[ad_1]
A Christian primary school teacher who was sacked faces a lifetime ban from the classroom for failing to use a child’s preferred pronouns has lost a legal bid to overturn the dismissal.
The application for a judicial review was this afternoon refused by a High Court judge.
Judge Honorable Mrs Justice Farbey said the application ‘failed to take into consideration the private life of Child X’ who is ‘young and vulnerable’.
The teacher, known only as Hannah, to protect the identity of the child, was seeking to make legal history in overturning the ban.
Speaking after the court’s decision to block her application, Hannah said: ‘Injustice has not been done against me but against all the children in our schools.
The woman, known as Hannah to avoid identifying the child, took her case to the High Court in what is a legal first in the UK after she was dismissed earlier this year. The matter was heard in Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre this week
‘How else am I meant to raise the danger of the trans affirming policies in our schools which are doing such damage?
‘The role of the authorities is to protect. How can we hold them to account when they don’t have to justify their harmful actions?
‘This is not the end of my case.’
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: ‘If ever there were a matter of public law consideration it is the momentous issues in this case.
‘They go to the heart of how we look after primary aged gender confused children in our state schools.
‘The case does not end here. Our client is motivated by compassion and care and will continue for as long as it takes to see that children are kept safe in schools.
‘We are disappointed by this decision but are resolved to keep standing up for the well-being of children.’
Hannah said her former employer put in place ‘transgender affirming policies’ which could ‘harm children’.
The child at the centre of the dispute identified as transgender and Hannah was told the pupil wanted to be referred to by a boy’s name (stock image pictured)
The child at the centre of the dispute identified as transgender and Hannah was told the pupil wanted to be referred to by a boy’s name.
But Hannah, from the East Midlands, refused to do so, saying it ‘went against her Christian beliefs’.
‘I could not, based on scientific evidence, my Christian beliefs, and the heart-breaking stories of detransitioners, knowingly participate in harming a child,’ she said.
‘It is because I care so much about children that I am taking this action. This isn’t about me proving that I am right, but about the safety of a seriously distressed child.’
Hannah said she misses the children in her class and was given no opportunity to speak to them before she was stood down.
Instead, she said she was escorted through the school grounds and ‘now faces losing the career that [she] loves’.
The High Court today blocked an attempt by Hannah to overturn her sacking
‘I believe we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We should be encouraging children how amazing their bodies are not leading them down a path of irreversible damage,’ she said.
Hannah was originally suspended and later dismissed on the ground of gross misconduct after arguing that the school’s ‘transgender affirming’ policies could harm children.
She claimed that it could damage Child X to unquestioningly encourage the belief that the child was ‘in the wrong body’.
Mr O’Dair, representing Hannah, told the court his client had correctly raised safeguarding concerns about the pupil as a matter of teacher responsibility.
‘Safeguarding is an all staff responsibility and of course we know that what the claimant did in this case was to raise the matter with the school,’ he said.
‘In my submissions the key point here is that when the claimant raised her concerns, what the recipients were faced with is a body of clearly credible medical evidence which indicated that most pre-pubescent children recovered the equanimity through the process of puberty.
‘We submit that given medical evidence and what was known about Child X the local authority should have been making enquiries to ensure safeguarding of the child.’
The court heard the teaching staff at the school were required to attend a seminar where they were provided resources which were ‘only an affirmation of transition’.
[ad_2]
Source link
