UK Devout born-again Christian mother sues her four-year-old son's school in first case of its kind in UK for 'making him take part in LGBT parade' - Headteacher of Heavers Farm Primary told Izzy Montague her son must attend

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-year-old-sons-school-saying-LGBT-parade.html
Archive: https://archive.is/U97lC#selection-903.0-903.74

---

Devout born-again Christian mother sues her four-year-old son's school in first case of its kind in UK for 'making him take part in LGBT parade'​

• Headteacher of Heavers Farm Primary told Izzy Montague her son must attend
• In 2018 she went on ITV Good Morning Britain to talk about LGBT lessons

By Matt Powell For Mailonline

Published: 19:06 GMT, 1 February 2023 | Updated: 21:12 GMT, 1 February 2023

A devout Christian who claims her four-year-old son was compelled to take part in an LGBT pride parade is suing the school - in the first case of its kind in the UK.

Izzy Montagu, 38, said she was told by the headteacher of Heavers Farm Primary School in South Norwood, southeast London, that her son could not opt out of the event in June 2018.

The school sent a letter to parents on 19 June inviting them to partake in a Pride march and 'celebrate the differences that make them and their family special.'
A week later Mrs Montague contacted the school 'and asked for her son to be excused attendance on 29 June as they were concerned of him being involved of a public display of adherence to views which she did not accept.'

Mrs Montague's request was refused by the headteacher Ms Susan Papas so the parent replied with a lengthy email on 13 July, Central London County Court heard.



Central London County Court heard that Heavers Farm Primary School headteacher Ms Susan Papas told Mrs Montague that her son had to attend the lesson
At the start of the eight-day case Judge Christopher Lethem described Mrs Montague and her husband as 'devout born-again Christians, and they bear a belief that sexual relations should be abstained from or take place within a life-long marriage between a man and a woman and any activity outside those confines is sinful.

'They also say pride is considered to be the most serious of the deadly sins.'

Mrs Montague attended a meeting with Ms Papas on 19 September in which the headteacher's daughter wore a t-shirt with the slogan: 'Why be racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic when you could just be quiet?', the court heard.

Giving evidence Mrs Montague told the court, prior to the incident, she had expressed concerns to her son's teacher about the types of books they were reading in class.

Ian Clarke, representing the school, asked: 'What books where they?'

Mrs Montague said: 'There was one reference to a same sex family book.'

'I believe it's called The Family Book,' said Mr Clarke.

'I can't remember the exact name, just that was included in the lessons,' she answered.

'So you get this letter on 19 June and you see that it is about celebrating 'the things that make our family special.'

Mrs Montague replied: 'It felt like it was lecturing me about something to do with British values and somehow we weren't adhering to British values.'



Izzy Montague previously appeared on ITV and argued that teaching LGBT is wrong and that it should be her choice and that she should be the one to teach her children about LGBT

'You also say in your witness statement that the letter made a disparaging comment about the attitudes of parents... where does it say that?' asked Mr Clarke.

Mrs Montague replied: 'I just feel this letter was really trying to hammer into parents and drive into them something that's not happened before.'

Mr Clarke said: 'You say the letter is forcing you into the indoctrination of an LGBT lifestyle, where does it say that?'

Mrs Montague told the court: 'I don't know I just felt a topic had come up.

'I clearly was not in the know about it, but this was the way, in my opinion, to try to indoctrinate it onto us by passing it off that it was part of law or part of British values, or it was part of the national curriculum, it was trying to sell something no one wanted to buy.'

Reading from a blog published by the school on 18 June 2018. Mr Clarke said: 'This June, the celebration of pride is about learning about the diversity of our whole school community and tackling bullying.'

He asked the parent: 'As I understand you don't have a problem of celebrating the diversity of the whole school community and tackling bullying?'

Ms Montague replied: 'Me personally, it's not something I would celebrate...... It's not something I would choose to celebrate.

