Latest

Sex Education

Schoolgirls forced into lesbian role-play

3 May 2013

Now who would force schoolgirls into lesbian role-play? Would it be some sadistic sex-maniac? The correct answer is the Principal of Linden Avenue Middle School in Red Hook, New York.

As part of an ‘anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation’ given to a class of 8th-graders (that’s 13-14 for us Brits), at least one of the girls was instructed to ask another girl for a kiss.

The story was reported by Todd Starnes of Fox News, who was immediately castigated by the liberal press. Alternet accused him and Fox news of having got the story about a ‘forced lesbian kiss’ wrong. But Starnes never said there was a forced kiss, only that the girls were forced to ask for one. Another blogger said, amid bad language, that Starnes was wrong to call it ‘lesbian role play’, but it is difficult to know what else to call it.

But the line Starnes took was defended in eloquent terms by another blogger, Mr Conservative whose post is worth a read. (In the US, we should point out, a ‘conservative’ is someone concerned to defend the status quo, including the Christian faith, the institution of the family and basic morality.)

According to the local paper, the PoughKeepsie Journal, parents were especially angry that no notice was given about the class, which included the now mandatory sex education propaganda about it being OK to have sex ‘when you are ready’.

‘”I am furious,” said Mandy Coon, whose daughter was in the class. “I am her parent. Where does anyone get the right to tell her that it’s okay for her to have sex?”’

Comments like that, of course, betray the 20th-century thinking that so many parents have. Times have moved on. The State is now your child’s parent, Mandy. You are just her birth mother. Or so it seems.

Mandy Coon told reporters that her daughter said, ‘Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her.’

The case illustrates that anti-bullying classes run by homosexuals, or designed to further the gay cause, are not about reducing bullying, they are about desensitising and indoctrinating with the ruling State philosophy that homosexuality is not just acceptable but good and to be promoted.

Tolerance towards homosexuals will hardly be increased by such lessons, but maybe just one child will start to think ‘maybe I’m gay’ and be recruited to the lifestyle.

This side of the pond, we have Sir Ian McKellen, Stonewall and organisations such as School’s Out driving the push to normalise homosexuality.

As the US National Organisation for Marriage points out, such lessons will become the norm in schools the moment ‘gay marriage’ is legalised, as it was in New York in July 2011.

The story has implications for the United Kingdom. We should never think things can’t get worse.

Scottish Minister Condemns £1.6 million Grant to Homosexual Group

Robin

30 March 2013

A Scottish pastor has criticised the Scottish Government’s decision to give £1.6 million to a homosexual organization’s school campaign.

Rev David Robertson, minister of St Peter’s Free Church in Dundee and director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity, warned that the decision to give so much taxpayers’ money to Equality Network will further undermine Christianity and do little to stop bullying.

He commented: “The Equality Network have a definition of homophobia which means that anyone who disagrees with their position is homophobic.

“For example, I am not homophobic but am opposed to the redefinition of marriage.

“The Equality Network has now been given money, not to combat homophobic bullying, but to promote their own views and to suppress any other view.

“Ironically this is more likely to increase bullying than to decrease it.”

“The Scottish Government is not giving money to combat other kinds of bullying.

“I am sure there are as many Muslims and Christians who have experienced Islamophobic or Christophobic bullying as there are homosexuals.

“But the power of the homosexual lobby is such that any application for funding is going to be accepted by the government because not to do so would mean that the government themselves would be accused of homophobia.

“We do not accept the narrative that you are either a homophobe or support the self-styled Equality Network’s position.

“Indeed the current climate is such that we fear people are being bullied into accepting a position they do not hold, because they are afraid of being labelled homophobic.

“Questioning, rational discussion and decisions based on evidence rather than emotion, seem to have been thrown out of the window.”

“The totalitarian bullying in this country is not coming from Christians who are seeking to uphold the Christian values of tolerance, love and free speech, but from the new fundamentalist secularist moralists who will not allow any deviation from their point of view and are prepared to use the power and money of the State to get their ways.

“The obvious wrong of the bullying of homosexuals is being used as a tool to further undermine the Christian morality and tradition of Scotland.

“It is to the Scottish Government’s shame that it cannot either see this, or is not prepared to stand up to it.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Bill Gates’ ‘Soft Eugenics’

Robin

13 September 2012

bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-building-3 — Campus of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Last month we published a report on the Gates Foundation, focusing on how it has been promoting a type of ‘soft eugenics’ under the pretence of ‘family planning.’

We’ve just updated the article with some additional information and links, so do be sure to visit the updated report ‘Bill Gates and the New Malthusians.’ The article seeks to answer the following questions:

Why would the Gates Foundation commemorate the 100th anniversary of the The First Eugenics Conference, which was built on racist principles that motivated the Nazis?
Why is money from the Gates Foundation (via, the United Nations Population Fund) being used to fund coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns?
What is Bill Gates relationship to social engineers like Thomas Malthus, who hoped to decrease the surplus population by killing the poor?
Why is the Gates Foundation partnering with a group that supports China’s one-child-only policy?
What is the connection in Melinda Gates’ mind between promoting contraceptives and fostering economic growth?
What is the sinister reality behind Bill Gates’ equation CO2=P x S x E x C CO2?
What is the connection between vaccinations and population control?
Why does the Gates Foundation support an organization that secretly sterilized thousands of women against their will in the ‘90s?

To learn the answers to these and other questions, click on the link below:

Bill Gates and the New Malthusians

See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):

Bill Gates and the New Malthusians

Robin

15 August 2012

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first eugenics conference, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation put on a family planning conference this summer.

The conference, which began on 11 July and was co-hosted by the UK Department for International Development, included among its coalition partners such organizations as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, and the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA).

From Hard Eugenics to Soft Eugenics

The original conference that Bill Gates wished to commemorate was titled The First International Eugenics Congress. It was convened in London from 24-29 July, 1912, and was presided over by Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin. The conference was dedicated to Charles Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton (1822–1911). Galton invented the term Eugenics to describe his theory that man could be perfected through strategic breeding. His ideas that certain races are genetically superior to other races had a profound impact on later Nazi theorists.

The 1912 conference included an exhibit by the American Breeders’ Association, whose former president, Harry Laughlin, proposed to eradicate the “inferior” members of society through compulsory sterilization. The conference featured a presentation from Bleeker van Wagenen, who gave a report on the progress of sterilization laws in the United States and advocated compulsory sterilization as a means for improving the human gene pool.

Early 20th century Eugenics theory was often accompanied by the notion that economics can be improved by decreasing the surplus population. Such ideas were based on the theories of Thomas Malthus (1766 –1834) who suggested that the poor were draining the world’s recourses. One of Malthus’s solutions for reducing the surplus population was to introduce policies specifically designed to bring death to large numbers of peasants. For example, he encouraged poor people to move near swamps, because he knew that they would catch diseases there and begin dying off.

The conference that the Gates Foundation put on to commemorate The First International Eugenics Congress included no calls for forced sterilization, but Bill and Malinda Gates did pledge hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the developing world. Following in the footsteps of early 20th century social engineering theory, they echoed Malthus by suggesting that we have an economic responsibility to ensure that there are fewer people. Wendy Wright has rightly called this the “latest effort to blame children for poverty and women’s troubles.”

Bill Gates is quick to repudiate his dependence on Malthus. In an interview with PBS, he told Moyers that “The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population” and he shared how originally he “thought that the Malthusian principles applied at least in the developing countries.” Gates went on to say how he came to understand that “essentially Malthus was wrong” and that alternatives to Malthus’s doomsday scenarios included raising wealth, improving health and educating women.

But we should not be too quick to assume that Bill and Melinda Gates have completely abandoned their earlier Malthusian framework. On the contrary, Mr and Mrs Gates have both frequently drawn attention to the economic ramifications of there being too many people. This was made explicit by Melinda Gates in 2011 when she commented that “Government leaders…are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost-effective way to foster economic growth…”

So what exactly is the relation between contraception and economic growth? The connection is simple: fewer people = more resources. This may not be the hard eugenics of Malthus, but it certainly involves what Andressen Blom and James Bell have appropriately termed “soft negative eugenics.” In an article for The American Thinker last June, Blom and Bell define soft eugenics as follows:

“for economic reasons governments should use taxpayer dollars to underwrite the decisions of citizens to pursue recreational sexual activity. The underlying economic assumption is that the prospective children of the poor citizens likely to utilize such government-funded programs would be likely to hamper economic growth if they are born.”

Decreasing the Surplus Population

This is not the first time that Bill and Malinda Gates have ventured into population control. At the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference, Bill Gates gave a talk in which he suggested that the solution to global warming is to have fewer people.

This is part of a new groundswell of interest in population control which posits a direct relationship between global warming and the amount of people on the earth. The Microsoft founder reduced our planet’s problem to a simple equation: CO2=P x S x E x C CO2 (total population-emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).

The goal, Gates said, was to “get this down to zero.” Referring to P(eople) specifically, he said, “Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

That’s right. Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccination is specifically related to a decrease in the population. (But hold onto that thought.)

The Gates Foundation are certainly doing all they can to decrease what it sees as surplus population. In May of this year, they gave a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to develop a new type of ultrasound which has been described as a “non-invasive, reversible form of birth control for men.” Already tested on animals, it would make a man infertile for up to six months. Nine other grants were given to other scientists attempting to create new forms of contraception.

Forced Sterilization

One of the coalition partners in last month’s conference was Planned Parenthood, whose founder Margaret Sanger hoped to “assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit.” Similarly, Marie Stopes International, who also had a prominent presence at the conference, was started by a woman who advocated for “the sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood [to be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” (To read more about forced sterilization in the 20th century, see my article ‘Social Engineering and the Dark Side of American Liberalism.’)

