Gentlemen,

I get the distinct feeling that unless I agree
with you guys - nothing productive will be achieved
in my participation in this discussion.

For that reason, I shall leave you to continue this
discussion amongst yourselves.

"What propaganda?"

That was covered very well in a previous OLO article by Pat Byrne and the discussion that ensued,

"Safer schools or a radical Marxist sexual revolution?"
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18033

The cherry on the cake is the admission by the head of Safe schools:

"Ms Ward, who did not respond to requests to comment yesterday, has previously admitted that the program was about gender and sexual diversity, rather than preventing bullying, and has spoken at public events about Safe Schools being part of a strategy to change society."

Now Foxy, Suze etc, is the problem that I have with the program.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As stated earlier by myself and Suse - one extremist does not
make the program. Hopefully you'll see that eventually.
At least you still have an open-mind.

The following link explained things quite early in the piece,
and continued with the discussions that followed on various
pages, and on page 4 especially it listed the reputable
educators (over 300 of them) who support the program:

http://www.forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7315&page4.

Foxy: As stated earlier by myself and Suse - one extremist does not
make the program.

Foxy just in case you missed it or chose to ignore it here it is again.

The "Promoters" of this Program are all "one persons," & all of those One persons are all of the same mind. Push the GLTB agenda onto the Children. Turn the Children to the Dark Side.

Why does a program whose stated aim is to minimise bullying at school need to talk about minority sexualities at all?

If you teach that bullying is not acceptable because everyone should be respected then why do you need to single out any particular type of person? How does information about people with minority sexualities help re-enforce the argument that all bullying is wrong? Students know what the meaning of the word ‘all’ is. It should be enough to present an argument that says bullying per se is wrong. That is all you need to do if your aim is to stop bullying.

You might want to use examples to illustrate your argument but why would you use an example that presents information to children who may not be ready to deal with that information. Information about minority sexualities or indeed any information about sex should come from parents whose job it is to determine the appropriate time for their child to receive such information. It is not the school’s decision to make.

You can make an argument against bullying and find other examples which do not tread on the rights of parents to take control of their child’s sex education. Why would anyone really have a problem with that unless they are trying to achieve some other outcome than prevention of bullying?

It is fairly obvious that using examples which include sexual information has another agenda altogether