A segment from Channel 7’s Sunday Night program unsuccessfully tried to “pit” two mothers against each other over the controversial Safe Schools program.
The segment began with the story of Kirra and Briella Carmichael, a mum and her child who, at age six, transitioned from a boy to a girl with the assistance and even encouragement of the Safe Schools program.
Kirra told Sunday Night:
Safe Schools said: “What would you do if you see Briella sitting by herself or feeling sad?” and the kids’ were like: “I’ll go up and cuddle her and say she can play with me.”
While everybody can sympathise with the story of Kirra and Briella, the second mum featured on the program showed that Safe Schools goes far beyond anti-bullying.
Mother of four Cella White pulled her children out of a school after dramatic changes were made after the school adopted the Safe Schools program. She said that her son was told about cross-dressing in science class, an event which prompted her to research some of the resources recommended by Safe Schools:
Minus18 introduces children to penis-tucking and packing, breast binding, hormone therapy, you know, it’s quite legitimate that a child can undergo some hormone therapy to stop puberty. That’s too far, that’s massively too far, it’s out of control.
Cella also explained that she wanted to ensure that her vision-impaired daughter was safe and her dignity respected in “girls’ only” spaces like school toilets and changerooms. She told Sunday Night what happened when she approached the school about her concerns:
The school told me that children are sexual beings, that didn’t sit well with me because I don’t agree with that statement.
The segment played up the “ideological battle that’s pitting mums against mums,” but failed to ask the most obvious question: isn’t there a way for both of these mothers, each of whom is obviously concerned for the safety and happiness of their children, to have their concerns addressed? Can’t the Safe Schools program teach kids to play with and embrace Briella (or any child for that matter) who is being left out without exposing the children to age inappropriate, highly sexualised content?
Weeks after NSW Parliament tabled a 17,000-strong petition to end the Safe Schools Program, the controversial program continues to wreak havoc.
Sky News featured an overview of the situation:
Melbourne mother-of-four Cella White told the Seven Network she was so disturbed by the program she pulled her children from the school to transfer to a non “safe school”. “Safe Schools has highly sexualised content and I don't believe that that's the schools’ place,” Ms White said on Seven's Sunday Night program. She also said she was concerned for the safety of her youngest daughter, who is blind, especially when using the school bathrooms.
NSW Liberal MP for Epping Damien Tudehope presented a petition with 17,000 signatures calling for Safe Schools to be abolished last month. The move came on the heels of reports the Baird government was considering changing the program's status to "opt in", meaning parents would have to sign their children up rather than having to withdraw them.
Despite strong support from parents and testimonies verifying that Safe Schools is subjecting children to borderline pornographic materials, Jenny Leong, Greens MP, also released her own petition supporting the program. Strikingly, Leong wants to take away any choice in the matter, and instead, is pushing for the Legislative Assembly to commit to instigating the program into all NSW schools.
Adding onto the already registered 545 Safe Schools, it is believed there are still more schools in Australia adopting the program, but in private in an attempt to avoid controversy. The fact that schools now have to keep the program a secret should be enough of a signal to parents that the program is troubling.
No matter where a parent stands on the issue, no parent should have their authority on their children’s education undermined. The very materials Safe Schools uses are troubling in-and-of-themselves. The fact that Safe Schools does not want to give parents a choice in the matter is still more troubling. Yet, the ultimate indication of how dangerous the program is lies in how they handle parents who oppose their regime: they tell concerned parents ‘Tough Luck!’
As evidenced by the petition to axe the program, it is clear that Australians are not being fooled by the lies of Safe School advocates: Safe Schools preys on the innocent, trusting, and naturally curious nature of children.
Irrespective of whether or not they have children affected by the program, all Australians must know the truth about Safe Schools. While it may seem unrelated on the surface, the ideology of Safe Schools goes hand-in-hand with the attempt to redefine marriage. Because once we remove the importance of gender in marriage, we need to remove its importance from all forms of health and sex education. Advocates of same-sex marriage know about its link to Safe School. We can see it through their consistent linking of the two.
As the Australian people are shown the facts and realities of Safe Schools and its radical ideology, the silent majority is beginning to fight back to protect the parents’ rights to decide what is best for their children. Australians are fighting to protect the future of Australia: their children. We agree with Dr Kevin Donnelly who was interviewed in the Sunday Night program: “I think it’s more about indoctrination than education.”