By Mary Hobbs

If we are to reach real peace in this world .. we shall have to begin with children; and if they will grow up in their natural innocence . . . we won’t have to pass fruitless idle resolutions, but we shall go from love to love and peace to peace, until . . . all the corners of the world are covered with that peace and love for which consciously or unconsciously the whole world is hungering. — Mahatma Gandhi

Imagine you are a 13-year-old girl, about to start high school. You may look forward to it with a sense of positive anticipation for what the future holds, combined with a little trepidation –  because you’re back to being one of the “new kids”. You’ll probably be keen to find good friends, and hope to have good teachers. High school is an exciting step and most of us remember a sea of children at a bigger school we will be attending for the next five years, so those first few weeks loom large — especially as they cement foundations for the majority of the teenage years.

Among a host of other changes, you unexpectedly find a requirement to attend classes on what is termed “Relationship and Sexuality Education” with no apparent option to opt out. Your class is “instructed” on the subject by the PE (Physical Education) teacher, who is male. It’s your first introduction to the PE teacher and it may come as a shock to discover the exact content of what you are about to be “taught” by this older man, possibly of your father’s generation, especially at a co-educational school.

The problem is that the subject termed as “Relationship and Sexuality Education” (RSE) today isn’t “sex education” as most of us understand it. Today’s baseline agenda for this topic, which truly seems to have reached new lows, seems to fit more neatly under the insidious creep of child-grooming/indoctrination. It creates feelings of outrage in many parents, grandparents, and caregivers, who — like Rodney Hide— have had the tenacity to battle their way through a maze of bureaucratic obfuscation to have eventually arrived, exhausted, at the point where they finally learned – with horror –  what is being taught. Many see it as a covertly enforced indoctrination of their children at a very sensitive time as they are embarking on the tumultuous years of puberty and experiencing rapid body changes as they grow from children to adults. Rodney’s valuable account of his experience in seeking the specific information of what his 13-year-old daughter was to be “taught” is here.

Rodney found that the term “Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE)” encompasses a vast array of different terms that are foreign to many of us — because they have only recently been invented. The title itself seems a deft sleight of hand allowing us to assume it is “sex” education, but so much more has been inserted under the RSE title by also adding the suffix “ity” (meaning the “quality or state of”) to the adjective “sexual” and slipping in the word “relationship”.

The specific itemised outline of what is expected to be taught under this subject ­– and at what age – was released by the World “Health” Organisation (WHO) in 2023 under their “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe” which, at the time of writing, can be seen here. The United Nations and the WEF also appear involved.

The specifics on what is expected to be taught, from babies – yes, babies –  to high school graduation, was addressed in detail in an earlier article here. As mentioned in that article, Dr Matt Shelton, lawyer Kirsten Murfitt, and Lee Smith were so concerned with what is currently in the NZ curriculum, that they wrote an Open Letter to the Ministry of Education addressing this infiltration, and included important OIA requests. Their letter details the intentions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations, ‘International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education’. On her Facebook page, Kirsten again confronted the subject by asking why the NZ Ministry of Education felt it appropriate to ‘. . . want the science curriculum for years 1 – 8 to consider the role of hormone blockers.’ She correctly said that puberty blockers could cause irreversible harm and induce early osteoporosis and heart disease (among other serious issues) and asked why parents had to trawl through the MOE’s website to find that information, and why are they not being included in such discussions? Kirsten provided the link that confirmed her statement. (Ref: page 28 of the Relationships and Sexuality Education Guide: Years 1 – 8.)

Further information on this “guide” shows the basic focus according to age-group, with the curriculum that starts at about page 40 with babies. They “explain why” it is designated from 0–4 on page 36.

