MPs like Shabana Mahmood shouldn't stand up for the ill-founded prejudices of their constituents
Shabana Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham, Ladywood has received significant criticism for a speech in which she called for “proper consideration for pupils’ religion and background” to be made when giving children sex and relationship lessons. It comes after religious parents protested outside Parkfield Community School, where children were receiving LGBT inclusive sex education lessons from the No Outsiders group.
Many seeking to defend Mahmood from the controversy her speech sparked, including Zahrah Al-Bejawi writing for TheArticle, suggest she is just doing the job we pay here to do – representing her constituents. But MPs, as Tony Benn once put it, are not supposed to be weathercocks spinning whichever way the wind blows. On certain issues, they should be more like a compass needle, pointing in a clear direction no matter what.
Fifty or so parents may have fears about their primary school children being taught about the existence of LGBT people, but their concerns are ill-founded. An elected representative should have the courage to make that clear – not post Twitter clips defending an unreasonable stance.
Mahmood bills her constituents’ concerns as a disagreement with the process in which sex and relationships education has been carried out in three schools across her constituency. But no one argues with the process unless they don’t like the outcome. If parents weren’t consulted, but they had no issue with the lessons, it is highly unlikely that they would complain. If they were fully consulted but disliked the lessons, it is likely they would still complain. This is not simply an issue about due process, but a fundamental disagreement about the content of the lessons.
Very few people would argue that dialogue between school and parents is a bad thing, in all aspects of the curriculum. But “consultation” cannot be the buzz-word for parents to hide behind when their religious beliefs collide with what their children are being taught. A comprehensive education, as the name suggests, should fully inform all children, whatever their faith background.
In the context of the ongoing row at Parkfield, the upset over Mahmood’s comments hinges on whether or not it is appropriate to teach young children about LGBT issues in sex and relationships education. “[The parents’ concerns] … is all about age appropriateness of conversations with young children in the context of religious backgrounds”, she said in her contribution to a Westminster Hall debate in February.
The argument that LGBT relationship lessons are not “age appropriate” rests on the idea that LGBT relationships are somehow more sexualised than heterosexual ones. It plays easily into dangerous homophobic myths: LGBT people are predatory. Sexualised. Not to be trusted with our children. To concede any ground on this point, or to give any succour to those who would present it as a legitimate parental worry, is genuinely offensive.
The value of full, inclusive sex and relationships education, which makes clear it is OK to be LGBT from an early age, cannot be overstated. Perhaps, if in my own primary school, we had a lesson in which we read a picture book where Prince Charming falls in love with another prince, coming out would have been a much easier journey. Inclusive SRE from an early age can save people a world of pain and anguish.
Following the Twitter storm, Mahmood wrote a blog post attempting to defuse the anger and confusion her previously little-noted speech had caused. Much of it was helpful: it is unfair, as some have done for example, to brand her a bigot, when she has consistently voted for LGBT rights. Her call-out of the “terrible” homophobic banners and “hostile” protests at Parkfield should be welcomed.
But disappointingly her response failed to take a clear stance on the conflict between teaching young people to respect difference in sex and relationships, and the danger of parents using “consultation” to avoid their children being taught about those differences.
Allyship is a continuous test, one which asks always: whose side are you on? In this instance, it requires that you make crystal clear that you will not allow parents and schools to pretend to young children that families which have, for instance, two daddies or two mummies, simply do not exist. As yet, the MP for Birmingham, Ladywood has failed to meet that test.
