Thu. Mar 28th, 2024

Parents lose legal war against gender identity and sex being taught to Welsh primary school children<!-- wp:html --><div></div> <div> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Parents fighting to prevent their children from being taught about gender identity and sex in primary schools in Wales have lost a legal challenge. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Campaigners launched a judicial review in the High Court against the Welsh Government’s new Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) curriculum.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">It was launched in September and sees compulsory teaching of RSE to children as young as seven.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">The two-day legal challenge, heard in November at the Civil Justice Center in Cardiff, was brought by Public Child Protection Wales (PCPW), who say the new curriculum is not suitable for primary school age children.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">PCPW president Kim Isherwood insisted they were protecting children from harmful sexual content and a “dangerous agenda.” </p> <div class="artSplitter mol-img-group"> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap"> </div> </div> <p class="imageCaption">Campaigners against the new relationships and sex education curriculum had sought a Supreme Court order to prevent the policy from going forward (stock image)</p> </div> <p class="mol-para-with-font">But while rejecting all aspects of the claim, Ms Justice Steyn said: ‘In my opinion, for the reasons I have given, the case law and texts on which the plaintiffs rely support the existence of a basic common law right no excuse. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“I reject the claim that such a right exists.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">This conclusion is not surprising, given the nature of the right claimed, which is conceptually dependent on a pre-existing compulsory education, and which, as defined by the plaintiffs, has the appearance of legislation rather than a common law right.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“In my view, the content of the Code and Guidance is consistent with the requirement to ensure that RSE education is delivered in an objectively critical and pluralistic manner, and does not violate the prohibition against indoctrination.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“There is nothing in the code or the guidelines that authorizes or positively approves of education that advocates or promotes one identity or sexual lifestyle over another, or that encourages children to self-identify in a certain way.”</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">The court ruled that the introduction of mandatory RSE was ‘the product of a process of careful consideration’. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">In written arguments ahead of the judicial review, Paul Diamond, who represented the plaintiffs, said the legal challenge centered on the “school-wide approach” of the new curriculum – and that it was not subject to any rights of parental excuse.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Mr Diamond said the plaintiffs were five parents – four mothers and a father – with children ranging in age from nine to teenagers.</p> <div class="artSplitter mol-img-group"> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap"> </div> </div> <p class="imageCaption">Kimberley Isherwood, one of the claimants and the chair of the Public Child Protection Wales Campaign, said they would appeal after failing in their legal war</p> </div> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Some children attend state schools, while others have been removed due to curriculum concerns.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">All five plaintiffs have “moral and philosophical objections” to the curriculum and wanted to apologize on behalf of their children,” Diamond said.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">‘The proposed teaching of RSE in Wales is specifically constructed to be value-laden as much of the teaching, particularly those related to LGBTQ+, will not be facts of a scientific nature, but highly controversial theories related to moral and behavioral choices made by individuals,” he added.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“If it were taught as a class in its own right and subject to a right of apology, there would clearly be no possibility of indoctrination whatsoever.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">At issue in this case is whether there is a limit to what children can be taught in schools or, ultimately, everywhere, including at home, and whether the state should endorse the values ​​of modern, liberal democracy or form of ideological totalitarianism.’</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">But Jonathan Moffett KC, representing the Welsh Government, rejected the language used by the claimants.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">He described “such hyperbolic rhetoric” as “unhelpful.” And he said the parents had failed to determine “what allegedly illegitimate education” the new curriculum would contain and instead “resorted to broad assertions.”</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“The plaintiffs have not pointed to any passages in the code or the guidelines that endorse or approve doctrines that advocate or promote one identity or sexual lifestyle over another, or that encourage children to identify themselves in a certain way,” the plaintiffs said. Mr Morffet. added.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">In her judgment, Ms Justice Steyn said: “Openness to a multiplicity of ideas and the ability to participate sensitively, critically and respectfully in such debates, which RSE seeks to encourage and develop, is fully in line with the goal of pluralism in a liberal and democratic state. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Jeremy Miles, Minister for Education and Welsh Language, stressed that RSE was designed to ‘keep children safe and promote respect and healthy relationships’.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“More than ever, our children need our help to protect them from harmful content and people online,” he said in a statement. </p> <div class="artSplitter mol-img-group"> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap"> </div> </div> <p class="imageCaption">Ms Justice Steyn KC, pictured, rejected the parents’ claims after a two-day judicial review</p> </div> <div class="artSplitter mol-img-group"> <div class="mol-img"> <div class="image-wrap"> </div> </div> <p class="imageCaption">Jeremy Miles, minister for education and Welsh language, said RSE was aimed at ‘keeping children safe and promoting respect and healthy relationships’</p> </div> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“RSE needs to give young people the confidence to say no to bullies, to confront harassment and to understand that families come in all shapes and sizes.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">‘Parents may expect that the education their children receive is appropriate to the age and maturity of their children: this is required by law.’</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Welcoming the legal ruling, the minister added: “I am shocked by the misinformation deliberately spread by some campaigners, and the added pressure this has placed on some schools and staff.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“I want to say to our teaching staff that we will support you and thank you for the contribution you make to the lives of the children you teach.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Vivienne Laing, from NSPCC Cymru/Wales, also welcomed the decision of the judicial review. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Speaking of RSE, she added: ‘This has lifelong benefits for children and young people by teaching them about healthy and positive relationships, enabling them to recognize abuse and learning about their rights to be kept safe and healthy. ‘</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Kathy Riddick, Wales Humanists Coordinator, said: ‘The court’s decision is not only a victory for the Welsh Government, but also for children’s rights.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“This challenge was based on harmful misinformation about the new curriculum and a misunderstanding of human rights law.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">‘The court agrees that the RSE code means that the subject is taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“It is therefore fully consistent with the best evidence that says high-quality, age-appropriate RSE is essential to keep children healthy, happy and safe.”</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">Kim Isherwood, one of the plaintiffs and the chair of the Public Child Protection Wales Campaign, said: ‘We have asked the High Court to recognize the overreach of power by the Welsh Government, we have asked the court to help us protect our children against future emotional problems. , physical and psychological damage.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“The evidence we have provided to the court refers to and highlighted the levels of treachery, deceit and false claims by the Welsh Government, but it appears the judge agrees with them – not only do we parents have no rights , but they were never there to begin with.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">‘The team is preparing the appeal, the higher the court, the louder the message. This is not a loss – this is another level of exposure.</p> <p class="mol-para-with-font">“We look forward to another hearing in the coming weeks, where we will fight even harder to protect our children from a dangerously derailed agenda.”</p> </div><!-- /wp:html -->