“Teaching” 4 – 6 year olds about sex is raised on page 43  where it states; “If the experience is not good “you don’t always have to comply.” What would that mean to a 4 – 6 year old? That sometimes you do have to comply? When? Says who?  A teacher? A priest or minister? A doctor? A relation? What does that insinuate? Does that sound like “sex education” to you or does it come more under the heading of child-grooming?  Does it raise concerns, especially when reading the intent of a UN document (8 March 2023), where on p22 any children below 18 can give consent, and on p23 it states “No one may be held criminally liable for consensual practices aiming to assist others with the exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity, unless there was force, coercion, fraud or medical negligence, or a lack of free and informed decision-making on the part of the person concerned.” In light of this information, and a recent tax-payer funded study that Victoria University intend to undertake in regard to paedophilia (they don’t mention that word), it has raised alarm bells. Bob McCoskrie of Family First NZ, who has been working tirelessly over many years to make this agenda known,  explains why and is interviewed on his views here. Winston Peters wasn’t impressed either, as he briefly explained to Reality Check Radio at 7.07 of this interview.

Every time we turn our heads the other way when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice. — Robert Kennedy.

The WHO “curriculum” on this subject also stipulates ”helping children” from four to six-years old, to develop a “positive gender identity”. Presumably this is from the 72 genders recently invented. They want to “teach” 4 to 6 year-olds about same-sex relationships, “different” kinds of family relationships and give information about “good and bad experiences of your body” and what “feels good”. These are children from four to six years old. Children of that age want to look outward, play innocent games, like hide-and-seek, have fun with their friends and family and enjoy exploring nature and life in a safe environment. It is surely an abuse to inject insidious, introverting, child-grooming on innocent children.

The plan of the WHO (and UN)  for those between six and nine is to teach a series of topics about sex including sexual diseases, sexual violence and aggression. The children are encouraged to talk, not to their parents, but to “someone” they “trust”. From nine to twelve the planned “teaching” dives right into different types of contraception, pleasure, masturbation and orgasm and differences between (recently invented) gender identity and “biological” sex. Oh, and between the ages of nine and 12, pornography is discussed and desirable “skills” include “acquire modern media competence (mobile phone, internet, dealing with pornography.” Please, brace yourself, and read through their planned indoctrination according to age group.

In an article on the Basset Brash and Hide blog, Rodney Hide has no hesitation in providing a concise account of what he thinks of this and gives a heart-wrenching account of the difficulties he encountered in discovering what his daughter was about to be taught in the RSE curriculum at her first year in high school – until he intervened. His daughter was also caught unawares in Year Seven, at primary school, when the class was visited by the generously government-sponsored charity known as InsideOut. The children were confronted by drag-queens promoting transgenderism and queerness. It lasted for two hours and seemed more like a recruitment drive. The parents were not told. Recently, the words “Inside Out” appeared as the title to a movie with cartoon characters showing examples of different moods. Children enjoy it. But is the title a “coincidence”? Or is it so-named to pave the way for the children to be more receptive to the government-sponsored InsideOut drag queens who tour primary schools talking for two hours to children on transgenderism and queerness, without the knowledge of parents – as experienced by Rodney Hide?

Fast forward to what is to be taught to 13-year-olds and the “guidance” suggests “critical thinking related to body modification”, contraception, abortion, adoption, sex, pregnancy – also in same-sex relationships — “how to enjoy sexuality in an appropriate way.”

Rodney’s article Sex Education Wakatipu High School 2024 tells of his experience in trying to find out what was in the curriculum, and what he eventually discovered, is explicit. I urge everyone to take the seven minutes to read it. He politely asked for the materials including the videos, PowerPoints, and the “variety of sources” outside “Navigating the Journey” (NTJ) and including NTJ. He initially received the dates, but not the curriculum, as it was “intellectual property”. He could see the slides but would need to “acknowledge the purpose of his request” to assess “appropriateness”  . . . Yet the schools intend to indoctrinate 13-year-olds on this material? Oh, the irony.

Rodney’s concern was informed consent, and not being able to see the material to be presented to his 13-year-old daughter. He was finally able to obtain the NTJ document in pdf form (for $5 ) from Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa, formerly Family Planning. There are separate publications to purchase for years 1 — 10 or from 5 years to 14 years. He was very concerned by what he read. Some of the content is outlined in Rodney’s article and only covers the Year 9 pdf for 13-year-old boys and girls in the same class being taught by a male teacher. It is hair-raising. Please take the time to read it. Some of what he found is here:

“Marriage is mentioned only once and then only to explain that sexual assault can occur within marriage. That’s it. Marriage and family don’t feature in a course on Relationship and Sexuality Education.

