns, mandated vaccines, masking outdoors, shuttered schools, and other so-called health protocols back into America's good graces.

TheBlaze previously reported that Oster demanded in an Oct. 31 Atlantic article, "Let's declare a pandemic amnesty."

Oster glossed over the more severe measures taken and rules enforced in the name of public safety, instead referencing the arbitrary closure of beaches and the unjustifiable closure of schools as two examples of "getting it wrong."

Oster argued that in "the face of so much uncertainty ... getting something wrong wasn't a moral failing."

"We didn't know," Oster wrote, indicating that ignorance justified the rest. "We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID."

The trouble with Oster's claim to ignorance – as well as with any future claim to ignorance about the inhumanity of puberty blockers or sex changes on kids – is that even when progressives do know better, they don't change, but rather continue down the wrong path and summon others to follow suit.

A January 2022 Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports survey found that 45% of Democrats, whom Oster might strain to have us believe were still "in the dark about COVID," said they "would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."

The same post-pandemic survey found that 29% of Democrats also supported tearing children away from their parents if the parents refused the jab.

Like the American reds who went on defending communism after Stalin's crimes were exposed by a fellow Soviet in the 1950s, progressives went on defending COVID tyranny after the narrative had begun to crumble.

Despite progressives' tyrannical wrongheadedness when it came to COVID, America apparently saw fit to let them off the hook, perhaps heeding the postwar wisdom of Abraham Lincoln and endeavoring to express "malice toward none" in hopes of binding up "the nation's wounds."

What good is there in binding up wounds and hoping they heal if the very same aggressor means to slash again with a different blade? In permitting the Randi Weingartens of the world go back to work destroying children by the school-full after proving themselves both dangerous and unrepentant?

If the right does not confront and disarm the knife-wielding maniac, all the bandages and antiseptic in the world won't save America.

In the case of the COVID tyrants, Blaze TV’s Steve Deace called for Nuremberg-like trials. Cynically, as it pertains to the trans maniacs, I’m aiming lower.

National registry of sex-change offenders

Red-state Republicans are presently taking steps to stop the bloodletting. When the obstacles laid before them by activists and the Biden Department of Justice are finally overcome, future confusion-affirming butchers and their co-conspirators will be thrown in jail and/or fined.

These measures only address future crimes. What of the offenders and crimes of yesteryear?

The law cannot be applied retroactively, particularly not when the horrors inflicted on minors were at the time not just legal but celebrated by the executive branch, the media, big business, and the ideologically captive medical establishment.

Nevertheless, it is critically important that Americans, particularly those on the right, take every lawful measure possible to hold the butchers, druggists, and propagandists to account, especially since recent history indicates they are unlikely to independently assume any responsibility whatsoever.

Readers more creative than I will no doubt come up with more effective ways, but I figured I'd at least proffer one half-measure.

America presently puts those who prey upon children on sex offender registries.

Registered offenders have to introduce themselves when moving into an area. They are searchable in a database so that parents, employers, and others can "identify location information on sex offenders living, working and attending school not only in their own neighborhoods but in other nearby states and communities."

In lieu of torches and pitchforks, I propose a nongovernmental sex-change offender registry to draw what Alexis de Tocqueville would call a "formidable circle" around those who were ready and willing to sacrifice children to the Moloch of our age – around officials and persons once or still in positions of authority who championed child mutilation, mutilated children, or directly profited from kids' transmogrification.

Such a registry would provide parents with the knowledge and confidence that they aren't leaving their children in a classroom, doctor's office, or other setting with a maniac. The registry might, for instance, dissuade parents from enrolling their child in a particular school. Alternatively, it might prompt them to select a school whose staff didn't spend the past several years trying to transition minors.

Employers who deal with children might also like to know whether prospective hires have advocated for the butchery or chemical abuse of their clientele.

Such a registry might also prove consequential for lawmakers, serving a similar purpose as a political scorecard, not unlike CPAC's congressional rating system or the NRA Political Victory Fund's grading system. This way, when the next bad idea comes around and progressive representatives jump on board, they will do so shackled to a record voters can easily access.

By actively naming and shaming those who today advocate for the medical maligning of children, it may be possible to chasten the bandits and possibly spare America a few more scars.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Leftists are losing it after Ontario township axes 'Pride Month' and rules non-governmental flags, including pride flags, cannot be flown on city property



A community in the Canadian province of Ontario has decided it's going to hang up the vain effort to please everybody and take down all non-governmental flags on municipal property.

Leftists are fuming since this successful motion means that LGBT activists' pride colors can no longer be flown above the Township of Norwich, a community of roughly 11,000.

The Norwich Township council voted on two motions: one banning non-governmental flags, such that only federal, provincial, and municipal flags can be flown on township property, including street light poles, and another recognizing June as "Pride Month."

Canadian state media reported that the councilor who proposed the bylaw, John Scholten, was of the mind that further accommodation of particular flags, particularly activists' flags, would only inspire other groups to request their own flags.