Parents fighting to prevent their children from being taught about gender identity and sex in primary schools in Wales have lost a legal challenge.

Campaigners launched a judicial review in the High Court against the Welsh Government’s new Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) curriculum.

It was launched in September and sees compulsory teaching of RSE to children as young as seven.

The two-day legal challenge, heard in November at the Civil Justice Center in Cardiff, was brought by Public Child Protection Wales (PCPW), who say the new curriculum is not suitable for primary school age children.

PCPW president Kim Isherwood insisted they were protecting children from harmful sexual content and a “dangerous agenda.”

Campaigners against the new relationships and sex education curriculum had sought a Supreme Court order to prevent the policy from going forward (stock image)

But while rejecting all aspects of the claim, Ms Justice Steyn said: ‘In my opinion, for the reasons I have given, the case law and texts on which the plaintiffs rely support the existence of a basic common law right no excuse.

“I reject the claim that such a right exists.

This conclusion is not surprising, given the nature of the right claimed, which is conceptually dependent on a pre-existing compulsory education, and which, as defined by the plaintiffs, has the appearance of legislation rather than a common law right.

“In my view, the content of the Code and Guidance is consistent with the requirement to ensure that RSE education is delivered in an objectively critical and pluralistic manner, and does not violate the prohibition against indoctrination.

“There is nothing in the code or the guidelines that authorizes or positively approves of education that advocates or promotes one identity or sexual lifestyle over another, or that encourages children to self-identify in a certain way.”

The court ruled that the introduction of mandatory RSE was ‘the product of a process of careful consideration’.

In written arguments ahead of the judicial review, Paul Diamond, who represented the plaintiffs, said the legal challenge centered on the “school-wide approach” of the new curriculum – and that it was not subject to any rights of parental excuse.

