I, like many other parents am worried about the sort of pro-transgender and pro-gay propaganda, that is likely to be forced on primary school children over the next few years now that groups like the very pro-Trans ‘Stonewall’ group has gained influence over the Sex and Relationships curriculum. This worry is heightened now that the Department for Education under Education Secretary Damien Hinds has all but completely caved into the LGB and T lobbies is making children learn about transgenderism and gay relationships in schools.

However, the Government has decided, following much pressure and after many complaints, that certain private schools including private religious schools will not have to promote all the propaganda provided and approved by groups such as Stonewall. According to the Conservative Woman site and quoting an earlier paywalled article in The Times, parents of children at private primary schools will no longer have to teach the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism in as much detail as will be forced upon the children attending State primary schools or voluntary aided religious schools. However, there appears to be no corresponding right for parents whose children attend State schools from withdrawing their children from ‘Relationship’ lessons where the curriculum seems to be dominated by the narratives espoused by the gay left and the increasingly aggressive and intolerant Trans activist community.

This means that those parents who can afford it and can claim that they have a faith based objection can be exempted from the very worst and most age-inappropriate sexual and gender propaganda. This clearly creates a two tier system of parental rights that goes way beyond what I would consider as a reasonable accommodation of different religious beliefs, such as the exemption from motorcycle crash helmet law for Sikhs (a Sikh turban gives roughly the same level of protection as a 1970’s helmet which was when the exemption was made). This is because the new guidance from the Department for Education on Relationship education in private primary and religious schools grants very important rights to some but removes said rights from others.

The new Sex and Relationships guidance will curtail some of the rights of parents to withdraw their children from Relationships education. This is in spite of many parents, including myself, being concerned that it is in the Relationships section of the curriculum where much of the extremely biased and sometimes pseudo-scientific propaganda surrounding sexuality and gender is likely to be promoted. However, at the same time as the government are making their concession to the consciences of some, we who have no alternative but the State system, are having our rights to withdraw our children from this propaganda cut back whilst wealthy Christians, Jews, and Muslims can keep their children away from it.

My own family’s future education scenario puts our child in the firing line for this very age inappropriate propaganda. We will have in future far fewer legal rights to prevent extremely biased and sometimes downright wrong information being dished out to him about such matters as gay relationships, family structures and gender. We cannot afford to send him to a private school and being ‘the only Jews in the village’ there is certainly no private Jewish primary school within several hundred miles. Also, although it’s an option, we do not feel that at this stage comfortable, for reasons of child socialisation, to jump into Homeschooling, although this option may become necessary if the schools decline further into the political cesspit. This leads me to ask Mr Damien Hinds an important question: ‘Where are our rights Mr Hinds?’ Where are the rights of all those parents, not just the wealthy ones or the ones who can claim a faith ticket, but the rights for everyone who is uneasy about the pro-gay and pro-trans propaganda that is being pumped out in our schools?

I feel that if there is to be a right of parents to object either on moral, religious or, as in the case of transgender propaganda, scientific and medical grounds, the promotion of things they disagree with in Sex and Relationship lessons, then this right should be universal.

This is an extremely regressive decision by the Department for Education, it grants rights to parents who can afford it and removes rights from parents who cannot. You could have a situation where there are two Christian or two Jewish families, both equally opposed to the idea of for example teaching eight year old girls about transgenderism, but who have a significant difference in income. One family is wealthy and can buy their way out of the State’s propaganda by sending their children to a private primary school whereas the less wealthy family are stuck with the State school shovelling intellectual shite such as ‘physical gender is fluid’ into their children’s heads.

The answer to the problem surrounding Sex and Relationship education in schools, and the conflict between parents who want to guide their children morally in a way that seems correct for them and the sexual propagandists, is to give all parents the right to withdraw their children from Sex and Relationships education either partially or in its entirety. The DoE’s decision to exempt private primary schools from the worst of the propaganda that is likely to be dumped in the Relationships curriculum is monstrously unfair. There are many of us who object to the sort of stuff that the sexuality and gender activists want to see taught in schools, but this new exemption for private faith and primary schools gives rights to some on the grounds of wealth and removes it from the rest of us. I hope that the growing public awareness of some of the problems surrounding forcing possibly biased Relationship education onto children and this latest development will prompt more Britons to ask Mr Hinds to give us all the right to determine our children’s moral education, rather than just giving that right only to those who can afford it.