“Abstinence is not recommended. It’s the 13-year-old’s choice.

“The age of consent gets a mention but the course explains that children under 16 may still want to have sex in which case, “It is important that both people give consent and that contraceptives are used carefully”.

“The course explains over and over how 13-year-olds can give consent when legally they can’t give consent. The entirety of the message is pleasure, consent and contraception. There is nothing else that seemingly matters.

“The course is child-centred. There is much activity with the students split into groups to discuss, for example, what they know about sexuality, what it means to have sex and the giving and gaining of consent and so on, and which they then share with the class.

“The class is divided into pairs for pupils to practice putting condoms on wooden penises.

“The curriculum has many classroom resources for pupils working in groups. For example, within their group they connect the cards saying vaginal sex, anal sex and oral sex to the cards with the meanings. This is for 13-year-olds. Or matching labia minora . . . with its definition. The exercises are aids to stimulate class discussion.

“There are also scenarios presented to discuss. For example: A young woman gets drunk at a party. She is flirting with and kissing an older woman. After dancing with her she passes out in a bedroom. The older woman has sex with her. Remember: this is for 13-year-olds.

“The curriculum is full-on gender theory: “Sex is between your legs but gender is in your head and heart.” You have a penis but you think and feel you are a girl, then voila, you are a girl. The curriculum baldly states, “The main reason people take part in sexual activity is for pleasure.

“The curriculum explains that masturbation is a good way to learn about what gives you pleasure with the pupil’s bedroom being a good place to masturbate. Male teachers are teaching this to 13-year-old girls under their care. The course explains that girls can get an abortion at any age. The course warns 13-year-olds that sharing sex toys can spread disease.

“The curriculum claims everyone is on their own different sexuality journey and everyone will have their own reasons for having sex or not. It’s all about what feels right and good for the 13-year-old.

“The videos that the curriculum recommends aren’t copyright. They can be seen here under The Real Sex Talk. The videos are co-written and co-produced by singer-song writer Lizzie Marvelly paid for by New Zealand On Air and guided by Rape Prevention Education, Family Planning and Rainbow Youth. The videos showcase comedian Guy Williams, TV show host Matty McLean and Shortland Street actors.

In his article, Rodney also details specific quotes from the recommended videos for 13-year-olds. I can’t bear to repeat them. Amongst it all is a quote suggesting that sexually transmitted diseases is like “checking your hard drive for viruses” which is misleading and wrong as it down-plays the potential seriousness of STIs, as can be seen here.)

On viewing the material Rodney wrote to the Principal “requesting a section 51 release” for his daughter. Rodney said the Principal was very gracious in his reply and readily agreed, as he is obligated to do. He also took the issue up with the Board Chair, in regard to the material and informed consent and the fact that parents were unaware of the content and are told the course is compulsory, which it is not. Rodney discovered that the curriculum is recommended by the Ministry but is not required and it is the school that must choose the curriculum. (Note: Apparently, earlier this year, the Minister of Education may have made a statement that it was no longer compulsory, but had not informed the schools.)

Rodney wrote that he received an excellent reply from the Board Chair stating there is a requirement for School Boards to consult the community on the health curriculum at least every two years with the next consultation being in term 3. It will be up to the parents to decide whether their children should opt out. Rodney is now devoting a lot of energy into helping ensure that parents “get to see the content their children are taught” and is now part of the Queenstown and Lakes group of Let Kids Be Kids, who provide great detail on this subject.

