Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

UK set to ban sex ed for young children amid parental backlash against LGBT indoctrination

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

There is undoubtedly a backlash against LGBT ideology unfolding in many Western countries, the source of which includes many ambivalent towards LGBT lifestyles but who are still uncomfortable teaching the ideology to children.

In March, podcaster Joe Rogan paid tribute to his favourite teacher. His seventh-grade science teacher, he noted, “was a brilliant man and he taught me about wonder. I think about that guy all the time.” But now, Rogan said, teachers are frequently fixating on issues of sex and gender. “I don’t want that gang of morons teaching my children about biological sex or gender,” Rogan said, adding that Drag Queen Story Hour is unacceptable for kids. “I don’t want you teaching them about any of those things.”  

Instead, he suggested, teachers should focus on history, and math, and… all the things teachers used to focus on. 

Rogan’s position on sex education is significant not only because he is the most popular podcaster in the world, but because he has achieved his success because he is a microcosm of the average adult. He is largely libertarian in the “live and let live” sort of way that saw a huge public opinion shift in favour of same-sex “marriage,” which Rogan supports; he is not religious; but he is still very uncomfortable with the full-scale sexualization of our education institutions and the insertion of gender ideology into public school curriculums across the board.  

Rogan is something of a bellwether on these issues – he articulates the sort of common sense that many people hold but cannot articulate (or are too fearful to). 

The “silent majority” is not a moral majority, but they are uncomfortable with the vast, swift social changes we have seen unfold over the past decade. Much of the backlash against gender ideology and increasingly explicit and instructional sex education in schools comes not from Christians – there are simply not enough of us – but from people who do not have moral objections to LGBT ideology, but do not want it taught to children. In short, most people are fine with adults doing whatever they want to, but they still believe that these behaviours and lifestyles are the purview of adults, not children. 

That is why we are beginning to see government action on public school sex education even in the post-Christian United Kingdom. According to a recent BBC report, the U.K. government is planning to ban sex education for children under the age of ten, including a ban on any content about gender identity. Teachers’ unions, predictably, have pushed back, insisting that the proposed plan is “politically motivated” and that there has been no issue with inappropriate material. That claim is laughable; parents have been protesting the LGBT curriculum and other explicit materials for years now, and school staff have frequently responded by accusing them of various phobias. 

According to the BBC, the “statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) – which schools must follow by law – is currently under review. The government believes clearer guidance will provide support for teachers and reassurance for parents and will set out which topics should be taught to pupils at what age.” Sex education is not “typically taught until Year 6,” when children are 10, and “parents already have the right to withdraw” their child, although this has proven difficult to do. 

Sex education has been mandatory for older students since September 2020, and the “government strongly encourages schools to include teaching about different types of family and same-sex relationships.” 

This curriculum – referred to as “relationships education” – is compulsory and parents cannot remove their children. 

The BBC notes that parents have been demanding changes in order to protect the innocence of children, while educators are insisting that the content is necessary because children are exposed to this information online anyway and that it is important for “trusted adults” to contextualize that information. That is the crux of the issue here that few are openly addressing: educators want to “contextualize” this information from the perspective of a pro-LGBT worldview, while many parents do not want this material taught at all because they fundamentally disapprove of the LGBT ideology itself. 

There is undoubtedly a backlash against LGBT ideology unfolding in many Western countries, but it is important to recognize the source of that backlash. Although Christians and other religious objectors are certainly part of that backlash, their numbers are not large enough, in most places, to force government action. 

The growing discomfort we see in polling data is thus far more likely to be of the Joe Rogan variety – we should live and let live, but we should also let kids be kids. As the U.K. government’s proposed guidance highlights, this means that there will be changes, but not significant ones.  

LGBT ideology will still be compulsory for later grades, and state schools will still be teaching state dogmas. 

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016

Digital ID

The Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry

Published on

From StosselTV

Countries all over the world are imposing digital IDs. They tie your identity to everything you do. Spain’s Prime Minister wants “An end to anonymity online!”

Tech privacy expert Naomi Brockwell ‪@NaomiBrockwellTV‬ warns that’s dangerous. “Privacy is not about hiding,” she tells Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. “It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A Digital ID… will strip individuals of that choice.”

The new government mandated digital IDs aren’t just a digital version of your driver’s license or passport. “It connects everything,” Brockwell explains. “Your financial decisions, to your social media posts, your likes, the things that you’re watching, places that you’re going… Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

And once everything runs through a single government ID, access to services becomes something you need permission for. That’s already a reality in China where citizens are tracked, scored, and punished for “bad” behavior.

Brockwell warns the western world is “skyrocketing in that direction.” She says Americans need to push back now.

———

To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib...

———

Continue Reading

International

China Stages Massive Live-Fire Encirclement Drill Around Taiwan as Washington and Japan Fortify

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Taiwan says 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels surged into the island’s air and maritime approaches.

