If you would like to see in an amazingly graphic way where the country stands morally – and specifically on the sexualisation of young girls. Then follow the link below and watch the video clip from BBC Question Time last evening. Peter Hitchens makes his point by telling it how it is – the audience and panel make it quite clear where they stand. Peter implies by deserting a Protestant Christian ethic the country has suffered from a moral collapse.
That isn’t the Gospel, but it ought to make people look for answers. The ONLY answer is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. And just for the record being a moral person will not make you right with God.
I wanted to put the full quote in the post but it’s a bit early for the BBC to make the transcript available.
I completely agree. I was dismayed by what I witnessed last night and I despair of what society has become.
Good on Peter Hitchens for daring to speak his mind in the face of a cynical public that have apparently been brainwashed through years of liberal minded rhetoric.
Peter Hitchens is correct – this country used to be known as Christian England, and it was built on largely Christian principles. The majority of those princilpes have now been eradicated. Of course the majority of the public – including the Question Time audience – will disagree, for they like the sexually liberal society that we live in. With all that goes on around them and what they are taught in sex education, how can children but aspire to fit in with society as soon as possible? It is almost as if the public would have children to ignore what goes on until they grown up, and then tell them “you can do what they like now!”. Warnings were given by experts some 40 years with regard to what would happen, but it fell on deaf ears then, as it does now.
In my opinion Michael Iliff, Kman & Anonymous are at least three people who can see where the sex education subtle brainwashing is leading this country.
Brainwashing of a nation.
It took Adolf Hitler some 20 years to brain wash the Germans starting with his letter of Sept 16th 1919 to Herr Gemlich insisting that must be the “ total removal of all Jews from our midst” (This letter was approximately 1000 words in length.) Followed by a book “My Struggle” written whilst imprisoned for treason in 1923. It appears from reports, that his murderous torture methods developed later.
Brainwashing of parents in Britain regarding sex education.
This is my personal experience in 1971 when sex education was introduced in the school immediately opposite my home, where my children aged 8 & 10 attended.
The local education authority had allowed one of their headmasters in the 60’s to introduce sex education into his mixed primary school in the City.
It started with him writing to parents of his school in a 569 page letter explaining his Sex Instruction Scheme.
In 1966 he also went on to a write book “Sex Education in the Primary School” here is one quotation:-
“ Also, there is an inclination to associate more with members of their own sex. Boys and girls, especially in a co-educational school, learn to accept one another as equals, and although there may be the occasional chase-and-kiss game, there is no emotional involvement between them. Indeed, the relationships between children at this stage are tending towards the homosexual rather than the heterosexual pattern.
By this I do not intend to imply there is a general indulgence in undesirable homosexual practices although they do occur occasionally whether sex instruction is given to not. Such experimentation as mutual masturbation is usually unpremeditated, and generally harmless. For most a single experience is probably sufficient to satisfy their curiosity. It is only the persistent offender-a rarity-who may be a nuisance, and he (or she) is likely to find himself rebuffed by his associates.
When cases have come to my notice I have found that an explanation of the impropriety of the habit, followed by a warning against a repetition, has proved sufficient to stop it.”
By 1970 the pioneer had managed to get his thoughts into the minds of other teacher colleagues in Exeter, and was the driving force behind the Local Authority producing a book in 1970 entitled “Scheme of Education in Personal Relationships” written by local educationists only.
Late 1970 parents were invited to purchase a copy of the scheme booklet for 1/-. By using a request slip. A copy was purchased from the headmaster of the Junior Mixed School immediately opposite my home.
An invite was then given for parents to attend a meeting at the school as copied here:- 10th February, 1971. Dear Parent.
I have arranged for Mr.A.G.Chanter, the Exeter Educational Adviser on Personal Relationships to address a meeting of Topsham parents at the Junior School on Wednesday 3rd March at 7.30pm. The meeting should end by 9.0pm.
Mr. Chanter, a retired Headmaster, has had years of experience teaching this subject in his own school. He has also appeared in the B.B.C. Programme “24 Hours” demonstrating his skill in the teaching of this very important subject to a mixed class of top Junior children.
