Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

UK set to ban sex ed for young children amid parental backlash against LGBT indoctrination

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

There is undoubtedly a backlash against LGBT ideology unfolding in many Western countries, the source of which includes many ambivalent towards LGBT lifestyles but who are still uncomfortable teaching the ideology to children.

In March, podcaster Joe Rogan paid tribute to his favourite teacher. His seventh-grade science teacher, he noted, “was a brilliant man and he taught me about wonder. I think about that guy all the time.” But now, Rogan said, teachers are frequently fixating on issues of sex and gender. “I don’t want that gang of morons teaching my children about biological sex or gender,” Rogan said, adding that Drag Queen Story Hour is unacceptable for kids. “I don’t want you teaching them about any of those things.”  

Instead, he suggested, teachers should focus on history, and math, and… all the things teachers used to focus on. 

Rogan’s position on sex education is significant not only because he is the most popular podcaster in the world, but because he has achieved his success because he is a microcosm of the average adult. He is largely libertarian in the “live and let live” sort of way that saw a huge public opinion shift in favour of same-sex “marriage,” which Rogan supports; he is not religious; but he is still very uncomfortable with the full-scale sexualization of our education institutions and the insertion of gender ideology into public school curriculums across the board.  

Rogan is something of a bellwether on these issues – he articulates the sort of common sense that many people hold but cannot articulate (or are too fearful to). 

The “silent majority” is not a moral majority, but they are uncomfortable with the vast, swift social changes we have seen unfold over the past decade. Much of the backlash against gender ideology and increasingly explicit and instructional sex education in schools comes not from Christians – there are simply not enough of us – but from people who do not have moral objections to LGBT ideology, but do not want it taught to children. In short, most people are fine with adults doing whatever they want to, but they still believe that these behaviours and lifestyles are the purview of adults, not children. 

That is why we are beginning to see government action on public school sex education even in the post-Christian United Kingdom. According to a recent BBC report, the U.K. government is planning to ban sex education for children under the age of ten, including a ban on any content about gender identity. Teachers’ unions, predictably, have pushed back, insisting that the proposed plan is “politically motivated” and that there has been no issue with inappropriate material. That claim is laughable; parents have been protesting the LGBT curriculum and other explicit materials for years now, and school staff have frequently responded by accusing them of various phobias. 

According to the BBC, the “statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) – which schools must follow by law – is currently under review. The government believes clearer guidance will provide support for teachers and reassurance for parents and will set out which topics should be taught to pupils at what age.” Sex education is not “typically taught until Year 6,” when children are 10, and “parents already have the right to withdraw” their child, although this has proven difficult to do. 

Sex education has been mandatory for older students since September 2020, and the “government strongly encourages schools to include teaching about different types of family and same-sex relationships.” 

This curriculum – referred to as “relationships education” – is compulsory and parents cannot remove their children. 

The BBC notes that parents have been demanding changes in order to protect the innocence of children, while educators are insisting that the content is necessary because children are exposed to this information online anyway and that it is important for “trusted adults” to contextualize that information. That is the crux of the issue here that few are openly addressing: educators want to “contextualize” this information from the perspective of a pro-LGBT worldview, while many parents do not want this material taught at all because they fundamentally disapprove of the LGBT ideology itself. 

There is undoubtedly a backlash against LGBT ideology unfolding in many Western countries, but it is important to recognize the source of that backlash. Although Christians and other religious objectors are certainly part of that backlash, their numbers are not large enough, in most places, to force government action. 

The growing discomfort we see in polling data is thus far more likely to be of the Joe Rogan variety – we should live and let live, but we should also let kids be kids. As the U.K. government’s proposed guidance highlights, this means that there will be changes, but not significant ones.  

LGBT ideology will still be compulsory for later grades, and state schools will still be teaching state dogmas. 

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

National

Trudeau clinging like a ‘low-key autocrat’: Jeremy Nuttall

Published on

By Jeremy Nuttall

Is Canada looking like a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

This isn’t normal. Not even close. Even the most eccentric of Prime Ministers in any other commonwealth country would likely be licking their wounds in Ibiza by now, watching the chaos unfold from a safe distance.

Not this Prime Minister. True to form as the head of a micromanaging Prime Minister’s Office, he couldn’t bring himself to step aside. In fact, he still hasn’t.

Trudeau’s stubbornness edges dangerously close to the behavior of a low-key autocrat. He was nowhere to be seen for days as he shrugged off demands to “get lost in the snow.”

Imagine a country with a leader so deeply unpopular within his own party that members, mostly speaking anonymously out of fear, pressured him for months to step down—only for him to deflect with vague promises of “reflection” whenever the pressure mounted.

Imagine that happening against the background of the leader refusing to release documents as ordered by Parliament, at the same time the political landscape is embroiled in a foreign interference scandal. Meanwhile, food bank usage has surged, and concerns over soaring housing costs continue to grow.

