Australia: Safe schools cover for LGBT indoctrination to 11 year olds in school
 |
| Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
“I’m quite certain that if Mr Shorten examined the material he would share the concerns of parents like Cella White, who withdrew her children from Frankston High School,” Ms Francis said.
“Most parents do not want boys in the girls’ bathrooms at school or their children instructed in the harmful practices of the Minus 18 website which Safe Schools says kids must have access to.”
Ms Francis said it was wrong to teach four-year-olds that “no one can tell you what gender you are,” as the Safe Schools’ promoted book the Gender Fairy teaches.
“Mr Shorten has rejected a whole collection of evidence that has been unearthed by investigative journalists in the past week as well as the advice from child psychiatrists. Safe Schools, and the Minus 18 website it promotes, is not age appropriate and is sexually explicit,” Ms Francis said.
“It is not reasonable for 11-year-olds to be role playing in class where they are asked to imagine that they are 16 and in a same-sex relationship.”
Ms Francis said no one wanted bullying in schools and no one would have an issue with Safe Schools if it really was an anti-bulling program.
“We encourage Mr Shorten to have a close look at what Safe Schools is teaching children.
“No one is saying that bullying is okay, but providing instructions for girls on chest-binding and boys on genital tucking or having boys in girls’ toilets has nothing to do with a bullying program.
“There are already many good bullying programs in place that deal with bullying in all its forms.”
Ms Francis said pressure was mounting federally and in other state parliaments as new evidence emerged of what was contained in Safe Schools.
“We call on State Parliaments and the Federal Parliament to hold an urgent review into Safe Schools and to remove this harmful material immediately,” Ms Francis said.
“The Commonwealth Government should cancel its contracts funding Safe Schools because it is not safe. “Who is liable if a child damages themselves or later has surgery they regret? “A thorough investigation must be undertaken to see how this has slipped into our school system.”
Schools that promote and
instruct students on chest binding, penis tucking and gender dysphoria could be
sued decades into the future by students who suffer harm from the advice,
according to legal advice obtained by the Australian Christian Lobby.
Around 500 schools with
330,000 students are signed up to the so-called Safe Schools Coalition
Australia which says children must have access to this extreme material.
Australian Christian
Lobby spokesperson Wendy Francis said the $8 million federally-funded government
program could create a legal minefield for the government, schools and teachers
who may be vulnerable to litigation.
She welcomed the
opposition to SSCA that was voiced today by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby
Joyce, who joined coalition colleagues in expressing concerns commonly held by
many federal and state parliamentarians.
“It is irresponsible for
the Government to be funding this ideologically-driven program when
government-run schools could be hit by potential litigation claims,” Ms Francis
said.
“The program, through
its Minus 18 affiliate and the cobranded resource “OMG I’m Trans’, teaches
young girls seven ways to bind their chests and boys to tuck their penises,
which by Safe Schools’ own admission is dangerous and can cause long term physical
damage.
“Legal advice to ACL has
warned that State Government’s face potential liability for endorsing and
promoting material distributed by the Safe Schools Coalition Australia.
“As with liability of school authorities for
cyber bulling we may well see litigation occur in the future.”
The legal brief obtained
by ACL states: “The school authority owes a duty of care to its students. The
duty is a non-delegable duty. That is, it is not sufficient for a school
authority to say that it employed competent teachers. The authority has the
legal duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken of the students.”
It goes on to state:
“Further the liability of the school is not dependent on whether the relevant
incident occurred in school hours or on school premises.”
Ms Francis said SSCA had
a duty of care and must explain to schools that are taking on the program that
it carried a litigation risk.
“There is enough to
indicate that school authorities which run the SSCA program should be aware of,
and take steps to protect themselves from, the risk of claims being made
against them.
“Perhaps more
importantly, they should consider whether their pupils are protected from
possible harm.
“As with child sexual
abuse claims, the school authority may only be notified of claims many years
after the relevant events.”
Ms Francis said it was
time for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to heed the advice of his colleagues
and ensure the government is protected from a potential legal minefield, but
more importantly that children are not damaged by following the advice
contained in the program.
