Evidence in support of Rejection of the flawed Draft RSE Regulations

Mar 20, 2019 by

from Voice for Justice UK:

Thank you to all of those who have written to their MP, urging him or her to vote against the Draft Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education, and Health Education Regulations to debated in Parliament today.

We have received a very large number of replies from MPs forwarded to us, all without exception saying that the parental opt-out remains in place, and that the Regulations have been very carefully produced in response to the Government Consultation held last year.  The amount of ignorance is staggering – so much so that last night VfJUK sent an email to MPs laying out the facts.  It is included below.  If you have also received a response from your MP, assuring you you are worrying about nothing and this is necessary teaching for the 21st century, please do feel free to copy and paste all or part of our email below and reply, asking your MP once again to vote against this pernicious legislation.

Dear Member of Parliament,

Please forgive the impersonal nature of this email, but time is short and the need urgent.  From individual responses to our supporters from their Members of Parliament, it is clear that many Honourable Members are woefully ignorant of what the draft RSE Regulations actually say, the mode of implementation to be followed, and the extreme risk of abuse to which children are being exposed.  There follows, therefore, a very quick overview.

1.         The Parental opt-out is abolished.   The new Regulations explicitly state that the current parental right of withdrawal will be downgraded to a right of request, subject to approval by the head teacher, who therefore has the final say.  From age 15 children will then be given the right to decide for themselves.

2.         Reports on the Government Consultation are misleading.  Certainly, a report on the findings of the online consultation survey was produced by Ipsos MORI.  However, key findings show the vast majority of responses were very firmly against Government proposals:

The largest category of respondents was parents (31% of all responses)

58% disagreed (including 40% ‘strongly’) that the content of Relationships Education for primary schools was ‘age appropriate’, and 60% disagreed (42% ‘strongly’) that the subject will help pupils ‘have positive relationships’

64% disagreed (50% ‘strongly’) that the content of Relationships & Sex Education for secondary schools was ‘age appropriate’, and 66% disagreed (50% ‘strongly’) that the subject would help pupils ‘have positive relationships’

58% disagreed (41% strongly) that taking the right of withdrawal for sex education away from the parent, and giving the decision to the head teacher, was ‘an appropriate and workable option’, with 54% disagreeing (37% strongly) that the Guidance provides enough clarity about how such a decision should be arrived at.

It was acknowledged that ‘a large proportion of responses’ criticised the Guidance for ‘not placing enough emphasison the value of marriage, often specifically heterosexual marriage’.

It was further acknowledged, relating to Relationships Education, that teaching LGBT issues was highly contentious, with ‘polarised views’ expressed. According to the figures provided, over twice as many respondents were against the teaching of LGBT issues as were in favour.

3.         The Regulations will NOT have due regard to the religious background of pupils and are not age-appropriate.   On the evidence of the current situation at Parkfield Primary School and others, the assurance appears meaningless.  The DfE has stressed that all teaching must be LGBT inclusive, and Amanda Spielman is on record as saying that ‘muscular liberalism’ requires that all children should learn about families that have two mummies or two daddies (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests).

Government reassurances of age appropriate teaching respecting the religious background of pupils are therefore very far from being reassuring.  Not only has the Government ignored the responses to the Consultation, but statements by both the DfE and Ofsted appear to support the view that LGBT ideology is being deliberately normalised and promoted, irrespective of the religious background and/or age of students, or of their parents wishes.

4.         The draft Regulations are legally unsafe: 

  1. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Article 26(3)).
  2. The European Convention on Human Rights 1953 states that “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Article 2, Protocol 1).
  3. The Education Act 1996 underlines this principle, specifically stating that “Pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents” (Section 9).
  4. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires that “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Schedule I, Part II, Article 2).

5.         The draft Regulations will require all children aged 4 to 7 to be taught they can choose their gender.   This is the age range during which a child naturally develops his or her “gender stability”, the identity of being male or female, consistent with their biological sex.

To interfere proactively with such natural developmental processes risks causing serious mental, emotional and psychological harm to a child.  This condition has become known as gender confusion, also referred to as “gender dysphoria”.  Over the last decade, there has already been an increase of some 4,000% in children presenting to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service seeking gender reassignment  (see, https://tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/about-us/news/stories/gids-referrals-increase-201718/http://gids.nhs.uk/number-referralshttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/16/minister-orders-inquiry-4000-per-cent-rise-children-wanting/).

This is highly dangerous.  On 10thMarch, 2019, a high-profile formerly-transgender ‘sexual rights’ activist, responsible for legitimising the notion of ‘non-binary’ as a gender in the United States, issued a statement entitled “I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.” (http://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham/)

The Government could not have been aware of these extraordinary revelations at the time the draft Regulations were laid before Parliament, but the possible repercussions resulting from children being exposed to such teaching and prematurely being allowed to transition are deeply alarming.

As a matter of urgency, we therefore urge you to reject the draft Regulations and call for their redrafting, especially to conform with parental rights and concerns.

Revd Lynda Rose
CEO Voice for Justice UK

Related Posts


Share This