New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science
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
Recently, a valued colleague mentioned that he had been speaking to his brother who has a 12-year-old daughter. His brother was in the school library with his daughter when he saw a book, on full display, that bordered on pornography. He was appalled – shocked to the core – that this would be in a school library. This resulted in a more detailed inspection of the curriculum and what now comes under the heading of “sex education” in our schools. What he found has sent both brothers seeking different schools for their children. It has also led to an investigation of the subject in more detail, the results of which seem equally horrifying.
Perhaps you are a parent or grandparent of school-age children. Even if you’re not, our future is our children, so you may feel it is important to have knowledge of what the World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations (UN) and World Economic Forum (WEF) are already suggesting should be taught about sex in Europe — starting from pre-school.
Surely that is a “conspiracy theory” taken too far? Astoundingly, it is not. It seems that is part of the global plan, based upon the suggestions of unelected groups, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the WEF and the UN.
There is no argument that adults are free to make their own decisions about this subject, as long as it doesn’t harm others, but indoctrination from pre-school? Apparently, that is the international intention.
In 2023, the World Health Organisation released their “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe”, which, at the time of writing, can be seen here. If the link fails to work by the time of publishing, just google: WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA Standards for Sexuality in Europe.)
Note, this is a paper on the standards for “sexuality education” in Europe. But the alarming aspect is that the current “government” seems to blindly follow the suggestions of the WHO to such an extent that they have been lining up to hand over decisions on health and medications — without our permission — to this unelected group, so it is not a far stretch of the imagination to see how this could slip into the NZ curriculum of state-funded schools as well. And all without so much as a whimper from the “opposition” — aside from the alternative parties not yet in parliament.
Bypassing the diatribe of the 68-page document, on page 40, a table of what the UN wish to teach in Europe from birth to four years old includes, but is not limited to; early childhood masturbation, sex education to “gain awareness of gender identity”; expressing needs, wishes and boundaries, for example in the context of “playing doctor” and learning about “different types of “love” and the ability to differentiate between “good” and “bad” secrets”, along with ability to “differentiate between private and public behaviour” and the “right to explore gender identities.” Again — that is from birth to four.
The above topics, among others, are described as the “minimal standards that need to be covered by sexuality education”. That is, for babies and pre-schoolers who are just beginning to form the idea that they may be a boy or a girl and be biologically different. This is about the time that children play “dress-up” and just enjoy playing various roles for the innocent fun of it.
From four to six years, children are apparently to be taught, among other things, of “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body; early childhood masturbation; appropriate sexual language; to be able to talk about sexual matters; consolidate their gender identity; and use sexual language in a non-offensive way.” They are further taught about “friendship and love towards people of the same sex; same-sex relationships; and secret loves.” They are also to learn, “good and bad experiences of your body/what feels good” and if the “experience/feeling is not good, you do not always have to comply.” (Note the nuance. They don’t ALWAYS have to comply). This phrase is peppered throughout the document. Children from the age of six will have access to sex on the internet at school, unsupervised by their parents.
From six to nine years, your children are to be taught about; “body changes, menstruation, ejaculation, individual variation in development; choices about parenthood, pregnancy, infertility, adoption and the basic idea of contraception and different methods. They get to “learn” about sex in the media, including the internet, and are further taught about; “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body — masturbation/self- stimulation —appropriate sexual language and sexual intercourse.” They are further instructed on; “diseases related to sexuality, sexual violence and aggression.” There is more. Please refer to the document.
From nine to twelve they are taught about: symptoms of pregnancy, risks and consequences of unsafe sex (unintended pregnancy). The sexuality column covers; first sexual experience, gender orientation, sexual behaviour of young people (variability of sexual behaviour), pleasure, masturbation, orgasm, and differences between gender identity and biological sex.
Apparently, within this age group the children should be enabled to have the skill to “make a conscious decision to have sexual experiences or not; be able to use modern media (mobile phones, internet) and be aware of “risks” and “benefits associated with these tools.” They would be given information on “differences in individual needs for intimacy and privacy; friendship and love towards people of the same sex” and have the skills to “take responsibility in relation to safe and pleasant sexual experiences for oneself and others”. They would also, “acquire modern media competence (mobile phone, internet, dealing with pornography).
From the ages of twelve to fifteen they are to be given information on body knowledge, image, body modification (female genital mutilation, circumcision, hymen and hymen repair), anorexia, bulimia, piercing and tattoos, pregnancy (also in same-sex relationships) and infertility. Information would be given on “role expectations and role behaviour in relation to sexual arousal and gender differences; gender-identity and sexual orientation, including coming out/ homosexuality; how to enjoy sexuality in an appropriate way; first sexual experience, pleasure, masturbation and orgasm — among other things.
They would be enabled to “develop skills in intimate communication and negotiation and enjoy sexuality in a respectful way as well as be enabled to obtain and use condoms and contraceptives effectively and “develop negotiation and communication skills in order to have safe and enjoyable sex”. Information given would also include pornography, religion, and gender.
