The targetting of children and the suborning of parents are essential to success of radical gender ideologues and their totalitarian mentality
“School told my son he could wear a dress next year if he felt like it.”
These were the words of Victorian mum, Cella White, opening the first television commercial for the ‘no’ campaign in the same-sex marriage plebiscite.
The advertisement was derided at the time for scaremongering and being “disgraceful in its dishonesty.”
This week is five years since that advertisement premiered, and I would suggest that very few would bat an eyelid now at a public school that told boys that they could wear dresses.
After all, the past five years have seen phrases like “pregnant people,” “birthing parents” and “chest-feeding” become part of our vocabulary, psychologists assert that ‘some women have penises, some men have vaginas’ and the Chief Medical Officer is unable to define the word “woman” in a parliamentary hearing.
“When same-sex marriage passes as law overseas, these types of programs become widespread and compulsory,” said Dr Pansy Lai in the next scene of the advertisement.
You don’t even need to look overseas to see the truth of this claim, even though the evidence abounds. In various provinces in Canada and parts of the UK, Catholic schools are being forced by the government to adopt LGBT-inclusive policies when it comes to name and pronoun use, bathrooms, sporting teams and more.
Closer to home, state education bureaucrats often try to insert gender and sexual diversity education into the school as part of its ‘child safety’ obligations.
It’s not the insertion of an LGBTQI-positive curriculum, but the prohibition of any contrary view being expressed in faith-based schools that is really how this is manifesting in Australia.
I think that there is a good proportion of parents who are afraid that their child will be victimised if they object and so they stay silent in order to protect their children …”
Just a few short weeks after the advertisement’s premiere, ACT Education Minister Yvette Berry warned Brindabella Christian College that it was obliged to be an ‘inclusive’ community after school leadership wrote to parents, encouraging to vote ‘no’ in the postal vote.
In more recent times, we have seen Citipointe Christian College referred to the Queensland Human Rights Commission for suggesting that homosexual acts are immoral and several more Christian schools were also attacked by human rights lawyers for insisting that parents who wish to send their children to the school agree that “sexual behaviour is to be limited to monogamous heterosexual, married couples”.
In the final part of the advertisement, mum Heidi McIvor said: “Kids in Year 7 are asked to role play being in a same-sex relationship.”
The only surprising element of this prediction in the Coalition for Marriage advertisement was that it was limited to those in Year 7. I think many would unfortunately be relieved if this type of role-play was limited to high schools.
Five years since the advertisement aired, we have seen these types of activities make their way into primary schools.
Recall just a few months ago when the father of a five-year-old attending Roseville Kids Club had the police call on him for complaining that the centre had given children pride flags to colour in and featured a wall displaying definitions of a variety of sexualities and gender identities, such as ‘gender fluid’, ‘asexual’, and ‘nonbinary’.
How did we get to a situation where what was criticised as exaggerated claims used for a political purpose just five years ago would not even raise an eyebrow today?
How is it that the promotion of gender ideology in schools is not being successfully challenged? I think there are several factors at play. Certainly, some have never seen anything wrong with gender and sexual diversity being promoted amongst schoolchildren.
Others have simply become desensitised to it; the next phase in a sex-saturated culture that believes nothing is sacred or off-limits.
I think that there is a good proportion of parents who are afraid that their child will be victimised if they object and so they stay silent in order to protect their children, and I have been told many stories (including in this past week since publishing the article about ‘Wear It Purple Day’ in Catholic schools) of those who have had their complaints dismissed by school leaders.
I am grateful for the courage and witness of these parents, and I hope that they persevere in their protestations, even if they are dismissed. Otherwise, I’m not sure where we will be when we are marking the 10th anniversary of the advertisement.
Related: