The Shofar is the ancient trumpet which called the people of God to prayer, repentance, sacrifice and war.


Monday 28th June 2010 18.00hrs

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has joined the sex education lobby by proposing that sex education should start in primary school.

A consultation document issued by NICE says: 'NICE recommends that children from primary school age upwards are given sex and relationships education that is appropriate to the maturity of the pupils, sensitive to diverse cultural, faith and family perspectives, and based on an understanding of their needs.'

But in an interview on BBC Radio Northampton, the Director of Public Health at NICE, Professor Mike Kelly, who was also director of the guidance project, backed away from the suggestion that Primary School was the right place to start, saying that sex education should only start in secondary school.

It should only start 'When a child reaches maturity,' he said. Primary school would be the place for exploring relationships, which he said meant 'friends, brothers and sisters, mother, father, neighbours.' Biology would be taught in the 'later part of the primary school curriculum', but 'dealing with the sexual behaviour proper would be something that takes place in secondary school.'

However, the NICE draft guidance clearly states: 'Ensure education about sex and relationships and alcohol starts in primary school.' (p10). One member of the panel which drew up the guidance was Simon Blake, Chief Executive of Brook Advisory, which has been trying to get sex education to start as early as five, and works to prise children away from parents.

But Professor Kelly was 'saying the opposite' to that the school should take over from parents. Sex education, said Professor Kelly, 'should be done in partnership between schools and parents and that is something our guidance clearly states'.

The trouble is, it doesn't. We read that 'nurses in schools and colleges ... should conform to health service consent and confidentiality guidance,' in other words, fix children up with contraceptives and abortions behind their parents' backs, but there is nothing about a 'partnership' between teachers and parents in the NICE draft guidance at all. Professor Kelly was not telling listeners the truth.

Instead, there is a lot of advice to teachers about filling parents with liberal propaganda: For example: 'Explain to parents' that sex and relationships education is really good, 'Parents should be aware' that abstinence education is useless, 'Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex', 'Offer parents the opportunity' to help their children develop 'negotiation skills', and so on (pp8-9). There is no defence or reference for any of these statements, of course. They are liberal dogma, articles of faith in the morality-free zone of sex and relationships education.

Professor Kelly spoke about the 'skill-based approach' in the document which 'is about how to say no - if that is appropriate'. The idea of giving children 'skills' so they can 'negotiate' is something borrowed straight out of the homosexual world, where negotiating what sort of sex should take place with a complete stranger picked up in a bar may be, literally, vitally important.

Faith is mentioned eleven times, 'belief' four and the word 'cultural' is used on nine occasions. But mere lip service is being paid. Those planning PSHE should 'promote sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs', for example about 'sexual orientation and abortion.' So these beliefs should be respected then?

Absolutely not. 'Discrimination and prejudice should be discussed and challenged,' the draft guidance proclaims (p12).

Professor Kelly said he 'has evidence that if done well, if done properly, sex education can reduce teenage pregnancies.' It must have been done really badly over the last forty years, in that case, to leave our teenage pregnancy rate as one of the highest in Western Europe . In fact, the evidence Professor Kelly claims does not actually exist.

An indication of the fantasy world of NICE and the sex education industry may be found on page 17 of the draft guidance. Those involved in the planning and teaching of PSHE should 'Set clear health goals - for example, to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STI's)'. The 'specific behaviour' children should engage in to 'achieve' this goal is 'using condoms and reducing the number of sexual partners to prevent STI's.'

The American Centre for Disease Control (CDC) says that condom use only 'reduces the risk' of contracting a range of STI's, it does not eliminate it. 'Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus-2 transmission,' says the CDC website. So the advice given, to wear a condom and reduce (to what level?) the number of partners is not in accord with the evidence or with scripture.

A interesting conflict is also emerging between NICE, and its bosses in the Department of Health, and the Department for Children Schools and Families. Schools do not come under the DoH, and therefore the DoH and its quangos do not have any say in what goes on. However, Primary Care Trusts do come under the DoH and their employees are regularly to be found in schools in England .

It is the DfCS&F which issues guidance to schools, and yet the DoH asked NICE 'to develop guidance on a public health programme aimed at promoting school, college and community-based personal, social and health education, including health literacy, with particular reference to sexual health behaviour and alcohol.'

Normal Wells, of the lobby group Family and Youth Concern, told Christian Voice that he asked NICE what relation their guidance has to the official Statutory Guidance issued by the DfCS&F. They were unaware there was such guidance. So he rang the DoH and asked the same question. The DoH people refused to put him through to anyone in authority.

Finally, Mr Wells rang the DfCS&F. They said sniffily that 'the only guidance that schools are legally bound to have regard to is the Sex and Relationships Guidance July 2000.'

However, Section 4.1.1 of the published scope of the NICE guidance says it should apply not just to schools and colleges, which are DFCS&F territory, but to 'education other than at school, including home education'. What status would such guidance have amongst home educators, and how would it be disseminated?

Or is the whole exercise just an excuse for the 'usual suspects' in sex education, from the 'Sex Education Forum, the FPA, Brook and so on, to serve on yet another committee and produce yet more guidance pushing the boundaries of acceptability out just a little more, and to which they would then refer when perhaps trying to influence public policy?

There is much more in the 74-page NICE draft guidance which needs to be analysed and addressed. The deadline for representations is 15th July.

PRAY: That the Lord would bring to the light all the evidence that exposes the 'safer sex' scam and show us how to 'follow the money' to see the vested interests.