By fifteen, information would include genetics and “designer” babies; “transactional sex (prostitution, but also sex in return for small gifts, meals/nights out, small amounts of money, pornography, and sexual dependence, along with “sexual behavioural variations; differences in the cycle of arousal.”) They would be expected to have the skills to be enabled to “come out”, “develop skills in intimate communication and negotiation”. Thrown in there somewhere is the various ways two people can have sex — no stone in this area is left unturned.
Check the above link and view the contents. Could this be defined as sex education, or is it sexual grooming and child abuse? How confused would this make a child? How introverted?
Are New Zealand Children Being Similarly ‘Educated’?
This may possibly be intended for the curriculum in state funded schools throughout New Zealand, but with the divisions from Years 1 through to 8. Yet, even now, the curriculum here appears disturbing, including weaving the topic of genders through each subject. Why should there be constant repetition and at such a young age? Please, let them be free to be carefree children.
Dr Matt Shelton, lawyer Kirstin Murfitt, and Lee Smith, formerly candidates for DemocracyNZ, were also 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 Open Letter also details the intentions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations, ‘International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education’ that highlights that the learning objectives for 5-to 8-year-olds should include the ‘key ideas’, including – among others – that it is important to understand the difference between biological sex and gender; human rights and sexuality; that people can show love for other people through touching and intimacy; and that it is important to know what Gender Based Violence is and where to go for help. For five to eight-year-olds.
On her Facebook page, Kirstin 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 said, ‘. . . puberty blockers can cause irreversible harm and induce early osteoporosis and heart disease. Why do parents have to trawl through the MOE’s website to find this information? Why are parents not fully involved in these discussions?’ Kirsten provided the link to the photos that confirmed her statement, which can be found below, and also here. (Ref: page 28 of the Relationships and Sexuality Education Guide: Years 1 – 8.)
At www.nzdsos.com there is also a valuable article on this topic, as it relates to New Zealand, that can be found here. This part is happening in New Zealand now.
Within the letter there is a reference to the Ministry of Education (MOE) requiring schools to ensure that – from years 1 to 8 – they will need to make sure that students can access changing rooms that align with their gender identification. And apparently, school uniforms have to be ‘gender neutral’. Many parents are unaware of the transgender programme at schools.
The trio included an Official Information Act Request in the open letter asking the government for all information between WHO, the MOE and/or the Ministry of Health (MOH) in regard to any guidelines, standards, frameworks about sex education, gender identity and masturbation, in state-funded schools; information given to students and teachers about the risk of puberty blockers and in particular the risks associated with puberty blockers; information given to students and teachers about how it is important to disclose biological gender prior to having certain medical tests due to there being different thresholds between male and females.
There is also an enquiry under the OIA in regard to the Briefing Note about the Rainbow Work Programme, requesting the amount of funding InsideOUT has received from the government in the past five years, along with all correspondence between the government and InsideOUT regarding the Brief from government to InsideOUT along with a copy of the contract. What does this group do exactly in schools? Were parents consulted? Are they aware that this is taking place?
There are many other relevant requests for additional information under the OIA that covers over three pages in the same letter and are well worth reading.
Away from the madness . . . Gone Fishing . . .
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinion which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Paul McHugh was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital –where sex-change operations were pioneered – in the USA, for 26 years. He stated that; “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 information is from the book, 180 º, by Feargus O’Connor Greenwood. It also adds that the American Academy of Paediatrics shows that female-to-male transgender teens have the highest suicide attempt rate, at 50.8%.
Murmurs of dissent by members of parliament remain non-existent. As mentioned, the only objections in political parties heard are coming from other political parties not yet in parliament. Not a peep from any member of parliament, where this year, one senior member came under passing comment, with impunity, for a related subject.
Why is that? Where is the opposition? Who are these “representatives” in parliament answerable to? New Zealanders? Or the off-shore cabals promoting such depravity? Where is their moral compass, their integrity, their sense of decency? Are they parents? Why are they silent?
Surely they should be standing up and speaking out against this indoctrination at such a young age that, with the current programme, combined with added potential input from the WHO and the UN on the horizon, is about to reduce our schools to little more than indoctrination camps that will contribute to the introversion and destruction of the beautiful young minds and souls of our most vulnerable?
Yet, here we are, in the Southern Hemisphere winter of 2023 and the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), and the World Health Organisation (WHO) apparently also agree that it is now OK for paedophiles to have sex with minors because otherwise it may hurt their feelings and thus breach their “human rights”. This information is contained in a document entitled, “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law proscribing conduct associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”
In the introduction it alleges that the report stands for “a timely intervention addressing the detrimental human rights impact of criminal laws targeting vulnerable groups,”
The writer of the introduction is of the opinion that, “criminal proscriptions may reinforce structural inequalities; they may codify discrimination, invest them with the law’s power and may foster stigma. All this may wreak terrible harm.”
Nothing about destroying the lives of the children though.
Scrolling down to pages 22 and 23, the report takes up the issue of those under the “proscribed” age for sexual relations:
“With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.
“Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”
Does that steer one to the conclusion that, if your child is considered to be appealing to an older figure of authority in their lives, or anyone else who may be a paedophile, then they could potentially persuade that child to enter into some sort of sexual relationship and it would not be regarded as criminal?
