We learn a lot from Indigenous Australian history about how good, well-intentioned, government can go wrong (and get it wrong) when said governments go too far by removing the rights of parents, and assume the role of father and mother in the community; more specifically in a child’s life.
Leftist bureaucrats and activists know this history, yet only seem to pull it out when it suits their mood, or when they see some political opportunity to advance their agenda.
The Left’s hypocritical push for more governmental control over families/children in education, should raise alarm bells about the ideology they seek to build their utopian society upon.
Why push for programs they know are harmful?
Why support this push, when we know from our Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, the complications caused by pride, dismissive contempt and programs of dependency?
Why agree with the Left when they demand similar programs for Australian society today?
For example, under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, we’re all but legally forced to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.
The LGBTQAII+ worldview imposes on everyone around it the demand for complete silence towards the child, with threats of legal action if anyone dares to break with the pseudo-religious, LGBTQAAI+ ideological paradigm.
If a child asks who, or whether they have a father or a mother, and a person answers “yes”, they’ll be tried before the convert, pay a tax or die crowd. Then shouted down as “homophobic” or “transphobic”.
As we’ve seen with Israel Folau, and doctors who raise truths about abortion, all are forced to take the Mark, or face “cancellation” or a denial of trade. The love is love lie must be maintained at all costs.
Likewise, if a doctor innocently asks about a child’s paternal or maternal medical history (as they tend to do), could find themselves slapped with a suspension. The ironic charge? “Psychologically harming a child with heteronormative assumptions”, and/or a law suit because they’ve presented themselves as an “enemy of the LGBT community” for seeking scientific facts.
Doctors who require essential background medical information in order to provide the best available care, may be forced to break their “do no harm” oath by conforming to this big business backed, legally supported culture of silence.
The final solution from Radical Feminists and LGBTQAAI+ “Pride” industry is to remove father and mother altogether. Hence the blueprints for non-gender specific labels such as “parent one and parent two.”
Biological facts, a child’s genetic medical history, a healthy self-identity and the opportunity to function properly in a society, through equally shared male and female parenting roles are not just cancelled, they’re outlawed.
This is part of the radical feminist belief that a gender segregated society, where neither man nor woman meet, is the true feminist – truly tolerant society (via Mary Daly et.al).
Thus, making Mark Latham’s proposed bill to counter curriculum revisions in educational institutions of huge importance.
In talking to Alan Jones about the proposed legislation, Latham cited the helpful role of the “many good teachers out there”, but called the revisions ‘a massive insult to the millions of parents in NSW,” because the revisions basically say to mums and dads, “you’re no longer on the scene, schools have got to do this job. For someone to say that schools should be the main unit of passing on social values and morality in our society, is what my bill wants to address. Parents must have that role and should be [enshrined] in law.”
Should curriculum revisions that impose Leftist, LGBQAAI+ ideology (for example: safe schools, intersectionality, critical theory; Marxism) not be critiqued properly and stopped, “parents will be written out of the education system.”
Latham’s proposed addition to the education act should halt this, and at the same time remind those running the education industrial complex that enrolment in kindergarten doesn’t mean a transferal of parental responsibilities to the state, where kids are handed over to activists to be made in its image.
The bill gives a voice to the majority, who, based on voting trends since 2016, want to see a strong “no” to the creeping bureaucratic takeover of parenting by the state. (Along with strong protections against ideological indoctrination by Leftist dominated institutions, and their now infamous herd thinking.)
As Latham states, “the role of schools is to serve the family, not the other way around…Teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is political indoctrination and it’s got to end.”
Education begins in the home. Parenting involves the gift of passing down a life story.
Home is where kids first interact with the world; first interact with story; first encounter what is means to be human.
Children learn that they belong. They learn patience. They learn through experience that human freedom has limitations through anatomy and biology – that humans need to crawl before they walk.
They learn the difference between a loving “no” and a responsible, gracious “yes.”
Denying men and women the right to remember and be remembered, turns children into strangers, parents into aliens, and robs people of their shared stories.
Latham’s bill will hope to set in stone the role of parents in teaching kids ‘values and morality’, by re-emphasising that a child’s ‘social and emotional development’ are the domain of parents, not government funded institutions.
Though the bill doesn’t mention historical mistakes, the very existence of it acknowledges them. When NSW politicians go to vote on it, the lessons available to them from Indigenous Australian history should give good reason for their complete support.
Mark is to be applauded for his stand.