A Scottish health board has said sex education needs protection from parents.
Dumfries and Galloway health board has voiced its opposition to a Scottish Government plan to allow teachers and students to opt out of lessons on equal marriage and same-sex relationships.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland’s largest health board, is also opposed to new draft guidance for sex education lessons that would allow teachers or pupils to opt out on the grounds of ‘conscience’.
In a submission to ministers, the board said: “It is extremely concerning that teaching staff would be provided an opportunity to refuse to participate in this particular aspect of the curriculum … There are other areas of the taught curriculum where ‘conscience’ may be a factor – e.g. modern studies or religious education – where no option to withdraw is provided.”
The Glasgow & Clyde board argued that staff who opt out from sex education lessons on the grounds of ‘conscience’ may only need what they described as ‘training’ to overcome their objections.
Dumfries and Galloway health board warned against allowing pupils to opt out of lessons using a ‘conscience clause’, arguing, without any evidence, that this ‘could lead’ to ‘intimidation’ by parents of their children and the ‘entire basis’ of sex education being ‘undermined’ in Scotland.
“As we move forward into an era where same-sex marriage is permitted, there may be significant campaigns by parents in relation to (sex education) which alludes to same‐sex unions and there is a need to protect programmes from activities of this sort,” Dumfries and Galloway Health Board said.
Their comments indicate why sex educators and pro-homosexual teachers are prone to introducing amoral topics without telling parents in advance. Parents are regarded in sex education circles as a barrier to the sort of indoctrination the sex educators want to carry out.
According to the homosexual website PinkNews, health chiefs also protested against the guidance recommending pupils learn about “the values of a stable and loving family life”, arguing this was insensitive to those youngsters who did not grow up in such an environment.
It gets worse. Some health boards even objected to the phrase “both sexes” being used in the guidance, stating this was “problematic” for youngsters ‘who are transgender’.
In response, a Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is currently updating its existing guidance on the Conduct of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood Education in Scottish Schools document and as part of that has sought views from various organisations and individuals.
“We are considering carefully the comments we have received and will publish an updated version in due course.”
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.
Just thought I would alert you to a survey being carried out through schools – as you observe, without notifying parents – called a Public health and Wellbeing survey in order for local councils to plan their spending.
Questions that I know of are; 8 year olds are asked whether they smoke and/or drink whilst 12 year olds are asked if they have ever been groomed. Of course, this necessitates an explanation by the school as to what grooming means.
To give one school credit where due, they did contact me in advance but allowed my children into the explanatory assembly before I had a chance to reply! And as I pointed out to them, they ought really to give all parents the chance to withdraw their children, not just me!
The survey is apparently confidential and anonymous so that begs the question…what will the council do if a child says they HAVE been groomed? Presumably they are legally bound to follow it up, or will they ‘respect the child’s confidentiality’ and neglect what may turn out to be another Rotherham.
Of course, on prinicple, this ‘survey’ should not be happening at all…the government has no right to ask our children whatever they like, who knows what else they will ask, either now or in the future? It’s like the RC confessional under another name.
I would have thought that to explain to 12 year olds what grooming is was a very good idea.
I hadn’t heard of it until well into my 20’s…..the onus should be on adults to behave themselves, not on children to keep themselves safe.
I think that warning children of dangers is a good idea. Ignorance leaves a child defenceless whereas forewarned is forearmed.
I agree with Busy Mum that the subject is a bit confronting, but if a child is being interfered with it would be better to deal with this situation as soon as possible. Also, if a child is warned about the existence of predators they will be in a better position to avoid them.
Fine, Michael, but the biggest problem with sex educators is that they always give too much information too early. I would never trust people who want to talk about sex to children. In itself it’s a form of grooming, even a form of child sexual abuse.
I think it’s going too far to suggest that sex education is in itself a form of grooming. Of course, sex education can be used as a way of getting at children, but leaving children ignorant can also be used for the same purpose.
I think that explaining to parents what and when things are taught should help to allay some fears, but the whole subject needs careful handling, as one parent’s idea of what is appropriate could be quite different from another’s.