There are few forms of predation that offend our common morality more than child sexual abuse. During the 1970s, paedophile groups capitalising on the sexual liberation movement sought to redefine their exploitation of youth as an expression of children’s sexual rights, self-determination and autonomy. Groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association claimed children were sexual beings and sought to repeal age of consent laws to liberate their sexuality. They were welcomed by fringe elements of the neo-Marxist minorities movement that advocated sexual libertarian ideology under Queer and “sex positive” politics. Today, the discourse on children’s sexual rights and the belief they are sexual beings are invoked to justify school programs that sexualise youth at ever younger ages.
The Andrews’ Labor left government in Victoria invokes neo-Marxist rhetoric to defend questionable school programs that encourage the sexualisation of children. The Safe Schools Coalition (SSC) and Building Respectful Relationships programs were introduced using minority politics as the rationale. In each case, a state-designated minority group and political cause are aligned in a program of social change that uses youth as change agents. Program designers create a health case for government funding without causal evidence to validate a relationship between program activities and core objectives. The Safe Schools program was created for the minority group LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) for the cause of anti-bullying with the stated objective to improve health outcomes.
The program encourages young people to become change agents for the cause of sexual diversity. When the program was criticised by conservative Senator Cory Bernardi, Labor leader Bill Shorten accused him of homophobia. After community outrage following revelations that program co-founder Roz Ward designed Safe Schools as part of a Marxist social change strategy, the liberal coalition withdrew commonwealth funding beyond 2017. Despite the Marxist objective of the Safe Schools program, or perhaps because of it, Daniel Andrews continues to defend it. His education minister James Merlino vilified politicians concerned about the hard Left’s indoctrination of children, calling them “bigots”.
Unfortunately, the SSC debacle is not isolated. It has transpired that the Andrews government has produced another school program that sexualises children. As with the SSC program, Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) began with a state-designated minority group, women, aligned with the important cause of domestic violence prevention. The case for government funding was again framed as a health imperative, namely, the prevention of violence against women. And once again, the program was introduced in schools without causal evidence linking its exercises to the stated objective. Like Safe Schools, the BRR program promotes a radical agenda divorced from its stated program objective. It promotes the sexualisation of children by inculcating techniques and beliefs centred on the premise that children are sexual.
In the program instructors are encouraged to sexualise children, and children to sexualise themselves and their peers. They are asked to view highly sexualised personal ads and write their own, discuss transgenderism and anal sex. Program authors acknowledge that one exercise may cause “disassociation” in children. Sexualising and inducing a dissociative state in children are methods of paedophilic predation. They are not methods of domestic violence prevention. It is increasingly common to find the sexualisation of very young children promoted as part of sex education in schools. In 2009, the United Nations produced International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. The first iteration met with controversy after conservatives revealed it sexualised prepubescent children by promoting masturbation.
NGOs have joined the UN in a push for radical sexual programs aimed at youth under the auspices of sexual diversity and sexual health. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) claims that “the taboo on youth sexuality is one of the key forces driving the AIDS epidemic”. In fact, the premature sexualisation of youth, especially the exploitation of girls for prostitution, have been key drivers of HIV transmission in Southeast Asia and Africa for decades. Despite the fact, the IPPF asserts repeatedly that “young people are sexual beings” and criticises the Catholic Church for imposing barriers on young people, denying “pleasurable and positive aspects of sex”. Its solution is comprehensive sexuality education, which it describes as perhaps “the single most important gift that parents can offer to their children”.
The Netherlands government promotes comprehensive sexuality education in what some call the Dutch model. Under the Dutch model, schoolchildren begin sexual programs at four years of age. Modules for young children include “what feels nice” and “does bare make you blush?” Lessons marketed under the “Spring Fever” package include “being naked”, a module that explores nudity, undressing and being in the bath. It is unclear why any adult would solicit an account of how a child undresses or why the Dutch state would mandate such discussion in schools. CSE advocates defend their programs with studies that indicate efficacy, but mainly in comparison to abstinence programs.
