Religious education teacher paid for boy to have tattoo during week-long relationship

• Helen Carter
• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 November 2009 14.37 GMT
• Article history

A religious education teacher who admitted 10 charges of engaging a 15-year-old pupil in sexual activity has been jailed today.

Madeleine Martin, 39, of Knutsford, Cheshire, admitted beginning a week-long relationship with the boy, who was under 16 at the time, when she appeared in court in September.

Today she was sentenced to 32 months in prison at Manchester Minshull Street crown court. Martin was also suspended from her job at a Greater Manchester school, which cannot be named for legal reasons.

The court was told that Martin had qualified as a teacher four years ago and first met her victim in September 2008.

The pair began communicating via the Facebook social networking website and their contact escalated into a sexual relationship.

On 9 February she asked the boy to do something that would remind him of her when they were apart. She drove him to a tattooist and paid for him to have "Mad" and a heart etched onto his skin.

They then drove to a secluded area, where they had sex. The boy quickly decided to end their involvement and told Martin.

He eventually told his mother what had happened and she immediately reported the matter to police in April.

Judge Jonathan Geake told her: "It is clear that your life came to a very low ebb. Unhappily it was against that background that you were trusted with mentoring this young teenage boy who himself was vulnerable in the sense that he was having his own difficulties at school.

"It is clear from the way in which the prosecution presented that case that rather than mentor him in the proper way, you used him as an emotional support and comfort for yourself rather than the other way round.

"You started to abuse the trust you were entrusted with. Eventually you lured him into intimacies which should never have happened and which you now admit should never have happened."

Mark Fireman, in mitigation, said his client had brought "shame on herself and her family" and had lost her career, and her friends. He said at the time of sexual contact she was going through a "very difficult time in her personal life". Her relationship with her husband had ended, and her sister was suffering from terminal cancer and eventually died.

"The matter left her extremely depressed and perhaps vulnerable to thoughts and actions that would not have normally have taken place."

He added: "It is an incident that she bitterly, bitterly regrets. She knows that she has caused great harm."

In a victim impact statement, the boy said he had been taunted by his fellow pupils and had not returned to the school. He also said he was embarrassed to show people the tattoo Martin had encouraged him to get. His mother told the court that her relationship with her son had suffered, and that he had become lethargic and lost interest in his hobbies. She added: "He has lost the sparkle he always had."

Outside court, Detective Sergeant Dave Moores of Tameside Child protection unit said: "Martin's actions will leave emotional scars on her victim and his family and have also impacted on the wider community.

"I would like to praise the bravery of the victim in speaking out and ensuring justice was done for him.

"I am satisfied that she has been given the sentence she deserves and hope this will send a strong message that this behaviour will not be tolerated."

He added that Martin would remain on the sex offenders' register.

Exclusion of heterosexual couples challenged

Bid for civil partnership equality backed by Peter Tatchell

London, UK – 23 November 2009

A London straight couple, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, plan to challenge the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships by filing an application at Islington Registry Office in London this Tuesday, 24 November at 10.30am.

They want “heterosexual equality.”

The denial of civil partnerships to straight couples is, they say, “discriminatory and perpetuates legal inequality.”

Doyle and Freeman expect to be turned down by the registrar but they plan to get the refusal in writing, with view to taking legal advice and appealing the refusal.

“If necessary, we are ready to take our appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights,” said Mr Freeman and Ms Doyle.

The couple’s equality bid is backed by the gay rights group OutRage! and by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. He will join them on 24 November when they give notice of their civil partnership at Islington Town Hall’s Registry Office.

Mr Tatchell commented:

“We are against both homophobic and heterophobic laws. In a democratic society, everyone should be treated equally. There should be no legal discrimination. The ban on same-sex civil marriage and on opposite-sex civil partnerships is a form of sexual apartheid. It is one law for straight couples and another law for gay partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right,” he said.

Outlining the reasons why they decided to opt for a civil partnership instead of marriage, Katherine Doyle said:

“We have been together for three and a half years and would like to formalise our relationship. Because we feel alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage, we would prefer to have a civil partnership. As a mixed-sex couple, we are banned by law from doing so. By filing an application for civil partnership, we are seeking to challenge this discriminatory law.

“Our decision is also motivated by the fact that we object to the way same-sex couples are prohibited from getting married. If we got married we would be colluding with the segregation that exists in matrimonial law between gay civil partnerships and straight civil
marriage. We don't want to take advantage of civil marriage when it is an option that is denied to our lesbian and gay friends,” she said.

Doyle and Freeman will be giving notice of their intention to form a civil partnership at 10.30am, on Tuesday 24th November 2009 at Islington Registry Office, Islington Town Hall, Upper Street, London, N1 2UD

Tom Freeman (25, civil servant) said:

“We want to secure official status for our relationship in a way that supports the call for complete equality and is free of the negative connotations of marriage.