Please make every effort to attend.
Yours sincerely,
Signed by the headmaster
On the19th April 1971 the Daily Express ran an article “WHY THE BIRDS AND THE BEES ARE OUT OF DATE”
Mr Chanter then 65 was described as one of the pioneers of frank useful sex education in this country. The article stated that he never shirks from using necessary words, and that he uses diagrams for his 10 & 11 years showing how a baby comes into the world. Mr Chanter claimed the children were not old enough to be affected by emotional feelings.
During 1971 Mr Chanter took two introductory meetings at the school. In one meeting he stood behind a table covered in newspapers which he had collected with anything of a sexual nature. He said sex is everywhere and that if somebody was to enter the door into this room sex response would play the greater part. He also had on the table two plastic dolls one male and the other female, he informed us this is method of approach in the classroom. As the meeting continued, I stood up and read from the scheme booklet from page 10. I read the words, “ Relationships with members of the same sex are homosexual in nature but are not necessarily harmful, on the contrary they often provide lasting and enriching experiences.” I asked Mr Chanter how homosexuality can bring lasting and enriching experiences, he replied, “Homosexuality is not what it was always thought to be but has now been proved scientifically that it brings lasting and enriching experiences”.
I remembered that when I started my career with Post Office Telephones I used to cycle to work by the Exeter canal. Quite near the canal pathway on the morning of the 11th February 1954 someone had spotted a badly burnt body hanging from a 132,000 volt pylon. It was 41 year old William Leaker a colleague of Mr Chanter who taught at The Ladysmith Road School.
I found other serious issues were affecting my daughters education.
I removed my two daughters from the school and they were taught at home by my wife.
The Local Authority that produced the Scheme Booklet prosecuted me.
The informant who laid information for summonses was the town clerk Mr Alan Edgar Bennett and issued by the Clerk to the Justices Mr C J Acred.
The summonses claimed I as a parent had not fulfilled the requirements of Section 39 of the Education Act 1944, that my children had not attended school regularily.
However the section of the same 1944 Act at Section 36 states that:- It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude, either by
regular attendance at school “or otherwise”.
My children at the time of the alleged offence were being “educated otherwise”
i.e. they were being educated at home. This point has more recently been confirmed by the educational authorities.
Mr Acred retired with the three magistrates. I witnessed that during my trial he was winking to someone in the public gallery, I was told later by someone also in the public gallery that the winking was directed towards the Town Clerk.
The magistrates found the case proved.
However the case proved seemed to me to revolve around the fact that a photo copy of the school attendance was produced in court.
The 1944 Education Act at S95.-(2) (c) states that:- “ a certificate giving particulars of the attendance of a child or young person at a school or at a county college, and to be signed by the head teacher of the school or college..”
For my part I had pleaded not guilty to the alleged offences.
In court I was fined and have been made a lifelong criminal.
The Secretary of State For Education and Science wrote concerning my case on the 28th January 1972:- “But I believe that those concerned in this case did behave with great responsibility and I do not think that it is fair to suggest on this evidence, that there was any attempt either to erode the rights of parents or to eradicate Christian principles from teaching in the schools.”
The brainwashing continues. Recent media reports say that in the near future there will be 100,000 cases of HIV in this country.
Also a recent EastEnder programme sparked an uproar about a gay bedroom scene. Sadly as the brainwashing continues it is reported that as many as 49 per cent are comfortable with seeing homosexual scenes.
I rest my case.
.
.
.
At it’s heart Colin, it’s a rebellion against God, His authoritative Word and the Gospel of Christ. The reaction of the audience (I’m sure not all) I think powerfully illustrated the point. We will not have this man (Jesus) reign over us and Peters courageous mention of our nation’s Protestant heritage provoked them further. Pray that God will have mercy on us and by His grace grant repentance unto life.
Mike
Yes, God’s authoritative word gives living hope to the Christian. May His word be our guide, in it we find countless examples of hope.