Scholten reasoned, "I simply need to look at our federal, provincial and municipal flags to see everything we need to maintain the unity that is already there," reported the London Free Press.

"By flying these flags alone on township property, we can coexist in peace and harmony no matter who we are or what we believe. To open the door to flying flags that represent any particular group or organization or ideology will only divide rather than unite," added Scholten.
Despite a multitude of activists crowding the council chambers on Tuesday, both inside and out, the pressure exerted on the councilmen wasn't enough ultimately to sway them. The first motion passed with a 3-2 vote.

Calvi Leon of the London Free Press reported that Tami Murray, the head of Oxford County Pride, couldn't handle the democratic result and stormed out of the chambers. Murray later called the result "disgusting," adding that "it sets us back. It's regression."

After Murray's exit, the council voted 4-1 not to declare June "Pride Month."

"As the mayor, I have to support the people in my township. There are far, far more people on that side than on the other side," said Norwich Mayor Jim Palmer. "I’m sure there's going be people who talk to me, people are going to call me bad names. ... It's not my intention. But that's just the way things go."

Councilor Alisha Stubbs, who voted against the flag ban and in favor of making the community complicit in LGBT activism during the month of June, said, "This entire situation right now is sneaky. It’s demeaning. It’s non-transparent. It’s unethical. It goes further beyond our code of conduct as councillors."

Stubbs went so far as to claim that the exclusion of all non-governmental flags was "directly, specifically, and horrifyingly discrimination (and) it's a clear violation of the Human Rights Code."

LGBT activist Jordan Kent of Oxford County Pride said, "The council here should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for choosing to take the wrong side of this issue."

Kent later claimed on Twitter that the council's decision to only fly the Canadian and Ontario flags was "genuinely unCanadian."

Some activists are seeking to circumnavigate the democratic process with an appeal to the human rights tribunal in hopes of coercing the Township of Norwich into flying their colors.

Global News reported that LGBT activist Tami Murray will be filing a human rights complaint.

"We are going to continue to be the voice for those who continue to be marginalized in Norwich and we will be moving forward with the legal process that we have every right to do," said Murray.

Mayor Palmer said of the possibility of a legal challenge: "If we are challenged we will have to defend ourselves."

While leftists bemoaned the township's resistance to activist pressure, some lauded it on online.

Twitter user Billboard Chris, a critic of gender ideology and the mutilation of children, wrote, "Well done, Norwich. We don't need a month or a flag that celebrates the maiming and sterilization of children."

The Canadian Christian Heritage Party suggested, "All government buildings should follow suit."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican bill in North Dakota would ban LGBT activists' reality-denying pronouns in state-funded organizations, including schools



Republican state Senator David Clemens has taken a stand against the systemic embrace and imposition of LGBT speech conventions in North Dakota, enraging activists.

Clemens, a Vietnam War veteran and father of four, introduced Senate Bill 2199 on Jan. 10 with fellow Republican Sens. Shawn Vedaa and Kent Weston, as well as Reps. Karen Anderson, Austen Schauer, and Bill Tveit.

The bill would require "any entity receiving state funding, including a public school, an institution under the control of the state board of higher education, and a state agency or office," to use the pronouns referencing a given person's biological sex.

Accordingly, words referring to "an individual, person, employer, employee, contestant, participant, member, student, or juvenile must be used in the context of that person's sex as determined at birth."

If there is some confusion about a person's so-called "gender identity," determination will be made on the basis of the individual's DNA.

This reality-affirming requirement would apply to the communications, policies, procedures, training, and records of state-funded institutions.

The penalty for using reality-denying pronouns in such documentation or policies is $1,500.

Clemens provided some clarity around the bill, stating, "Say they’re a boy, but they come to school and say they’re a girl. As far as that school is concerned in this bill, that person is still a boy. If it becomes contested, the burden will be on the girl, the so-called girl, or the boy, to prove that he is a girl."

The senator stressed that the bill would not "outlaw an individual’s personal expression, but it does outlaw the use of public funds to promote or support anything that is contrary to a person’s biological sex at birth," to preclude state-funded organizations from "promoting transgenderism."

Republican Rep. Brandon Prichard intimated that this amounted to a defense of children's innocence, reported the Bismarck Tribune.

"There is a broader assault on children’s innocence in this country, and if somebody — if I don’t step up to it, I’m worried that no one else will," said Prichard.

KFYR reported that the bill did not pass the Republican-led state Senate Judiciary Committee, but since the committee lacks veto power, it will nevertheless advance to the Senate floor.

Activists keen on continuing to foist ideologically loaded neologisms on others are beside themselves.

Transsexual activist Katrina Koesterman of Tristate Transgender said the bill "the general atmosphere of hostility and hatred towards the transgender community."

Christina Sambor of the so-called ND Human Rights Coalition told KFYR, "Respectfully, I see no way this law would pass any sort of legal challenge based on basic legal construction principles. It’s vague, fails to advance any legitimate state interests, and not only would cause impermissible, gender-based discrimination, its very purpose is gender-based discrimination."

