New Zealand is the latest state to kill the livelihood of a teacher for non-compliance with the LGBTQ+.
A Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal (TDT) hearing ruled against the unnamed maths teacher (Mr. X) in February.
Dismissed for “serious misconduct” the TDT belittled Mr. X’s Christian faith, then dumped the teacher in with “child abusers, alcoholics, paedophiles, and drug dealers.”
Designated “unsafe,” the “specialist” trans tribunal argued that his cancellation was proportionate, because, they said, Mr. X was beyond “rehabilitation.”
Mr. X did not have a history of abuse or unprofessional conduct.
Made public this week, the case centred on the Christian high school teacher’s refusal to use a female year 10 student’s preferred male name and pronoun.
As a consequence of his non-compliance with the LGBTQ+ forced speech, Mr. X was dragged before the teacher’s court.
Expressing fears that the teacher’s freedom of speech could irreparably compromise “the reputation, and good standing of the teaching profession,” the panel sentenced Mr. X to exile. (p.5)
The disgraceful 19-page decision was extremely hostile towards the teaching professional up to, and including, the panel mocking his right to a fair, and balanced trial.
“We note that even without the submissions of Mr. [X], we would have found the charge proven on the pure conduct alone,” page 13, point 36 reads.
He didn’t stand a chance.
Other examples of contempt for his defence, and faith, include the panel saying, “Mr X. was not qualified to offer some form of ‘gender dysphoria’ advice to the [biologically female] student, particularly based on his personal Christian views.”
The teacher, “should have” submitted to the 14-year-old’s pro-noun preference, and ‘left it at that,’ they chided (see p.12).
Additionally, the trans tribunal scorned Mr. X’s conscientious objection.
They also refused to address his arguments.
Instead, the tribunal wrote off his well-reasoned, science-based defence – recorded on pages 6-11 – as “unrealistic hysteria.” (p.12)
Mr X. admitted to putting facts before feelings, but denied the ‘serious misconduct’ charges, stating, “I believe I would be guilty of serious misconduct, and child abuse if I was to call the girl in my year-10 class by a boy’s name as I was compelled to do.”
His official reply recalled the duty of care teachers have in teaching kids to learn the difference between truth and falsehood.
“If faulty logic is okay in society,” any student can claim an identity and demand those around them enable it, he said.
For example, “A European student decides they want to be identified as African or Maori (maybe even for financial, political, or other perceived benefit).”
Where, and when do we draw the line?
What if a ‘student wants to be identified as a cat, a dog, a dinosaur, Royalty, or a judge. Do teachers affirm this, and start referring to their students as “Your Honour?”
“Although these examples may seem absurd, they are the same logic as calling a girl a boy, or a boy a girl and may lead to abuse of teachers (and others),” Mr. X argued.
Quoting the NZ anthem, the Queen, and the Bible, Mr. X asserted, “Compelling me to call a girl student by a boy’s name is asking me to go against my core Christian belief, the belief that is also foundational for New Zealand.” (p.7)
Implying that forcing teachers to enable deception, sin, and falsehoods, was where the reputation and good standing of the teaching profession was compromised, Mr. X said,
“Children and young people may be especially vulnerable to outside influences suggesting that their sex is their own choice and may lead to many unnecessary struggles in their future lives.
“Schools should in no way suggest gender is a choice or in any way encourage or condone pursuing gender changes.” (p.8)
Doubling down on his duty of care, Mr. X added, “Teachers have a responsibility of care, and part of this is affirming the birth sex of every child, the gender they were created as, which is an inseparable part of their identity.” (p.9)
This includes pointing out God’s revealed view of marriage, and how “homosexuality is a sin,” wrought with dangers.
Rejecting the “serious misconduct” accusation, in light of this duty of care, Mr. X concluded, “There are no grounds for the charge. On the points raised above, I would be guilty of misconduct, if I had called the student by a boy’s name, because I wouldn’t be acting in her best interest, or the best interest of society.”
The NZ Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal follows another like-minded case in the United Kingdom.
Young dad, Joshua Sutcliffe was banned in early 2023, from teaching indefinitely for allegedly “misgendering” a student in 2017.
Similar to Mr. X, regardless of Sutcliffe’s impeccable character, and consistent professionalism, the trans tribunal judged Sutcliffe to be a threat to students.
Unlike Sutcliffe, Mr. X appears to have been allowed zero room to appeal.
If anyone is bringing the teaching profession’s reputation and good standing into question, it’s bad teachers bull-whipping good ones.
If anything is threatening the well-being of students, it’s the army of acronym acrobats pushing CRT, BLM, and LGBT over against ABCD.
NZ’s decision is an embarrassing display of bureaucrats burying dissent to assuage the political will of LGBTQ+ activists.
The removal of truth-telling teachers is proof they really are coming for your kids.
You must be logged in to post a comment.