The battle goes on

2014 was a difficult year, with civic rights and freedoms being attacked and secular humanists seeking to bury every public manifestation of Christianity. 2015, with thousands of children being reported for playground banter and the reports passed to education authorities and Ofsted inspectors, doesn't look like being much different.

Home Secretary Teresa May has announced extremist disruption orders to counter Islamic extremism - but which could penalise criticism of same-sex marriage or sharia law.

The Liberal Democrats, who favour liberalisation of drugs laws, want to enforce sex education - possibly with sexually explicit materials - for children as young as seven. The battle against legalised abortion continues in Northern Ireland. With reports of as many as one person in 33 opting for death in Holland, where euthanasia is legal, Lord Falconer still wants assisted suicide to be legalised in the UK.

But the Government has done a partial U-turn with its instructions to promote "British values" in schools. Faith schools were being told they must be tolerant of other faiths and staffs were to be prevented from teaching that certain lifestyles were wrong.

Christians protested. There were challenges from MPs and the prospect of a judicial review. The Church of England said Government plans were "negative and divisive" and increasing Government involvement in schools risked turning Ofsted into a "schoolroom security service."

New guidance to all schools now says achools are required to respect people, not beliefs, and no additional equality duties are required. Unfortunately, Christians say that Ofsted is not following the guidance in many cases.

The price of freedom, said someone, is eternal vigilance. Dare I wish my readers a blessed, prosperous and fruitful new year?
    

Saving sex for marriage

Some days ago I published some worthwhile advice for teenagers who wanted to live an abstinent lifestyle. Here (from the same source) are some tips for parents who want to see their teenage children abstinent outside of marriage:

1. Maintain a healthy marriage and loving relationship with spouse.

2. Get involved in a healthy religious organisation.
 
3. Hang out with other families who share your values and who have children the approximate age of your children.
 
4. Use authoritative discipline.
 
5. Provide your children with warmth and emotional support.
 
6. Foster your teenager’s religious involvement.
 
7. Regulate and monitor your teen’s exposure to the entertainment media including TV, videos, movies, magazines, and the internet.
 
8. Define and explain sexual behaviours explicitly so terms, sexual concepts and words are clearly understood.
 
9. Communicate your expectations to your teen that he or she should be abstinent - but do not preach.
 
10. Implement dating rules based upon the age and maturity of the teen.
 
11. Monitor your teen’s extra-curricular activities. Know where the teen is, what he or she is doing, and how to contact the teen.
 
12. Teach teen refusal skills.
 
13. Discuss potential risk of premarital sex, but do not preach or threaten.
 
14. Encourage your teen to hang out with other teens that are abstinent.
 
15. Prepare a precocious teen for sexual advances by friends and classmates.
 
16. Help the teen make plans for the future beyond high school. Set goals. Discuss hopes and dreams for the future.
 
17. Prohibit alcohol use.
 
18. If the teen has been sexually abused in any way, get the teen into competent counselling.
 
19. Start sex education at an early age and keep the conversation running over the years of development.

Petition: 'Stop undermining marriage'

If you haven't yet complained about the same-sex marriage bill, now would be a good time.

The Lords will debate the bill on Monday, next Wednesday, and finally on Monday,July 15. MPs are likely to consider the Lords' amendments to the bill on July 16 or 17. SPUC is asking people to write to or e-mail Lords and their MP, asking them to stop efforts to undermine marriage.

It's been a right old week for pro-lifers. 

Four politicians in the ruling Fine Gael Party have reportedly been sacked from the party and told to clear their offices after opposing a bill to ease abortion law in Ireland.

Pro-abortion campaigners chanted "Hail Satan" to drown out pro-life demonstrators singing Amazing Grace at the Texas State Capitol.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue said it would be unfair to say that all pro-abortion supporters would support giving glory to Satan. "Among hardcore activists, though, there are no doubt more than just a few who feel comfortable invoking Satan's name on behalf of their cause."

 In Germany, six 11 and 12-year-old students fainted during a graphic sex education lesson and had to be taken to hospital.

And SPUC is asking for signatures on a petition opposing pornography lessons in school. They are proposed by the Sex Education Forum, which advises the Government. The SEF explains: "The rationale is that if young people choose to look at pornography or if they come across it by accident, they would know how to interpret it."

It's like giving illicit drugs to young children so they'll know how to say no when they're older.

Tackling teen sex problems

Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. Rates of sexually transmitted diseases are rising.

School nurses can give out the morning-after pill to teenage girl pupils at some schools in England. Dr Anne Connolly, chairman of the Primary Care Women's Health Forum, has called for all school nurses to be able to give out the pill.

In Scotland, the Sexual Health Lead Clinicians Group has told the Scottish Government that the morning-after pill should be made available in schools there. "Why is emergency contraception not available in schools?" it says. "Why are condoms and contraception not accessible? Why can't pregnancy and. . . STIs be prevented?"

Peter Saunders points out that an American study revealed that making the morning-after pill available free without prescription does not decrease pregnancy or abortion figures, and increases rates of sexually transmitted infections.