'I think it's good the wider community comes together, and we learn and live together.

'I don't know if you mean celebrate as have a party, it's not something I would attend.'

Mr Clarke asked: 'Isn't the school simply using the month of June to celebrate wider issues of diversity and tolerance?'

Ms Montague replied: 'I believe it's using pride month and other issues around that time to sell pride month.

'I think you can easily celebrate diversity without even having anything do with pride month.'

'So, if they did it on 29 May would we all be sat here?' asked Mr Clarke

'If they did any form of celebration of any sexual lifestyles we will still be sat here,' said Ms Montague

Mr Clarke asked: 'So, the fact it is pride month is neither here nor there?'

'A month that celebrates sexual lifestyles Is a problem in any month,' said Ms Montague

Mrs Montague, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, is suing the school on the grounds of direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and breach of statutory duty under the Education Act 1996 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is the first time that a UK court will scrutinise the legality of imposing LGBT ideology on primary schools.

The hearing continues.

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Muslims are A-okay with trannies, to the point it's a custom to force faggots to be trannies. They aren't based saviours by any stretch.

Muslims are absolutely not a-ok with trannies. They force gays to castrate themselves because they think its better to be a tranny than to be gay in the same way that having cholera is better than having stage 4 metastatic cancer.

You think a troon is gonna walk in a muslim school and start talking about dilation and muslims will start praising that?

 

[Return of the Freaker]

Muslims are A-okay with trannies, to the point it's a custom to force faggots to be trannies. They aren't based saviours by any stretch.

Muslims are absolutely not a-ok with trannies. They force gays to castrate themselves because they think its better to be a tranny than to be gay in the same way that having cholera is better than having stage 4 metastatic cancer.

You think a troon is gonna walk in a muslim school and start talking about dilation and muslims will start praising that?

As far as I'm aware it's really only Iran that allows gender reassignment in lieu of stoning. Elsewhere its just prison or death.

 

[Oilspill Battery]

As far as I'm aware it's really only Iran that allows gender reassignment in lieu of stoning. Elsewhere its just prison or death.

Correction, its not "allows" its "mandates".

If they catch you doing the gay its either stoning or castration, you don't get to say no.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Mary wasn't "elevated" to "queen of Heaven" status. If Jesus is the "king of Heaven" and He's of the Davidic lineage, then it's appropriate to call His mother "queen mother (of heaven)"

That's nonsense because Mary's not part of the holy trinity, and Jesus is. Mary is mortal and Jesus is the son of God. By calling Mary the "queen of heaven," she is being elevated to the status of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which would make it a quartet.

 

[Blobby's Murder Knife]

That's nonsense because Mary's not part of the holy trinity, and Jesus is. Mary is mortal and Jesus is the son of God. By calling Mary the "queen of heaven," she is being elevated to the status of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which would make it a quartet.

That's not how it works at all. She is considered the highest of the saints, but most certainly not equal to God. She is the highest female in Heaven which is why she gets the title, but in no way is that to signify she is on par with God or should be worshipped.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Britain really ought to have sued for peace during Dunkirk or shortly thereafter, or received visionary RUDOLF HESS in a very different way.

 

[lostkeys]

'They also say pride is considered to be the most serious of the deadly sins.'

Society promotes Pride so heavily, it’s hard to believe this used to be frowned upon. Does anyone know the reason why Christian’s believe Pride to be a sin?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

That's nonsense because Mary's not part of the holy trinity

Firstly, there are no "parts" of the Holy Trinity.

Secondly, I already explained why she's called the "queen of heaven", and at no point did I say that she was included in the Godhead. Nobody that has ever used the epithet has ever considered her as being of the Godhead. The epithet is expressly meant to emphasize that Christ is in fact the incarnate Deity (thus, both man and God), of Davidic lineage (thus, "king of the Jews"), and the king of Heaven.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Society promotes Pride so heavily, it’s hard to believe this used to be frowned upon. Does anyone know the reason why Christian’s believe Pride to be a sin?

