Individual rights and (in)tolerance

The draft RSE Regulations, currently before Parliament for approval, are scheduled to come into force on 1^st September 2020, but schools are being encouraged to implement changes as soon as possible.   The Government has said that all teaching delivered as part of RSE must promote acceptance of LGBT lifestyles and identity, supporting gender ‘equality’ and enforcing acceptance of diversity.

It is hard to see how this is anything other than State-sponsored indoctrination, aimed at changing the makeup of our country by brainwashing children into accepting “Britain’s” rebranded values, while making sure no one can disagree. Chillingly, this feels like ideological war!

Traditionally, education has always been about imparting the knowledge and skills children need to equip them for life.  It has rightly been seen as training and developing young minds; teaching them to read, write and reason, while passing on the knowledge, lessons and achievements of those who had gone before.   It has also – inevitably – been a way of transmitting national identity and the shared values of our society and culture.   But in the UK it has never been about indoctrination.

Until now.

How has this happened?  I would suggest that, to understand, we need to look in detail at the last century, with its major changes that have radically affected society. For a start we had two world wars, both of which had major impact.   What’s important in relation to RSE is that in WW1 there was an explosion of Venereal Disease – and at the time no proper policy for dealing with it.  Mass mobilisation of troops – separated from their girlfriends and wives, combined with the general feeling there might be no tomorrow – meant thatVD spread like a plague.  Which meant, of course, that it also got passed to the wives and girlfriends when the troops went home, spreading to areas of the country where it hadn’t been before (see: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/venereal_diseases).

We cannot today overestimate the threat this posed.  In the early years of the last century VD was extremely hard to treat.  With its high risk of death or, at the least, infertility, it was a real danger to the health and future of society. So in the UK this saw the beginning of public health campaigns, aimed at adults, to stop transmission and protect the population.

WW2 saw the same sort of pattern.   Mass movement of troops overseas – and rates for venereal disease skyrocketed.    But there was a difference this time, because the mass presence of American troops in the UK– ‘oversexed, over paid, and over here’, as they were described – meant that VD spread directly into the home population.  Again, combatting the spread of disease was a major crisis.

But the really big change to public health came with the growing availability of birth control in the 1960s, followed by the Abortion Act 1967. Because suddenly – VD apart – women too could have sex without fear of consequences. And they did.  Free love ruled.   It was from around that time that teenage pregnancies began to skyrocket. From 200 recorded births to girls under 16 in 1955, the number went up to 1,500 in 1968 (Birth Statistics Series FM1 Office For National Statistics). People began to realise that we had to do something.

The answer at that point was to dispense free condoms to anyone who walked into an NHS clinic, youth club, or drop-in centre.  But this, perhaps understandably, had little effect.  At this point, however, there were two other factors beginning to emerge –both of which which are linked, though that was largely unrecognised at the time.  First, following the Stonewall riots of 1969 over in the US, we saw the birth of the gay rights movement.   This began, in one sense innocently enough, as a movement to overcome unfair prejudice, but it rapidly got converted into a deliberate strategy for ‘queering’ the nation, as set out in the hugely influential book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

Second, was the growing strength of Secular Humanism, or Secularism. Born of Communism, this movement was openly opposed to religion, and the primary aim of Secularists was to remove all trace of Christianity from public life (see, for example: https://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/rethinking-religion-and-belief-in-public-life-a-manifesto-for-change-4.pdf).

Fast forward to the 1990s and the arrival of AIDS.  If VD was seen as bad, this was infinitely worse, and there was mass panic, because this disease, which was transmitted through sex – primarily homosexual sex – was deadly.  There was absolutely no cure, and, at that time, no way of preventing transmission. So, once it began to spread, it was feared everyone would be at risk.  It was the plague, the Black Death of the 20^th century, so, for the first time, the 1993 Education Act ruled that all State schools had to include education about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and then, just for good measure, they threw in other sexually transmitted diseases too (Education Act 1993, s.241 subs. 2, (a) and (b)).

