It had to come to this eventually. Yes, mothers and fathers are now taboo. At least calling someone your mum or dad is verboten. Nix. Not allowed. Out of bounds.
Schools are being urged by a tax-payer funded booklet to never allow children to be so insensitive and bigoted again: they are not to call their parents mum or dad. Parent, yes, or guardian, But not that intolerant and prejudiced ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’.
You see, we don’t want to offend any homosexuals or lesbians out there. That would be terrible, wouldn’t it?
Lesbian activist Vicki Harding has written a book for teachers entitled, Learn to Include. This teachers’ manual also urges schools to put up posters of homosexuals and lesbians, and also not use gender-specific toys. Children as young as five are also urged to act out homosexual scenarios.
The teachers’ manual is meant for students from Prep to Level 3, and is already in use in dozens of Victorian schools. But not content to stop there, Victoria’s Department of Education and Training has invited Ms Harding to promote the manual to principals and teachers. She will address a taxpayer-funded conference in Melbourne in July.
Let’s get real about diversity
The aim of all this, we are informed, is to get children to respect diversity. Oh, thanks. Now I get it. Yes, we certainly want little Johnny and little Sarah to know all about the real world out there, and to learn that everyone must be accepted for who they are, no questions asked.
So that means we should also bring in drug addicts to our schools, and let them share their stories with the littlies. Surely they too are representative of the real world. Certainly there must be some toddlers out there with a heroin-addicted mum or a pot-head pop. We must teach all the students that these parents exist, and they must be treated with the utmost respect.
And the diverse world that we live in also includes criminals locked up in prison. Maybe we should bring in a few prisoners, and let them tell the little three-year-olds that we need to respect the diversity that is in their world as well. Who knows, the little kiddies may one day find themselves in prison, so what a wonderful experience to get them ready for the real world, and to teach them the very valuable lesson of embracing diversity in its fullest.
Of course many of the toddlers in our schools have parents who smoke as well. We certainly do not want them to feel left out. We really do want to be tolerant and inclusive. Maybe we can invite the big tobacco companies in, and let them teach the kids the meaning of respect for those who choose the nicotine lifestyle.
Yes, it all does make very good sense. It is indeed a very diverse and multifaceted world out there. We dare not keep our little tykes in the dark about all sorts of lifestyle choices. So bring on the arsonists, racists, polluters and sexists. After all, they really do help to make our world so wonderfully diverse. And we dare not be exclusive of anyone or any lifestyle.
Of course the above sarcasm is meant to highlight the fact that some ideas are just plain stupid and deserve to be treated as such. Obviously all people do deserve respect, but that does not mean that any and every alternative lifestyle must be crammed down the throats of toddlers. While people can choose whatever lifestyle they like, these lifestyles should not be force-fed upon our hapless children.
Indeed, what is really at stake here is the attempt of activists to bypass parents, and directly indoctrinate our children with their PC propaganda.
Media complicity
This incredible story first broke in the Sunday Herald Sun (June 4) and the next day Channel 7’s Today Tonight also ran the story. The short segment on Channel 7 was introduced by Naomi Robson as possibly another example of PC going overboard. But the actual story itself was much less critical. Indeed, Vicki Harding seemed to get at least 4 chances to speak, while a conservative talking head (myself) was given just two.
Strange, but when I was introduced I was called “deeply religious” and part of the Family Association. They got it wrong on the latter, as I twice told them I was Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria. And why the religious bit? What was the need for that? I do not recall Ms Harding being introduced with the words, “a deeply irreligious” person.
In fact, Seven even called me after the interview, asking me how I should be described. “Pastor” they asked? I said no as I was not a pastor. They kept fishing, asking if any religious title would do. I said no, as I had no religious title. Simply put me down as Secretary of the FCV, I said. So it seems that Seven was intent on making me look like the bad guy, and wanted to pin me down with some religious tag, even though I said nothing religious throughout the interview, and was speaking on behalf of the FCV. But if you can be pegged as religious, well then that means your views can simply be discounted. You are just some religious nut.
But if that is the case, then so too are the vast majority of Australians. Just another example of the secular media doing a hatchet job on religion.
The story was less than balanced in other ways. Parents at a Melbourne primary school were also interviewed, and asked their opinion on the ban proposal. In the story it was said that the parents were divided on the issue. Thus one parent was shown to be in favour of the ban, along with one parent opposed to it. Yet when the reporter spoke to me (having just come from the school) she told me that the majority of parents were clearly against the idea. Amazing what a little bit of television editing can do to change a story.
But leaving aside the media’s reluctance to get too critical of what is clearly an asinine idea, one point needs to be stressed: We are now well on our way to seeing mothers and fathers banned altogether.
Today it is the names that must go. But the forces of Political Correctness will not stop there. Today the names. Tomorrow the reality. For that is what this is ultimately about. It is a full-scale war against the family. And the social engineers will never ease up until they see the complete and total destruction of the institutions of marriage and family.
This is the culture wars at its most telling. This is nothing less than an all-out attempt to finally get rid of the much-hated family. Of course this is nothing new. The Soviets tried this early on after the revolution. And social engineers have long made clear their utter hatred of marriage and family, and their plans to eradicate them.
The question is, who will prevail? Will it be those who hate the family and everything that goes with? Or will it be those who believe that the family unit is the most fundamental, most vital, and most important social unit that mankind has known? The outcome is mainly up to us.
[1226 words]