A British study found that making the morning-after pill available free of charge did not alter pregnancy rates for girls under 16 but increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases by 12 per cent.

What is needed is not something to encourage teens in a promiscuous lifestyle but something to tackle teens' promiscuous behaviour in the first place.

Dr Saunders suggests that organisations like Love for Life, Love2last, Challenge Team, Romance Academy and Lovewise are getting great results and have a great deal of wisdom to pass on.

The website addresses of these organisations are www.loveforlife.org.uk, www.love2last.org.uk, www.challengeteamuk.org, www.romanceacademy.org, and www.lovewise.org.uk.

So why not visit some of these websites and find out what you can do to help?

Sexualising children in school?

One of my daughters obtained contraception from the school nurse when she was only 14 after being heavily pressured by her then boyfriend, Jo Simpson writes in the Family Education Trust's Bulletin.

I knew nothing about this for over three years until she told me about it a few months ago. We have had numerous conversations this year, and my daughter (now 18) is convinced that making contraception available to pupils on school premises puts pressure on them to have sex.

If contraception had not been available at school, she feels there is no way she would have gone to the doctors or to the chemist to get contraception and therefore would not have given into the pressure she was under. She subsequently ended the relationship with her boyfriend and has carried the regret of not waiting ever since.

I am deeply concerned that people who are strangers to our children are able to give them contraception without the consent of their parents and without our children being able to fully understand the possible consequences of what they are doing. Sex is a life-changing and a life bringing act. There is no condom on earth that will protect a child from a bad reputation or a broken heart, or prevent regret. . .

Sex education in schools needs to be looked at in conjunction with the sexualisation of children. It amazes me how the government makes decisions that are only serving to fragment the family further and further, and destroying society's foundations.

Although the Government has said that it has no plans to change the law on sex education, it is under pressure from both MPs and peers to make sex education compulsory from the beginning of primary school and to remove or limit the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons.

People have just until the end of the month to take part in the Department of Education's consultation on PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) education, including sex and relationships education. They can point out, if they wish, that sex education should not be compulsory in primary schools and all schools should be free to decide how sex education is provided in consultation with parents.

Details of the consultation can be found here. A briefing paper can be found here. Responses must be received by November 30.

Number of abortions up - but with a ray of hope?

The number of abortions in the UK is up again.

Government figures published last week show there were 196,109 abortions in England and Wales in 2010, compared with 195,743 the previous year - 189,574 of them on England and Wales residents, compared with 189,100 on England and Wales residents in 2009.

Figures for Scotland, published today, show 12,826 abortions in 2010, compared with 13,108 in 2009. That's a total of 208,935 abortions in England, Wales and Scotland, compared with 208,851 the year before.

Of the abortions on England and Wales residents, 96 per cent were funded by the NHS, and 59 per cent took place in private clinics, paid for by the NHS. A third of women having an abortion had had an abortion previously; 85 women had had seven previous abortions or more.

Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, described as the country's largest abortion provider, was quoted as saying what a splendid thing an abortion service was.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said sexual health education was clearly not impacting significantly on unplanned pregnancies. "Any abortion at whatever stage in pregnancy and for whatever reason represents the ending of the life of a developing pre-born child."

Indeed.

One blogger said what he always found astounding when the annual figures came out was the fact that they have ceased to shock us.

The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health, which advised the Government on things like abortion, teenage sexuality and sex education and comprised organisations in favour of abortion and sex education for children as young as five, was disbanded last year.

Life, a pro-life organisation, has been invited to join the Sex Education Forum, which will replace it. Although it will be the single opposing voice on a panel dominated by pro-abortion groups, its inclusion has caused outrage.

Dr Evan Harris, former MP and a humanist, even suggested its presence may prevent the forum from functioning properly by preventing the forum from being given confidential information and preventing it from having frank and open discussions. What nonsense.

Could the inclusion of a pro-life group on the forum be an indication that the Government, having thrown millions of pounds at sex education, free contraception and abortion, is at last realising that the "do whatever you like, but do take precautions" approach has done nothing to reduce abortions and the sexual infection epidemic and a new approach is needed?

Truth, lies and safe sex

Dr Miriam Grossman, a paediatrician with years of experience, has been invited to speak at a number of meetings in London on the subject of sex education in schools.

Says Andrea Williams, reporting on her blog at Christian Concern on Dr Grossman's meeting in the Houses of Parliament:

Dr Grossman emphasised how sex educators usually claim to provide "non-judgmental" and "comprehensive, medically accurate information" in order to help children make their own informed choices and delay sexual activity - but this is all, in fact, a lie.

In reality, Dr Grossman emphasised, the priority of much sex education in the UK is to promote morality-free sexual "licence." Sex education programmes normalise premature sex and promote the idea that children have a "right" to make their own decisions. Abstinence from sex is not usually presented as an option and the health risks of early sexual activity are downplayed.

Both the general public and school children in particular are often misinformed about the effectiveness of contraception in preventing disease and pregnancy. . .

Young people are often told that using a condom reduces the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and reduces the risks of conception by 98%. However, the truth is that:

* The 98% figure only refers to the risk of pregnancy - not infection. Furthermore, it only applies to circumstances where condom use is "perfect." "Typical use" is more common, where condoms are worn correctly most of the time but are occasionally used incorrectly. In such cases, the risk of pregnancy is reduced by only 85%!