One, some 500 BC, involving Queen Esther & Mordecai find with laws of the land being reversed resulting in deliverance to the Jewish nation protecting their heritage.
Hitler and his SS squads cited God’s authoritative word in a negative sense – shame on them.
Reflecting on my personal experiences before reaching my teens, two matters of importance stand out.
1. Sexual abuse by a live in farm worker &
2. Under conviction of sin I accepted God’s way of salvation, and entered into new joys by the Gospel of Christ, having been born again.
This new position as a Christian caused me to take a stand when my two daughters were of school age and they were the subjects of compulsory school education.
November 17th will also never be forgotten – see newspaper report of my trial:-
Typed copy of newspaper article. EXPRESS & ECHO. November 18th 1971.
MORAL DANGER
Father says ‘ sex book threatened children’
A Father told Exeter magistrates that in his opinion a sex teaching booklet circulated to teachers in Exeter is putting his children in moral danger. Mr. Colin Knapman, a 34––year––old Post Office technician and father of three, told the court yesterday that because of this danger he had kept his two daughters away from school.
And although the magistrates fined him £10 and £25 costs for failing to send the girls to school, Mr. Knapman, of Parkfield Way, Topsham, Exeter, revealed today that they still had not returned. He told the “Express and Echo”: “ I have not sent them back to school yet, but I cannot say any more about the situation until I have further talks with my legal advisers.”
At the start of a 3.5––hour hearing he pleaded not guilty to having failed to send his daughters, Angela, 10, and Carolyn, 8, to school.
The town clerk of Exeter, Mr. Alan Bennett, and Deputy Town Clerk, Mr. David Hudson, listened to the case from the public gallery.
Among witnesses called on his behalf were a psychiatrist, a probation officer, and a social worker. Some of the witnesses criticised Exeter Education Authority for having approved their booklet for teachers––––Scheme of Education in Personal Relationships.
Prosecuting for Exeter City Council, Mr. David Swallow said the case had aroused a considerable amount of interest, but the issue was a simple one. In broad terms parents had a duty to cause their children of compulsory school age to receive full-time education, subject to their age, ability, and aptitude.
No forum
A parent failing to ensure regular attendance of his child at school where he or she was a registered pupil was guilty of an offence under the 1944 Education Act.
Mr. Swallow asked that the court should not be allowed to become a forum for one individual to put forward his own views on education.
Mr. Frederick Ayres, Education Welfare Officer, said that Mr. Knapman’s daughters had failed from September 7 to Oct 1 to attend Topsham Junior School where they were registered pupils.
They had been absent for 36 out of a 38 possible attendances. No leave of absence had been granted.
Mr. Ayres said that when he saw Mr. Knapman the latter replied: “ I am keeping them home because I do not agree to the subject of personal relationships. The booklet encourages homosexuality.”
Cross––examined by counsel for Mr. Knapman, Mr. Nigel Inglis-Jones, Mr. Ayres agreed that Mr. Knapman made it perfectly clear he was objecting to certain passages with regard to sex education in the “ Scheme of Education in Personal Relationships” booklet produced by the Exeter Education Committee.
He agreed that the system of sex education based on the booklet was to be introduced at Topsham in September this year.
Warned head
Mr. Knapman told the magistrates that he withdrew his two daughters from school on the second day of the term after previously warning the headmaster that he would do so if the school introduced the scheme of education in personal relationships as written in the booklet.
He objected to a paragraph which said: “The question of what is right and what is wrong should be dealt with on the grounds of consequences rather than didactic rule.”
His belief was that children should be taught to know what was right and what was wrong from the moral point of view rather than from the point of view of the consequences they would suffer by doing wrong.
He agreed with the Newsome Report on Education which said that boys and girls should be offered firm guidance on sex and marriage, based on chastity before marriage and fidelity in it.