Some have taken to launching personal attacks, suggesting that Clemens looks like Captain Kangaroo, the titular character of a children's show that reportedly aired on CBS from 1955 to 1984.

The Bismarck Tribune noted that if this legislation fails, as many anticipate it will, there is hope yet with Republican Sen. Larry Luick's Senate Bill 2231.

Luick's bill — introduced at the request of the executive director of the state's Catholic Conference — would prohibit a government entity from requiring an employee to "use an individual's preferred pronoun when addressing or mentioning the individual in work-related communications."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Lawsuit seeking to force Christian universities to conform to LGBT-sanctioned ideology thrown out by federal judge



An LGBT advocacy group sued the U.S. Education Department in hopes of forcing various Christian schools to systematically adhere to the ever-changing and frequently incoherent precepts sanctioned by gay- and transsexual-rights activists.

To achieve this end, they reportedly sought to bar students from using tuition grants, student loans, and other federal financial assistance at colleges and universities that work in accordance with religious beliefs on sexuality.

They failed.

Clinton-nominated Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon ruled on January 12 in favor of Christian colleges and against the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit

The Religious Exemption Accountability Project, an LGBT activist group, sued the Education Department in March 2021 on behalf of a gang of 33 current and past students at federally funded colleges.

The lawsuit's alleged aim was to "put an end to the U.S. Department of Education's complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions thousands of LGBTQ+ students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded, religious colleges and universities."

According to the suit, the plaintiffs sought "safety and justice for themselves and for the countless sexual and gender minority students whose oppression, fueled by government funding, and unrestrained by government intervention, persists with injurious consequences to mind, body and soul."

The College Fix indicated that the kind of "oppression" that these activists sought to combat would include religious schools' prohibitions on students being in gay relationships as well as policies preventing men who masquerade as females from entering women's locker rooms.

According to the Washington Post, the suit further alleged that the religious exemption conferred to the schools, allowing them "to have discriminatory policies," is unconstitutional because they receive government funding.

Title IX applies to all schools that receive federal funding.

Title IX says, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

There is, however, a religious exemption under Title IX stating that "an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization" can uphold its values, even if regarded as discriminatory, so long as they are "consistent with the religious tenets of such organization."

The suit referenced 25 schools across the country.

Bob Jones University president Steve Pettit suggested that, if successful, the suit would foist a "single government-sanctioned ideology" on religious schools across the country.

The decision

Reason reported that Aiken more or less recognized that the government "has no constitutional obligation to prohibit sex discrimination (or race discrimination, religious discrimination[,] political discrimination, or what have you) by private institutions, even ones that get government funds."

Aiken wrote, "Plaintiffs have submitted no allegations of discriminatory motivation on the part of those enacting the religious exemption. To the contrary, Plaintiffs argue that when Congress enacted Title IX, protections for—or discrimination against sexual and gender minorities—were 'of no concern.'"

The judge also noted that "the Supreme Court has stated that 'a law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose.'"

Aiken added, "Plaintiffs also fail to allege facts to demonstrate that it is Defendants—the government actor— that has burdened Plaintiffs religious beliefs."

The judge elsewhere made mincemeat of the activists' allegations, suggesting they are "difficult to string together."

While the Clinton-nominated judge suggested that "the relief requested will result in the Plaintiffs receiving the dignity and equal treatment they seek," she ultimately decided to dismiss the case and deny the motion for preliminary injunction.

At rainbow's end

Activists were enraged by the result — that Christian universities can continue to affirm their values rather than the designs of LGBT social engineers.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Hunter said, "The government's choice to ignore both the injustice done to me, and the injustice weaponized against hundreds of LGBTQ+ students is deeply disappointing. We deserve better, our country deserves better, and history deserves better. The silence and erasure of LGBTQ+ students should not be a precedent."

Plaintiff Lucas Wilson, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary, said he was "enraged," claiming the "court's decision that there is no legal remedy for the harm done to us LGBTQ+ students makes the government complicit in both allowing and perpetuating homophobia and transphobia."

Wilson, a foreign national, added, "Very simply, the court could and should have decided to protect queer students; these taxpayer-funded religious schools ought not be privileged over LGBTQ+ students' safety and vitality."

While LGBT activists are riven over the court's decision, others are touting Aiken's ruling as a victory for freedom in America.

David Cortman, vice president of U.S. litigation for Alliance Defending Freedom, said, "A federal district court today rightly rejected an unfounded assault on the religious freedom of faith-based educational institutions. Title IX, which applies to schools receiving federal financial assistance, explicitly protects the freedom of religious schools to live out their deeply and sincerely held convictions."

"A group of activists asked the court to strip that protection away from schools that educate the next generation and advance the common good. The court correctly concluded that Title IX’s religious liberty exemption doesn’t violate any of the plaintiffs’ claimed rights," added Cortman.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!