It is easy to see why parents, grandparents, and caregivers, are deeply concerned, particularly when the details of the “sex education” curriculum can be enormously hard to wrest from schools. Is that because of the subject content? What if the teacher was honest when you asked about what was to be taught under the heading of “sex education” and the teacher explained some of the topics that would be discussed include your daughter (or son) being taught? Such as: masturbation, sex between a boy and a girl, or between boys, or between girls, or as some sort of threesome, or more, oral sex, other types of “sex”, along with all the different genders one can be, and if you don’t feel that you have been born in the right body then you can change to become a boy, or if you’re a boy and think you should be a girl, you can do that, too. Your teenager may also be exposed to an array of online porn websites and learn about “phone” sex. They will likely be informed that they are “assigned a sex” by the doctor at birth but it may not be the right one and that there are 72 (and counting) new “genders”. Also, all different types of sex would be discussed with explicit descriptions of how to have it.

They will even be told that they could be “pan-sexual” which apparently means you can be attracted to everyone. What would that mean to an out-going and happy teenager who just has an affinity for the majority of people? Is the innuendo here that it’s now a sexual “thing” to feel that way?  Would they strip that child of their outgoing and friendly nature, topple their former liking for others and make them feel it now came under some sort of sexual definition?

They may learn that if you are “romantically attracted” to someone that means that “you may enjoy spending time together, share responsibilities and compliment each other.” Would you find this confusing? Yes? Quite likely, because it is a lie, as it isn’t the commonly understood definition of “romantically attracted”. You may have a good friend that you enjoy spending time with, sharing responsibilities with and you may validate each other, but that doesn’t define “romantic attraction”. You could be a volunteer in the Fire Brigade, or St John Ambulance, and your attitude to your colleagues may cover all of the above points, but it is a country mile from being “romantically attracted” to them. A good friend could come under that definition, but for a 13 year-old to be told this is the definition of being “romantically attracted” to them is a lie, surely designed to manipulate, confuse and introvert, because it takes what is genuinely understood in a definition for “romantically attracted” and twists it to lead them to believe it is different, leaving them feeling shaky and uncertain, as their stable points of reference are being over-written with lies. Does this seem like a serious psychological manipulation that could throw anyone into a maelstrom of doubt about life? (What about girls growing up in the country? They usually do all manner of jobs helping out on the farm and they’re dressed for it. So they would perhaps feel “uncomfortable” in feminine clothes or playing with dolls. They prefer being in the outdoors and were known as “tomboys” but it didn’t mean they didn’t want to be girls. Similarly for boys. They may have grown up in the country but preferred to read, cook or do art. Are they now being persuaded in class to think that they are “in the wrong body” because they don’t want to play with dolls and don’t feel comfortable in a dress?)

Reading through other mind-messing definitions for these 72 genders (and counting) it seems that the material is designed to destroy the stable definitions of the child at a point where children and young teens are particularly vulnerable. Wouldn’t this tend to confuse and shatter the student’s certainty? That seems like the first step, followed by a covert attempt to manipulate a separation between the student and their parents, encouraging them instead to seek help from others if they are “confused” and then roll-out further confusing and false data to replace their now-toppled stable understanding on this subject that could result in children having a tenuous hold on their personal sexual reality. A glaring outpoint of it is that there is very little about heterosexuality – unless in a negative light. Is that just another tool used to further confuse and steer children away from the biological reality and towards these 72 new genders?

Is this type of information why teachers shy away from informing the parents of the curriculum content?

Many parents have no idea what their child is being taught but, over time, may become aware that their daughter or son is becoming less communicative or not their usual cheerful self. This could be a sign that they are wrestling with false definitions and identities and wondering who or what they are — which was something they probably didn’t have attention on before they arrived at school. The more I read and watched on this subject, the clearer it seemed that this “education” had the hallmarks of a psychological operation to manipulate the minds of our children – intended to funnel them into an introverted fixation on graphic sex and the recently invented genders that can lead them to very dark places including, in some cases, mutilating surgery such as castration, or a double mastectomy, and puberty blocker drugs (with serious side effects), they would need to take for the rest of their lives. There are many children now going through the long process of de-transitioning which also comes with enormous issues and never takes them back to what they were before surgery and drugs. Do they receive adulation in the spotlight and the cheering of the government-sponsored InsideOut when they announce they want to de-transition? Or are they left to battle that alone?

