Children sexualised in school diversity programs

The Australian, April 15, 2016

The sexualisation of children is not a method of domestic violence prevention. At worst it is an insidious form of abuse, often used by pedophiles to groom their victims. Yet Daniel Andrews’s government has funded another program in schools that encourages adults to sexualise children and expose them to sexually explicit materials. Such behaviour violates common standards that protect children from premature sexualisation but the program is presented as an exercise in diversity and inclusion.

As education editor Natasha Bita revealed on yesterday’s front page, the Andrews government has dedicated $21.8 million to extending the Building Respectful Relationships program, funded on the basis of domestic violence prevention. Its objectives are to educate students about “gender, violence and respectful relationships” as part of “state and federal initiatives to prevent violence against women”. Like the Safe Schools Coalition program, which celebrates a neo-Marxist queer political agenda, Building Respectful Relationships promotes sexual content of an extreme nature.

Despite a stated aim to work against premature sexualisation, BRR encourages explicit discussion of sexuality, including writing personal advertisements and anal sex. Lessons also cover transgenderism and deconstructing gender. Students are coached to use the gender-neutral term partner instead of boyfriend and girlfriend to be “inclusive of gay and lesbian partnerships”.

The age of consent across Australian jurisdictions ranges from 16 to 17 and Unicef recommends that minors abstain from sexual activity. However, the BRR program acculturates children to sexualise themselves and their peers, presenting adolescent sexuality as the norm. Children are asked to answer: “Who do you think has responsibility for making decisions about sex and romance in your relationships?” In another, child sexual activity is assumed: “How do you work out and negotiate having sexual contact within your relationship or in your life?”

The Andrews government plans to extend the program to kindergartens and primary schools. While high-performing school systems in the Asia-Pacific focus on developing literacy, numeracy and memorisation, activists are dumbing down the Australian school curriculum. OECD reports rank Australian schoolchildren 19th in maths and 14th in literacy. More than one-third fail to meet proficiency standards in reading and numeracy. The children likeliest to suffer from curriculum introduced under the auspices of diversity and inclusion are those from disadvantaged backgrounds whose parents lack the means to opt out of state schools.

It is unacceptable that a program funded by government on the basis of domestic violence prevention should promote child sexualisation. But it is unconscionable that a government would knowingly promote lessons that give effect to a dissociative response that is common to victims of child sex abuse. In a lesson supposed to provide “different perspectives on sexual intimacy”, children are used in a role-playing exercise so psychologically harmful they may need to “de-role” afterwards. In one of the lessons, teachers are warned that as a result of program content, students may have “slipped into a state of distress or disassociation”. Teachers are instructed to “de-role” children by asking them to state their names and where they are.

Parents concerned about their children being sexualised and dissociating in class are unlikely to find support among those who produced the Safe Schools and BRR programs. As reported in March, activists who designed the Safe Schools program dismissed possible parental concerns, stating: “Parents don’t have the power to shut this down.” The Victorian government appears to concur. It vowed to continue funding it despite a commonwealth review that raised strong concerns.

As a society, we rightly denounced behaviours exposed by the royal commission into child sex abuse as abhorrent and intolerable. Our refusal to tolerate child sexualisation should be universal. The fashionable fronts of sexual diversity and social inclusion are no excuse for abuse.


The Categories: Government
  • John Powell

    Congratulations on raising genuine concerns on the sexualisation programs being introduced to our children within the government funded educational programs. I am also perplexed that within our society that rightly takes a strong stance against sexually grooming children, a government at any level could contemplate and financially support such programs within the school curriculum. It appears that our politicians and educational leaders may be searching for answers in addressing social inclusion and domestic violence issues by adopting the attitude “if can not beat them, join them”, but at what cost? Our youth are being used as unwilling subjects in a social experiment that appears to have little, if any, backing from any well grounded research. The outcome will be that we are developing greater dysfunction within our society as the boundaries, which are in established moral standards, are being eroded and removed for self centred rights and pleasure. WE CANNOT ALLOW THESE PROGRAMS TO ENTER OUR SYSTEM.

  • Greta

    Child abuse is the correct name, and adults who facilitate child abuse should be charged, even in civil courts accompanied with multiple legislation from public servants, etc to the crimes act for breaking the law, the crimes act. I am legislative researcher, and am looking at doing a paper on children’s rights. Happy for further contact if I can help.

  • Greta

    The Early Childhood Australia, ECA, organization believe that young children, babies, toddlers are ‘sexual beings’. Very much pedophile thinking, based on Kinsey’s mantra.
    ECA has integrated itself within school programmes.
    About 25 o/o of pedophiles are females, and sadly, numbers are growing.
    I would consider home schooling, or keeping kids away from school, or that lesson for the sex education. All staff who want to teach sex Ed to young children are engaging in child abuse. Unlawful to harm or corrupt a child psychologically, mentally, etc.
    We have to be vigilant. We can charge the individuals, not the govt. fill the civil courts with long ques. Govt would soon get the hint.

  • Luigi Rosolin

    The article is well wrote and education editor Natasha Bita had very well expose the perverted motive that are behind this program. The huge problem is that our democracy is very sick and most politicians are incapable to act in the interest and morality for our society. The huge problem is that so call moral center right Liberal and national mostly had cave in to the LGBT agenda and to corruption. Our current PM that is notoriously a capitalist that is using the wife as cover probably even for tax evasion by investing in offshore register company show how badly corrupted is our system. The Victoria premier Andrew is upholding this abusive program with the Labor party full support is clearly show that Labor had gone on the most extreme immoral path that does not make any sense. Unfortunately citizen will give mostly they vote to both this party and AU had not many hope if that is not changing .


Leave Comment