But while these organizations previously supported forced sterilization, surely no one in the West still thinks that the poor and ‘feeble minded’ ought to be subjected to compulsory sterilization, right? Well, not so fast. Consider the following facts:

The Gates Foundation lists the World Health Organization as being one of its ‘Key Partners’ even though the forcibly sterilized thousands of women in the ‘90s under the pretence of providing vaccination services. (Could this have something to do with why Gates has explicitly linked vaccination to issues of population control?)
Bill Gates father, William H Gates Sr, was head of the abortions and eugenics group Planned Parenthood, an organization birthed out of the American Eugenics Society, and strongly influenced his son.
The Gates Foundation has given a fortune to abortionists since 1998, $33,306,829 to International Planned Parenthood alone. IPPF supports China’s coercive ‘one-child’ policy. More on Gates Foundations donations HERE (but figures should be checked against the Gates Foundation website).
The Gates Foundation has partnered with the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) which also supports China’s one-child-only policy and frequently appeals to global warming as a reason to curb the human population.
The London conference that the Gates Foundation put on last month was co-hosted by the UK’s Department for International Development, which has given aid money to India despite warnings that it would be used to forcibly sterilize poor women. (See ‘UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor.)
In its autumn 2009 edition (Issue 10), Salvo magazine reported that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has come up with a new way to reduce poverty: reduce poor people. The campaign, which has been supported by Bill Gates, does so by supporting and funding coercive sterilization, contraception and abortion campaigns.
The Gates Foundation supports the organization Save the Children, which has been a major pusher of the population control agenda through issuing false propaganda against pregnancy. (See the LifeSiteNews article ‘Major children’s charity criticized for pushing population control agenda.)

The Hidden Truth About Vaccines and Forced Sterilization

Rather than leading to more life, which was the original purpose of vaccines and healthcare, their great advantage in Gates’ mind (at least according to his remarks at the Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference) is that they can lead to fewer people. While this is obviously true when it comes to contraception, it is hard to understand how vaccines are specifically related to a decrease in the population.

The connection between vaccines and population control becomes clearer if we consider an event that occurred in the early 1990’s. The World Health Organization, working under the control of the UN, launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of people in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines against tetanus. The project was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the UN Development Programme, and the US’s National Institutes of Health.

Tetanus is a potentially lethal infection caused by external wounds or cuts from things like rusty nails. There is nothing unusual in tetanus inoculations, which are routine in the Western World. But there was something that didn’t quite add up about these particular vaccinations.

For one thing, the WHO was choosing to only vaccinate females. For another thing, the girls they chose to vaccinate are primarily those between the ages of 15 and 45 (in Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.)

It wasn’t just disease experts who noticed that something was amiss. After all, it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to know that men and boys are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than ladies. So why was the WHO only choosing to vaccinate girls of child-bearing age?

To make matters more suspicious, the vaccination protocols were calling for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. However, tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, so why this call for multiple inoculations?

These were the questions that Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, began asking and why they decided to have some vaccine samples tested.

The tests revealed that the tetanus vaccine contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). hCG is a natural hormone that is secreted during the initial stages of pregnancy. When this hormone is combined with the tetanus toxoid carrier, it tricks the body into thinking that hCG is an invading enemy, with the result that a woman’s body begins producing anti-hCG antibodies, making it impossible for her to ever maintain a pregnancy.

After a number of labs exposed that the vaccine was really a life-time birth control shot, WHO officials tried to keep things quiet and continued administering the anti-fertility injections. It was only after the courts intervened that the WHO was forced to stop administering the vaccine. Unfortunately, by then the damage had already been done and thousands of girls in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines had been rendered permanently infertile. The scandal made it all the way up to the Philippines Supreme Court. To quote from an article on Lifesite news,

LifeSiteNews.com reported that in 1995, the Catholic Women’s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG, which when given in a vaccine permanently causes women to be unable to sustain a pregnancy. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.

Was the 1990s tetanus scandal simply a medical blunder? Hardly! For 20 years prior to the incident, WHO researchers had been actively involved in creating anti-fertility vaccines utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier. This was publically documented in medical journals from the 70s through to the 90s.

What could possibly have motivated the World Health Organization to knowingly, but covertly, sterilize thousands of women in third world countries? While we do not have sufficient information to answer this question for definite, the answer could have something to do with the fact that population control is once again a growing public concern among the world’s elite. Consider that

Population control seems to be the pet topic among those men who control much of the world’s wealth. Not only Bill Gates but also Warren Buffett and Ted Turner have all spoken publically in favour of drastically reducing the human species, and supported programs designed to eliminate the excess in babies. For example, in 1996, Ted Turner stated that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
In an interview with the New York Times in 2009, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg alluded to the fact that abortion is all about getting rid of certain types of people that we do not want around: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Echoing comments made by the Optimum Population Trust in 2007, The London School of Economics suggested in 2009 that the best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion. Their logic is simple: more people = more polluters.
A 2007 report, written by specialist Professor Barry Walters for the Australian medical journal, called for couples with more than two children to be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring’s carbon dioxide emissions. Parents would be charged $5,000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.
In a 1981 interview, Thomas Ferguson of the United States Department Office of Population Affairs, commented that “we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”
College professors and leaders frequently cite the Georgia Guidestones to in arguing that that we should “maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” To achieve that, the human population would have to be thinned by 90%.
The Anglo-Dutch financial empire has been and still is committed to reducing the world’s population from the present 6.7 billion, to under 2 billion persons. This has been stated repeatedly in the post-war period by such leading spokesmen as Lord Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and World Wildlife Fund founders Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the still-living Prince Philip, who has reiterated many times his desire to see the human population thinned.
Robert McNamara of the World Bank has said, “Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”
An initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 Earth Charter reads, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”
Dr. Henry Kissinger has said “World population needs to be decreased by 50%.”
Friends of the Earth founder, David Brower, has stated, “That’s the first thing to do, start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about fifty times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto.” “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
President Obama’s top science and technology advisor, John P. Holdren, has advocated the possibility of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The Secretary of State for International Development, Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, is a hard-line pro-abortionist in his ideal job. In November 2010 he proposed to “hard-wire” abortion and contraceptive services into overseas development programmes. In December 2010 this came to fruition as he announced plans to spend an extra £2.1 billion on programmes including abortion and contraception, drawing a rebuke from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. The Governments’ abortion policy is now an integral part of their foreign aid packages.

WRITE: To your MP and ask your MP to protest to the Secretary of State for International Development about the way that Government money was used last month to commemorate the legacy of 20th century Eugenics. Your MP’s address is House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. If you do not know who your MP is or wish to email your MP instead, click here to go direct to the UK Parliament’s list of MPs.

PRAY: That the Lord will continue to expose the evil being promoted by family planners and population control advocates. Pray that the plans of Bill and Melinda Gates will be channelled towards life rather than death. Pray that legislators overseas will become alert to the evil enclosed in the Trojan Horses of aid from the Gates Foundation and the UK Government. Pray that God will grant Andrew Mitchell a spirit of repentance or remove him and that the UK’s pro-abortion policy will not stand.

The Cost of a Permissive Society

Robin

15 February 2012

PENTAX DIGITAL CAMERA — British law needs to support marriage, not encourage promiscuity and divorce

In a Jubilee Centre report from last December, author and therapist Guy Brandon demonstrated that the economic ramifications of our permissive society are almost beyond reckoning.

Moral Hazard

Mr Brandon, the author of Just Sex: is it Ever Just Sex?, used quantitative cost-analysis to disprove the notion that “sex between consenting adults is no one else’s business”, a mantra that has been repeated by both Ken Livingstone and Max Mosley.

By using the category of ‘moral hazard’, he showed that British society has created a system that incentivizes promiscuity.

“‘Moral Hazard’, he explains, “occurs when a contract or financial arrangement creates incentives for the parties involved to behave against the interest of others’ – typically because one party is insulated from risk.”

One of the ways British society does this is through a system in which the financial consequences of promiscuity are not carried by the people directly involved but diffused throughout society collectively.

The British Government has also created a moral hazard when it began to allow the welfare safety net to be exploited in ways which incentivise family breakdown. “At present,” Brandon writes, “the tax and benefits system makes it economically more favourable for some parents to live apart – the so-called couple penalty. Ending this must be a priority.”

Why Free Sex is Never Free

The Jubilee Centre article, titled ‘Free sex: Who pays?: Moral hazard and sexual ethics’, suggests that while “the costs of sexual freedom and relationship breakdown to the taxpayer and wider economy are complex and difficult to calculate… £100 billion annually is probably a reasonable starting point: about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.”

The following are some the areas where the costs of sexual licence are felt the strongest in our economy:

images — The entire society is forced to cover the cost of promiscuity

Promiscuity often leads to STI’s, which cost the British taxpayer more than £1 billion per year.
Promiscuity often leads to HIV. The estimated 83,000 cases of HIV in the UK at the end of 2008 represent a total lifetime cost of £26 billion.
Promiscuity leads to teenage pregnancy which cost the NHS £63 million per year, and a further £29 million for infertility and other complications arising from chlamydia alone.
Promiscuity often leads to abortions, and 96% of abortions are carried out on the NHS at a cost of £650 each, or £118 million.
Promiscuity often contributes to separation from marriage and cohabiting relationships (including promiscuity prior to entering such relationships), which entails huge increases in tax credit payments, lone parent benefits, housing benefits, in addition to the health, crime and educational impact of relationship breakdown. Altogether this totals about £42 billion a year.
In contributing to relationship breakdown, promiscuity leads to Absenteeism. The loss of working hours following relationship breakdown costs the economy at least £20 billion a year.
In contributing to relationship breakdown, promiscuity can lead to domestic violence which costs the British taxpayer around £3.4 billion a year, and around £21 billion today in ‘human and emotional costs.’
The effect of relationship breakdown on children leads to educational underachievement which results in an estimated £40,000 for each child, reducing GDP by £6 billion. Much of this cost can be directly attributable to the promiscuous activity which contributed to the relationship breakdown.

These facts, all of which Brandon meticulously documents, helps to undermine the common narrative that sex is a choice made only by the couple most directly involved with only limited consequences beyond the two of them. This narrative has found expression in phrases such as ‘recreational sex’ and ‘casual sex’, which obscure the reality that the entire society picks up the bill for promiscuity.