There is a more moderate middle path that provides children requisite knowledge in biology, safety from violence and mutual respect without encouraging their sexualisation in activities that resemble grooming. The sexualisation of childhood by governments and NGOs should be a source of broad community concern. The state has no business interfering in childhood by conditioning children’s sexual responses. As a whole, parents remain the best arbiters of their children’s morality and guardians of their development. Australian children are ranked 14th in literacy and 19th in mathematics according to OECD reports. Governments should take remedial classes in teaching kids the basics of reading, writing and arithmetical instead of indulging messianic pretensions to parenting by proxy.
Source: Article by public commentator Jennifer Oriel
Some weeks ago Telstra quietly retreated from a public campaign pushing for same-sex marriage after an approach by the Catholic Church, which threatened a boycott of companies involved in supporting a change to the definition of traditional unions. Archdiocese of Sydney business manager Michael Digges wrote to corporations whose logos appeared on a full-page Australian Marriage Equality advertisement in May last year implying it would withdraw its custom. “You may be aware that the Catholic archdiocese of Sydney is a significant user of goods and services from many corporations, both local and international,” Mr Digges wrote. “Undoubtedly, many Catholics would be your employees, customers, partners and suppliers. It is therefore with concern that I write to you about the Marriage Equality campaign.
Telstra has the contracts for Catholic schools across the country and according to a spokesperson “did not want to risk its commercial relationship with the church”. “The government has committed to putting same-sex marriage before the Australian people in a plebiscite and, ultimately, it will be parliament who determines any changes to the institution of marriage,” a spokesman for Telstra said. “In view of this, Telstra has no further plans to figure prominently in the wider public debate. “Telstra has demonstrated it places great importance on diversity and standing against discrimination, in all its forms. Our workforce reflects this diversity, including people … in a broad range of relationships.”
A short time after issuing the above statement, and no doubt as a result of pressure from those involved with Australian Marriage Equality (AME), Telstra again changed their position back to support for Marriage Equality. Over subsequent days Telstra continued to vacillate between opposition and support of Marriage Equality in correspondence responding to complaints they received from customers. Whilst it is difficult to know exactly the position Telstra now holds on the subject it does appear that they have returned to their position of supporting same-sex marriage. Telstra’s logo still appears on the AME website. Telstra’s website makes no mention of the campaign. According to a spokesperson for Australian Marriage Equality Telstra has made no request of AME to withdraw its logos.
BENDIGO PRINCIPALS DEFEND DECISION NOT TO SIGN ON TO SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Principals of Bendigo secondary colleges have defended their decision not to sign on to the Safe Schools Coalition, saying their institutions already have “meaningful” programs in place to protect LGBTI students. Eaglehawk Secondary College principal Noel Claridge said his teachers were advised how to provide all students with an inclusive environment. Asked to respond to the Victorian government’s plan to mandate Safe Schools Coalition membership by the end of 2018, Mr Claridge said he was open to “looking at ways in which his College can support schools to be more inclusive”. He recommended a compulsory roll-out of the program be accompanied by professional development for teachers who deliver the program. “We need to make sure it’s taught in a sensitive way that is respectful of all people” he said.
Bendigo South East College principal Ernie Fleming said his school had “six or seven” initiatives in place to safeguard the wellbeing of LGBTI students, and worried becoming a member of the Safe Schools Coalition would not be a meaningful way of addressing the issue. He said his school would acquiesce if the government mandated the program in its schools. “We’ll look at it and try and make it meaningful,” he said. But community member Helen Leach said it was not the role of schools to educate children about their sexuality. “It’s up to the teachers to teach academic subjects, and it’s up to the parents to teach other things, and it’s none of the state’s business to teach children about those matters,” she said.
Mr Claridge disagreed, saying schools had “moved away from being only a place of academia”. “Good schools are about academic performance, but they’re also about teaching social skills that make young people equipped to make the move into adulthood.”