‘More harm’
He objected to the paragraph in the personal relationships booklet which said: “Relationships with members of the same sex are homosexual in nature but are not necessarily harmful. On the contrary they often provide lasting and enriching experiences. It is an error to assume, and irresponsible by default, to let young people assume that such friendships are undesirable, or might lead to undesirable practices.
“More harm is done by insidious innuendoes about homosexuality and its consequences than by the casual mutual sexual interest, which is far more fleeting on its own accord than many adults seem to realise.
“It is increasingly realized that the inculcation of a guilt complex is far more distressing and damaging to the development of a boy or girl than any slightly illicit homosexual escapade.”
Mr. Knapman said this paragraph in his view was encouraging children to do those things which were out side the law of the country.
He also criticised a paragraph which stated: “It has been said that those who do not masturbate never discover the function of their sexual organs, and consequently many of the fears associated with masturbation are irrational.”
He thought it was wrong to encourage children along the lines suggested.
Another paragraph to which he objected was one relating to infants schools which said there was no logical reason why boys and girls changing completely for P.E. should not strip together.
‘They revel’
This paragraph stated: “If the teacher can remain unembarrassed so can the children…….some parents and teachers may feel that such a practice might stimulate unhealthy interest among the children in the sex organs, but on the contrary children soon accept the situation as a normal one. They revel in the sense of freedom from restrictive clothing and develop a healthy attitude towards their bodies.”
“ I consider my children my children are in moral danger in going to school in these circumstances.”
He had tried to arrange for his daughters to be given work to do at home, but the headmaster had declined. He was now looking at the possibility that they could continue their education through the Parents National Education Union correspondence course.
A Christian
There was a Devon County school two miles away to which he would be willing to send his children, but he had been told that school could not take them.
Replying to Mr. Swallow who asked “ Are you a religious person?” he replied, “I am a Christian.” He attended an Exeter assembly of Christian Brethren. He agreed the headmaster had offered to withdraw the children from the personal relationships classes–––but he declined that because, according to the booklet there would be a certain amount of sex teaching linked with other school subjects.
Dr. Louise Eickoff, consultant Child Psychiatrist at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, said she did not believe that children under 12 should be taught about sexual matters. It prevented the children from maturing properly as nature intended.
Criticising the paragraph on homosexuality, she said that whoever wrote it did not know what he was talking about. Homosexual relationships were naturally wrong, but they had increased since sex teaching was introduced to schools.
She believed that teaching based on the booklet would place children in moral danger and “separate ”them from their parents. She added: “Putting sex into a young child’s life is like putting family heirlooms into the toy cupboard. They develop anything in this way as fun and games. It leads them on promiscuously into all kinds of perversions and experiments. They do not have the natural shame––guilt developed at that stage.”
‘ Wrong idea ’
Dr. Eickoff agreed with Mr Swallow that she had no knowledge of how education in personal relationships was being administered at Topsham Junior Mixed School.
Mr. Kenneth Kavanagh, a senior probation officer for Bedfordshire, said he disagreed with the statement that right and wrong should be judged by consequences. There was a growing but wrong idea in the country that things were not wrong if they did not harm–––things like stealing scrap metal for instance.
He considered that homosexual relationships were damaging to a person’s self esteem. He had been an officer at an approved school where so called “slightly illicit” homosexual escapades occurred and considerable harm was caused.
Mr. Edward Robert Shackleton, a Swindon Salvation Army rehabilitation officer, said homosexuality had developed to such an extent that unless it was properly dealt with, our ordinary relationships would be destroyed.
Mr. Alan Toyne, of Penryn, Woodbury, a retired master at Hele’s School, Exeter, said he had great compassion for the homosexual who was denied the blessedness of family life, and love. Such people were prevented from developing a true spiritual life.
Guilt complex
He believed the booklets attack on the “guilt complex” was inspired by atheistic humanism. Humanists thought guilt was unnecessary, but how could one have morality without guilt. It was like having an abcessed tooth and not feeling the pain.
Mr. John Clark, of Langford, Cullompton, a farmer, said he felt the booklet should recommend instruction in what was right or wrong. He did not agree that boys and girls should be made to change together, if they preferred not to do so. And he thought the booklet should make it clear that homosexuality was unnatural and undesirable.