Mr. Brandon contrasts our system with that of ancient Israel which put institutional and legal parameters in place to limit moral hazard. His discussion of Old Testament law provides a helpful framework that our own law-makers would do well to glean from.

The Jubilee Centre report is not as strong in laying out a solution to the problem, although Mr Brandon does make some suggestions on how Government policy makers can limit the degree of moral hazard that is operative.

The first step is simply for the British Government to recognize the full scope of the economic problem. Up to now Government has focused considerable attention on discouraging teenage pregnancy and encouraging ‘safe sex.’ However, promiscuity itself has received scant attention, and is even actively discouraged by much Government policy. As Mr. Brandon has said,

“The UK Treasury does not make the link between the vast costs of relationship breakdown and its drivers, David Cameron’s emphasis on the family notwithstanding. Public policy barely acknowledges the existence of the problem, let alone the scale.”

From an economic point of view, it is not enough to merely encourage safe sex and discourage teenage pregnancy. Until promiscuity itself is adequately addressed, the economic problem will only increase.

WRITE: to your MP and share some of Mr. Brandon’s concerns. You may even want to print out a copy of the Jubilee Centre report to mail to your MP. Ask for your comments to be forwarded to the appropriate minister. Make the point that

Parliament needs to abolish the ‘couple penalty.’
No-fault divorce on demand must go.
The entire culture of sex education must be abolished, since this encourages promiscuity and rarely, if ever, teaches the virtues of chastity. (See our article ‘Ferrari Condemns ‘state-sanctioned child abuse.‘)
Government must take more responsibility to limit the amount of nudity that occurs in the public spaces of the television airwaves. This is because there is evidence that such nudity (especially when it involves sex) contributes to promiscuity at younger ages.

Ferrari Condemns ‘state-sanctioned child abuse’

Robin

13 February 2012

Even as Christians throughout the UK prepare to observe Valentine’s Day as a Day of Purity, our nation is reeling from last week’s revelations of the astonishing scope of Government complicity in the contraceptive trade.

Throughout Southampton special NHS nurses have been visiting nine schools and colleges to offer contraceptive implants to thousands of girls behind their parents’ back.

The full measure of the scandal emerged last week when it was disclosed that a staggering 7,400 girls aged 15 and under were given the implants and jabs, in what amounts to a six-fold increase in just five years.

Writing in yesterday’s Sunday Express, Nick Ferrari suggested that the practice “sounds like a relic from Stalinist Russia or Hitler’s Germany.” He pointed out the inconsistency in a system that prohibits school nurses from even applying a sticking plaster to children in case they have an allergic reaction and yet sends out a special army of nurses to pump underage schoolgirls full of hormones so they can have risk free sex. Mr Ferrari commented,

This is as close to state-sanctioned child abuse as we’ll ever sink….

It is unimaginable that this would be accepted in any other area where we try to educate and discipline children ourselves. If the state were offering teenagers free alcopops or joints, there would be a deafening outcry. Yet when it comes to sex we seem to just shrug and accept it. the pressure on girls from boys who know they can get the implants or injections will be huge. You can hear the shrill whining of “If you loved me, you’d get them” and “Mum and Dad will never know” as the girls are forced to give in.

Of equal concern is the risk of infertility brought about by the Government’s policy. Ferrari writes,

Even if you’re deluded enough to support this, as depressingly many campaigners are, no one seems to think of the massive risk of picking up sexually transmitted infections as girls can swap partners as easily as they change their pop socks. The risk of a girl being left unable to ever conceive is considerable, but to these warped advocates that’s probably seen as a bonus as the girl can have even more sex without even needing the jabs.”

While Government has a teenage pregnancy unit, they have no teenage infertility unit. No one in Government knows how many girls are being made infertile through state-sanctioned promiscuity and, frankly, nobody cares. Nick Ferrari has hit the nail on the head. An infertile girl will not figure into the pregnancy statistics and will actually help to decrease the surplus population, as they see it.

If you are concerned about this and would like information on what you can do to help foster a culture of Chastity, join Christian Voice and get a free copy of our booklet ‘A Generation Betrayed.’ Also visit the Day of Purity website to find out how Christians throughout the UK can spend Valentine’s Day supporting chastity.

Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:

Not Nice At All

Stephen

28 June 2010

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has joined the sex education lobby by proposing that sex education should start in primary school.

A consultation document issued by NICE says: ‘NICE recommends that children from primary school age upwards are given sex and relationships education that is appropriate to the maturity of the pupils, sensitive to diverse cultural, faith and family perspectives, and based on an understanding of their needs.’

DIRECTOR AT ODDS WITH GUIDANCE

But in an interview on BBC Radio Northampton, the Director of Public Health at NICE, Professor Mike Kelly, who was also director of the guidance project, backed away from the suggestion that Primary School was the right place to start, saying that sex education should only start in secondary school.

It should only start ‘When a child reaches maturity,’ he said. Primary school would be the place for exploring relationships, which he said meant ‘friends, brothers and sisters, mother, father, neighbours.’ Biology would be taught in the ‘later part of the primary school curriculum’, but ‘dealing with the sexual behaviour proper would be something that takes place in secondary school.’

However, the NICE draft guidance clearly states: ‘Ensure education about sex and relationships and alcohol starts in primary school.’ (p10). One member of the panel which drew up the guidance was Simon Blake, Chief Executive of Brook Advisory, which has been trying to get sex education to start as early as five, and works to prise children away from parents.

But Professor Kelly was ‘saying the opposite’ to that the school should take over from parents. Sex education, said Professor Kelly, ‘should be done in partnership between schools and parents and that is something our guidance clearly states’.

PARENTS NEED PROPAGANDA

The trouble is, it doesn’t. We read that ‘nurses in schools and colleges … should conform to health service consent and confidentiality guidance,’ in other words, fix children up with contraceptives and abortions behind their parents’ backs, but there is nothing about a ‘partnership’ between teachers and parents in the NICE draft guidance at all. Professor Kelly was not telling listeners the truth.

Instead, there is a lot of advice to teachers about filling parents with liberal propaganda: For example: ‘Explain to parents’ that sex and relationships education is really good, ‘Parents should be aware’ that abstinence education is useless, ‘Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex’, ‘Offer parents the opportunity’ to help their children develop ‘negotiation skills’, and so on (pp8-9). There is no defence or reference for any of these statements, of course. They are liberal dogma, articles of faith in the morality-free zone of sex and relationships education.

Professor Kelly spoke about the ‘skill-based approach’ in the document which ‘is about how to say no – if that is appropriate’. The idea of giving children ‘skills’ so they can ‘negotiate’ is something borrowed straight out of the homosexual world, where negotiating what sort of sex should take place with a complete stranger picked up in a bar may be, literally, vitally important.

CHALLENGE FAITH-BASED ‘PREJUDICE’

Faith is mentioned eleven times, ‘belief’ four and the word ‘cultural’ is used on nine occasions. But mere lip service is being paid. Those planning PSHE should ‘promote sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs’, for example about ‘sexual orientation and abortion.’ So these beliefs should be respected then?

Absolutely not. ‘Discrimination and prejudice should be discussed and challenged,’ the draft guidance proclaims (p12).

Professor Kelly said he ‘has evidence that if done well, if done properly, sex education can reduce teenage pregnancies.’ It must have been done really badly over the last forty years, in that case, to leave our teenage pregnancy rate as one of the highest in Western Europe . In fact, the evidence Professor Kelly claims does not actually exist.

FANTASY WORLD

An indication of the fantasy world of NICE and the sex education industry may be found on page 17 of the draft guidance. Those involved in the planning and teaching of PSHE should ‘Set clear health goals – for example, to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STI’s)’. The ‘specific behaviour’ children should engage in to ‘achieve’ this goal is ‘using condoms and reducing the number of sexual partners to prevent STI’s.’

The American Centre for Disease Control (CDC) says that condom use only ‘reduces the risk’ of contracting a range of STI’s, it does not eliminate it. ‘Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus-2 transmission,’ says the CDC website. So the advice given, to wear a condom and reduce (to what level?) the number of partners is not in accord with the evidence or with scripture.

STATUS

A interesting conflict is also emerging between NICE, and its bosses in the Department of Health, and the Department for Children Schools and Families. Schools do not come under the DoH, and therefore the DoH and its quangos do not have any say in what goes on. However, Primary Care Trusts do come under the DoH and their employees are regularly to be found in schools in England .

It is the DfCS&F which issues guidance to schools, and yet the DoH asked NICE ‘to develop guidance on a public health programme aimed at promoting school, college and community-based personal, social and health education, including health literacy, with particular reference to sexual health behaviour and alcohol.’

Normal Wells, of the lobby group Family and Youth Concern, told Christian Voice that he asked NICE what relation their guidance has to the official Statutory Guidance issued by the DfCS&F. They were unaware there was such guidance. So he rang the DoH and asked the same question. The DoH people refused to put him through to anyone in authority.

Finally, Mr Wells rang the DfCS&F. They said sniffily that ‘the only guidance that schools are legally bound to have regard to is the Sex and Relationships Guidance July 2000.’

However, Section 4.1.1 of the published scope of the NICE guidance says it should apply not just to schools and colleges, which are DFCS&F territory, but to ‘education other than at school, including home education’. What status would such guidance have amongst home educators, and how would it be disseminated?

Or is the whole exercise just an excuse for the ‘usual suspects’ in sex education, from the ‘Sex Education Forum, the FPA, Brook and so on, to serve on yet another committee and produce yet more guidance pushing the boundaries of acceptability out just a little more, and to which they would then refer when perhaps trying to influence public policy?

REPRESENTATIONS

There is much more in the 74-page NICE draft guidance which needs to be analysed and addressed. The deadline for representations is 15th July.

PRAY: That the Lord would bring to the light all the evidence that exposes the ‘safer sex’ scam and show us how to ‘follow the money’ to see the vested interests.