This was the beginning of sex education as we know it, but real, full-blown SRE began in 1999, with publication of the new Framework for Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), accompanied by the Labour Government’s ten-year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, aimed at halving the under-18 teenage conception rate.  The following year, 2000, the Government published its first SRE Guidance, recommending that schools teach sex within the broader context of relationship education. The only aspects that had to be covered were the elements of reproduction included in the national curriculum for Science, and HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (https://www.bigtalkeducation.co.uk/rse-information-and-support-for-schools/sre-rse-history/).   Apart from that, the Guidance emphasised the importance of marriage, and there were strict requirements for young people to receive teaching appropriate to their religious and cultural background, with parents having an absolute right of withdrawal from all or part of sex education outside the basics covered in science (https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/08/26/british-sex-education-a-messy-history-in-ten-awkward-steps).

The primary aim was very clearly child protection – to keep young people safe against disease and lower teenage pregnancy rates.  But this is where the two other elements mentioned above come into play – because, in teaching sex education, some members of the gay and secular lobbies both saw a chance to further their own agendas, and they were very quick to seize it.

Heavily relying on Kinsey, with his subsequently disproved theories on child sexuality (see https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/history/alfred-kinsey.php, analysed and disproved by Judith Reisman http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html), the Secularists insisted that any teaching must be entirely devoid of any element of judgment, especially as related to Christian morality.

At the same time, members of the gay lobby said, we can’t help that we’re gay, we’re born that way.  Children are born that way, and they’re being bullied. We’re victims!  This is wrong.  We’ve got to stop the bullying, and teach children what being gay really means.

So between 2000-2016 we saw growing emphasis on the ‘sexual rights of children’ and enforced tolerance for things that only a few years before were branded perversion.  Children began to be bombarded with information they had no way of processing or assessing for themselves.  Now they were taught about sexual development; their absolute right to have whatever kind of sex they wanted, ‘when they felt ready’.  They were encouraged to experiment with orientation and gender, with all the while the message drummed into them that, if they only used a condom, they’d be safe!  And because it was expected they’d become sexually active when they hit puberty, girls were taught in detail about other forms of contraception, and indeed many were fitted with contraceptive implants – without their parents’ knowledge.

However it was dressed up, this was validation and promotion of sexual anarchy – and was a very far cry from the original aim of protecting children and keeping them safe from the dangers of disease.

If we want to know how effective these policies have been, we need only look at the results.  And they are alarming.   First, according to the Office for National Statistics, even with the decline in numbers, we still have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe (https://www.fpa.org.uk/news/uk-has-highest-teenage-birth-rates-western-europe).  The rate for abortions in this age group is also the highest in Western Europe  (https://gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_586-7010-abortions-per-1000-live-births/).   STIs are currently at epidemic level amongst the 15-25 age group, which is also the group with the highest rate of new infections (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sexually-transmitted-infections-stis-annual-data-tables).  And, as many of these are either untreatable or increasingly resistant to antibiotics, it means that a young person contracting one of these infections is highly likely to have it for life, and may also become infertile.   (At the same time, and interestingly, stats for the 1980s show the highest rate of infections to be among the 20-25 age group – with no mention of teen infection rates at all!)

Apart from that, police are reporting a massive increase in rates of child-on-child sex abuse, with some cases involving children as young as 5 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41504571). Finally, as result of children being taught from age 4 that gender is a matter of choice, not biology, over the last decade there’s been a 4,000% increase in referrals for gender reassignment treatment – which we now know that many kids later bitterly regret (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/16/minister-orders-inquiry-4000-per-cent-rise-children-wanting/).

The conclusion is inescapable: Sex education up to now has been a disaster.  We all know children are at risk in modern society, but the evidence seems clear that, far from protecting children, current policies are prematurely sexualising them, leading to huge damage.  Under the new proposals, on past evidence, this will grow infinitely worse.

SEX EDUCATION HAS BEEN TURNED INTO STATE-SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE. 

It is time for parents to assert their rights under law and demand that this damaging indoctrination stops.