* Even perfect condom use only reduces the risk of herpes by 25 - 50%, chlamydia by 26% and gonorrhoea by 62%. That's little protection at all!

* Condoms have close to 0% effectiveness in preventing the transmission of HPV.

* A girl's immature cervix increases her vulnerability to genital infections. HIV aside, girls and women carry 80% of the burden of negative consequences from early sexual behaviour and multiple partners. . .

Dr Grossman warned that if sex educators continue to deny biological truths and encourage "exploration" (read promiscuity), then the health and well-being of our children will continue to suffer. The "safe sex" message endorsed by schools is offering children a false sense of security. This must stop. There is no such thing as safe sex, other than between two people who have saved themselves for marriage.

Christians everywhere should be teaching children that each one of them is a beautiful, unique creation made in the image of God. The way that our children can be safe and free is to truly know this and to keep themselves for marriage.

Let's do all we can to promote God's truth for the sake of our children. Let's claim back our education system; let's expose bad sex education, especially in the forthcoming national curriculum review. Let's bring to society the message of purity, faithfulness, love, truth and hope that is found in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And a comment on Andrea's piece from a police officer:

We teach our kids not to play with matches, and don't claim "they will do it anyway," and we don't say "we teach them the dangers and let them decide." Sex is like fire, the context can determine if it is safe or destructive. Marriage is the only safe context for sex. Outside of marriage the dangers are there. . . but. . . educators and others refuse to tell the truth about it.

Can anyone say these things aren't true?

Good news and bad news

What a week it's been! Thousands killed by earthquake and tsunami in Japan. A state of emergency in Bahrain. Fierce fighting in Libya. All sorts happening in the UK.

There isn't time to talk about it all, but I can mention one thing that, for me, is a concern.

Two months ago I wrote here about graphic, sexually explicit literature approved by some local authorities for use in sex education for children as young as five years old. That same literature has now been exposed by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

Brenda Almond, a professor of moral and social philosophy, wrote in the Daily Mail as a consequence: "It is parents who best understand what their children need to know - and when - not people with improbable ideas about education, and certainly not government ministers. . .

"Sex education needs to be taken out of primary schools altogether and responsibility for it should be handed back to parents. Children, after all, belong to their parents; they are not the property of the state.

"We need to stop assuming that early sexual activity is inevitable and accept that too much sex education - delivered too early - might actually be encouraging it.

"Only then will we be able to get back to the really important thing: letting children be children. They'll grow up fast enough as it is."

Education Secretary Michael Gove has now said he will not accept attempts to change the Education Bill to introduce compulsory sex education to primary schools. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Government is devising a new sexual health strategy which it is said will go even further than the approach by the last Labour Government. One of the team devising the strategy will be Brook's national director, Simon Blake, who is in favour of a young people's sexual free-for-all. The Government is also reviewing its sex education guidance for schools, and is working closely with the homosexual campaign group Stonewall.

Write to your MP and point out that more and more sex education at younger and younger ages is not lowering rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual infection, but having the reverse effect.

If you have children at school, let me repeat my previous advice: ask their school what they are being taught in sex education and ask to see materials used. If you have concerns, talk to the head teacher or school governors. Don't rant and rave; express your concerns politely and ask for change. You may be surprised at the effect it will have.

Parents, prepare to be horrified

The last Labour Government fought hard to have sex education in schools made compulsory by law for children from five years old and upwards. Eventually the proposed legislation was ditched because there was insufficient time to pass it into law before the General Election.

There are still people fighting hard to have sex education in schools made compulsory for children from five years old. (Sex education in primary schools is currently at the discretion of school governors and the head teacher.)

The Christian Institute has published a booklet called Too much, too young: Exposing primary school sex education materials. On the booklet's front cover it says "WARNING: This booklet contains explicit material not suitable for children." Quite right too.

The booklet shows extracts from publications - including explicit descriptions and graphic illustrations of sexual intercourse - already approved by some local authorities for use with young primary school children.

Some parents might conclude people producing such material for little ones do not do so out of a real concern for young children, but rather out of a desire to destroy marriage and family and educate children to be sexually promiscuous.

There is a place for sex education. But this sort of stuff used in classes for children of five and upwards is not it.

Some parents are blissfully unaware of what is taught, or likely to be taught to their children in school.

If you have children, ask about their school's sex education policy. Ask to see materials that will be used. Ask who will present the material. If you have concerns, talk with the children's head teacher or some of the school governors. If you are not satisfied, contact a local councillor or your MP.

For further information, contact the Christian Institute. Details are on their website at www.christian.org.uk.

There is a big difference between sex education in schools and the legalisation of assisted suicide - but the same principle applies. If you're not aware of what's happening, legislation could be pushed past you which would appal you if you knew what it involved.

Lord Falconer's Commission on Assisted Dying is already taking evidence from interested parties. It sounds an imposing body. In fact, it was the idea of Dignity in Dying - formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society - who also helped set it up.