Following massive military sales from Washington to Taiwan and rapidly scaled defensive preparations from Japan, Beijing on Monday launched a sweeping show-of-force including live-fire activity around Taiwan.

The encirclement-style operation brought 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels into the waters and skies around the island, one of the heaviest single-day tallies reported in more than a year.

Taiwan’s Presidential Office condemned the operation as a “unilateral provocation” that destabilizes regional peace, while stressing that Taiwan’s security agencies had “complete situational awareness” and had made preparations. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said it activated an emergency response posture and conducted immediate readiness drills.

Beijing, for its part, framed the action as a warning—an operation the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command dubbed “Justice Mission 2025,” involving the army, navy, air force, and rocket force, with designated zones for live-fire activity and sea-and-airspace restrictions.

Global coverage described the drills as rehearsing the mechanics of isolation: blockade-style pressure against key approaches and ports, integrated sea-air patrols, and “deterrence” aimed at what the PLA calls “external interference.”

In a statement circulated by former Taiwanese foreign minister Joseph Wu, now head of the nation’s national security council, the message from Taipei was readiness to deploy force.

“As China ramps up military threats against Taiwan, our armed forces are conducting Rapid Response Exercises in response,” Wu stated Monday morning. “We remain resolute and unafraid. We’ll defend our sovereignty and democracy at all times.”

Across international coverage, analysts assessed Beijing’s actions as escalation through rehearsal, designed to demonstrate a capacity to encircle Taiwan, with live-fire elements and disruption to regional routes. Coverage also emphasized the “stern warning” language aimed at “Taiwan independence” forces and foreign actors, and Taiwan’s elevated alert posture.

The choreography of this operation matters as much as the raw numbers.

The PLA appears to be practicing the operational geometry of denying outside forces access—the kind of posture meant to complicate U.S. and allied intervention in a blockade or assault scenario. That emphasis has been widely noted in contemporaneous coverage, including reporting that the Eastern Theater Command’s messaging explicitly framed the drill as “deterrence” against “external interference.”

This helps explain why the drill lands amid a knot of accelerating pressures.

A number of analysts speculated that Washington’s major arms package and Japan’s “re-militarization”—Tokyo’s rapid defense buildup in response to Beijing’s expanding military footprint—now feed into an escalating drill cycle in which China aims to demonstrate that outside support can be deterred, delayed, or priced prohibitively high.

One clear trigger is the Trump administration’s newly announced $11.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, which Beijing cast as proof of U.S. “interference.”

Another is Japan.

Regional reporting and analysis have framed the drill as a warning shot aimed not only at Taipei but at the alliance architecture around it—especially as Japanese leaders and planners speak more openly about a “Taiwan contingency” and expand defense spending and capabilities that Beijing portrays as destabilizing.

A third is the longer arc Beijing itself has helped set.

U.S. officials have repeatedly stated their assessment that Xi Jinping has directed the PLA to be capable of taking Taiwan by force by 2027—a milestone that continues to shape planning assumptions across the region.

In reporting The Bureau gathered during a September 2023 visit to Taiwan, Taiwanese military experts and officials warned that Beijing’s pressure campaign had reached a new plateau: Chinese aircraft and vessels were crossing into—and remaining in—Taiwan’s territory longer, in actions they described as cognitive warfare designed to erode the public’s will to resist.

“China makes many excuses to conduct military exercises around Taiwan, and I don’t think this is only political,” said Dr. Tzu-Chieh Hung of the Institute for National Defense Security Research, a think tank funded by Taiwan’s government. “I think they are expanding the area of their military operations.”

“We think they are trying to create a new normal, when we will become numb to their actions, and make it a fait accompli,” another senior Taiwanese official told The Bureau.

Those warnings sit directly beneath Monday’s encirclement-style operation. Beyond the raw tallies—89 aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels—Taiwan’s defense community sees a pattern of repeated rehearsals that stretch time, distance, and ambiguity, steadily conditioning the region to accept blockade-style actions as irreversible.

Yet the fatalism that Taiwan cannot be defended has not been the conclusion in major U.S. war-game work—and Washington’s $11-billion Taiwan arms package signals an intent to strengthen deterrence.

Back in 2023, a widely cited wargaming study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found Taiwan could repel a Chinese invasion—if Taiwan is prepared to fight immediately, and the United States and Japan move fast to deliver overwhelming air and missile firepower against the fleets that would attempt a blockade and landing.

“There is no question, two years ago most people would have said China has the ability to conquer Taiwan in a fait accompli,” Mark Cancian, one of the study’s authors, told The Bureau in 2023. “But we showed that is not true.”

“The Chinese defensive bubble at the start of the war is so strong, that Taiwan needs what it has to fight with for the first month or two,” Cancian said. “And the United States has to participate en masse and quickly. Japan must at least provide base capacity for U.S. forces, and Taiwan must defend itself.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X