Paul McHugh was the psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital where sex-change operations were pioneered ­in the USA for 26 years. He stated “The idea that one’s sexuality is a feeling and not a biological fact is without foundation and it is biologically false that one can change one’s sex.” He is further quoted as stating: “But gird your loins if you would confront this matter . . .Hell hath no fury like a vested interest, masquerading as a moral principle.

In an article on transgenderism, he said; “Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men . . .All . . . become feminised men or masculinised women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they identify . . . In that lies their problematic future . . . it proves not easy, nor wise, to live in a counterfeit sexual garb.” He added that 10 – 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.” This is from the book, 180 Degrees: Unlearn the Lies you were taught to Believe, by Feargus O’Connor Greenwood. It also states the American Academy of Paediatrics shows that female-to-male transgender teens have the highest suicide attempt rate, at 50.8%.

First, Do No Harm. — Hippocrates

On a recent search for “Who invented the genders?” the name of John Money, a psychologist and sexologist, was one of the first to come up. He was born in NZ and worked here and in America at the John Hopkins University. His life story includes what seems to be a supportive view of pedophilia, advising the mutilation of a twin boy after a circumcision that went terribly wrong. Later, according to a book about it, Money tortured both boys (at the age of six) by showing them pornography and then goading them to perform sexual acts on each other out of the view of their parents. When the twins refused he became very angry. Both twins, in later life, committed suicide. He was also known for drugging prisoners to reduce their sex drive and appears to have been at the “ground-floor” of puberty-blocking drugs and the transitioning movement, though trans-gender people are apparently not fond of him. InsideOut, however, appear to hail him as a hero and suggest studying him in class.

Many may have heard of the Tavistock Institute which receives negative exposure in the first three books seen at this link. The Tavistock name was also associated with a clinic for trans-gender children and teenagers where they carried out mutilating surgical operations such as mastectomies on teenage girls, and the removal of  the penis and testicles on boys, while placing them on puberty blockers in an attempt to change their sex. A recent book on it — Time To Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the World’s Largest Gender Service for Children — looks to be a harrowing read.  In Chapter 1, it relates accounts of doctors working there who were haunted by the harm they were doing to children. They were apparently inundated with exploding numbers of teenagers waiting for treatment that went from about 50 per year in 2007 to thousands of young teens, who were in (what is described in the book) severe mental distress. (What had caused these figures to explode? Could it be linked to the “sexuality” education/indoctrination being rolled out in schools in the western world in recent years?) A consulting psychiatrist at this clinic spoke out as a whistle-blower, stating there was no such thing as a “trans child” and said doctors had been captured by this ideology. His account is here. As outlined, the clinic attracted substantial controversy and has since closed.

It’s the action, not the fruit of the action, that’s important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there will be any fruit. But that doesn’t mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result.” — Mahatma Gandhi

And do the “instructors” tell the child that if they do want to change they cannot ever be the opposite sex as they don’t have the chromosomes required (XX for a girl and XY for a boy) and that no mutilating surgery or drug will change that? Or that once chemical and surgical changes have been made, there’s no returning to their original state if they have regrets and want to change back?

How can a child be so certain? Does anyone really think they are old enough to realise the consequences of such drastic surgery and drugs? Does anyone explain the risks, and the degree of pain and trauma involved in the operations they suggest, and the side effects of puberty-blocker drugs and that it is not just deferring puberty and adolescence, but their penis will never grow more than it has at the time of taking the puberty-blockers, and if they are a girl, neither will their breasts? That they won’t go through puberty? That their hormones will be suppressed with all of the implications resulting from that? Surely this should be part of informed consent? How can someone as young as ten, or 13, understand the full implications? RCR’s Peter Williams had an excellent conversation with an Irish psychotherapist, Stella O’Malley,  on this subject who outlined some of the sobering realities of taking puberty-blockers. She also mentioned that NZ currently leads the world on the administration of puberty-blockers to children, which Stella strongly feels this country will deeply regret. Why are we leading the world in this?