Lord Falconer has battled to have the law on assisted suicide relaxed. He appears to have chosen the 12 members of the commission. Nine of them are in favour of legalising assisted suicide; the other three are not known to have opposed it.

Of 11 people or organisations invited to give evidence to the commission, six have declined - presumably because they don't want to give the commission credibility.

Anyone hearing of the commission might assume it was an officially established body whose recommendations ought to be given serious consideration.

Forewarned is forearmed.

A much better way

Andrea Minichiello Williams is chief executive officer of Christian Concern, an organisation which supports Christian standards in society. On her blog two days ago she posted the following, which merits careful consideration:

Yesterday the Government published the 'Schools White Paper.'

At 4.29 it states:

Children need high-quality sex and relationships education so they can make wise and informed choices. We will work with teachers, parents, faith groups and campaign groups, such as Stonewall to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other and stresses the importance of respecting individual autonomy.

Not content with pushing for and achieving equality laws that promote a homosexual agenda, Stonewall wants to get its message to children directly. . . currently the actor Sir Ian McKellan is touring schools across Britain on behalf of Stonewall. He is giving assemblies, talking to children in classrooms and promoting a homosexual campaign "to tackle homophobic bullying". . . Stonewall's solution to bullying is to promote and legitimise the practice of homosexuality to children. That is not right. . .

When asked how teachers should explain the Christian stance on homosexuality, Sir Ian said that they should abandon the teachings of the church. They may not need to if Prime Minister David Cameron gets his way - in February he told pro-homosexual magazine 'Attitude' that the Church of England should change its policies on homosexuality.

The Prime Minister is serious about the homosexual agenda. Last week a Conservative councillor from Bristol, Chris Windows, was actually suspended after he expressed concern over Sir Ian's visit to schools in his ward. The more that incidents like this happen, and the less the Prime Minister defends freedom of speech, the more it is eroded and the more society is harmed. . . What happened to the concept of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? . . .

The White Paper also stated:

4.30: Children can benefit enormously from high-quality Personal Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education. Good PSHE supports individual young people to make safe and informed choices. . . We will conduct an internal review to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgement about how best to deliver PSHE education.

This is a strong endorsement of PSHE ahead of a likely attempt to make PSHE compulsory in future legislation. PSHE, in its current form, is often taught as a politically correct programme which encourages the "promotion of equality" in sex education. In practice this means the promotion of the practice of homosexuality; legitimising same sex relationships as normal and desirable, as well as treating heterosexual cohabitation as equal to marriage.

The promotion of practising homosexual relationships as normal will not benefit children, only confuse them. It's contrary to the ethos of many parents and schools, whether Christian or not, and it may cause a range of difficulties for Christian teachers. . .

I will be doing all that I can to resist any attempt to make PSHE in its current format compulsory in schools. Please join me in resisting Stonewall's determined and aggressive campaign for the hearts and minds of our children. Their agenda must not go unchallenged.

In a country full of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, STDs and family breakdown, Christians have a strong argument that there is a better way. The 'sexual liberation' experiment has failed and has produced bad fruit.

We can offer values and an education based on our Christian faith. We can teach children about the importance of marriage and the family. We can teach them about purity and how to respect who they are. . . We can teach them that abstinence before marriage is the best way. We can give them positive life lessons and help them to avoid some of the consequences of sexual promiscuity.

The message is one of hope and promise and yet one that is excluded from the debate. It is time to re-enter the debate.

You can read the whole thing here.

It's time for parents to wake up

Britain remains at the top of the league table of Western nations when it comes to teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The UK Government has spent £280 million on sex education and contraception. The result is dismal failure.

The fact that the Government is still insisting that more sex education and more free contraception are the answer and politicians are still wanting compulsory sex education for children from five years old would be amazing if it were not for the fact that people don't seem to realise what is going on here.

The United Nations organisation UNESCO has prepared international guidelines on education in sexuality which it sees as a "need and entitlement" of all children from the age of five, with an explicit approach which it admits will horrify many politicians, policymakers and parents.

Simon Blake, director of Brook and a member of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group that advises the Government, said "We need a grown-up conversation with young people. We need to make sure they are having sex when they are ready and for the right reasons, are able to enjoy it and take responsibility for it."

Gill Francis, chairperson of the same TPIAG, said "Discussions on sexual pleasure help children realise sex should be enjoyed, allowing them to take responsibility for decisions and recognise issues around coercive sex."

The idea is that if Britain's children were better educated in sexual matters and could be taught to use contraception responsibly then all would be well. It is not true. A report by UNICEF shows widespread use of contraception. Dr Trevor Stammers, an authority on teenage sexuality, says 80 per cent of teenagers who become pregnant are using some form of contraception.

Brenda Almond, professor of social and moral philosophy at Hull University, writes in the Daily Mail: "Traditional moral values have all but evaporated in modern Britain. As a result, there is no ethical basis to any of the advice given to young people about sex. In Britain, sex education is, quite literally, just words.

"Indeed, so powerful is this collapse of a stable moral code in Britain that youth counsellors, campaigners, teachers and ministers are now terrified about making any judgments whatsoever about an individual's behaviour.