NICE Draft Guidance on SRE & Alcohol

Stephen

17 June 2010

Response from stakeholder Christian Voice

Christian Voice is a Christian prayer and lobby group. We represent a mainly Evangelical Christian constituency. We take issue with the Draft Guidance for the following reasons:

1 No doubt sex, relationships and alcohol education in schools and colleges can be improved as the Guidance and accompanying Press Release state, but the composition of the NICE Programme Development Group which drew up the guidance was overwhelmingly from the sex education industry. For example, Simon Blake, Chief Executive of the child-sex lobby group Brook, was on it. There were also representatives from Stonewall, the Sex Education Forum and the Family Planning Association. What such people mean by ‘improved’ is more explicit sex education at an ever-younger age with more distribution of condoms coupled with the promotion of homosexuality. That is abusive, not done with the best interests of children in mind and is not what parents or children say they want.

2 The Guidance claims its scope is ‘mainly aimed at, school and college governors, school heads and teachers, college principals, lecturers and tutors, commissioners and managers in children’s trusts and children’s services, local authorities and primary care trusts.’ However, NICE does not have responsibility for the majority of those groups. The NICE Draft Guidance fails to say what relation it has to the Statutory Guidance issued in 2000 by the Department for Education, now the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The DfCS&F have said that ‘the only guidance that schools are legally bound to have regard to is the Sex and Relationships Guidance July 2000.’

3 NICE reports to the Department of Health, and Schools do not come under the DoH, and therefore the DoH and its quangos do not have any say in what goes on in schools. However, Primary Care Trusts do come under the DoH and their employees are regularly to be found in schools in England . In short, we oppose the NICE Guidance being applicable to Schools and thus being in conflict with the DFCS&F.

4 Section 4.1.1 of the published scope of the NICE guidance says it should apply not just to schools and colleges, which are DFCS&F territory, and not under the DoH at all, but to ‘education other than at school, including home education’. What status would such guidance have amongst home educators, and how would it be disseminated? We oppose NICE Guidance being applicable to Home Educating Parents and their children on the grounds that such is not the business of the DoH..

5 We disagree with the NICE assumption that education whether ‘high‑quality’ or not about sex, relationships and alcohol helps children make ‘responsible decisions and acquire the skills and confidence to delay sex until they are ready’. We disagree that ‘evidence demonstrates that this type of education delivered as part of a planned and timetabled programme by trained and confident teachers helps children and young people better understand their own physical and emotional development’. We know of no research or evidence that any form of sex, relationships and alcohol education helps children to be healthier and we note that NICE has not cited any. Indeed, on pages 32-33 and 71-72 of the Draft Guidance, the limitatiions of the existing evidence are admitted. Studies were mostly from the USA , provided ‘little infoprmation about teaching methods’, ‘lacked detail about comparators,’ ‘tended to be based on theory’, and had ‘insufficient high quality data’. The Programme Development Group members were thrown back on their own opinions and prejudices, which the Guidance descrtibes as ‘their experience.’ (p32)

6 Over the last twenty years, as more and more explicit sex education has been given, emphasising a reliance on condoms as supposed protection against sexually transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted diseases have increased dramatically, with as many as 10% of young people having been infected with Chlamydia, which causes infertility. That is illustrative that the decline in the sexual health of children correlates strongly with explicit sex education and/or with the distribution of condoms among the young.

7 The Biblical witness is that parents have a God-given responsibility for their children’s education, and nowhere is this mandate stronger than in the field of personal, including sexual morality. The Bible says:

And thou shalt teach (these words) diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deuteronomy. 6:7)

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Himself said: ‘It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend (that is, to cause to stumble) one of these little ones.’ (Luke 17:2)

8 We believe sex, relationships and alcohol education should targeted higher than merely giving young people ‘skills and confidence’. It should also emphasise the Christian morality upon which our nation was built. In terms of personal relationships, that begins with the words of Christ, recalling the Book of Genesis: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.’ (Mark 10:8)

The Biblical witness is for chastity amongst the unmarried and fidelity in marriage. It can be argued that it is the job of the State to support these ideals, for their own sake, out of our Christian heritage, and because the alternatives have a negative impact on the national finances.

9 We disagree with the NICE recommendation ‘that children from primary school age upwards are given sex and relationships education’. We regard that as grooming these children for sex, a violation of their innocence and child sexual abuse.

10 We disagree that it is the place of any school to promote perversion whether under the banner of ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’ or at all.

11 We disagree that sex and relationships education ‘should start in primary school’. Furthermore, in an interview on BBC Radio Northampton, the Director of Public Health at NICE, Professor Mike Kelly, who was also director of the guidance project, backed away from the suggestion that Primary School was the right place to start, saying that sex education should only start in secondary school. It should only start ‘When a child reaches maturity,’ he said. Primary school would be the place for exploring relationships, which he said meant ‘friends, brothers and sisters, mother, father, neighbours.’ Biology would be taught in the ‘later part of the primary school curriculum’, but ‘dealing with the sexual behaviour proper would be something that takes place in secondary school.’ However, the NICE draft guidance clearly states: ‘Ensure education about sex and relationships and alcohol starts in primary school.’ (p10) and the Press Release said ‘Ensure education about sex and relationships and alcohol starts in primary school.’

12 We disagree that parents are there to be ‘reassured’ ‘that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex, increase rates of sexual activity or increase the likelihood of sexual experimentation.’ There is no evidence to support such a statement and evidence is now growing that talking about such subjects and distributing condoms advances the onset of sexual activity in children to whom it might not have occurred. In other words, parents are right to view such education as irresponsible.

13 We disagree with Gillian Leng, NICE Deputy Chief Executive, who said: ‘We know a planned PSHE education programme which progresses throughout a child’s time in education helps them understand the importance of valuing and having respect for others. It can also give them the ability to make sense of the world around them and make responsible decisions.’ We note that NICE has advanced no evidence to support this opinion and we say that NICE devalues its own currency when its personnel make prejudiced and opinionated statements which masquerade as fact and which are unsupported by evidence.

14 On the Radio Programme cited, Professor Kelly said he was ‘saying the opposite’ to that ‘the school should take over from parents’. ‘Sex education’, said Professor Kelly, ‘should be done in partnership between schools and parents and that is something our guidance clearly states’.

The Guidance does not say what the Professor claimed. We read that ‘nurses in schools and colleges … should conform to health service consent and confidentiality guidance,’ in other words, fix children up with contraceptives and abortions behind their parents’ backs, but there is nothing about a ‘partnership’ between teachers and parents in the NICE draft guidance at all. Professor Kelly was not telling listeners the truth.

15 We disagree that teachers should fill parents with liberal propaganda: For example: ‘Explain to parents’ that sex and relationships education is really good, ‘Parents should be aware’ that abstinence education is useless, ‘Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex’, ‘Offer parents the opportunity’ to help their children develop ‘negotiation skills’, and so on (pp8-9). There is no defence or reference for any of these statements, of course. They are liberal dogma, articles of faith in the morality-free zone of sex and relationships education. NICE devalues itself by repeating them.

16 Professor Kelly spoke about the ‘skill-based approach’ in the Guidance which ‘is about how to say no – if that is appropriate’. The idea of giving children ‘skills’ so they can ‘negotiate’ is something borrowed straight out of the homosexual world, where negotiating what sort of sex should take place with a complete stranger picked up in a bar may be, literally, vitally important.

17 Faith is mentioned in the Guidance eleven times, ‘belief’ four and the word ‘cultural’ is used on nine occasions. But mere lip service is being paid. Those planning PSHE should ‘promote sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs’, it says, for example about ‘sexual orientation and abortion.’ However, the Guidance does not say these beliefs should be respected.

Instead, ‘Discrimination and prejudice should be discussed and challenged,’ the draft guidance proclaims (p12). As diverse faith and cultural beliefs are to be found mainly in people of non-white-European heritage, this statement in the NICE Guidance is racist. It is also culturally imperialistic to want to force decadent Western attitudes on people of different descent. Christian Voice has many black African/Caribbean and Asian members who strongly demand their cultural diversity be respected, not patronised in the racist and discriminatory way the NICE Guidance proposes.

18 Professor Kelly said he ‘has evidence that if done well, if done properly, sex education can reduce teenage pregnancies.’ We challenge him to produce this evidence and debate it. To take him at his word, sex education must have been done really badly over the last forty years to leave our teenage pregnancy rate as one of the highest in Western Europe . Are we expected to entrust the same people who delivered it then to force it on a fresh generation of vulnerable children?

19 On page 17 of the draft guidance, it states: Those involved in the planning and teaching of PSHE should ‘Set clear health goals – for example, to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STI’s)’. The ‘specific behaviour’ children should engage in to ‘achieve’ this goal is ‘using condoms and reducing the number of sexual partners to prevent STI’s.’ The Guidance fails to say what reduction in numbers of sexual partners will achieve the goal of preventing sexually transmitted infections Does 20 a month achieve the goal? Or 10? Or 5? Two perhaps? The Guidance does not say ‘reduce sexually transmitted infections’, it clearly says ‘prevent sexually transmitted infections’. But no matter how many condoms are used, someone is living in a fantasy world if he thinks merely ‘reducing the number of sexual partners’ will achieve such a goal. In fact the goal is achieved by chastity (staying a virgin until marriage) and fidelity (keeping to one partner in marriage).

20 The American Centre for Disease Control (CDC) says that condom use only ‘reduces the risk’ of contracting a range of STI’s, it does not eliminate it. ‘Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus‑2 transmission,’ says the CDC website. So the advice given, to wear a condom and reduce (to what level?) the number of partners is not in accord with the evidence. Such advice falls far short of the clinical excellence to which NICE strives.

21 A clear majority of fifteen and even sixteen-year-olds are still virgins. A compassionate and responsible sociaty would help and support them along that path. It is of concern that certain adults are rather too keen that children should be fornicating. Some may be driven by the money to be made in the contraceptive and abortion industries, but others must derive some vicarious pleasure from the thought of children engaging in sexual activity. Either way, they are misleading and failing the young.

22 Because the NICE Guidance leans so heavily to a highly-prejudiced view in which children are there to be sexualised, and because it is in conflict with the 2000 DfE Statutory Guidance, we say it should be withdrawn completely.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Seven-Year Olds Watch Cartoon Sex

Stephen

5 March 2010

The Daily Mail has reported that a class of seven and eight-year-olds were made to watch a cartoon showing a cartoon couple chasing each other around a bed and having sex.

The DVD, part of Channel 4’s sex education DVD, Living and Growing, was shown to pupils at East Wold Church of England Primary School in Lincolnshire.

Mother Lisa Bullivant, from Legbourne, Lincolnshire , has taken her daughter out of the school and placed her with another school.

Mrs Bullivant said: ‘The cartoon was very graphic. My daughter was frightened and children have unfortunately been copying what they have seen. Parents should have been given the decision of whether the video should have been shown or not.

‘Seven to nine-year-olds should not possess this knowledge. There is no educational or psychological benefit or need for children of this age to have full knowledge of what sexual intercourse actually entails.’

A voice-over on the DVD describes the sex as ‘exciting’.

It appears the school did send parents a letter saying they could view the film before it was shown to pupils, but the Mail says Mrs Bullivant and several other parents were unable to attend the screening.

She said: ‘We had no reason to think we needed to. You never think in a million years that would be taught to seven-year-olds.

‘We had faith in the head teacher and the school that all they would be learning would be basic puberty. It should have said in the letter children would learn how to have sexual intercourse.’

Mrs Bullivant has complained to head teacher Lesley Thornes and the school’s governors, and now wants a meeting with the director of education at Lincolnshire council. Mrs Thornes refused to comment.

The School’s Sex and Relationships Education Policy says: ‘As we are a Church School , the Governors also feel strongly that all work undertaken should encourage all pupils to have due regard for moral considerations and emphasize the value of family life.’ There is no mention of family or marriage in the ‘Living and Growing’ DVD shown to the children. A reasonable person would probably conclude, after reading the East Wold SRE policy, that ‘Living and Growing’ contravenes it.

The School’s latest Ofsted report said ‘Pupils thrive because the school’s Christian values create a caring ethos.’

It will probably come as no surprise that one Debbie Barnes, who is ‘assistant director of children’s services’ at the council, said: ‘The DVD has been recommended for use in schools by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and is seen as appropriate for the age group.’

She continued: ‘We are sorry Mrs Bullivant has taken this view, but we are happy with the school’s approach in using the DVD for the benefit of its pupils and their education.’

Thousands of the Channel 4 sex education packs have been sold to primary schools and primary care trusts across the country. A Channel 4 spokesman said: ‘Living and Growing has been in the marketplace for nearly ten years and has been very well-received by the educational community.’ No surprise there either. Further jargon was to come. ‘Living and Growing was developed in response to requests for a resource that promotes sex and relationship education as a developmental process.’

The Channel 4 spokesman said further that the DVD is part of ‘the healthy schools curriculum’ and claimed it deals with ‘one of the most sensitive themes’ ‘in a factual and age-appropriate way.’

Despite that claim, the video was up on YouTube but only to those who sign in and confirm they are 18 or over and will not be shocked by explicit sexual material.

PRAY: That parents will not be fooled by what the sex educators say, but will apply their common-sense and protect their children. That the Governors will realise they have presided over little less than child sexual abuse and will throw out ‘Living and Growing’ altogether.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Cameron Wants Open Door to African Gays

Stephen

23 February 2010

The Conservative Party leader has offered asylum to African homosexuals in an interview with a homosexual magazine.

Writing in Attitude, David Cameron also agreed with Nick Clegg, who wrote in the same magazine last month that faith schools should teach that sodomy is ‘normal and harmless’. Cameron, in his turn, promised ‘ground rules’ to force church schools to ‘teach equality’ and that there was ‘nothing wrong with being gay’.

TORIES ‘NOW SUPPORT GAY EQUALITY’

‘I think we can look gay people in the eye and say: “You can now back us – because we now support gay equality”,’ Cameron gushed.

He even urged the Church of England to embrace gay rights. Displaying ignorance of Christian theology and totalitarian arrogance, he called on Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, to follow in his footsteps. ‘I don’t want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here, but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through,’ he said. ‘Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential.’

But it is Cameron’s approach to asylum which has drawn the headlines. He told his homosexual audience: ‘If you are fleeing persecution and that fear is well-founded, then you should be able to stay.

‘As I understand it, the 1951 Convention [on the rights of refugees] doesn’t mention sexuality, but because it mentions membership of a social group, that phrase is being used by the courts, rightly, to say that if someone has a realistic fear of persecution they should be allowed to stay.’

‘If you have a legitimate fear of persecution, then it seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate reason to stay,’ he said.

CAMERON WOULD LET HOMOSEXUALS TO GIVE BLOOD

Mr Cameron also called for an end to the ban on gays giving blood, saying: ‘Logic would dictate that it’s time to change.’ The ban was introduced to stop HIV/AIDS being transmitted, mainly to haemophiliacs, in the 1980s.

Homosexual men remain the largest reservoir of HIV in the UK and have gone back to unsafe sexual practices since the introduction of HAART – Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment – which makes it possible to live with AIDS.

The blood-borne disease AIDS/HIV is also very prevalent amongst homosexual African men, according to a study in the Lancet reported in the homosexual news service Pink News. They are ten times more likely to have the disease than their straight counterparts, in a continent ravaged by the disease because of unsafe medical practices. By a peculiar co-incidence, that news broke just as Cameron’s interview was being published.

SODOMY ABHORRENT TO AFRICANS

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice said today:

‘It is absolute nonsense to pretend that African homosexuals are a ‘social group.’ Homosexuality is abhorrent to Africans, homosexuals are rare and ‘gay pride’ parades are viewed with disgust on the continent, as a result of higher standards of sexual morality. Sodomy is seen very much as a white mans’ game. That we even allow gays to adopt children in the UK is met by Africans with incomprehension.

‘But Africans are very resourceful, and some will be adept at passing themselves off as homosexual just to gain entry to what they think is a land where the streets are paved with gold. They will find the reality very different.

‘Coupled with Cameron’s politically-correct but irresponsible call for those who practice buggery to be allowed to give blood, and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS especially amongst homosexuals in Africa, and Cameron could just as well be calling for more HIV/AIDS patients, putting further strain on the NHS. It costs over half-a-million pounds to treat each AIDS patient with HAART over the remainder of his life. And the risk of contamination to blood stocks from the raft of exotic diseases routinely carried by homosexual men is very real.

CAMERON: ‘NOTHING WRONG WITH SODOMY IN SCHOOLS’

‘As to forcing schools to teach that sodomy is normal and harmless, or in Cameron’s words, ’embedding’ it and saying that there is ‘nothing wrong with it’, the influence of his pro-gay kitchen cabinet is evident, and also totally out of step with what the majority of parents expect of their children’s schools.

‘There is no commitment from Cameron to give asylum to Christians fleeing persecution, which is what a Christian country should do. But I guess as Cameron is a secularist, clearly wanting to drive the United Kingdom into some secularist utopia, asylum in his eyes should be given to those who despise the laws of Almighty God at the expense of those who honour them.

‘We have the sad spectacle of the main political party leaders trying to be ‘gayer than thou’, falling over themselves to court the vote merely of a perverted one percent of the population. That should make decent people unable to vote for any of them.

TRAVELLING THE ROAD OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH

‘We are close to living in the days of Lot , where homosexuality was approved and promoted and even forced on visitors, while faith in God and righteousness were persecuted. I am just praying for Christian candidates to stand for righteousness in the coming general election to give a voice to those of us who do not want the UK to travel the road of Sodom and Gomorrah.’

PRAY: For the Lord to raise up Christian candidates and provide the finances needed for them to fight an election campaign so as to be elected. Pray for mercy for this land and judgment on anti-Christ politicians like Nick Clegg and David Cameron. May their political houses fall.

See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):

Museum and School Witnesses Set Cat Amongst Pigeons

Stephen

25 November 2009

A Christian witness against the promotion of sodomy to children caused a stir at the British Museum on Thursday.

Christian Voice activists and supporters gave out around 900 leaflets entitled ‘ British Museum – Stop Promoting Evil’ to those entering the Museum and passers-by.

Having initially declared that the leaflets were ‘a waste of paper’, homosexual activists then decided they were highly dangerous and tried to prevent people taking them.

The sight of a London bus painted in the six-colour diversity rainbow parked in the Museum grounds right in front of the building itself was a stark reminder of how far into depravity the British Establishment has fallen.

Insiders told us that three groups of school-children were taken around the Museum, at least one of which was from a special needs school and ‘Schools Out’ activist Jake Dyos assured us that parental permission had been sought and given.

In conversation, Jake told Christian Voice that he decided to become homosexual at the age of thirteen because ‘straight society was boring’.

The school children were shown artefacts commemorating alleged homosexuals in history, of whom the Roman emperor Hadrian is top or more accurately the only dog. The Museum ran a special exhibition on him last year. Uncomfortably, Hadrian’s homosexuality expressed itself in the paedophile seduction of his pre-pubescent houseboy, Antonius, and the only other exhibits the Museum holds with a homosexual flavour, the Warren Cup and the Bell Krater, also feature exclusively the pederast end of the homosexual spectrum.

Hadrian’s anti-Semitism is also an embarrassment. He first banned circumcision, then reneged on a promise to help rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, erecting a temple to Jupiter there instead, crushed the Jews at Bethar, massacring 580,000 in all, outlawed all Judeo-Christian religious observance and expelled the Jewish people from Judea which he merged with Galilee and renamed Syria-Palaestina.

The excuse to teach homosexuality in schools is to reduce bullying, but there remains no evidence that it does that – it could even increase it. But it was touching how much reliance ‘the gays’ put on education as a means to counter bullying. They were convinced that all that was needed was more ‘education’ and then everyone would be nice to one another. The Biblical position, that human beings behave badly towards one another because the heart of man is fully set to do evil, and that foolishness (that is: immorality) is bound up in the heart of a child was met with incredulity. More education to them was all that was required.

And so to Birmingham Perry Barr and to Perry Beeches School on the Friday morning. There being a teachers’ training day, the children were not in school, but the leafleting went ahead anyway, and a number of parents of children at local schools and the older pupils at a nearby comprehensive received leaflets showing how homosexuality was not as lovely as Sir Ian McKellen and head Liam Nolan pretended it was and how Jesus Christ can forgive, heal and release those caught up with homosexual desires.

Liam Nolan was not at all happy with the witness and came out to take pictures on his mobile phone of anyone in the vicinity, involved with the witness or not. But as much as he hates the truth of his conviction for outraging public decency in the bushes at S an dwell Valley coming out, there is nothing he can do about it. Thanks to the House of Lords, Christians still have freedom of speech to preach against sin – including homosexuality – and against indoctrinating children with lies.

When will the heads of schools such as Perry Beeches, Haverstock School in Camden , Thomas Tallis in Blackheath, and Stoke Newington School in Hackney open their doors to those who have walked away from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ, and whose very existence proves homosexuality is not fixed and unchangeable? Our prayer is for them to respond to this challenge and hear that testimony. We shall not be holding our breath. But God is a God of miracles, so who knows?

Note:
The ‘Schools Out’ website speaks of ‘infiltrating education’ and provides materials for activists to do just that, including providing ‘positive images’ of ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people’ and ideas of how to weave homosexuality into school subjects like English, drama, history and, of course, sex education. Displaying posters about homosexual recruiting groups like ‘Gay Switchboard’ in schools is also recommended, as is the inclusion of homosexual-related events in school assemblies. The dates on which homosexual mass-murderers such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Neilson, Michael Lupo and Thomas Hamilton and – for that matter – the Emperor Hadrian met their demise are not expected to form part of any ‘gay assembly’ soon.

Petition Launched to Protect Homeschoolers

Stephen

25 November 2009

An MP is raising a Parliamentary Petition against a controversial report which will require home-school parents to become licensed.

Graham Stuart MP has also formed an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Home Schooling with cross-party support.

Christian Voice have posted an online petition in support of Mr Stuart’s initiatives. It is at www.ipetitions.com/petition/badman

The moves come as the Government announced a ‘Children, Schools and Families Bill’ which will implement the recommendations of Graham Badman on homeschoolers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2009/jun/05/home-education-badman

The Badman report said that home-schooling parents should be forced to apply annually for registration to homeschool. It also advised that local authorities be given the authority to enter private property and interview a child alone, something which even the police are not allowed to do.

Graham Badman, a retired director of Kent ‘s Children’s Services, began with the assumption that home-schooling parents are routinely abusing their children. This was despite there being no evidence whatsoever that home educated children are in any danger, a fact rather given away by the way his report ignored existing research into home education.

He then said the children’s services of local authorities should have the job of monitoring home- schooled children to check they are “safe and well.” Paradoxically, many home-schooling parents tell stories of their children being bullied or even abused in the State system.

Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, announced that he accepted Badman’s recommendations on the day the report was published. Since then, there has been a peculiar advertising campaign by the British Humanist Association asking that children be not ‘labelled’ with the religion of their parents.

Many parents who home school are Christian. Others are inclined towards New Age thinking. What these parents have in common is a distrust of the State education system and the belief that they are responsible for their children’s education. What the Humanists and the Government have in common is a feeling that the State should bring up the nation’s children and that parents are at best an irritation.

Meanwhile, local authority children’s services are still taking away children from loving, devoted, caring parents on the slightest pretext, and farming them out for adoption.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented: “Badman’s proposals, which the Government have adopted, are sinister in their assumption that no parent can be trusted. They strike at the heart of family life. They also attack liberties that citizens of the UK have cherished for centuries. These liberties include the freedom to educate their children in the way the parents believe is best.

“The Bible teaches that it is the parents’ responsibility, not the government, to educate a child. Some parents may decide to use government schools, while others may decide to use a private school or to homeschool, but it is the parents’ responsibility.

“If local authorities start from the premise that there is something suspicious about home-schooling parents, and that they are damaging their children by not placing them in schools, then the mind of social workers, who will be doing the registrations, will be looking for problems.

“I can see a scenario where parents take their children out of school, the local authority go round to investigate, using the powers recommended by Badman to interview the children alone from their parents, get something they can use against the parents, take the children into care and ‘free’ them for adoption.

“So I am praying that the Lord will safeguard the right of parents to home school their children, that He will judge those lawmakers who are trying to subvert this basic God-given responsibility. I am certain this is not just one more tentacle of the nanny state: this is a full scale attack on the rights of the family itself.”

Gay Activist Threatens us After Museum Witness!

Stephen

25 November 2009

A leading homosexual activist has threatened Christian Voice with police action after his photograph was published on the activist group’s website.

Jake Dyos was photographed with others outside the British Museum during a day in which the academic institution was promoting sodomy to school children. Neither he nor the other activists photographed raised any objection to being photographed. One of the photos taken that day duly illustrated our story on our website about the Museum’s action and our witness for righteousness outside.

In an astonishing confirmation that homosexuals are not ‘born that way’, Jake also told a Christian Voice activist outside the British Museum that he had chosen to go gay at the age of thirteen because he decided ‘straight society was boring’.

The webpage about the Museum witness has been up for a week, but on Saturday after noon, Jake phoned Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green to complain about the photograph of him on the page. He had not authorised its going up on our website, he went on.

He said he had already gone to the police and then gave us twenty-four hours to take the photo off our website. Otherwise, he threatened, the police would take action against us and our website would be taken down. The deadline elapsed at 4pm yesterday (Sunday 6th December)

Stephen Green said today:

‘Jake did not specify what law we were alleged to have broken. There are unauthorised pictures of celebs taken in public places on the web and published media. Indeed, there are unauthorised photos of me all over the web. It’s just tough. It’s a matter of “get over it.”

‘It is hard to see what action the police can take, except to send some officers around to attempt to put the frighteners on us, like they did to Pauline Howe in Norwich after she complained about that city’s Gay Pride parade, author Lynette Burrows, who transgressed by saying homosexual men should not adopt children and pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts in Lancashire..

‘Clearly, our witness outside the Museum and our story on the website has got to the ‘Schools Out’ purveyors of perversion to the point where Jake Dyos, like king Lear, resorts to impotent threats: “I shall do such things; .. what they are yet I know not; but they shall be the terrors of the earth!”

‘So our story stays up and we wait with some interest for the day an inspector calls.’

The pro-sodomy day at the British Museum was part of drive by homosexual activists like wealthy gay pressure group Stonewall to use the concept of ‘homophobic bullying’ to introduce homosexuality into the classroom. They contend that teaching about gays and lesbians reduces name-calling in the playground.

But opponents of such indoctrination have observed that there is no evidence that such teaching decreases bullying and suggest it may have the opposite effect.

Christian Voice National Director, Stephen Green, says:

‘It is quite likely that by making a big thing of homosexuality, children prone to bully others will be given a new weapon, one they might not have thought about, particularly at an early age.

‘A non-sporting boy could get called “gay”, or a tom-boyish girl a ‘”lezzie” as a result of these lessons or school assemblies. The tragedy is, the name-calling can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That boy or girl can begin to wonder, “Maybe I am?”

‘In that scenario, ‘Schools Out’ activists like Jake Dyos are recruiting children into their chosen lifestyle of homosexuality.’

British Museum Promotes Perversion

Stephen

13 November 2009

The British Museum, that prestigious bastion of archaeology and things historical, is to devote a day promoting perversion to school children.

On 19th November, the Museum, home to such famous artifacts as the Rosetta Stone and the Elgin Marbles, is hosting a whole day programme to advance next February’s ‘LGBT History month’.

This absurdity, one of three excuses dreamt up by activists for getting ‘gay lessons’ into schools (the other two are anti-bullying and anti-homophobia day), happens every February in those establishments where there is a homosexual teacher or head sufficiently lacking in civilised behaviour as to want to inflict his (or her) enthusiasm for deviance on children.

EQUALITY ACT WILL INCREASE PRESSURE

At the moment, such schools are rare, but with the backing of such a prestigious institution, pressure will increase on heads to allow the indoctrination. In addition, if the Equality Bill is enacted unamended next year, it will mandate public authorities to promote homosexuality; and that will include both secondary and primary schools.

Indeed, the LGBT History Month website says smugly: ‘The year 2010 will bring us The Equality Act with its greater legislative demands of schools and all public institutions thereby increasing the relevance of LGBT History Month.’

According to the website, the day will begin with a morning session in which local school pupils ‘will learn about objects in the Museum with relevant LGBT themes’.

One of these objects will the Museum’s marble bust of the Roman emperor Hadrian. The school children will be told he was a famous gay man, but probably not that he was a predatory paedophile who molested his pre-pubescent houseboy Antinous. Hadrian proceeded to initiate the impressionable boy into a full homosexual affair, which only ended with the latter’s mysterious death by drowning in his mid-twenties in or around AD123. Hadrian had a statue built to commemorate him and declared him a deity. Homosexual men have been worshipping images of well-favoured youths ever since.

EXPLORING WORST PRACTICE

The afternoon session (from 1.30 – 3.30pm) is called ‘Exploring Best Practice’ (or worst, depending on one’s point of view). It is ‘for teachers, youth workers and other practitioners’ and ‘will provide inspiration and practical suggestions as to how your school, educational institution, pupils, students and service users can share in LGBT History Month’. We are told that ’12 practioners (sic) of the primary, secondary, and university sectors as well as members of a youth group, a singer who works in schools, and a Connexions worker will be at hand’, who ‘come from all over the country, both urban and rural’.

Actually, the only two ‘rural’ contributors are one Kate Sicolo from ‘Intercom Trust Cornwall’ and Kent County Council Youth Group (oh, not Kent again). Schools represented by militants Elly Barnes and Pauline Weeks are respectively Stoke Newington School and Thomas Tallis School both in London.
MORE WITNESS OPPORTUNITIES…

Next, a ‘Teachers surgery’ from 5 – 6pm will offer ‘a relaxed and informal session for teachers who want to begin LGBT celebrations in their school to come and discuss with teachers who have already had successful results. The panel will consist of representatives from primary and secondary schools who have tried and tested ideas to help kick start your celebrations for February 2010.’

