Right: Save Our Program: protesters turn out at a demonstration of support for Safe Schools, at Melbourne's State Library.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against the Safe Schools Program
1. The Safe Schools program focuses on a very small percentage of the student population
One of the reasons critics offer for the inappropriateness of the Program's focus is that it exaggerates the occurrence of same-sex-oriented and transgender children in school communities.
In a comment published on February 26, 2016, The Australia First Party stated, '[T]he producers of this propaganda claim that ten per cent of people are same-sex attracted and a further four per cent are transgender.
These figures stem from the discredited research of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s and are not supported by either US or Australian statistics.
In fact, they overstate the truth by many multiples.'
A similar point is made by The Australian Family Association which notes on its Internet site, 'The National Safe Schools Framework excludes the overwhelming majority of students from its focus and protection. Most students are not same-sex attracted, intersex or gender diverse, yet the SSCA is focussed only on those students.'
The Australian Family Association has also quoted research figures intended to show the small minority of people who are either same-sex oriented or transgender. The Association's Internet site cites research conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University. The Association notes, 'Australia's largest ever sex survey in 2000-2003 of almost 20,000 people, revealed that 1.2% of adults identified as homosexual (gay or lesbian).'
The Association further states, 'To break this down further: among men, 1.6% identified as gay or homosexual; among women, 0.8% identified as lesbian; 0.9% of men identified as bisexual; 1.4% of women identified as bisexual. The researchers concluded that "Relatively few Australians reported a sexual identity other than heterosexual."'
The Australian Family Association has also cited other research looking at sexual preference among children and young people. 'Another study conducted in Victoria by the Victorian ALP Government in 2008, found that among those aged 12 to 24 years, 97.9% identified as heterosexual, 1.5% as bisexual, and 0.6% as homosexual.'
2. It does not address the majority of causes of bullying
Opponents of the Safe Schools program have claimed that the causes of bullying are much more wide-ranging than those the program addresses. Family Voice Australia claims, 'The vast majority of school children who are regularly bullied because of their body shape or size, school grades, race or ethnic background, religious beliefs or family income - as shown by a study of 105,000 students.'
Family Voice Australia concludes, 'All students deserve a safe school environment, but the Safe Schools Coalition program is not the way to achieve it. Emphasising homosexual bullying tells other bullied students that the reasons they are mocked or abused are not as important, deepening their sense of injustice and despair.'
A similar point of view is presented by The Australian Family Association which notes on its Internet site, 'This is not the best way to deal with bullying and mental health issues experienced by school children. The SSCA program is not inclusive; it is focussed on same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students. It is based on a premise that the sexual identity is the cause for the student being bullied... Yet all students who are bullied, for whatever reason, deserve support and protection.
Anti-bullying programs that work place the focus on zero tolerance for ANY reason.'
The Australian Family Association has further stated, 'Research shows that bullying on the grounds of same-sex attraction, intersex or gender identity is not one of the most common reasons for bullying.'
The Association cites Canadian research findings from 2006 which state in priority order the following bases for bullying: 'Body image 38% [27%], grades or marks 17% [12%], cultural or racial background 11% [14%], language 7% [7%], gender 6% [4%], religion 5% [5%], income 5% [5%]).'
Some extreme critics of the program have suggested that not only does it not address the type of bullying most students encounter, its supposed labelling of those that do not accept its tolerant outlook toward gay, lesbian and transgender children as 'homophobic' constitutes potential bullying of the majority of students. Senator Cory Bernardi has stated that the program 'bullies heterosexual children into submission to the gay agenda'.
3. The program does not treat children claiming to be homosexual with sufficient caution
Critics of the Same Sex Program are concerned that it may consolidate the belief among some young people that they have a same-sex orientation when this is, in fact, only a stage in their sexual development.
Family Voice Australia has stated, 'Sexual attraction is particularly unstable in adolescents. Authoritative United States and New Zealand studies indicate that between the ages of 16 and 26 some 80% of same-sex attracted boys and girls become opposite-sex attracted as adults. The common claim that sexual attraction is unchangeable is a myth.' The New Zealand study cited by Family Voice Australia summarised its results in this manner, 'These findings show that much same-sex attraction is not exclusive and is unstable in early adulthood, especially among women.'
Family Voice Australia concluded, 'Puberty is an emotional time for many students who are still developing their sense of identity, and focusing attention on homosexuality is unhelpful at this time. Most teens that experience same-sex attraction become opposite-sex attracted in adulthood. They should not be falsely led to believe that their adolescent attractions are necessarily fixed and permanent. Students with current same-sex attractions should not be encouraged to embrace activity linked with serious health risks.'