This must surely be an agenda coming from somewhere in government (or above it) that is pushing this programme? Is it linked to the former PM “gifting” NZ to the WEF et.al as a pilot for Artificial Intelligence? Isn’t part of that goal to have “Human 2.0?” Androgynous humans controlled by what Yuval Harari calls the “elites”(the international cabal) who cannot pro-create? Even Harari confesses here (to the idiot interviewing him) that he is spooked by the AI of today.

It is important to know where this is all coming from, as it is surely a well-orchestrated operation when one sees that it extends through society now and seems to emanate from the various political foot-soldiers of the cabal (in each country) that is going for a totalitarian one-world government under the U.N. We see signs of it everywhere; police cars and pedestrian crossings painted in “rainbow” colours and police being “trained” in special classes to regard any questioning voices as “hate speech”. But this doesn’t seem to be about being inclusive. It seems more about implanting the population with lies. Rodney Hide accurately describes it as endless repetition. Why? Is this to subconsciously insert an idea into the mind of individuals? A psychological weapon? If not, why such enforcement?

People are free to make their own choices, call themselves whatever they wish, but don’t force it on everyone with no freedom of thought and speech.  If it was “inclusive” midwives wouldn’t be ordered to change the correct term of breastfeeding to “chest-feeding” or to describe the vagina as the “front hole”. If it was “inclusive” there would be bathroom facilities exclusively for women and girls, where they can actually feel safe, for shouldn’t “inclusive” ensure the safety of spaces for biological women, too? There are now girls and women who don’t dare enter designated bathrooms for women, as they have no idea if a man with a penis saying he is a woman will be there, and they don’t know if it is a person who genuinely considers they are a female with a penis and won’t bother them or if it is someone else under that guise preying on women.

Recently, the UK, some countries in Europe, and 22 States in the US banned gender surgery below the age of 18, and the UK, and some other countries, also announced that children were no longer to be prescribed puberty blockers.  Tragically, in NZ there is currently no such restriction. A recent article in legacy media reported that the U.K. Cass Review — the most detailed review done on this subject to date — concluded there was “no good evidence” regarding the long-term effects of treatments. This report resulted in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK effectively halting the use of puberty blockers in almost every case. It is very disquieting to note that the NZ Associate Minister of Health, Minister of Youth and the Minister of Mental Health, Matt Doocey, who once worked for the Tavistock Institute in the UK, has been sitting on the release of this most recent health advice on puberty-blockers since April. Why? How many NZ children and teenagers have been harmed by these drugs while he has been sitting on this report? This isn’t acceptable. Children are being harmed on drugs that have been used to sterilise sex offenders. That was clear from the start, but to have received a report that states it, and to sit on it for months, while children are harmed, is unconscionable. Particularly for a Minister with the above portfolios. Nor does the government seem to have any problem allowing children younger than 18 to have life-changing mutilating surgery. Is the minister’s relationship with the Tavistock Institute a serious conflict of interest?

The current government also seems to have difficulty sticking to the Coalition Agreement between National and NZ First where they agreed to: “Refocus the curriculum on academic achievement and not ideology, including the removal and replacement of the gender, sexuality, and relationship-based education guidelines.” It has been announced, but nobody seems to have told the schools. Why is that? Why is it continuing to be taught? And why has the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, tasked the Education Review Office (ERO) for a “Review” of RSE when the Coalition Agreement was to remove it and then replace it?

Other disturbing trends indicate a further wedge between parents and their children that have been in place for some years. Such as when a child at school can ask for, and be provided with, contraceptive drugs, and can have an abortion arranged and performed without the knowledge of their parents. Imagine if your daughter came home after an abortion of which you had no knowledge. What if there were serious side effects? Has that ever occurred?

A Kiwi champion, Penny Marie, an independent journalist and concerned parent, formed the group Let Kids Be Kids with other like-minded Kiwis who shared her concerns. They have calmly, powerfully, and factually made the curriculum information known to as many parents as possible and these parents are now able to engage with their respective schools to get answers on exactly what is being taught and take steps to protect their children from any harmful curriculum content.

Elisabeth Cave, who has a degree in Social Sciences and majored in the Philosophy of Education, joined Penny on a recent Let Kids Be Kids Roadshow around the country and added vitally important content, too. The full roadshow content is available online here. It can be viewed or listened to in three parts. It is packed with information and highly recommended, particularly for parents who have children in the school system. Let Kids Be Kids is professional in its approach and meticulous about calmly providing factual information on what is being taught in schools in regard to the RSE classes.

Elisabeth’s concise description of the pathway to distress of an induced “Rainbow Child” is here.  Rodney Hide has been a tower of strength on adding support to the group, and provides valuable input from the viewpoint of a concerned parent and a concerned New Zealander. He has eloquently told of his battle to get the full information from his daughter’s schools (primary and then secondary)  and that story is available in several episodes on Reality Check Radio and here, in part, and in earlier links in this article. Rodney Hide has also interviewed Penny Marie on Reality Check Radio (RCR) several times and is part of the Let Kids Be Kids group in his local area. He recently wrote another article about his experience in the children’s section of a local library. He was so shocked by the content of a book on full display in the youth section (from 13 years) that he was unable to relay the details. It is well worth the time to read his new article and to also listen to these information-packed interviews. RCR has been invaluable in helping to ensure that parents and grandparents are kept fully informed about the curriculum content and profiling this vital group. Bob McCoskrie of Family First has, as mentioned,  been blowing the whistle on this for many years, and also addresses other vital issues related to what seems to clearly be an intent to split Kiwi families and invalidate their values.  The Daily Telegraph has also highlighted this issue, and NZDSOS has an excellent article, well worth the read, here. There are other wonderful souls adding their voices, too.

Let Kids Be Kids keeps current with any changes, which is imperative as, in the experience of many parents, information and updates are not willingly provided. An example of this, as mentioned above, is that the recent OIA to the Ministry of Education revealed that in the Relationships and Sexuality Classes (RSE) “there are no compulsory topics that must be addressed.”  As mentioned earlier, the MOE didn’t appear to inform the schools.

LKBK is not there to save your children individually, but it is there to help all Kiwi parents by arming them with factual information to empower them. The truth is, that as a parent or grandparent, you are here for your children and grandchildren. We cannot shelve our responsibility to them and leave that resting on the shoulders of a few brave individuals. We must join with them to ensure children are protected.

Let Kids Be Kids stresses that it is not there to delve into whatever consenting adults do, that is, clearly, entirely up to them, but they seek to protect children and ensure that other parents are fully informed. It acknowledges the gay community — it is the recently invented genders and the harmful effects of this indoctrination of our children and syphoning them away from their parents (with the destructive medical interventions and associated mental instability) that is of concern. They suggest an open non-combative way forward, suggesting engagement with individual teachers to discuss the details of what is being taught and why – especially now that it is not compulsory.

With the support of parents, teachers, and principals, they may find the courage to discontinue this indoctrination that is infiltrating schools, especially as it is not compulsory. What if parents and teachers stand together and say no? If the teachers showed parents the intended curriculum content, that would surely provide instant parent support for it to be discontinued.

Communication between the teachers and parents on this topic is also an opportunity for parents to let schools know this subject is no longer compulsory and if such classes continue you will be able to make arrangements with the school for your children to be excluded from those classes. Let Kids Be Kids also suggests having constructive conversations with your children so that, as a parent, you are able to openly discuss the subject with them, and discover how they may have already been indoctrinated. It re-establishes you as a stable point of reference for your child or teenager in their lives, too. An anchor they can trust. A place of safety.

With these stellar human beings at Let Kids Be Kids leading the charge, a growing number of concerned Kiwis are joining them to help protect the innocence of all children by providing parents and grandparents with the factual information about what their children are being “taught”. It enables them to network with others who are also concerned. Penny Marie and the regional leaders of Let Kids be Kids work incredibly hard to make this information known and are very grateful for your help, involvement and/or donations, as they receive no assistance from the government.

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their peers, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. — Robert F. Kennedy

Originally published in The Daily Telegraph.