The number who have ‘successful results’ can mercifully be counted on the fingers of one hand. When parents find out, and in primary schools they always do, the headteachers wish the ground would open up, even more so when the parents go to the press. In both Leytonstone and Broadstairs, Christian Voice activists have leafleted parents at the school gates, witnessing against a week of ‘gay lessons’ and a ‘gay assembly’. A support group of parents is now active in both places. Clearly, Stoke Newington School and Thomas Tallis School are in great need of someone to take a similar lead.

NETWORKING

The day will conclude with a ‘Formal pre-launch’ from 6.15 – 9pm. ‘Highlighting art, history and culture, the evening will be an opportunity for networking, and to hear from prominent speakers including Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Rt. Hon. Ben Bradshaw MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Michael Cashman MEP and Cllr Keith Moffit, Leader of Camden Council.’

Interestingly, Trevor Phillips is on record for his concern that Muslims should be able, even under equalities legislation, to express themselves on the matter of homosexuality.

In The Times, February 26th 2006, he was quoted as saying:

‘Non-Muslims must also accept the right of imams to denounce homosexuality in a way that many would find offensive.

‘One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is.

‘That’s why freedom of expression – including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful – is absolutely precious.’

We shall be looking for Phillips to spell that out to ‘the gays’ and to extend those provisions to Christians, Jews and indeed anyone who cannot see how sodomy benefits a nation.

In addition, Christian Voice activists can apply for tickets to the various events:

READ: Psalm 12:8; Prov 10:28, 17:15, 28:4. 29:27; Micah 2:1-3; Matt 18:5-7; Luke 17:1-2; Romans 1:22-27; 1Cor 6:9-11; Eph 1:7.

WITNESS INSIDE THE EVENT: We are urging Christians to apply for tickets to any of the events. Go to www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk and to www.eventbrite.com/org/253875777 for ticket information for each of the three day’s events. Make your protest felt inside the event, and when you are thrown out, join us in witnessing and leafleting outside!

STREET WITNESS: With leaflets; outside the British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG from 9am to 9pm. Whatever hours you can give to the Lord’s work on this day will be valuable time spent. Please let us know when you expect to be there.

PRAY: Pray that our witness will convict someone of sin and the grace of God, that he or she will turn to Jesus Christ and be saved. Pray that many parents will join this campaign.

WRITE: to Mr Trevor Phillips, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, 3 More London Riverside, Tooley Street, LONDON, SE1 2RG.
Email: info@equalityhumanrights.com
Tell Mr Phillips you notice he is due to speak at the LGBT History Month Pre-Launch on 19th November. Remind him of what he said in the Times in February 2006. Ask him to tell the activists that people who do not share their enthusiasm for all things gay have the right to ‘say what they like about the way we should live’ even in a way that many at the meeting ‘would find offensive’.

Gay Lesson Head is Sex Offender

Stephen

16 October 2009

A head teacher who has invited homosexual activist Sir Ian McKellen to his school to take lessons today is a convicted sex offender, it has emerged.

Lord of the Rings actor Sir Ian McKellen visited Perry Beeches Secondary School in Birmingham today, Monday 16th November 2009, at the invitation of head Liam Nolan.

But Nolan, who described himself as ‘gay’ and ‘in a relationship’, was caught in a sex act with another man in bushes at Sandwell Valley, a West Midlands beauty spot, and notorious homosexual ‘cruising’ area, in 2007.

The teacher, who is in charge of 900 pupils at the school, in Beeches Road , Great Barr, was found guilty of outraging public decency by Wolverhampton Crown Court and fined £1,000 with £1,500 costs.

Three parent governors resigned from the school board and the shamed teacher only narrowly kept his £64,000-a-year job after a tearful appeal to the General Teaching Council, on the strength of improving examination results at the school.

Ian McKellen’s visit is part of a drive by wealthy gay pressure group Stonewall to use the concept of ‘homophobic bullying’ to introduce homosexuality into the classroom. Recently, parents at schools in Leytonstone and Broadstairs have complained at heads teaching their five-year-olds about homosexuality under the same pretext.

But opponents of such indoctrination have observed that there is no evidence that such teaching decreases bullying and suggest it may have the opposite effect.

Christian Voice National Director, Stephen Green, thinks that teaching about homophobic bullying could increase both bullying and the incidence of homosexuality. He said:

‘It is quite likely that by making a big thing of homosexuality, children prone to bully others will be given a new weapon, one they might not have thought about, particularly at an early age.

‘In that scenario, activists like McKellen and Nolan are recruiting children into their chosen lifestyle of homosexuality. I should be surprised if that idea has not occurred to someone deep in the Stonewall bunker. At the very best, “homophobic bullying” is an excuse for “gay lessons”. At worst, it is a cleverly-disguised recruitment drive.’

McKellen has previously been to St George’s School in Harpenden and Welling School in Bexley, Kent.

His approach is to equate the practice of homosexuality with innate physical charteristics. At St George’s : “They invited me to come and give prizes to 13-year-olds in front of the parents and to talk, partly, about being gay. I said that we were all part of a minority group – be it for being short or tall or fat or thin, or having red hair or whatever. I said, ‘Hands up who thinks they are part of a minority group,’ and all the hands went up,” said McKellen.

In June 2008 McKellen attended a secret party held by the National Secular Society celebrating the end of the blasphemy laws. Whilst there, he revealed himself as no more than a dirty old man, gleefully reading out a repellent poem which contains an explicit description of a Roman centurion deriving homosexual pleasure from interfering with the lifeless body of Jesus Christ: http://www.secularism.org.uk/bbbparty.html The cowering secularists, including Terry Sanderson and Keith Pompous Wood, the homosexual pair who run NSS and who kept the location of the party secret for fear of a protest outside by Christian Voice, loved every sordid minute.

Members of Christian Voice are planning a witness at Perry Beeches School.

Christian Voice to Support Parents at Kent Primary School

Stephen

7 June 2009

A Christian group has vowed to support parents at a primary school in Kent which has subjected children to homosexual propaganda.

Parents were incensed when their children were left ‘confused and worried’ after a school assembly at Bromstone Primary School in Broadstairs , Kent was used to promote homosexuality to the sound of Elton John recordings.

Parents were not even consulted about the subject or content of the assembly, and said the content left their children afraid to show affection to each other in case that might give rise to sexual taunts from bullies.

But the prayer and lobby group Christian Voice is now intending to contact the parents and support them in their fight to keep homosexual propaganda out of Bromstone school. Earlier this year, the group helped set up an action group in Waltham Forest after two primary schools, George Tomlinson and Jenny Hammond in Leytonstone, taught children about homosexuality against the expressed wishes of the parents.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said: ‘Homosexual propaganda is growing in primary schools. It is always presented as a means to counteract so-called ‘homophobic bullying’, but such teaching actually increases name calling and taunts of ‘gay’ and ‘lezzie’ as it gives bullies an extra weapon they may not have thought of. The experience of the parents at Bromstone Primary, who say the children are now afraid to cuddle each other, bears this out.

‘Such teaching is highly inappropriate, and has been likened elsewhere to school sexual abuse. Indeed, if children were taught positive images of homosexuality in any other context, we should regard it as grooming for sex.

‘The fact that parents were not consulted shows that the head, Nigel Utton, knew what he was doing would not be supported by the parents of the children for whom he acts in loco parentis. He abused his position of trust and knew from the start he was in the wrong.

‘The content was not about “relationships and liking people” as Mr Utton maintained. It was shameless promotion of a form of behaviour most parents find deviant and distasteful.

‘We shall be making contact with the parents with the intention of getting an action group going. Parents everywhere now need to be on their guard. They have a God-given duty to protect their children from harm. We shall do all we can to help them.’

Christians Stand by Parents at Leytonstone School

Stephen

13 March 2009

Christians are supporting parents at a primary school in Leytonstone which last month subjected children to homosexual propaganda.

Around 30 parents kept their children off school when George Tomlinson primary school in Vernon Road, Leytonstone, used books promoting homosexuality in February, which homosexual activists have decided is ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender History Month.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7930063.stm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031001.html

Christian Voice members gave out leaflets entitled ‘Say no to school sexual abuse’ to parents at the school gate this morning. The leaflets explained how ‘relationships’ teaching promoting homosexuality can damage children and increase playground bullying. They urged parents to protect their children from damaging influences.

Christian Voice also pledged in the leaflets to support any parents who are taken to court for keeping their children away from school, and promised to help with setting up meetings.

There was huge support for the Christians from the parents, who at times were queuing up for leaflets. Only a small group of well-spoken white parents took issue with the exercise, claiming it was inappropriate.

The school head was also angry that Christians should come and support parents, and called the police. However, the police decided it was wise not to interfere with the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of those giving out the leaflets.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice said afterwards: ‘It ws good to make contact with parents who are deeply concerned that their children are at risk of sexual abuse in school. We shall be building on the contacts made to raise more awareness of a problem which appears to be growing in our schools.

‘With compulsory sex education gathering pace, and homosexuality being promoted in the classroom, parents will need to be on their guard. They have a God-given duty to protect their children from harm. We shall do all we can to help them.’

Kent Police ‘Undermining Families’ in Gay Essay Stunt

Stephen

11 February 2009

A national Police Force is today accused of undermining families by inviting children as young as twelve to write an essay on homosexuality behind their parents’ backs.

Kent Police are holding a competition for secondary school children – even under 14s – to write with the title ‘All Different, Same Respect’ about what ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Month’ ‘means to them’, with a £25 prize.

The stunt is timed to coincide with Kent County Council’s sponsorship of February as ‘LGBT month’. The three age categories are 18+, 15-17, and under 14. The age of consent for sex is 16.

Kent Police Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Leppard said: ‘As part of the national Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) history month we have run a competition for local secondary students to write a short essay of up to 200 words or use pictures to explain what “All different, same respect” means to them. This competition compliments (he means ‘complements’ – CV) work already being done in schools around diversity, through the national curriculum.’