Then, after a top minister leaves and drives a stake through his government, that leader circles his most loyal comrades in a bid to fend off the resignation even more before finally admitting defeat.

But even then, after the admission, said leader is still in charge and only promising to resign fully once his successor is chosen, then stopping the work of government at one of the most crucial times in recent history to give himself and his party time to get their affairs in order.

If you had that explained to you without knowing it was Canada, would you think it was a western parliamentary democracy being described, or a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

Democracies aren’t meant to prioritize the personal interests of government members over the country’s welfare. Yet that’s exactly what Trudeau did by requesting the prorogation of Parliament, giving his Liberals time to strategize for their own political survival.

Meanwhile, for the first few months of a new U.S. administration threatening major tariffs, Canada will be limited in its ability to address whatever happens in the House. With so much at stake, this move seems almost vindictive to a Canadian public who are now rejecting Liberal leadership.

Governor General Mary Simon’s decision to allow this—and the time she took to consider it—deserves scrutiny. The public is owed an explanation.

The Liberal Party’s troubles are not the Canadian public’s troubles, but in proroguing Parliament to deal with them, the Liberals have made them such.

Trudeau’s plan for the country is incoherent, his ministers suddenly have a lot of family obligations, and even columnists who curiously supported him for years too long are now calling for his exit.

Additionally, with him waiting until the Liberals are at their most unpopular ever, the Conservatives—set to win in a landslide no matter what—can control the narrative of the election and claim to have won on any mandate they see fit. The public could be left out of the conversation.

When tallied up, it’s all so awful.

In reality, however abnormal this is, it’s the natural course of where Canadians have allowed their country to end up.

Years of not really getting that upset about anything or realizing that the government and what it does matters are starting to show the real harms a country can be haunted by when it shrugs off the chipping away of its democratic norms by shallow and venal political operatives.

As pressure mounted on Trudeau to resign, his own MPs sheepishly asked for him to step down, an illustration that the PMO holds far too much power over caucus. One was left wondering if a breaking point would happen and MPs would make a grand gesture on behalf of Canadians.

Such a climax never arrived. My incredibly small kingdom for a handful of Liberal MPs with cojones.

The really sad part is, so far, it seems Liberal MPs missed a chance to turn the tide and more forcefully oust Trudeau from the leadership role by any means necessary, even if it meant voting against their own party.

They could have sent a message that democracy is a cumulative effort, not the whims of one person, then followed it up with reasonable changes to party policy to allow for the removal of a leader should such circumstances occur again.

What this has done is set a new low bar. The next power-crazed PMO will have this one as a blueprint to disregard the public and its welfare before pushing the limit even further.

The only bar lower at this point would be if Trudeau goes back on his promise to resign. Yes, it’s a long shot, but considering this guy’s track record of keeping promises—right up there with an absentee father in a daytime drama—I’ll really believe he’s gone when he’s gone.

This is a moment Canadians really need to examine and question if the way their government has been operating is working for them. If it isn’t, a movement for change must spring up.

Dignity, tradition, integrity, the common good—all of these principles risk becoming meaningless unless Canadians begin to take them seriously.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Bureau

Continue Reading

Energy

Coal: one million tons an hour

Published on

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

There is no “energy transition” – It’s all “energy addition”

Politicians and climate campaigners like to talk of an “energy transition” in which the world is going to burn less and less fossil fuel, switch to clean (or cleaner) energy, and thus resolve climate issues.

But so far the “transition” is not so much about moving away from traditional fuels as about adding renewable energy sources on top of them.

Our latest episode of Power Struggle looks at the impact of world use of coal, which is still a prime source of energy — and growing. That’s bad, we agree, but some uses of coal are going to be hard to change.

Experts have been predicting “peak coal” for years but they’ve always been wrong. This year, global coal consumption is expected to reach an all-time high.

Some key points from our podcast with our Stewart Muir:

  • The world burns over one million tons of coal every hour. That’s the weight of nearly 5,000 Statues of Liberty or 10 aircraft carriers, or about 247,000 adult African elephants. So make that 37,000 adult African elephants every hour. 
  • Coal energy has enabled millions of people in developing countries to better their  lives, and their nations’ economies.
  • India’s coal consumption went up 10% in 2024. And Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Pakistan are increasingly reliant on coal.
  • China may have installed more renewable-energy sources, and may lead in electric vehicles, but China’s green-energy business is built on coal.

So, while we hail the energy transition, and applaud solar energy, carbon capture and more, we still need to talk about the 247,000 elephants in the world’s room — coal.

Clearly, without addressing coal’s persistent use, the energy transition will fail.

Catch this latest (13th) episode of Power Struggle on YouTube here: https://ow.ly/WiSw50UzX9F

And watch our previous episodes here: https://ow.ly/XK9350UzX9R

Continue Reading

Trending

X