Because that was Satan's sin. Non serviam.

Bear in mind pride in this context doesn't mean self-esteem or self-worth or feeling good about an accomplishment or job well done. The original meaning of "Pride" in the LGB context was just this - we were tired of being abused, insulted, assaulted or even killed because of who we are. So we took pride in our identity rather than hide or pretend we were something else.

Of course this led to all kinds of excesses as you no doubt can see from these parades. It has increasingly gone from pride to provocation, there were some wild Pride events back in the 70s and 80s but it was within the community (especially SF) and not being forced upon others.

This kind of pride is hubris, refusing to obey and serve God and thinking yourself independent of his will. A good example of this in a Catholic context is refusing to attend Mass because you don't want to and convincing yourself you don't need to.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Firstly, there are no "parts" of the Holy Trinity.

It's funny that you would dictate this to me with such authority when the first denominational rifts occurred over what the Trinity really was, but I'm sure your version is the correct one.

Secondly, I already explained why she's called the "queen of heaven", and at no point did I say that she was included in the Godhead. Nobody that has ever used the epithet has ever considered her as being of the Godhead. The epithet is expressly meant to emphasize that Christ is in fact the incarnate Deity (thus, both man and God), of Davidic lineage (thus, "king of the Jews"), and is the king of Heaven.

Jesus is the King of the Jews because he's part of the Godhead, not because of his blood lineage, there is no such thing as biblical blood-royalty, that's a myth the Jews invented for themselves so they could lord over gentiles as an elite class while being huge sinners, hence the reason why Jesus agitated the Pharisees with his criticisms.

 

[Niggernerd]

White people so pathetic and worthless niggers have to talk sense for them. Sad

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It's funny that you would dictate this to me with such authority when the first denominational rifts occurred over what the Trinity really was,

You're the one using the term "Trinity", which refers to a specific doctrine that teaches that God is indivisible. No controversy regarding the nature of the Trinity involved anybody suggesting that God was divisible. Not even the Arian controversy had anybody-- Arian or otherwise-- suggesting anything of the sort. The filioque controversy also never involved any such thing.

Don't bloviate about the concept of the Trinity without understanding that the Trinity is indivisible by the very meaning of the word.

Jesus is the King of the Jews because he's part of the Godhead, not because of his blood lineage

...no, He's "king of the Jews" because He's of the lineage of David. That's why there was emphasis made on His lineage in the Gospel according to Matthew. He's also "king of all creation", because He's God.

there is no such thing as biblical blood-royalty

There is in fact such a thing as kingly blood lineage. The books of Kings and Chronicles detail it, and the Gospel according to Matthew implicates it.

It wasn't used by Jews that were not of said lineage to exalt themselves over the Gentiles-- that they were Jews and they were not was enough for that aim. The hypocrisy for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees involved their soulless and ostentatious adherence to only the letter of the Law (along with traditions that ultimately didn't derive from said Law) and their self-glorification in doing so. This had close to nothing to do with how they related to Gentiles.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

You're the one using the term "Trinity", which refers to a specific doctrine that teaches that God is indivisible. No controversy regarding the nature of the Trinity involved anybody suggesting that God was such. Not even the Arian controversy had anybody-- Arian or otherwise-- suggesting anything of the sort.

Don't bloviate about the concept of the Trinity without understanding that the Trinity is indivisible by the very meaning of the word.

If the Trinity is "indivisible" then why is it called the "Trinity" and not the "Singularity"?

...no, He's "king of the Jews" because He's of the lineage of David. That's why there was emphasis made on His lineage. He's also "king of all creation", because He's God.

Actually not even that, King of Heaven is an Old Testament term meant for God himself. "Queen of Heaven" is also in the Old Testament, in biblical canon it's used as an epithet for a pagan deity Israel was worshipping.

