Training courses
Copyright © Image 2015


          Are you pregnant?

                            Do you need help?

CLICK HERE for information.

Giving

MAY 2015

RETURN TO IMAGE NEWS FRONT PAGE

1505 image news

Institutionalised abuse?

“The state itself grooms children for sex”


The recent review of sexual exploitation and abuse of more than 350 young girls in Oxfordshire showed concern that, “Lack of understanding led to insufficient inquiry.”  The author of the review concludes, “There was …. an acceptance of a degree of underage sexual activity that reflects a wider reluctance (by society) to consider something ‘wrong’. This involves ascribing to young teenagers a degree of self-determining choice which should be respected. This is not altogether surprising when in Health the national guidance involves an assessment of the child’s ability to give true consent to receiving contraceptive advice or treatment without the involvement of parents. In a nutshell, a child may be judged mature enough to get contraceptives to have sex with an adult at an age when they are deemed in law unable to give consent to the sex itself. It is no wonder there was confusion and a lack of confidence in taking action.” (P36; 5.23)@


Commenting on this conclusion in the Spectator, Melanie Phillips writes, “This is as devastating as it is obvious. So devastating, in fact, that the response to this crucial observation has so far been silence. Dishing out contraceptives to children is deemed essential by all governments. It’s obvious isn’t it (goes the thinking) that, well, children will inevitably get up to stuff? And so society must accept that they’ll be having sex at 12, 11, ten, whatever.


“All you can do is try to prevent bad outcomes that have an impact on the rest of us. That means babies. So, of course, you dish out condoms to young teenagers. Of course, you offer abortion services to children.  And, of course, you give them sex education, telling even primary school children about oral sex and prostitution. So the idea that children having sex is always a form of child abuse is dismissed. The only people who could possibly object are by definition religious nuts and reactionaries, right?”@


Protection other than condoms needed

Melanie McDonagh, also writing in the Spectator noted that, following the review, a group of MPs, “called for the introduction of compulsory sex education in primary schools.”  She comments, “I can’t think of a single one of the problems those wretched girls had for which sex education in primary school would have been the answer. It was protection other than condoms they needed.”@


Sex education hit the news towards the end of last year when a boy of 13 raped a 13 year old girl after a sex education class so he could 'try it.'  This provoked the comment from England and Wales spokesperson for Rape Crisis, Katie Russell, “The fact it happened after a sex education class I am sure gives concern about the teaching of sex education in school.”  But she then went on to add, “It is only through genuine education, and much earlier than 13, I would say, that we can help stop this happening."@   Peter Hitchens, writing in the Mail expressed a different point of view, “The mystery of sex education is that parents put up with it at all. It began about 50 years ago, on the pretext that it would reduce unmarried teen pregnancies and sexual diseases. Every time these problems got worse, the answer was more sex education, more explicit than before…….In a normal, reasonable society, a failure as big as this would cause a change of mind.”  He described sex education as, “propaganda for the permissive society,” saying, “It works by breaking taboos and by portraying actions as normal that would once have been seen as wrong.”@

Moral Confusion

Last November, the Family Education Trust, which campaigns for traditional values, complained to a committee of MPs about an advice manual for professionals on sex and relationships education, which had been welcomed by the Department for Education. Its concerns centred on a ‘Traffic Light Tool’, published by the Brook sexual health charity, which sets out green, amber and red behaviour for children of different ages.  One of the activities considered to be a green activity by Brook for 13-17 year olds was “Consenting oral and/or penetrative sex.”@  Brook responded to criticism by stating that  the Traffic Light Tool had been developed by experts, “who know most about healthy and non-healthy sexual development in the UK” and it, “does not condone or encourage particular behaviours.”@


Melanie Phillips challenges Brook’s response, “Is it not, in fact, encouraging professionals working with children to condone grossly dangerous and highly sexualised behaviour among fairly young children — and with the backing of the Department for Education?  The fact that such material is justified in this way and enjoys official approval shows that our society is no longer able even to acknowledge how far it has sexualised its children.”


“When we desacralised and casualised sex, didn’t we realise that our children would be harmed? …… They are prey to a culture that has instead sentimentalised love and evacuated both it and sex of meaning…..So girls of 11 or 12 think they have to have sex with their ‘boyfriends’ to show that they love them, and this is condoned by adults who dish out the condoms and abortions. But this is a society that has institutionalised such abuse. The state itself grooms children for sex. Obsessed by paedophilia, this has become a kind of paedophile society.”


She concludes, “The boundary between childhood and adult life has become dangerously blurred by moral confusion, selfishness and hypocrisy. Yet we do have a way of demarcating that boundary. It’s called the age of consent. Let’s start using it again.”