Critics of the program argue that it is an inappropriate imposition on children who are too young to be exposed to such material. Greg Donnelly, a Labor Party member of the NSW Legislative Council, has been cited as claiming, 'We are talking about little boys and girls, who are in effect a captured audience, being presented with overt sexual and gender ideology that is being presented as a matter of fact.'
It has also been claimed that the program does not treat children claiming to be transgender with sufficient caution. The Safe Schools Coalition has been accused of promoting material which encourages children and young people to make decisions about their gender identity which are ill-founded and premature.
Former National party senator, Bill O'Chee, has stated, 'The Safe Schools Coalition pushes a book for children aged four called "The Gender Fairy". In an absurd example of gender stereotyping, a little girl is encouraged to think she is transgender simply because she likes to play soccer.'
Among the most extreme criticisms made of the Safe Schools Program are that its materials seek to 'indoctrinate' children and win them over to a gay, lesbian or transgender orientation. It is also claimed that the program links children with groups whose members may try to sexually exploit them.
4. The program ignores parents' values and usurps their role
It has been argued that information about sexuality, particularly material in relation to gender identity and sexual orientations are highly personal matters best dealt with by a child's parents within the family home.
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on March 2, Michael Sukkar, the Federal MP for Deakin and Tim Smith, the Victorian Liberal MP for Kew, stated, 'In the guise of an anti-bullying course, the so-called Safe Schools teaching materials present children with confronting and manipulative information. That information is often at odds with the values those children are taught at home.'
Sukkar and Smith further claim, 'Parental consent will not be sought by the state government before this curriculum is taught in their children's school.
In fact, parents will not be advised of any detail of the contents of the Safe Schools program despite its fiercest proponent, Premier Andrews, telling parliament "it does push the boundaries sometimes".'
Smith and Sukkar concluded, 'Ultimately, we believe that the state should not usurp the role of parents and make value judgements about what children are to be compulsorily taught.
Particularly on these highly sensitive subjects, without their parents' consent and knowledge... We are determined to be the voice for mainstream values and to defend the rights of ordinary parents to guide the values of their children on these highly sensitive matters.
Dan Flynn, the Victorian director of Australian Christian Lobby, has also stated that the program undermines the authority of parents to educate their own children about 'sensitive and contested sexual matters.'
Mr Flynn has further stated, 'Most parents would be very concerned to know that their children are being exposed to such content at school.
The program should be removed from schools, and the government should replace it with anti-bullying resources not based on radical gender theory.'
It would appear that many parents do not want their children taught about transgender and sexual orientation issues at school. In a letter published in The Adelaide Advertiser on October 10, 2014, Trevor Dawes stated, 'A recent Galaxy Poll, found that 64 per cent of the Australian public are opposed to the teaching of GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex) issues in kindergartens and schools.'
5. The Safe Schools Program is a misuse of government funding and of schools' resources
Critics have claimed that the Safe Schools Program is an inappropriate priority for both governments and schools, especially at a time when academic achievement levels in Australia are falling relative to many other nations.
An opinion piece published on The Australia First Party's Internet site on February 26, 2016, stated, 'At a time when too many of our schools are failing to maintain teaching standards, when the literacy and numeracy rates of students are falling, when demands for school funds climb ever higher, why would any government even contemplate supporting such a desperate political agenda targeting our school children?'
Criticising the eight million dollars of federal funding made over to the Safe Schools Program, the Australia First Party claims, 'This is at a time when literacy, numeracy and problem solving skills in Australia's youth are well below the First World OECD average...
Currently, according to Australia's Bureau of Statistics, 3.7% (620,000) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years have literacy skills at Below Level 1, a further 10% (1.7 million) at Level 1, 30% (5.0 million) at Level 2, 38% (6.3 million) at Level 3, 14% (2.4 million) at Level 4, and 1.2% (200,000) at Level 5.
As for numeracy, the figures are somewhat lower. Up to 6.5% (1.1 million) of Australians had numeracy skills at Below Level 1, 15% (2.5 million) at Level 1, 32% (5.4 million) at Level 2, 31% (5.2 million) at Level 3 , 11% (1.8 million) at Level 4 and 1.4% (230,000) at Level 5.
And yet ideological politicians like self-interested Penny Wong seem hell-bent on funding deviant sex education in our schools.'
The Australia First Party also cites a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University, Mr Kevin Donnelly, who helped review Australia's national curriculum for the Liberal Coalition government in 2015. Mr Donnelly is cited arguing, 'Teachers are increasingly expected to take over from what families traditionally have done. Schools and teachers need to focus on the key disciplines, the basics, and that means more education and not as much social engineering.'