Mr. Inglis-Jones submitted to the bench that the booklet did not conform to the Newsome Report recommendation that boys and girls should be offered firm guidance on sexual morality based on chastity before marriage and sanctity within it.——.
He also submitted that homosexual practices were contrary to British Law, and that it was wrong to suggest to children that something was all right if there were no harmful consequences.
He stressed that if the objectionable paragraphs were deleted from the booklet Mr. Knapman would be willing for his daughters to return to school.
He submitted that under the Education Act excusing a child’s absence from school through sickness or “unavoidable cause” Mr. Knapman had committed no offence by keeping his children at home when he considered that they would be in moral danger by going to school.
After a 20–– minute retirement the magistrates, Mrs. Diana Fishwick (chairman), Mrs. S. G. Durbin and Mr. W. S. Kingdon found the case proved. They fined Mr. Knapman £5 in respect of each child, and ordered him to pay £25 costs.
They made no direction that the names of the children should be witheld from newspaper reports.
November 18th 1971 should cause some members of parliament to hang their heads in shame, as laughter was associated with my position:-
Copied from Hansard. House of Commons 18th Nov 1971. Cols 699 to 701.
Mr Fry
Some hon. Members may think that I exaggerate the menace of people like Martin Cole. They may say that no school is likely to book any film that he makes. Unfortunately, however, there is much muddled thinking on this subject, even among school teachers. The Education Committee of Exeter has produced a pamphlet entitled “Scheme of Education in Personal Relationships “, which contains the following passage:
“Relationships with members of the same sex are homosexual in nature but are not necessarily harmful, on the contrary they often provide lasting and enriching experiences. It is an error to assume, and irresponsible by default to let young people assume, that such friendships are undesirable or might lead to undesirable practices.”
Sir C. Nabarro: Disgraceful.
Mr. Fry: That puts in a clumsy way a point of view which is far removed from the intentions of Dr. Cole, but it is very muddled thinking. Those responsible for it should bear in mind that it is not only school children who are impressionable. Many of our young teachers are still comparatively immature when they start on their teaching careers. However, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) that the passage which I have read is to be rewritten. I congratulate him on his efforts to this end.
The pamphlet was produced as an official guide for sex education in schools.
Whether it be the result of deliberate commercial exploitation by those whom it pays to encourage greater permissiveness or whether it be the result of sheer muddled thinking, there would appear to be a danger which is gradually being recognised by more and more people. I commend to the House and to my right hon. Friend the call for responsibility by those many young people who took part in the recent nationwide Festival of Light and who urged Her Majesty’s Government
“…. to legislate against the use in schools of film or pictorial material photographically depicting sexual acts which, if performed in a public place, would be liable to prosecution.”
They went on to say that the right of parents to choose the sex education of their children must be established.
If the mass media paid half as much attention to those who put forward ideas such as this as they devote to those who peddle pornography for profit, we might not find young people confessing that they have now become used to permissiveness because they have grown up in an age where it is common and is exploited commercially. It may be all very well to realise that members of the previous generation have suffered from their sexual frustrations, but it should not be forgotten that this generation and the next one will suffer from the effects of greater permissiveness, from the unnecessary abortions, from the increased rate of venereal disease and from the debasement of married life into purely animal acts.
It is interesting that in the booklet to which I have referred, which is intended to be a guide for teachers giving sex education to young people, the word “love” is mentioned only once, and then in passing [interruption.] The hon.Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) may laugh. I do not know whether he has any daughters.
Mr. John Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian): No.
Mr. Fry: One day, when he has, he may take a slightly different attitude to these problems.
These are matters of concern to people outside this House. I believe that they should be of concern to more hon. Members. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider introducing a Bill along the lines which have been suggested in order to protect our children from the evil and muddle-headedness which exists in the education world.
Looking again to God’s word, it informs us that when John The Baptist took a moral stand he was decapitated.
I rest my case.