Mr Diamond said the plaintiffs were five parents – four mothers and a father – with children ranging in age from nine to teenagers.

Kimberley Isherwood, one of the claimants and the chair of the Public Child Protection Wales Campaign, said they would appeal after failing in their legal war

Some children attend state schools, while others have been removed due to curriculum concerns.

All five plaintiffs have “moral and philosophical objections” to the curriculum and wanted to apologize on behalf of their children,” Diamond said.

‘The proposed teaching of RSE in Wales is specifically constructed to be value-laden as much of the teaching, particularly those related to LGBTQ+, will not be facts of a scientific nature, but highly controversial theories related to moral and behavioral choices made by individuals,” he added.

“If it were taught as a class in its own right and subject to a right of apology, there would clearly be no possibility of indoctrination whatsoever.

At issue in this case is whether there is a limit to what children can be taught in schools or, ultimately, everywhere, including at home, and whether the state should endorse the values ​​of modern, liberal democracy or form of ideological totalitarianism.’

But Jonathan Moffett KC, representing the Welsh Government, rejected the language used by the claimants.

He described “such hyperbolic rhetoric” as “unhelpful.” And he said the parents had failed to determine “what allegedly illegitimate education” the new curriculum would contain and instead “resorted to broad assertions.”

“The plaintiffs have not pointed to any passages in the code or the guidelines that endorse or approve doctrines that advocate or promote one identity or sexual lifestyle over another, or that encourage children to identify themselves in a certain way,” the plaintiffs said. Mr Morffet. added.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Steyn said: “Openness to a multiplicity of ideas and the ability to participate sensitively, critically and respectfully in such debates, which RSE seeks to encourage and develop, is fully in line with the goal of pluralism in a liberal and democratic state.

Jeremy Miles, Minister for Education and Welsh Language, stressed that RSE was designed to ‘keep children safe and promote respect and healthy relationships’.

“More than ever, our children need our help to protect them from harmful content and people online,” he said in a statement.

Ms Justice Steyn KC, pictured, rejected the parents’ claims after a two-day judicial review

Jeremy Miles, minister for education and Welsh language, said RSE was aimed at ‘keeping children safe and promoting respect and healthy relationships’

“RSE needs to give young people the confidence to say no to bullies, to confront harassment and to understand that families come in all shapes and sizes.

‘Parents may expect that the education their children receive is appropriate to the age and maturity of their children: this is required by law.’

Welcoming the legal ruling, the minister added: “I am shocked by the misinformation deliberately spread by some campaigners, and the added pressure this has placed on some schools and staff.

“I want to say to our teaching staff that we will support you and thank you for the contribution you make to the lives of the children you teach.

Vivienne Laing, from NSPCC Cymru/Wales, also welcomed the decision of the judicial review.

Speaking of RSE, she added: ‘This has lifelong benefits for children and young people by teaching them about healthy and positive relationships, enabling them to recognize abuse and learning about their rights to be kept safe and healthy. ‘

Kathy Riddick, Wales Humanists Coordinator, said: ‘The court’s decision is not only a victory for the Welsh Government, but also for children’s rights.

“This challenge was based on harmful misinformation about the new curriculum and a misunderstanding of human rights law.

‘The court agrees that the RSE code means that the subject is taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner.

“It is therefore fully consistent with the best evidence that says high-quality, age-appropriate RSE is essential to keep children healthy, happy and safe.”

Kim Isherwood, one of the plaintiffs and the chair of the Public Child Protection Wales Campaign, said: ‘We have asked the High Court to recognize the overreach of power by the Welsh Government, we have asked the court to help us protect our children against future emotional problems. , physical and psychological damage.

“The evidence we have provided to the court refers to and highlighted the levels of treachery, deceit and false claims by the Welsh Government, but it appears the judge agrees with them – not only do we parents have no rights , but they were never there to begin with.

‘The team is preparing the appeal, the higher the court, the louder the message. This is not a loss – this is another level of exposure.

“We look forward to another hearing in the coming weeks, where we will fight even harder to protect our children from a dangerously derailed agenda.”

By