Parents, petitions, protests, politicians and appeasement

Feb 28, 2019 by

by Chris Sugden, Grassroots Conservatives:

On Monday February 25, Parliament was required by a petition from 100,000+ concerned parents and others to debate the revised sex and relationships curriculum that will be compulsory in schools from September 2020. Christian Concern, Voice for Justice UK, ParentPower, Safe at School, Stop RSE and Muslims held protests outside parliament calling on MPs to allow parents to remove children from SRE lessons as part of their religious freedom, and parents have been protesting outside schools in Birmingham.

The government has responded to the consultation on Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education in England. 185 responses were against the teaching of LGBT and 77 thought LGBT should be compulsory for all. The report concludes that schools should make their own decisions and should involve the parent body.

Melanie Phillips wrote in the Times the next day that the right of parents to withdraw children will only be operative until the age of fifteen, after which children will be able to override their parents’ wishes. David Burrowes, former MP for Enfield Southgate wrote to the Times the following day that such a division does not make sense.

Melanie Phillips goes on to say that the primary aim of this policy is to impose the doctrine of equal sexual lifestyle choice.

In the Times of February 28 I have written that these guidelines are a retrograde step, reversing the repeal of the Test Acts between 1719 and 1888 which enshrined in law the principle that the state could not impose particular beliefs on anyone.

Melanie Phillips also argues that this doctrine usurps the rights of parents to inculcate their children into their values such as the cultural norms of traditional marriage and that division between the two sexes is immutable.

Evidence from the courts is that the greatest protection for children lies in being brought up by their own married parents. Professor Walter Schumm has recently shown that the doctrine of lifestyle equality that claims that the claim that equal benefits accrue to children of same-sex parents as to children of heterosexual parents cannot be sustained by the evidence. (Same-Sex Parenting Research – a Critical Assessment by Walter Schumm, Wilberforce, 2018.)

Melanie Phillips concludes that the real purpose of including the doctrine lifestyle equality in the school curriculum is to destroy the concept of what is normal by appearing to normalise the exceedingly rare or patently preposterous such as the claim made in Brighton and Hove Schools that boys can have periods because “menstruation must be inclusive of all genders”.

Child abuse under another name

Dr Lisa Nolland writes:

“Very little of this content [of the recommended sex education sites for schools] is age appropriate and suitable. Some is factually correct but for adults only (given the immaturity of the child and her/his psychosocial and cognitive development). Yet other aspects are actually promoting high-risk behaviours like anal sex—far more risky than vaginal sex—to children who have not even gone through puberty, let alone reached the ‘age of consent’—16.  Some SRE for 13+ is bizarre and hazardous; we encourage youngsters to wash their hands after defecation and not play with their excrement, for instance.

Though not all the content of the recommended sexual ‘health’ sites is inappropriate, unhealthy and/or potentially dangerous, its creators know very little about basic anatomy, physiology, microbiology, etc.   See You’re Teaching My Child What? by Dr Miriam Grossman, (Regnery Publishing 2009) for more.

The obvious question is: why is such content being taught to children? There are many adult-only activities such as driving (good) and alcoholism and drug use (bad) which we do not instruct them about.  They do not need to know, and have other, developmentally important challenges to master, as we did when we were growing up. So why all the tips on sex?

In fact, such ‘education’ tacitly grooms children by desensitizing them to sex while encouraging them to explore their sexuality via masturbation.  From there, the sex volume will be turned up in secondary school.  They will be offered the chance to have different kinds of sex, but of course, only when they feel ‘ready’, with ‘consent’ and being ‘safe’.

This is actually a form of child abuse, and the very opposite of keeping children ‘safe’.”

What is driving all this?

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) is a sexual rights based initiative that aims to implement its teachings into all schools worldwide.

The hearts and minds of children are extremely susceptible to whatever they hear, see, learn and experience. Whatever information they are exposed to and absorb can have a lasting influence on their development into adult life. Sexual activists are becoming increasingly vociferous regarding the sexual rights of individuals. One of the most concerning developments of their agenda is their obsessive focus on the sexual rights of children. Numerous protagonists assert that children are sexual from birth or ‘from the womb to the tomb’. Due to this, they argue that children have the ‘right’ to experience sexual pleasure. To inform children of their sexual rights, these activists believe that children from a very young age have the right to a comprehensive education in sexuality.

In order to make CSE a global reality, the agenda has the backing of organisations from within the United Nations and European Union. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) is the main NGO behind its global implementation.

What do parents need to know about this agenda?

It infringes parental rights and downplays the vital role of parents
It burdens children with adult choices which they are in no position to make
The material is not age appropriate
The physical and psychological health risks are minimised or ignored all together
Its effectiveness is questionable
It teaches gender identity (‘I can be a girl today, a boy tomorrow,’ etc)
Opting out will be from difficult to impossible

The issue of freedom of choice

A national campaign entitled ‘Your Child Your Choice’ is being launched in the next month by Barnabas Fund who write: ‘We oppose the steady erosion of parents’ rights to determine how to teach about morals, religious beliefs, sexuality and gender “in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions” (1st Protocol, European Convention of Human Rights). In particular we oppose government proposals to impose sex and relationships education which sexualise children and sweeps aside parents’ rights to withdraw their children from such lessons.

We believe that the imposition of a humanist, secularist perspective on all children undermines the rights of religious believers. We also believe that the state has no right to interfere to this extent in family life by undermining the way beliefs and attitudes are transmitted through families, churches or other communities which benefit children.’


So why is this “authoritarian and ruthless cultural engineering” the policy of a Conservative Government? Does the word “appeasement” – a Conservative Government policy in the 1930’s – ring any bells? It is the belief that if a very powerful political force is conceded some of what it wants, in the name of preserving peace, it will curtail its own authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies.

It was the political judgement of the late 1940s and 1950s that had the resurgence of Germany, and especially its rearmament programme of the early 1930s been firmly resisted at the time, then the second World War with all the suffering it entailed, would not have been necessary. By 1939 it was too late.

Our chairman Ed Costelloe comments

This new policy is from the office of Damien Hinds, whom any fellow Conservative would presume to be supportive of parents and against potential mental abuse of young children. How is it that sane, sensible Conservative MPs become ministers and immediately propose left-wing ideologically unsound and utterly ‘unconservative’ policies which the Party would reject out of hand at grassroots level?

Are they so bemused and confused by their civil servants or so overwhelmed by paperwork that they do not read what they sign?   Is it that they are so engaged with betraying the Brexit referendum result that they have forgotten the moral platforms on which they were elected?

Chris Sugden

Related Posts


Share This