"Do whatever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you want, as long as you wear a condom or take the morning-after pill. That is the thrust of most sex education for teenagers in Britain today.

"Indeed, far from promoting restraint or commitment, the entire emphasis of this politically correct system is on the 'sexual rights' of young people. . .

"The only stigma in modern Britain, it seems, is directed at those who warn against infidelity, adultery or parental neglect of children. In this brave new world, personal rights reign supreme."

What can be done to deal with this state of affairs? Certainly in the short term, first responsibility lies with the parents. Many parents are blissfully unaware of what happens or is likely to happen to their children in the name of sex education.

The Family Education Trust emphasises that schools should be encouraged to ensure that parents are fully involved in developing a school's policy, sex education is taught within a clear moral context, the consequences of sexual activity are honestly faced, and the positive benefits of saving sexual intimacy for marriage are clearly presented.

Parents need to find out what's happening to their children in school and out of school and be determined to have a responsible say in it. Bringing up their children is their responsibility - not the responsibility of the state.

Time for change

The number of 11 and 12-year-olds on the contraceptive pill has increased fivefold in the UK in the last 10 years, the Sunday Times reports.

More than 1,000 girls aged 11 and 12 have been prescribed the pill by GPs, most without the knowledge of their parents. Although the age of consent is 16, doctors may prescribe for an under-age girl if they think she is mature enough to have sex. They are bound by a duty of confidentiality to the girl unless they believe she is being abused.

A further 200 girls between 11 and 13 have long-term contraceptive devices. At least 58,000 15-year-olds were on the pill last year, compared with 23,000 in 1999.

The figures come from a general practice research database, which collects information from 500 doctors' practices covering a representative sample of four million people.

"These figures illustrate the fact that the UK is facilitating the sexualisation of young people at an ever-younger age," said Dr Trevor Stammers, an expert on teenage sexuality.

The aim, says the Sunday Times in an editorial, has to be to change children's attitudes. "Smoking cigarettes used to be a rite of passage but that is slowly being educated out of youngsters. The same can happen with sex and the right kind of sex education. And so it should."

The powers-that-be in the UK have been educating children to have sex for long enough. A complete change in education on sexual matters would not be before time.

No wonder parents are horrified

The politically correct children-must-have-more-sex-education-at-all-costs brigade is still going full tilt.

(A report by Ofsted complains that schools are failing to consult parents about the content of lessons, teaching pupils all they need to know about the biology of sex but placing little emphasis on the importance of marriage, failing to discuss the possibility that children can say no to sexual intercourse, and exposing children to materials inappropriate for their age. About time too, you might think.)

Family and Youth Concern reports on the experience of Mrs Lisa Bullivant, a young mother from Lincolnshire. She received a brief letter from her daughter's Church of England primary school saying the children would be having sex education lessons but giving no details of materials to be used. Some of the children had recently turned seven. She assumed the materials would be appropriate for the children's ages.

Says Mrs B: "How wrong I was. My daughter came home and tearfully informed me that she had learned about sex and that it had frightened and upset her. . . The effects of what our children had been taught became alarmingly apparent. Children were found simulating sex on top of other children and some children were telling much younger children what they had learned, much to the horror of their parents. Still others were openly stating to their parents that they now wanted to have sex.

"Some children, including my daughter, became very upset and worried about the whole matter. She was not emotionally or mentally able to cope with this information. She would often burst into tears if she started to think about it and I had to spend a lot of time comforting her and talking to her, trying to repair the damage that this DVD had caused to her innocent young mind."

The DVD was Channel 4's Living and Growing.

"I managed to find out what DVD the school had used and I and other parents watched it on the internet in horror. It was so graphic and the narrative was appalling. It promoted sex as a wonderful feeling and exciting - no wonder some of the children now wanted to try it.

"A number of parents made formal complaints in writing to the governing body and the local authority. . . We were fobbed off at every point. Our request for a meeting with the school's complaints committee was not even acknowledged and a final letter I received was inconsistent and full of false claims. The local authority backed these claims and said they were satisfied that the school had acted properly."

Morally deformed individuals in positions of authority are messing up the lives of innocent children, which makes me very angry. And very sad.

The sex education war

Sex education is an ideological battlefield on which a war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. Behind the innocuous-sounding words used by the sex education lobby, there is a definite agenda at work to undermine the role of parents and to tear down traditional moral standards. The need for parents to be alert and vigilant has never been greater.

Who says so? The Family Education Trust (otherwise known as Family and Youth Concern), whose aims are to uphold marriage and traditional family life and promote young people's welfare.

And with good reason. NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on medicines and health issues - its chief role is to ration NHS drugs - has issued draft guidance on sex education suggesting that all children should be taught about sex and relationships starting at five and continuing into early adulthood.

The Labour Government legislated to make sex education part of the schools' national curriculum for the first time for pupils from the age of five upwards, but because of opposition Schools Secretary Ed Balls scrapped the sex education provisions in order to get the remainder of the Children, Schools and Families Bill into law in the limited time available before the General Election. Members of the sex education lobby were said to be furious, and attempts to reintroduce such provisions were expected.