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

‘We have sadly grown used to sex educators trying to corrupt children, but now the police are doing it as well. There is no suggestion on the Kent Police website that the young children they are asking to enter should seek their parents’ approval. It is all being done behind the parents’ backs. And as a large number will be under the age of consent, some as young as 12, it is a monstrous exercise in nothing less than child sexual abuse.

‘Children of that age do not need to be told that homosexuality is acceptable. Some may be going through a phase where they experience crushes towards older people of the same sex. To convince them that such desires indicate an adult homosexual orientation is a disgraceful betrayal of adult responsibility, made even worse when it is authority figures such as the police doing it.

‘Parents should also demand to know what exactly is “being done” in their child’s school “around diversity”, as the national curriculum makes no provision for the promotion of homosexuality. Parents also have the right to withdraw their children from sex education, another technicality which the police are blithely ignoring.

‘If a choir master or scout leader or any other adult in a position of trust managed to persuade a child to write an essay praising positive attitudes to homosexuality, he would be accused of grooming that child for sex. So why are the police involved in it, and why are they subverting family life in such a way? There is only one word to describe them, and that is “evil”.

‘Kent Chief Constable Michael Fuller needs to reflect on the words of Jesus Christ, that it is better for a man to have a millstone hung around his neck and be thrown into the sea than to cause a child to sin.

‘The competition might be headed “All Different, Same Respect”, but I have no respect for police officers who wish to corrupt young children by insinuating into them the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I spent part of this morning mucking out a cattle yard. It brought home to me that a man who indulges in sodomy cannot be paddling with both oars in the water.

‘Such men need compassion, help and deliverance from their destructive lifestyle, not more recruits. Figures released last year showed that the number of sex offenders was on the increase. Is that any surprise, with the police encouraging children into homosexuality?

”This nation desperately needs to turn away from doing evil and start doing good. It is as if Satan has taken hold of all the levers of power in what was once a God-fearing nation. May God grant the grace to allow us to repent, and may He raise up Christian men to engage in what is now, undeniably, a full-scale spiritual war.’

Infertility Will Rise With Compulsory Sex Education

Stephen

23 October 2008

In fertility amongst the young will rise as a result of the decision by the Government to make sex education compulsory in all schools, a Christian group has said.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

‘There seems to be an assumption that children are powerless in the face of their emotions to stop having sex, but that at the height of passion they can be trusted to carry out contraceptive procedures. The evidence actually shows the opposite.

‘All sex education encourages experimentation, and schools are effectively corrupting children behind their parents’ backs, interfering with children’s natural modesty, grooming them for sex. If any teacher starts telling seven-year-olds about sex, or telling adolescents that there is nothing wrong with sodomy, parents ought to be down at that school, demanding that teacher be sacked.

‘Peculiar people in Government and the teen sex industry seem to like the idea of children fornicating, so much so that they do nothing to support the majority of young people who are not sexually active.

‘Sex education should be done in the family, and should concentrate on building a lifestyle of chastity – in other words, encouraging virginity in both sexes. That is not the same as abstinence, which carries connotations of giving up chocolate for Lent. Chastity is a lifestyle attitude.

‘Teenage pregnancy has risen as sex education and the distribution of condoms have gathered pace. The morning-after abortion pill depressed the figures slightly, but the underlying trend is still there as the latest abortion figures show.

‘But a bigger problem is now teenage infertility. Doctors know that condoms do not 100% stop sexually-transmitted infections, yet teen sex experts are still pretending they do. It is common sense that a condom only covers part of one part of the anatomy, while the most worrying STI’s are skin-borne or carried both ways by vaginal secretions. That is why genital warts are on the rise, and both sexes have those for life.

‘Now with the HPV vaccine, girls will think they are covered against everything if they are on the pill as well, so there will be even more Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia cases and even more infertility. But as all the Government targets revolve around pregnancy, no-one in the corridors of power cares how many kids become infertile. Indeed, if that stops them getting pregnant, they might even welcome it.

‘Government and the teen sex industry are betraying young people in this country. They should get prepared for a new rise in teenage pregnancies and infertility as a result of today’s decision. As for individual young people, the message is stark in today’s climate, where 10% have had STIs which lead to infertility and chronic conditions. If you want to have children, and if you don’t want an unpleasant wedding present, stay a virgin, and marry a virgin.’

Scouts Accused of ‘Grooming’ Children

Stephen

21 October 2008

The Scout Association was today accused by a Christian group of harming the children in its care by grooming them for sex.

Christian Voice said the Association’s advice, ‘Promoting good sexual health within Scouting’, was ‘bleak’ and a travesty of the original aims of the Scouting Association. The group is urging a complete rethink by the Association, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen.

Boys and girls barely out of their cub scout units could be referred under the guidance to sex clinics where they would be given condoms. Simon Carter, head of media at the Scouts, refused to give Christian Voice a lower age limit for the children who could be so advised. In a statement, Chief Scout Peter Duncan said: ‘We must realistic and accept that around one-third of young people are sexually active before 16.’

Incredibly, the Scouting Association expects scout leaders to take time out from their traditional activities to research the contact details of local contraceptive services and sexual health (VD or STD) clinics. Scout leaders are advised to meet up with Government teen sex activists and to know where scouts and their girlfriends can find supplies of the abortifacient morning-after pill and pregnancy testing.

‘If asked,’ it says, ‘you should try to provide details of local emergency contraception provision, which you can obtain from the local Teenage Pregnancy Coordinator.’

The factsheet ‘Promoting good sexual health within Scouting’ even suggests taking a unit of Explorer Scouts (aged 14-18) down to the local Venereal Disease clinic. There is ‘no need’ to seek written parental consent, it says, blithely, advising leaders simply to tell the Scouts’ parents or carers that it is going to happen.

In a reference to the Fraser Guidelines, the guidance says ‘an adult in Scouting may give advice without the parents’ knowledge and consent’ if ‘the adult cannot persuade the young person to inform his or her parents.’ Then in a Q&A section, which clearly betrays the fear of the Scouting HQ that Scout leaders will be less than happy with the guidance, the guidance says ‘many young people will want to talk to someone who is not their teacher or parent. Sometimes an adult in Scouting will be the easiest person to approach.’

Church-based scout groups are told not to let their faith get in the way of sending children to anti-Christian agencies such at the fpa and Brook Advisory for information. ‘Religion,’ the Scouting Association Fact Sheet says, ‘should not be a barrier to providing appropriate advice’. Scout leaders may also ride roughshod over the children’s religious beliefs, including those of Christians and the Muslim girls featured heavily on the Scout website. While lip service is paid to ‘respect’ for ‘everyone’s religion and cultural beliefs’, ‘all young people are entitled to appropriate advice and information,’ it says.

A web-page on the scouting web-site (www.scouts.org.uk/shis ) shows that part of that ‘appropriate advice and information’ is where to get an abortion, with weblinks to both Marie Stopes and British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the ‘big two’ abortion providers in Great Britain. Links are also given to the Terrene Higgins Trust, which promotes homosexuality, and to websites claiming that condoms protect against all sexually-transmitted diseases funded either by the Government or contraceptive providers.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

‘We have sadly grown used to schools corrupting children behind their parents’ backs, but now scout leaders are coming under pressure to do it as well. While Peter Duncan throws up his hands despairingly about the one-third of children he claims are sexually active, he is doing nothing to support the two-thirds who aren’t.

‘The Scouts have traditionally emphasised good works and the health benefits of an outdoor life. By encouraging premature sex, they are putting all of that at risk.

‘Scout leaders should be teaching boys the virtues of chastity and chivalry, emphasising self-control and self-respect, showing them the value of caring for themselves and for others and of having respect for young women. Girls in the Scouts need to hear about the virtue of modesty and the value of their virginity.

‘Instead, Scout leaders are going to send boys along to sex clinics and shove their pregnant girlfriends into the grasping clutches of abortionists. By promoting the condom culture, they will make it inevitable that the current rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexual-transmitted disease and consequent infertility amongst the young will increase. On top of that, they are preparing boys for sexual advances from predatory homosexuals including some who may be drawn to positions in the scout movement itself. Their advice falls little short of grooming children for sex. “Be prepared” never included that.

‘Ironically, the Scout Movement may well do what its Child Protection Policy specifically rules against, by exposing the young people in its care to all the physical, sexual and emotional harm associated with illicit sexual activity. Such harm can range from feelings of inadequacy that he or she is not sexually active to pregnancy, the emotional scars of abortion, and the contracting of sexually-transmitted diseases, chronic conditions such as genital warts and those which result in infertility which condoms are powerless to prevent.

‘Young people deserve better than this bleak assumption that they are no better than farmyard animals. The Scouting hierarchy appear to have stumbled on the challenge of the teenage sex problem, and like rabbits caught in the headlights, the only people they thought of approaching were those in the teen sex industry who have a vested interest in keeping young people sexually active. They should have spoken to pro-life and pro-family groups as well. But their inexperience in this field does not excuse them. A word from the Lord about millstones around necks comes to mind. They should revise their advice drastically. In the meantime, Christians involved in scouting, churches associated with scout groups and parents should make very clear their complete opposition to these disgraceful developments.’

Last year the Girl Guides started a similar programme called ‘Get Wise’ to teach about ‘sexual health’. The programme appears to have sunk into embarrassed obscurity, but the organisation’s website has a page called ‘fit for life’ which promotes new age treatments such as aromatherapy, colour therapy (whatever that might be) and yoga. Unlike the Scouts, there are no links to abortionists, although there is one weblink to the fpa and another to a Government url astonishingly called ‘www.playingsafely.co.uk’, as if sex is just an adolescent recreational activity. The link is redirected straight to a suggestive NHS website called condomessentialwear.co.uk.

The Scouting Association advice comes as figures show the number of sex offenders is on the increase.

12 Page 1 of 2

From Hard Eugenics to Soft Eugenics

Decreasing the Surplus Population

Forced Sterilization

The Hidden Truth About Vaccines and Forced Sterilization

Further Reading

Moral Hazard

Why Free Sex is Never Free

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY