IN THE educational sphere, traditional family values and the application of the law are increasingly at cross purposes.
On the one hand, a dedicated head teacher’s school is downgraded by Ofsted from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’, because ‘the school leaders did not have the required knowledge to keep pupils safe from harm’ (in spite of the absence of complaints from parents). After this devastating verdict, the head teacher took her own life.
On the other hand, a group of concerned parents challenged in court the Welsh government’s introduction of relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in primary schools which they depicted as ‘dangerous’ and ‘woke’. Mrs Justice Steyn rejected this, insisting it would enable children to develop into responsible and emancipated citizens. The parents have been handed a £50,000 legal bill for their trouble.
The UK Government provides lengthy guidelines about sex education both for primary and secondary pupils. Primary school pupils are introduced to all varieties of ‘the family’, marriage – either opposite or same sex – as lifelong, and all about friendships and boundaries and staying safe. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education, but only after the ‘good practice’ of the head teacher discussing with them the benefits of receiving this education, and any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have.
Secondary school guidelines go further and are compulsory. Every child’s needs must be met, to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010, in which sexual orientation and gender reassignment are among the protected characteristics. For pupils aged 11 and above, RSE includes the full gamut of one-to-one intimate relationships, knowing they have ‘a choice to delay sex or enjoy intimacy without sex’; and the choices about contraception, pregnancy, ‘keeping the baby, adoption, abortion, and where to get further advice’.
There is a short paragraph on what the law says about sex and young people. Out of 14 points, only one deals with ‘consent, and the age of consent’, while others include pornography, abortion, sexuality, gender identity, criminal exploitation and FGM. Nowhere is it stated that the age of consent is 16, and sexual intercourse with minors is illegal.
In our globalised world of the 21st century, it is not only the boundaries of sexual experience that have been loosened, but also those of sovereign state law, whereby supranational bodies such as the UN and WHO seek to impose their progressive overarching policies. In the US, parents are already up in arms about the UN-recommended ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education’ curriculum (CSE). Several parents’ organisations have labelled it an attack on children, pornography in the classroom, even the radicalisation and sexualisation of children, from as young as four years old.
Family Watch International (FWI) has produced a video detailing the programme. Dr Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, has called it ‘a dangerous assault on the health and innocence of children, going far beyond mere sex education’. To counteract its pervasive influence, FWI has launched a campaign and online petition, STOP CSE.org. Presenters reveal how young children are instructed in the use of condoms without the knowledge or consent of their parents, while oral and anal sex is presented as an integral part of sexuality.
CSE goes much further than any statements made in UK secondary school curricula. A booklet ‘Happy, Healthy and Hot’ teaches HIV-afflicted children they need not disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, whether or not they use a condom. A Unicef pamphlet for young people listed situations where one can obtain sexual pleasure which included responses towards inanimate objects, animals, minors, and non-consenting adults! One presenter claims the Nigerian government were told by Western countries that if they did not promote the programmes, they would be denied foreign aid.
The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) and similar organisations have a direct influence on these programmes. The curriculum is designed to hook children on sex, which underpins a billion-dollar business for IPPF and affiliates, since ‘children, or “prospects”, once sexualised, become IPPF customers dependent on their services’.
These organisations make false claims that age-appropriate, evidence-based, healthy sexuality education prevents teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, STDs and HIV, and promote abortion and the human right to enjoy sexual expression. Some US states allow taxpayer-funded sex-change operations without parental knowledge or consent. As writer Miriam Grossman points out, you can’t even get an aspirin in school without parental consent!
The US campaigning group CitizenGO.org was recently successful in erasing the most extreme references promoting the sexualisation of children, sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the LGBT agenda, from the Agreed Conclusions of the 67th UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). But there remains much more to do to counteract the influence of CSE, which they say is ‘the official monicker Western countries use for programs that promote sexual autonomy for children, and to undermine parental authority’. Perversely, ‘they (the UN and associated bodies) have all this funding, and this organisation’. They are also receiving UK taxpayers’ money.
Earlier this year, Professor Jordan Peterson spoke about the problems facing young people in maintaining healthy attitudes towards sex. The explosion of sexual permissiveness thanks to reliable birth control in the 1960s has resulted in threats to the family and the safeguarding of children. Substituting long prevailing rules about sex (ie wait until you get married) with the idea that anything goes, as long as you get ‘consent’, is for him highly dangerous.
This concept of consent is especially popular among the radical left, but in Peterson’s judgment as a clinician, society needs to have a serious conversation about what it actually means, especially since in his view, few people, far less young children, are mature enough to understand this. His solution involves committed relationships, and the social enforcement of long-term monogamy. He believes separating physical sex from emotional and psychological intimacy is untenable.
This shifts the emphasis back on to accepted cultural values, rather than a profusion of new legislation. Respecting the idea of ‘coming of age’ and legal maturity, and ‘allowing children to be children’ in their early years of innocence, is increasingly threatened by progressive left-wing policies. Sex education in its current developments is trying to oust parental authority altogether, replacing it with what commentators have rightly labelled child molestation – the very antithesis of the safeguarding and children’s health these national and international organisations purport to deliver.
If, as parents, we do nothing about it, we will all carry the responsibility. It’s surely time to say NO to CSE and other UN-imposed child abuse.