Muslim Teacher Banned for Telling Pupils Gay People Are 'Mentally Ill' and Cheering Putin's War on 'Satanic Nazis'

A Muslim teacher in West Yorkshire has been banned from teaching in England after a professional conduct panel found he told pupils that gay and transgender people are 'mentally ill' and appeared to praise Vladimir Putin's war on 'satanic Nazis' in Ukraine during a Year 11 history lesson in October 2023.

The case centres on comments made by 60-year-old teacher William Garwood at St Mary's Menston Catholic Voluntary Academy, near Leeds, during a class on the history of Nazi Germany. According to a ruling by the Teaching Regulation Agency, the remarks prompted a misconduct investigation that has now ended with an indefinite prohibition order, meaning he cannot work as a teacher in any school or children's home in England.

Muslim Teacher Ban Rooted in Classroom Comments

The news came after a pupil, referred to as Pupil A, complained that Garwood had gone far beyond the syllabus when a student asked whether there were 'any just wars.' The panel heard that Garwood replied 'Yes,' and allegedly told the class he was 'happy' that Russian President Vladimir Putin was killing 'satanic Nazis' in Ukraine and that the world was run by billionaires who had created 'evil Ukrainians.'

In its written decision, the Teaching Regulation Agency, which acts on behalf of the Department for Education, said it found that Garwood's words amounted to a justification of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in front of teenagers. The panel described the comments as a 'significant and highly subjective value judgment' that had 'no relevance' to the lesson content.

It went further, stating that even if there had been some vague link to the curriculum, 'the terminology used would not have been acceptable.' In particular, the panel said labelling Ukrainians as 'evil or Nazis' was an 'impermissible generalisation' and highlighted its concern about 'the use of inappropriate labels directed at individuals or groups, particularly in a classroom setting.'

Alongside the Ukraine remarks, the panel also found that during the same lesson Garwood made comments to the effect that 'gay and transgender people are mentally ill.' Those remarks, it said, were 'especially problematic' because of their potential impact on school-aged children and because sexuality and gender identity are already subjects of 'common public discussion and sensitivity.'

The Teaching Regulation Agency concluded that his comments about both Ukrainians and LGBT people 'fell within the scope of discriminatory behaviour'.

Garwood Cites Islam, 'Anti‑Nazism' and Free Belief

During the hearing, Garwood did not accept that he had behaved in a discriminatory way. Instead, he argued that he was exercising his rights under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, which protects religious and philosophical beliefs.

He told the panel he was 'entitled to his religious belief in Islam and to the philosophical belief of anti-Nazism,' and maintained that his Islamic stance on transgender issues 'coincided with traditional British values.' According to the ruling, he claimed that this stance had been 'used to assert that he was a psychological threat to children's wellbeing' and that safeguarding professionals had been 'emotionally manipulated' against him.

Garwood also insisted that he had not actually given an opinion on gay people. The TRA report records him as saying that he simply asserted he is a Muslim and that this position is well known, and that students had misinterpreted him and 'formed a false caricature' of who he is. The panel plainly did not buy that explanation.

In his evidence, he alleged that the TRA's investigation 'represented a political reaction' to his comments, which he characterised as reflecting 'a legitimate difference of opinion.' That argument, too, was rejected.

The panel said the comments were 'clearly inappropriate and wholly unrelated' to the topic of Nazi Germany, and that they were delivered without 'any attempt to provide balance or explore alternative perspectives.' In other words, this was not a nuanced classroom debate that had gone slightly off-piste, it was one adult's unfiltered views landing in front of a captive audience of 15 and 16-year-olds.

What the Ban Actually Means for the Muslim Teacher

The decision means Garwood is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and 'cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children's home in England.' According to the TRA ruling, he will not even be allowed to apply for the ban to be reviewed until June 2032.

In practical terms, that is the professional equivalent of being struck off, at least for the rest of the decade. The prohibition order is one of the strongest sanctions available to the regulator, reserved for conduct it deems 'significantly outside the bounds of acceptable teaching practice.'

The panel stressed that teachers hold a position of authority and that their words carry particular weight with children. The lack of balance, context or acknowledgement of alternative viewpoints around hot‑button issues such as war, sexuality and gender identity was central to its reasoning.

St Mary's Menston Catholic Voluntary Academy was not criticised by the panel in its written findings. There is no suggestion the school endorsed Garwood's views. The concerns appear to have been raised promptly once Pupil A spoke up, and the matter then moved into the regulatory system.

The Department for Education routinely publishes such outcomes as a warning to the profession about where the lines are. This case lands directly in the messy space where personal belief, free expression and safeguarding collide, and where teachers are reminded, again, that some things you might say in private simply do not fly in front of a whiteboard.

It is, to put it bluntly, a reminder that the classroom is not talk radio, however strongly you feel about Putin, Ukraine, sexuality or anything else.