First up, I want to talk about consent training in schools, which is about to become mandatory
in Australian schools as of the 4th of February 2022.
There was a joint meeting of Australian Education Ministers regarding the national curriculum
review, and they unanimously decided to mandate so-called consent training in the national
curriculum.
Now, if it's in the national curriculum, it means it applies to both public schools and
private schools.
And this consent training is to be taught to all age groups from kindergarten through
year 10, in a quote, 'age appropriate way'.
This is part of sex education, right, consent training, that's what it is.
Now, a copy of the consent training curriculum itself is not yet publicly available, but
they have, it seems, given summaries to certain media outlets.
I dare say, the non-public availability could be to do with the controversial nature of
it... that's just a thought.
But the Sydney Morning Herald says, quote, 'Revisions to the health and physical education
component of the curriculum addresses the role of gender, power, coercion, and disrespect
in abusive, or violent relationships.'
It's said to include, quote, '...multiple topics that have been lacking in sex education
such as', note these words, '...gendered stereotypes, coercion and power imbalances'.
I just wanted to note something.
Given where this document has come from, the Education Departments, those are trigger words,
those are dead giveaways for certain ideological baggage.
And I want to flag right now, and I'm going to come back to it in a second, that they
signal that this consent training, in the sex education program, will be heavily ideologically
loaded.
Okay?
Let me read another couple of quotes.
'All Australian high school students,' it says, '...will be taught about coercion and
sexual relationships, and teenagers will rehearse how to seek, give, and deny consent.'
Unquote.
Students will, quote, 'describe strategies for seeking, giving, or denying consent, and
rehearse how to communicate their intentions effectively and respectfully', unquote.
They're going to learn to, quote, 'communicate assertively and respectfully', unquote.
They're going to examine strategies to support the development of respectful, sexual relationships.
So, in addition to being heavily ideologically driven, I guess this is also going to be pretty
explicit...
workshops, strategies, all this kind of stuff, rehearsals.
Yeah... so there's two great starts.
Let me unpack the ideological history and baggage that's actually at play in this, and
that's going to be coming through.
The program was created in direct reply to, and in constant consultation with, the advocacy
of Chanel Contos, who started the movement TUC, or 'Teach us Consent'.
She has, if you follow her social media and all that, you see that she has very clear
leftist and Marxist views, and it began when she told her own story of being sexually assaulted
at just 13.
And I want to note something here.
Many of these movements are started by a young woman, with a genuinely terrible or tragic
backstory.
And that tends to mean that this young woman has a shroud of protection over her.
People don't criticise her or her ideas, because they are seen, in some sense, of beating up
the victim.
And, it's almost clever.
But, they genuinely do have terrible backstories, which makes them free from criticism.
Grace Tame, Britney Higgins, and Chanel Contos.
Now, Contos started her whole thing when she told her story, and she starts a petition,
and she made an Instagram poll which posed this question: 'If you live in Sydney, have
you, or has anyone close to you, ever experienced sexual assault from someone who went to an
all boys school?'
So, it's interesting there that she's targeting the all boys school.
Sounds like a gender stereotype, which I thought we were against.
But, a teacher's consent petition was acknowledged by a Greens MP in the New South Wales Parliament,
in the following terms.
'This petition calls on us, as legislators, to act to ensure that holistic consent sex
education which acknowledges' - check out the ideologically loaded phraseology here,
which I'll come back to and deal with - '...toxic masculinity, rape culture,' I'm
just going to say 's-shaming', I don't want to say that word, '...victim blaming, and
sexual coercion, and emphasises on communicative consent, affirmative consent, and offers content
for all people in our school system and community' - that probably is code for queer - 'it is
included in the school curriculum'.
And the official TUC statement actually added queer sex education to that list of ideological
phrases.
That petition was tabled in the New South Wales Parliament, and a motion to support
it was passed, with unanimous cross-party support.
Now let me go a little deeper.
I'm going to come back to some of those words, and just deal with them one by one, in a second.
First, I want to do with something a little deeper.
I want to look at something that Miss Contos posted on Instagram, where she said, quote,
'Not all men.
Yes all men, because all women too.
Everyone, start with yourself, in rape culture, who is complacent, equals complicit.
Everyone contributes to rape culture unless they actively don't.'
Now I want to pick this out, to show, I mean this really is a statement of creed here,
to show some of the ideological baggage that's in this.
It's a critical theory, actually, and it's familiar.