“If we cannot have a civil partnership, we will not get married. On a point of principle, we will remain unmarried until opposite sex couples can have a civil partnership and same-sex couples can have a civil marriage.

“We are taking this stand against discrimination and in support of legal equality for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

“The ‘separate but equal’ system which segregates couples according to their sexuality is not equal at all. All loving couples should have access to the same institutions, regardless of sexuality. There should be parity of respect and rights,” he said.

Katherine Doyle (25, civil servant) added:

“We don’t like the institution of marriage. We would much prefer a civil partnership. It is time there was full legal equality, with both civil marriage and civil partnerships open to gay and straight couples. We want a choice and all other couples should also have a choice, irrespective of their sexuality.

“Just as lesbian and gay couples should be able to have a civil marriage, civil partnerships should be available to straight couples who don’t like the institution of marriage,” she said.

Under UK law, same-sex couples are banned from civil marriage and heterosexual couples are banned from civil partnerships (called civil unions in the US).

Mr Tatchell commented:

“The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is disciminatory and offensive. I want to see it ended, so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership.

“I applaud their challenge to this unjust legislation,” he said.

(Flickr/Lisa Norwood)

Vote for Courtney Martin in The Washington Post's Next Great Pundit contest.

"Machismo!" shouted a young college student in the third row.

"Tough!" "Violent!" "Homophobic!" shouted three other young men, sprinkled throughout the packed lecture hall. Ethan Wong, a student at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, who was dressed in a slim business suit, nodded as he wrote each word on the chalk board.

The roomful of young men was brainstorming all the qualities associated with masculinity. Wong was one of the organizers of the National Conference for Campus-Based Men's Gender Equality and Anti-Violence Groups, a long and clunky name for an unprecedented event that took place last weekend at his school. It was the first time that young guys from around the country -- guys like Wong, who recognize that the kind of masculinity they are describing is toxic for men, too -- gathered to share strategies for getting college men involved in gender-based activism and discuss the work ahead.

In attendance were about 200 individuals, representing 40 colleges and two dozen organizations, many of them sporting titles like Center Against Sexual and Domestic Abuse, Men Can Stop Rape, and Men Stopping Violence. Notice a trend here? This contemporary movement of gender-conscious young men is largely identifying themselves in terms of what they are against. They're not rapists. They're not misogynists.

They're also not particularly effective in imagining what they do want to be. Case in point: back to Wong at the chalkboard. The negative associations with masculinity poured off the tongues of these feminist-friendly college kids. They've taken Women's Studies 101. When their buddy says, "That's so gay," they spit back, "That's a sexual identity, not a dis." They let a few tears fall during the Take Back the Night March. They devour Michael Kimmel's Guyland and proselytize about Byron Hurt's documentary, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes. This generation is saying no to toxic masculinity.

But what are these young men saying yes too? We've all failed to envision an alternative...click link for the rest

This is very good and an important discussion to be having.

If pornography seems like the last thing you need to talk to your kids about, you might be right. On the other hand you might be wrong. Good sex education isn’t about forcing one agenda or another on your kids. It’s about being responsive to questions asked and anticipating what kinds of information your kids might need given their environment.

If I could only give you one reason why you should at least think about talking to your kids about pornography it's that, if statistics are to be believed, they are likely to encounter some of it before they reach an age where they’ll be able to critically understand what they are seeing.

I wouldn’t recommend raising the topic of pornography out of the blue. But if you have a child who is already online or watches TV, or you have any pornography in your home (no matter how well hidden you think it is) I do think it behooves you to prepare to talk about pornography, and think ahead about how you want to talk about. MORE >>

Thanks to Becky Knight (http://www.livingsexuality.com) for the link to this helpful article.

Labour misleads on Equality Bill 

Government ignores legitimate concerns 

Claims of consultation are untrue 

London - 8 October 2009

“It is very disappointing and disturbing to see the deputy Minister for Women and Equality, Maria Eagle MP, misleading the LGBT community over the Equality Bill. Her response to our concerns is woefully inadequate, She has made claims that do not stack up,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage!

Mr Tatchell was reponding to a letter that he received from Ms Eagle, in reply to his letter to the Minister for Women and Equality Harriet Harman MP (copy below).

The Deputy Minister’s letter (full copy of key points below) claims:

The Government is clear that no one should suffer harassment because of their sexual orientation, and if someone feels they are being harassed they could bring a claim under the Equality Bill's discrimination provisions.

Mr Tatchell responded:

“The Equality Bill explicilty excludes protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Contrary to Ms Eagle’s assertions, this means that a LGBT person will not be able to bring an anti-harassment claim on these grounds under the Equality Bill. Harassment is different from discrimination and it requires separate legislative provision, as the government has recognised by giving explicit protection against harassment to women, black and disabled people, but not to LGBTs.”

The Deputy Minister’s letter further claims:

We consulted on the inclusion of an additional, specific harassment clause, but no one could produce any evidence of this being necessary because of the protections already in place.

Mr Tatchell responded:

“The government only consulted Stonewall, which does not provide hands-on assistance to individual victims of homophobic harassment. It did not consult the two LGBT groups who advise and assist the majority of cases of homophobic harassment, Galop and OutRage! Our practical experience shows that homophobic and transphobic harassment is widespread and is often perpetrated by bigoted neighbours on LGBT tenants and residents. Galop has many examples of this harassment and could have provided it to the government. Labour ministers ignored and sidelined Galop in its one-sided consultation process.”

The Deputy Minister’s letter further claims:

The Equality Bill has widened the definition of gender reassignment, so that transsexual people will now be protected in the gender that they permanently identify with, regardless of whether they are under medical supervision. In addition, the Bill extends protection to those who are discriminated against because they are thought of as transsexual. No one put forward evidence of the need to go further than this during the consultation.

Mr Tatchell responded:

"The Equality Bill only offers protection to those who have had, or who plan to have, gender reassignmment surgery. It doesn't protect gender variant or intersex people, nor people who identify and live as trans but who have decided to not have surgery. The claim that no one put forward evidence of the need for a wider definition is untrue. The Equality Network in Scotland made this point but its recommendations were arrogantly ignored by government ministers.”

The Deputy Minister’s letter further claims:

All schools are required to teach sex and relationship education in an appropriate and fair way - there is no exemption for faith schools.

Mr Tatchell responded:

“This statement is true for the moment, but it disguses the government’s future intentions. In April, Schools Secretary Ed Balls accepted proposals in a review by Sir Alasdair Macdonald. These proposals exempt religious schools from the government’s plan to tackle homophobic prejudice. They will be allowed to teach sex and relationship education in accordance with their own religious values and ethos, which often include the belief that gay people are sinners, unnatural, immoral and inferior human beings.”

See these press reports:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/04/30/gay-charities-express-concern-over-faith-school-sex-education-proposals/

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/04/28/faith-schools-to-be-allowed-to-tell-pupils-homosexuality-is-wrong/

The Deputy Minister’s letter further claims:

And the new public sector equality duty, which we have extended to cover sexual orientation for the first time, will further underline that it is unacceptable for schools to turn a blind eye to homophobic bullying.

Mr Tatchell responded:

“The Equality Bill contradicts the public sector equality duty. Under the Equality Bill, schools have no legal obligation to prevent the harassment of LGBT pupils, despite the pandemic of homophobic bullying. They are exempted from the anti-harassment clauses on the issues of homophobic and transphobic harassment.”

“In other public statements, the government has claimed that there is no need to include LGBT people in the anti-harassment sections of the Equality Bill because we are already protected under other legislation. Isn’t this also the case with women and black people? They are protected under other laws. Nevertheless, the government still included them in the Equality Bill, whereas LGBT people are excluded. Why have LGBTs been singled out for unique exclusion from this bill?"

“For the last year, the government has refused to say why other groups are included in the Equality Bill and LGBT people are not. Why can’t it give us a straight answer?” queried Mr Tatchell.

Letter from the deputy Minister for Women and Equality, Maria Eagle MP, to Peter Tatchell of OutRage!, dated 28 September 2009:

The key points in Ms Eagle’s letter are her claims:

1. Harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation

The Government is clear that no one should suffer harassment because of their sexual orientation, and if someone feels they are being harassed they could bring a claim under the Equality Bill's discrimination provisions. We consulted on the inclusion of an additional, specific harassment clause, but no one could produce any evidence of this being necessary because of the protections already in place. If evidence were to arise, we would seek to address this.

2. Protection from discrimination on grounds of gender identity

Previously transsexuals were only protected from discrimination if they had made contact with a doctor or councellor about wanting to change their sex. The Equality Bill has widened the definition of gender reassignment, so that transsexual people will now be protected in the gender that they permanently identify with, regardless of whether they are under medical supervision. In addition, the Bill extends protection to those who are discriminated against because they are thought of as transsexual. No one put forward evidence of the need to go further than this during the consultation.

3. Treatment of LGBT pupils in faith schools

All schools are required to teach sex and relationship education in an appropriate and fair way - there is no exemption for faith schools. And the new public sector equality duty, which we have extended to cover sexual orientation for the first time, will further underline that it is unacceptable for schools to turn a blind eye to homophobic bullying.