Jeremiah 7:18

"The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger."

There is in fact such a thing as kingly blood lineage. The books of Kings and Chronicles detail it, as does the Gospel according to Matthew. These weren't used by Jews that were not of said lineage to exalt themselves over the Gentiles-- that they were Jews and they were not was enough for that. The hypocrisy that Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees for involved their soulless and ostentatious adherence to the letter of the Law, and had close to nothing to do with how they related to Gentiles.

While it is true that the Pharisees were only paying lip service to their faith and taking it to unwarranted logical extremities, what I mean is there is no such thing as a divine bloodline, just because someone was made king does not mean their blood is better than those they rule over. This is the crux of what I meant by royalty, and it's the dynamic by which the Pharisees deemed themselves holy & divine, the chosen people, and they despised Jewish half-breeds which they called Samaritans because they diluted their bloodline. This is why Jesus' status can't be predicated on the mere fact he's a descendent of David, but rather by his actual divinity.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If the Trinity is "indivisible" then why is it called the "Trinity" and not the "Singularity"?

Because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally one God. He's not a monad (that's the underlying premise of Sabellianism, Adoptionism, and Arianism).

Actually not even that, King of Heaven is an Old Testament term meant for God himself. "Queen of Heaven" is also in the Old Testament, in biblical canon it's used as an epithet for a pagan deity Israel was worshipping.

Obviously, the epithet as used by Christians is not in reference to an idol that wasn't worshiped by anyone centuries before the advent of Christ. I've already explained why Mary is called the "queen of Heaven", probably twice by now.

While it is true that the Pharisees were only paying lip service to their faith and taking it to unwarranted logical extremities, what I mean is there is no such thing as a divine bloodline, just because someone was made king does not mean their blood is better than those they rule over.

Nobody said or implied this.

This is the crux of what I meant by royalty, and it's the dynamic by which the Pharisees deemed themselves holy & divine,

They considered themselves better than the pagans because they weren't pagans. They never appealed to royal blood they never had in their veins-- they themselves were looking for a messiah out of the lineage of David. It absolutely is important that Jesus was born from that lineage (as much as it's important that He's God incarnate), and Christians have had hundreds of years to mull over the implications of this and many other facts for doctrinal, hymnal, and other venerational purposes.

and they despised Jewish half-breeds which they called Samaritans because they diluted their bloodline.

The reason they were at odds with the Samaritans was because they had a competing claim to the true faith while effectively practicing a different one.

 

[Begemot]

Britain really ought to have sued for peace during Dunkirk or shortly thereafter, or received visionary RUDOLF HESS in a very different way.

Modern Britain is shit so murderous genocidal Fascism is the better choice. Never change, A & H...

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally one God. He's not a monad (that's the underlying premise of Sabellianism, Adoptionism, and Arianism).

Sorry, but the nature of the Trinity has been a source of schisms since the Roman empire. To say with authority what it is implies you have some greater understanding than all the people who've been arguing about it for thousands of years.

Obviously, the epithet as used by Christians is not in reference to an idol that wasn't worshiped by anyone centuries before the advent of Christ. I've already explained why Mary is called the "queen of Heaven", probably twice by now.

Mary is never referred to as the Queen of Heaven in the Bible. She is not divine, she is not a queen of anything, she was a commoner and mortal.

Nobody said or implied this.

No, you said that Jesus is King of the Jews because of his blood heritage to David. How does that work? Mary and her husband were not royalty in the sense that they ruled a country, they were peasants, so the only way this could work as you described is if the bloodline of David was somehow special and of greater stock than Gentiles. If the blood of David isn't especially divine, and if Mary is not part of the Trinity, then why would Mary be the "Queen of Heaven?"

It's becoming apparent that I've reached the limit of my theological knowledge so I won't continue arguing about this. Maybe we'll resume another time.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Sorry, but the nature of the Trinity has been a source of schisms since the Roman empire. To say with authority what it is implies you have some greater understanding than all the people who've been arguing about it for thousands of years.