The NICE draft guidance contains positive points, which might cause some people to be confused. But it also says

Research evidence does not support use of an approach to sex and relationships education that only teaches abstinence. Evidence shows that this does not help prevent the initiation of sex, or reduce the frequency of intercourse or reduce the number of partners a young person may have. Rather, such an approach may increase early sexual activity and its consequent risks.

(There is ample evidence that abstinence education is effective.)

It says school governors, teachers, nurses and community groups should

Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex, increase rates of sexual activity or increase the likelihood of sexual experimentation. Rather, it helps children and young people to resist pressure to get involved in activities that might damage their health. It also gives them the skills and confidence to delay sex until they are ready to enjoy a responsible and mutually loving relationship.

(Until they are ready?)

All involved in education should

Promote awareness of and sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs, and encourage understanding of different beliefs and practices, for example, in relation to alcohol use, sexual orientation and abortion. Discrimination and prejudices should be discussed and challenged.

(Prejudices against homosexual relationships and against abortion?)

It says that

A planned programme of sex and relationships education (SRE) that includes information and opportunities for discussion about sexual health, sexually transmitted infections, methods of contraception, pregnancy and abortion can help children and young people to delay sexual activity until they are ready. It does not cause them to have sex at an earlier age, or to have more sex, or sex with more partners, nor does it increase the number of unwanted or teenage conceptions and abortions.

(There is no explanation of why the more sex education there is, the more unwanted pregnancies and the more abortions increase.)

and

An overemphasis on concerns about the potential negative consequences of sex for young people, including teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, has sometimes led to an unbalanced approach to SRE that ignores the importance of consent and mutually rewarding sexual relationships for individual wellbeing.

(No mention, you will notice, of the context of sex within marriage.)

Norman Wells, of Family and Youth Concern, said "The team that drafted the guidance included lobby groups with an agenda to break down moral standards and redefine the family. Organisations with a commitment to marriage and traditional family values were not represented."

The draft guidance (you can read it in full here) is open for comment via the NICE website until July 15. Submissions will then be considered, and final guidance is expected in January.

Christian Concern for Our Nation is appealing for parents, teachers and school representatives to respond to the consultation.

Will you write and express your concerns? You should use the form here.

'Safe' sex or no sex?

David Toma, the 12th child of a Christian mother, was a detective on the vice, narcotics and gambling squad in crime-ridden Newark, New Jersey. He became a master of disguise in order to infiltrate drugs gangs.

He made thousands of arrests without ever firing his gun, though he was himself hospitalised numerous times with shot and stab wounds. He had a 98 per cent conviction rate. He was given the title "The World's Greatest Cop" by fellow policemen. Two series of television programmes were based on his experiences.

He has spent countless thousands of hours speaking to audiences about the dangers of alcohol and drugs. He has received numerous humanitarian awards and several honorary doctorates.

Denny Hartford quotes on his blog something of what David Toma has to say about teenage pregnancy:

Kids are having kids! Eleven year old, twelve year old and thirteen year old kids are having babies! Why? Because they are having sex! Unfortunately they don't think that having sex will lead to getting pregnant. Kids don't think about their consequences, they just want to have sex. And that's the problem.

My 50+ years of experience, talking to millions and millions of kids, tells the story: teen sex leads to babies, teen sex leads to unwanted pregnancy, teen sex leads to suicide, teen sex leads to drug addiction, teen sex leads to alcoholism, teen sex leads to Aids and HIV, teen sex leads to STDs. Teen sex is not only a moral issue, it's a health issue and it's a national health issue! . . .

Parents, what are you going to do about this national crisis? School administrators, what are you going to do about this national crisis? Local government and health agencies, what are you going to do about this national crisis? Some 'experts' preach non-abstinence based on the theory that kids will have sex anyway, so why not teach them to have safe sex. These experts haven't seen what I saw on the streets as a detective. They haven't heard the personal stories, thousands of them, that I heard while a beat cop in Newark, New Jersey.

Parents have given up on teaching total abstinence to their kids. They take their daughters to the doctor to get them birth control pills, so they won't get pregnant. Well guess what? They get pregnant anyway! There is no birth control pill that is 100% safe, and many have dangerous side effects, like blood clots that lead to death! Condoms are not 100% safe either. Protected sex is not the answer, total abstinence is. I am a parent and now a grandparent and guess what my wife and I taught our kids and are now teaching our grandchild? Total abstinence. Was it easy? No! But I will not surrender to complacency. I did whatever it took to make sure my kids knew that premarital sex was not an option. . .

The 40,000,000 (that's right, forty million!) kids I have talked with over my career gives me the expertise to tell you that absolute abstinence is the only thing that works. I have heard personally the horror stories of back alley abortions that went wrong. I have personally visited kids in the hospital who tried to kill themselves and their unborn babies because they were too scared to tell their parents they were pregnant. Imagine being so afraid to tell your parents you were pregnant that you would rather kill yourself and an innocent growing inside you! I have held young girls in my arms as they died from Aids which they contracted from having oral sex. They thought that oral sex was safe sex! I have counseled thousands of girls who were gang raped because they had a reputation for being easy.

My twenty years on the streets as a cop and then as a detective made me see things I still have nightmares about: mothers throwing their babies off bridges into freezing rivers, babies killed by their teenage mothers because they wouldn't stop crying, babies in dumpsters, babies thrown away like garbage! We are in a throwaway society and we throw our babies away too! I have seen it all!!!

Don't tell me that non-abstinence and sex education are the answer, because you are dead wrong. The only answer is absolute abstinence. . .

I have preached absolute abstinence for over 50 years. I will not surrender to popular theories by people who are supposed experts who don't have my background and don't know what they are talking about. I can absolutely guarantee you that your child will not get pregnant, will not get Aids, and HIV, will not get STDs, will not end up killing themselves when you teach your children the value of a strong moral code of conduct. . .

Let me tell you that when I talk to kids at schools about absolute abstinence, I get a standing ovation. They want to hear more about how to live a good clean life and how to live the right way. They want someone to love them and discipline them. They know I love them, and they know I know what I am talking about. Your kids want your guidance, your kids want your love. Love your kids enough to teach them absolute abstinence.

Well, you can't argue with that, can you?

Incidentally, you'll find David Toma's website at www.davidtoma.com.

The world's gone crazy

If you need proof that the world has gone mad you would find it in one of the daily newspapers this morning.

It tells how householders in Newcastle-under-Lyme have each been provided by the local council with no less than nine differently coloured containers - irrespective of whether or not they have room to keep them - in which they are required to place their refuse.

A silver bucket is for food waste inside the house, a green bin is for food waste outside the house, a blue box is for glass, foil, tins and aerosols, a pink bag is for plastic bottles and a green bag is for cardboard.

Then there is a white bag for clothing and textiles, a blue bag for papers and magazines, a wheelie bin with a brown lid for garden waste and a grey wheelie bin for everything else.

Another article on the same page tells how children as young as eight have been offered free condoms in the street by youth workers from a taxpayer-funded charity based in Hull.

The mother of a 13-year-old girl who found condoms the girl had been given in the girl's bedroom was fuming. "I feel she is being encouraged to have sex," the mother said.

"My daughter's sexual health is my responsibility. She's my daughter. She's not the Government's daughter, the council's daughter or the youth centre's daughter. They will not care about my daughter if anything happens. It's my responsibility."

Does anyone remember when Britain was Great Britain?

Sex ed: A last minute hitch

As part of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, the UK Government was set to make sex education from the age of five a compulsory part of the national curriculum for schools.

Decisions on sex education would be taken out of the hands of parents and school governors and placed in the hands of Government officials.

Teachers would be required by law, irrespective of personal conviction, to present homosexual partnerships and unmarried sexual relationships as being on a par with marriage. Religious as well as secular schools would be required to teach children where to get contraceptives and how to access abortions.

The bill also provided what lawyers called a draconian regime for home education, where parents who wanted to teach their children would have to be licensed, there would be regular visits by inspectors and parents could easily lose their right to continue.

No longer. At the end of a Government's term of office, there is always a period of horse trading between political parties so the Government can push through remaining legislation before Parliament rises. It is understood that the Conservatives objected to proposals for sex education and the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to proposals for home education legislation.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls this week dropped the proposals on these two issues so the rest of the bill could go through. One newspaper suggested that he ditched his sex education reforms in a fit of petulance rather than compromise on one of the Conservatives' key demands. Whatever the reason, it was certainly an answer to prayer as far as some people were concerned.

A word of warning though. Labour have promised to being the proposals back in the summer if they are re-elected.

One more thing: the Government recently passed legislation making "incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" a specific offence. Lord Waddington successfully proposed the addition of a freedom of speech amendment which would ensure people were not taken to court for simply criticising homosexual conduct or expressing the belief that homosexual behaviour is wrong.

The Government tried four times to remove the amendment, but lost in the House of Lords each time.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that the next Labour manifesto will include a commitment to reverse the Waddington amendment, and Labour would use the Parliament Act to overturn the Lords' decision if necessary.

What's the real agenda here?

The authorities introduced sex education in schools and the number of teenage pregnancies went up. The authorities provided more sex education, and teenage pregnancies continued to rise. The authorities decided what was needed was MORE sex education, and still teenage pregnancies increased.

Question: Is one entitled eventually to assume that the powers that be really aren't concerned about reducing teenage pregnancies?

Here is part of a piece by Peter Hitchens at MailOnline:

Some years ago, I wrote a short history of sex education in this country. I didn't then know about its first invention, during the Hungarian Soviet revolution of 1919, when Education Commissar George Lukacs ordered teachers to instruct children about sex in a deliberate effort to debauch Christian morality.

But what I found was this. That the people who want it are always militant Leftists who loathe conventional family life; that the pretext for it has always been the same - a supposed effort to reduce teen pregnancy and sexual disease; and that it has always been followed by the exact opposite.

It was introduced into schools against much parental resistance during the early Fifties. And, yes, the more of it there was, the more under-age and extramarital sex there seemed to be.

By 1963, in Norwich, parents were told that their young were to be instructed in sexual matters because the illegitimacy rate in that fine city had reached an alarming 7.7 per cent (compared with a national rate of 5.9 per cent). The national rate is now 46 per cent and climbing, so that was obviously a success, wasn't it?

Well, yes it was, because the people who force these popular classes on our young are lying about their aims. You can see why.

Most of us, in any other circumstance, would be highly suspicious of adults who wanted to talk about sex to other people's children. But by this sleight of hand - that they are somehow being protected from disease and unwanted pregnancy - we are tricked into permitting it.

And our civilised society goes swirling down the plughole of moral chaos.

The UK Government is now introducing legislation to make sex education an integral part of the national curriculum and remove the right of parents to withdraw children from sex education lessons. The Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group, which advises the Government, says contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal; therefore children should be able to learn "the correct facts."

Is Peter Hitchens right? Is the real target not the reduction of teenage pregnancies, but simply the "sexual liberation" of our children and young people?

Consider the facts, Mr Balls

According to a report in the Daily Mail this week, Ed Balls, the UK Government's Children's Secretary, said that faith schools must teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless.

Normal? Homosexual practice is not normal. It is abnormal.

And harmless? The medical profession says that carefully documented studies show that male homosexuals have a much higher incidence of sexually related disease, as well as viral infections such as herpes, hepatitis A and B and HIV, with one study showing 72 per cent of male HIV infection in the UK acquired through homosexual practice.

It says that multiple partners, unsafe sexual practices and substance abuse are more common in homosexuals, leaving homosexuals at risk of psychiatric conditions; that suicidal tendencies are higher in homosexual and lesbian young people; and that male homosexuals are three times more likely to have seriously contemplated or attempted suicide, and 12 times more likely to have had a major depressive disorder than their heterosexual counterparts.

What other subject can there be besides sex education where teachers are going to be forced by law to teach things they do not believe? What other subject can there be where teachers are going to be forced to teach things they know are not true?

Having said all of that, homosexuals should be treated with love and respect. The Bible says that homosexual practice is sin, but says that we have all sinned in one thing or another. To accept homosexuals as people, while recognising the responsibility to speak out about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle, is not to accept their way of life.

Mr Balls was speaking, of course, of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, which will make sex education mandatory for children from five years old and which completed its course through the House of Commons this week. We'll see now what the House of Lords will do with it.

Christians needed: urgently

It's a sad thing to have to say, but the authorities in this nation appear to be determined that this nation's children will grow up to be sexually promiscuous.

The authorities don't care that children have sexual intercourse among themselves - even when it's illegal on grounds of age - so long as they use contraception. Free contraceptives, morning-after pills and abortions are readily available. Sex education in schools, which has little or no moral content, ensures that children know where to get free contraception and how to use it.

The Christian Institute found the Primary School Sex and Relationships Education Pack, recommended by East Sussex Council, which includes explicit descriptions of anal sex, oral sex, homosexuality and bisexuality, for use with children from seven years old and upwards.

It discovered a video advising pupils to "try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with," and teacher-led discussions with pupils on sadomasochism, bondage and sex toys.

An NHS leaflet called Pleasure advises school pupils that they have a "right" to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse ("What about twice a week?") can be good for their cardiovascular health. It uses the slogan "An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away."

Steve Slack, of NHS Sheffield, one of the leaflet's authors, said it could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience. What kind of twisted logic says that telling youngsters of the pleasure of sex will encourage them not to have it?

The majority of parents apparently have no idea what their children are being taught in school, and many of them are not concerned. Currently parents have a right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, but the Government is considering making the lessons compulsory for all pupils from the age of five.

This, according to one pro-family organisation, would give parents less control over the content of lessons because schools, being compelled by law to provide sex education, would have less incentive to consult parents.

The Family Education Trust has produced a new 52-page booklet called Too Much, Too Soon: The Government's plans for your child's sex education. It tells parents what is happening in sex education, explains the law, and considers the Government's proposals for change. It argues that young people do not need to be presented with a menu of sexual options from which they can make "informed choices." It says the whole matter needs to be approached with honesty, modesty and within a clear moral framework that shows a proper respect for parents and for marriage.

I consider that it is a brilliant piece of work and that every parent ought to have a copy. Printed copies can be ordered from Family Education Trust, Jubilee House, 19-21 High Street, Whitton, Twickenham (telephone 020 8894 2525). Better yet: you can read the whole booklet and download it free of charge from the trust's website (www.famyouth.org.uk).

Some worthwhile things are happening. There is a great organisation named Challenge Team UK (www.challengeteamuk.org) which sends teams of well trained young people into schools with presentations promoting saving sex until marriage, and is looking for more volunteers for training. The advantage of these teams, it seems to me, is that this is not adults preaching at children but young people talking to young people. Some 75,000 teenagers have already been reached. An organisation called Lovewise (www.lovewise.org.uk) goes into schools promoting chastity outside of marriage, and is also looking for more presenters.

Children will follow an example, whether it's a good one or a bad one. Youngsters in this nation are being bombarded with sex from every conceivable angle. The great tragedy is that the majority of them are not being reached with a godly alternative.

Christians, where are you?