Peter Tatchell’s original letter to Harriet Harman MP, the Minister for Women and Equality:

Minister for Women & Equality
Cabinet Office
Whitehall, SW1

10 August 2009

Dear Harriet Harman,

Equality Bill

Below is a copy of a news release outlining OutRage's concerns regarding the explicit exclusion from the Equality Bill of protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender reassignment - and other related matters.

1) I would be grateful to receive from you an explanation for these harassment clause exclusions. We do not believe that they are justified and urgently request a government amendment to remove them - for the reasons stated below.

2) We also request that the protections for gender reassignment be redefined to cover the broader category of gender identity - see the news release below.

3) Finally, we ask that the government remove the exemption of faith schools from the curriculum requirements regarding sex and relationship education, as explained below.

I would be grateful to hear from you as your earliest convenience.

Yours with appreciation and best wishes,

Peter Tatchell, OutRage!,

Equality Bill discriminates

LGBTs excluded from anti-harassment clauses

London – 10 August 2009

"The Equality Bill should be renamed the Inequality Bill. While other vulnerable groups are protected against harassment, protection is denied to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. We are explicitly excluded from the anti-harassment clauses of the bill," said Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage!

“The government has failed to provide any rational, satisfactory explanation for this exclusion.

“This legislation is supposed to harmonise and standardise all equality laws, so that everyone has the same rights and protection. Sadly, it enshrines in law discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in clauses 28, 32, 33, 34 and 82.

“No LGBT group supports this discriminatory legislation, except Stonewall. It claims that homophobic and transphobic harassment are not significant problems and can be dealt with under existing legislation. If this argument is true, and harassment is already covered adequately under other existing legislation, why does the Equality Bill need to outlaw harassment on the grounds of age, disability, race and sex? Why does it specifically and uniquely exclude harassment on the grounds of gender reassignment and sexual orientation - and, in some instances, on the grounds of religion or belief? Why the differential treatment?

“Since this bill is intended to create a uniform legislative framework, all forms of harassment should be covered by its clauses. There should be no exemptions.

"As it stands, the Equality Bill denies protection against homophobic harassment by school authorities, by the owners and managers of properties and by the providers of services. Such harassment is outlawed on the grounds of age, disability, race, sex and in some instances on the grounds of gender reassignment. But in no case does it offer protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation.

“This omission gives a green light to homophobes. They won't face sanctions for homophobic harassment under this proposed law.

“LGBT organisations like Stonewall and School’s Out are campaigning against homophobic and transphobic bullying in schools, some of which is perpetrated or tolerated by school staff according to a Stonewall survey of LGBT pupils.

“By excluding protection against harassment in schools on the grounds of gender reassignment and sexual orientation, this legislation is sending a signal to schools that the harassment of LGBT pupils need not be taken seriously.

“Exempting schools from the anti-harassment clauses is particularly shocking and unforgiveable, given the widespread bullying of LGBT pupils. We urge the government to amend the Equality Bill immediately.

"The legislation has an anti-transgender bias. Protection against harassment is restricted to those people who are proposing, or have undergone, gender reassignment, and transgender pupils in schools are excluded from the Bill’s anti-harassment protections.

“The definition of transgender is too narrow. Trans people who are not yet planning, or have not yet undertaken, gender reassignment are left unprotected by the Equality Bill. The legislation should be amended to give protection on the wider grounds of gender identity, not the narrow grounds of gender reassignment.

"The Equality Bill has the overall good intention of harmonising and equalising all equality laws, to create a level legislative playing field. But this positive goal is undermined by the government's simultaneous announcement that it plans to exempt faith schools from its action plan to tackle homophobic prejudice and bullying. They will be allowed to teach sex and relationship education in accordance with their own religious values, which often include the idea that gay people are sinners, unnatural, immoral and inferior human beings.

“Such values reinforce homophobia, which can lead to homophobic harassment, discrimination and violence," said Peter Tatchell of OutRage!

The discriminatory clauses of the Equality Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/131/09131.i-vii.html#top

Clause 28 - Provision of services – Ban on discrimination, harassment and victimisation

Clauses 32, 33 and 34 - Disposal and management of premises by landlords and freeholders etc. – Ban on harassment

Clause 82 - Schools – Ban on harassment

Peter Tatchell
OutRage! – The LGBT Human Rights Campaign

Artificial Virginity Hymen is created from Kyoto, Japan at 1993. it was first introduced to the locals, then it gets famous and spread to Thailand at 1995 and now available in South East Asia, South Asia and in the Middle East countries. It is mainly made of natural albumin, medical use inflation element and water-soluble base medicinal preparation which have no side effect. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just the right amount. Add in a few moans and groan, you will pass through undetectable.

This bit of Engrish had me literally lol. I'm sorry for the Egyptians' troubles, but this excerpt is hilarious.