Mary is never referred to as the Queen of Heaven in the Bible. She is not divine, she is not a queen of anything, she was a commoner and mortal.

No, you said that Jesus is King of the Jews because of his blood heritage to David. How does that work? Mary and her husband were not royalty in the sense that they ruled a country, they were peasants, so the only way this could work as you described is if the bloodline of David was somehow special and of greater stock than Gentiles. If the blood of David isn't especially divine, and if Mary is not part of the Trinity, then why would Mary be the "Queen of Heaven?"

It's becoming apparent that I've reached the limit of my theological knowledge so I won't continue arguing about this. Maybe we'll resume another time.

He didn't say Jesus is King of the Jews, Zero said he came from a princely lineage, ie David's. Mary's lineage is detailed in Luke; she is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 3:34); she was specifically of the tribe of Judah (verse 33). She was also a descendant of Boaz (verse 32) and David (verse 31). Luke traces Mary’s lineage all the way back to Adam.

Mary is not part of the Trinity because she isn't, she is the Mother of Jesus and she referred to as the Queen of Heaven by some. I personally, in all my years in Catholic school and catechism never heard her called "Queen of Heaven" but she indeed holds a unique and special place not just for Catholics but Islam as well.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Sorry, but the nature of the Trinity has been a source of schisms since the Roman empire.

I've done far more reading than two Extra Credits videos, and I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make.

There have been more theological controversies than those regarding the Trinity, and some of those have led to schismatic sects. There have been theological controversies regarding the nature of God prior to the Edict of Milan. If your retort is seriously "how do you know that what you believe is the correct belief?", you need to reevaluate what you believe and why. As for me, at no point have I said that I have better understanding than everyone who's argued on the matter-- I outright align myself with one of the only such communities God allowed to persist beyond those controversial times given a spiritual and intellectual conviction, as is my privilege as one born in this era.

Mary is never referred to as the Queen of Heaven in the Bible.

I'm aware. The term "Trinity" is also not used in the Scriptures whose canon was determined by the community guided by God, who fashioned that epithet.

She is not divine

For the third time, that is not what the epithet means.

If Jesus is the "king of Heaven" and He's of the Davidic lineage, then it's appropriate to call His mother "queen mother (of heaven)"-- in the same exact way that Solomon's mother was regarded as such (the specific Hebrew term for "queen mother" is "gebirah"). It's an epithet meant to encapsulate at least two truths about Christ, through Mary.

The epithet is expressly meant to emphasize that Christ is in fact the incarnate Deity (thus, both man and God), of Davidic lineage (thus, "king of the Jews"), and the king of Heaven.

Emphasis added.

You're not at the limit of your theological knowledge, you're at the limit of being able to do more than misrepresent the points I make.

No, you said that Jesus is King of the Jews because of his blood heritage to David. How does that work? Mary and her husband were not royalty, so the only way this could work as you described is if the bloodline of David was somehow special and of greater stock than Gentiles.

And this makes no sense, whatsoever.

 

[Vetinari]

Why can the parents just pull their kids out of school on that specific date?

You'd think, wouldn't you? But no, these days you need 'permission' to take your children out of school. You have to apply, and then the school will decide based on the child's attendance record. If you don't get permission and still take your child out of school, you will face a fine. And sometimes a court hearing.

She could have told them the child was ill on that day. I'm unsure how they'd go about proving it to be false, but they would have probably still tried to fine her.

Now if she had kept quiet and told them he was ill, she would've gotten off scott-free - it's what I do with my own. I do admire her for not letting it go, though.

 

[Dragged Into Sunlight]

That's nonsense because Mary's not part of the holy trinity, and Jesus is. Mary is mortal and Jesus is the son of God. By calling Mary the "queen of heaven," she is being elevated to the status of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which would make it a quartet.

Catholics are idolators, full stop.