Let's compare it, for example, to critical race theory, for just a second.
Critical race theory says something a lot of people struggle to get their heads around.
It says that racism is completely normal, that white supremacy is completely normal,
these are not specific acts but the whole world is utterly infected with these two things,
and so am I as a white person, and so are you, if you're a white person.
That means you and I, are white supremacists.
We cannot deny it.
We are complicit, because we live in a white supremacist system, and we are white, and
we cannot escape that paradigm.
Everything we do is white supremacist and racist.
We are racists, whether we like it or not.
So, racism is not a specific act of discrimination or prejudice, but racism is my very state
of being, from which I cannot escape.
So if I do not actively fight, against the white supremacist system, if I don't become
an activist; and even myself and repent for the rest of my life about my whiteness, I
am a racist.
Now, that's critical race theory, some of the key tenets of it.
And I'm not even caricaturing actually, that's the fact.
Consider, for example, rape culture theory.
It's very similar.
Now, rape culture refers to a culture where rape is normalised and pervasive.
I'm sure you've heard the word, the phrase, I mean, it's everywhere.
Now, this is what they say; a culture where rape is normalised and pervasive.
We don't live in a racist world this time, we live in a raping world.
And just as I'm complicit in white supremacy as a white person, I am complicit in rape,
especially as a man.
Now, just as it defies belief that we live in a country that is, by its very nature and
definition, and DNA, racist.
It is the most successful multicultural country on the planet, where people, certainly, barely
notice skin tone above personhood, and indeed, where people of all skin tones and backgrounds
desperately want to come to have a better life.
Now that's not really a 'racist country', whatever racist acts might take place here,
from time to time.
It defies belief that racism is the right definition for this society.
In the same way it defies belief that we live in a society where rape is culture, where
rape is normalised.
Rape is one of the most serious criminal offences that we have.
Massive police resources are dedicated to addressing it.
The overwhelming majority of people will never commit such a crime, and never wish to commit
such a crime, or come anywhere near to it.
I could go on.
Now that is all true, unless, of course, you change and you diminish the definition of
rape.
Just as they changed and diminished the definition of racism, rape now means victim blaming,
sexual objectification, again 's-shaming', disapproving a woman's sexual promiscuity,
denying widespread rape.
So, the fact that I'm saying that this isn't a rape society, oh okay, that's rape culture.
Okay, I'm complicit.
So if I have a question in my mind, for example, about let's say, Britney Higgins' conduct
at all, you know I'm victim blaming, they say.
Because they think sin is a zero-sum game, where if I say, 'Oh that's not right', somehow
I'm exonerating the oppressor, and blaming them.
It's complete garbage, you know, Christians understand that the things we do, the actions
we take, we're responsible before God for those things.
It's not me, and me pointing at the person I blame.
It's just me.
And so when you say to somebody, 'That wasn't right, that was a mistake, that was a silly
thing'... you're not saying well the other person's innocent.
No no no.
They'll be completely accountable, and completely guilty, still.
But of course, in this weird world, they say, oh no, victim blaming.
If you have anything to level whatsoever, against somebody who is in a designated victim
group, well that's rape culture.
If I say that rape is not normalised as I just did, then I'm participating in rape culture.
If I do say that a woman should not be promiscuous - and I don't think she should, I don't think
a man should be promiscuous either, for the record - I'm participating in rape culture.
And when you consider all those things to be rape, well, first it makes a joke of the
word, which is serious and wrong.
But it also makes us all into rapists, or perpetuators of rape culture.
So I am part of rape culture, unless I accept their definitions, and actively fight in the
way that they demand that I do.
Just as I was a racist, and indeed am a racist, unless I accept their definitions and I actively
fight in exactly the way that they want me to politically.
And you see the thinking.
I use race as a parallel, I could have used a couple of others.
This is another example of critical theory.
How is it resolved?
Well, there isn't really a solution, except some kind of angry revolution and general
upset, and fight on our hands.
You know, in relation to race, it was smash all the white people and everything that they've
ever done in history.
Tear down their statues, you know, go and riot in the streets, and all this kind of
stuff.
It's not solved, but hey, it was a good time.
In relation to this matter, it is smash the men, and everything that they do in relation
to women, unless they repent and join your side.
For example, look at Scott Morrison, he couldn't even shake Grace Tame's hand and smile without
being the absolute enemy.
Why?
Because he hasn't bowed completely to the ideology, therefore, he is part of rape culture.
You see how it works.
Now, that's the ideological underpinning of so much of this.
That really is where a lot of these people are coming from.
It is very much a leftist critical theory.
I will say Marxist because we're familiar with the phrase, some will disagree with me,
but certainly there's Marxist undertones in this, without a doubt.
I want to make two general points to close.
The first one is, let's look at the deceptive lingo that has arisen from this movement,
and I've quoted some of it earlier on.
Wherever education authorities talk about things like 'gendered stereotypes', you know
what they're talking about.
You just need to know the people in the ideology that's gone into this.
They are erasing, they're talking about the erasing of 'maleness' and 'femaleness'.
And secondly, they're talking about the introduction of queer theory.
Indeed, there is queer sex education mentioned as a separate category, by that Greens MP
on that petition.
You know, they say there's no male, and there's no female, and they teach kids that, and that
that's all just stereotype.
And then if they go further, which they usually do, they say, well you can be something else
all together, it's not about men and women, it's about queer.
It's about being whatever you want to be.
Whenever they talk about, and here's another phrase, 'power imbalances', you know that
they are talking about a Marxist sort of thinking.
Women as victims, men as perpetrators.
Or, you know they say, 'toxic masculinity', right.
That's what that is.
Or indeed, the shaming of men, and the approving of women.
Whatever women do in this space, is liberating themselves...
being strong and powerful, you know, and getting out there, and just being like a man.
And that's the word that I wouldn't repeat before, 's-shaming'.
Blaming men, and absolving women.
Well, again, victim blaming right.
It's all the man's fault, no matter what.
No matter what.
There's no blame to be levelled anywhere else, and if you do, you're absolving the man somehow,
which is just nonsense.
'Victim blaming'... all these phrases we've just read them, this is what they're talking
about.
And the move is towards women who are powerful, and men who are submissive, and in a twisted,
kind of Marxist way.
The need to smash the patriarchy.
It's a comprehensive ideology which takes a very real tragedy, rape, and uses it to
smash and undermine good things.
Good things like, and this is in the Bible; the headship of men, the responsibility of
men, good things like the meekness of women, good things like abstinence and purity, heterosexuality
- it's the only way, marriage, masculinity, femininity...
you know, I could go on.
They are desperate to get this ideological mumbo jumbo into the minds of kids, as young
as humanly possible.
So they drive it into the education curriculum.
They did it with the Good Society Program, which I've covered here on 'The Truth of It',
and that was a program that introduced the ideas of transgenderism, and role-playing
boys in makeup, and all this kind of stuff.
And you know, that was all opt-in.
Consent training will be mandatory.
It's the same buzz words entirely that are used to describe it.
And here is something very insidious: when they ruin the innocence of a child with all
this gunk, or indeed, what remains of the innocence of a teenager, they awaken lusts
and desires of that young person, which are very powerful.
And they embed this ideology, as part of their lust for rebellion, and their lust for all
things sexual.
And when they attach it to that, and it indeed gives them a context, and a permission for
those things, they let it rip.
It's devilish.
It's an awful thing.
Which brings me to my second general point, my final point.
And this is just a comment that I want to make about sex education in general.
I want you to notice what I just said.
Lust.
That's a powerful force in human nature, and it's not easily tamed.
But it is easily awakened.
According to the Apostle John, the human nature is sinful.
It is governed by the lust of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life,
and indeed that's the teaching of the whole Bible.
This is why detailed sex education has simply never worked.
Because it was, and it is, based on the lie, that information will save a child, that information
will tame lust and desire.
In fact, information actually awakens lust and desire.
So, if you're a parent, don't fall for this lie, which denies the truth about a sinful
human nature.
You don't want a child, who is informed on all the sordid and corrupting details of these
matters.
You want a child who has a force in their life which is actually capable of taming lust,
and actually capable of giving them real desire to avoid sin.
That is their faith, and that is their fear of God.
And Joseph is the great example in this regard.
Here is an attractive, young man, all alone, forever estranged from parents and family
and their watching eye, far away in a foreign land.
A slave with no rights or real prospects, and nobody was watching.
But one thing preserved Joseph.
He said, 'How can I do this great sin against my God?'
You need a child that fears God, and lives by faith in Him.
Not a child that is fully informed, with information, that frankly they can't handle.
You need a child who restrains their sin, in obedience to God.
Not a child whose sin is awakened, with too much information.
And we would never have gotten into this sorry mess of consent training to minors, if we
just followed that line.