And this is considered OK by the UN and WHO — and is it intended to be brought into our schools by the New Zealand “government”? New Zealand was involved there.
This apparently has its genus (although Klaus Schwab, of the WEF, had also disturbingly mentioned it) at an International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva, who work with the UN.
Again — has anyone considered the feelings of the child? Their family? Their future? Their beautiful innocence? Their freedom to enjoy their childhood?
Apparently not.
An international website goes into further detail in this link in an effort to make it clear what is intended to be taught to children in state funded schools throughout the world and where the genus of the ideas came from. The references for that article are at the end by clicking on a link.
The graphic books shown in the above link are very difficult to look at, but it is important to see what your children may be in danger of being subjected to at school in the future, so that parents and concerned Kiwis may make their views clear to politicians before the election and demand to know where they sit on this subject — before anything further is implemented. At this point, it may be a good idea for parents to go to their local schools and physically see for themselves what books may be on view now and attempt to bring a halt to anything inappropriate infiltrating into our schools.
Since the writing of this article, it is has been reported that there is a draft curriculum for New Zealand schools that suggests it is no longer necessary for our children to learn science, physics or biology. Those subjects appear set to be replaced by lessons (every year!) on disease and “climate-change”.
Many years ago, when I trained as a nurse, I had to study the subject of disease in order to know how to care for patients. It was a tough subject in many ways as it focused on disease rather than health. As a young student nurse, it was necessary to have knowledge of this subject and how it was best treated in the view of “established” medicine.
How amazing it would have been to put the focus onto genuine good health, how to achieve and maintain it, and how to adjust many of the maladies through aiding the immune system to become stronger through the added incorporation of homeopathy, natural healing, kinesiology, and what is known today, as terrain therapy. But the point here is that the subject of disease was tough to confront at 17, so why would anyone want to focus the attention of our children on the study of diseases every year?
Imagine your beloved children studying that subject every year. What do you think that would do to their young minds? Why do they need to know about diseases? As mentioned, why not help them understand the components of good health? Unless the intention is to create extreme fear and prime them to feel they must have the next globally marketed toxic poison in their arm —without the approval of their parents — at a young age, when they may have no idea of potential ramifications? Surely, constantly studying “disease” is little more than psychological torture of our children, inviting them to an introverting existence of confusion, fear, despair, introversion, and potential suicide?
Put another way, will what is proposed encourage and help them to be introduced to the wonder of nature and its exquisite beauty? Will it direct their attention outward towards the miraculous blueprint of nature, how it works, and what its basic building blocks are? Will it give them a thirst for more knowledge, and encourage an awareness of where their special gifts may be? Does it create joy and enthusiasm and nurture them on their road to adulthood, providing a stable and safe environment in which to learn and create and to help them discover the special skills and abilities with which they were born? Does it help them discover the miracles of the natural world in which we live?
How wonderful it would be to see schools thriving by really helping teach children to read, master arithmetic, write by hand, create beautiful art, be introduced to subjects they naturally gravitate towards, help them explore the divinity of nature, how good their natural immune system is, acknowledge them for who they really are — spiritual beings with a mind and body with an innate sense of ethics, morality and joy. Lots of sunshine, fresh air and exercise, along with a knowledge of skills that encourages self-sufficiency… what a privilege to ignite that joy and enthusiasm that is naturally inherent in each one of our children.
If you do know about what is proposed — are you afraid of speaking up and voicing opposition for fear of being targeted and fear of censure? Do you prefer to try to navigate your way through instead, with a plan to just privately discuss anything with your children that may come up? That may not be the wisest plan as children don’t tend to discuss these topics with their parents, but with their friends — who will be just as confused as they are. And these days they probably don’t feel at all comfortable with challenging what is taught at school, for fear of being the odd one out. In this strange dystopian world it is just “not done” to speak out, to be the only one objecting. A lone voice. Out on a limb.
Or have you read through to here and decided that this is rubbish and that no government would ever be so evil as to foist this curriculum content on children? Please, do your own research, find out for yourself and come to your own conclusions. The links in this article may prove helpful.
If you have spent time with babies, pre-schoolers and young children from loving families, you’ll know the wonder of their universe and how beautiful it is. Their pure souls shine through — it is a special kind of indescribable joy to rediscover the beauty of the world through their eyes. If anyone could be described as close to God, it is these special souls all over the world.
These are our children and grandchildren and the future of the human race that we must safeguard. We need to stand together — in front of them, protect them, and decline consent to any dark curriculum that could lead to the destruction of their young minds and beautiful souls.
Perhaps speak to other like-minded parents and form small groups. Concerned teachers could also meet, as could those on the Boards of Trustees for each school. Parents, grandparents, and others, can be a very powerful way to inform the schools in your area that you peacefully say no, and you will not allow this. Despots cannot force you to teach it and they cannot force it on your schools.
We are many. They are few.
And if the school education system near you is too politicised, then surely it is time to form other groups outside that system and withdraw our children from “school” to keep them safe.
It is when truancy becomes an act of self-defence. Home-schooling outside the school system is also possible, where like-minded parents can link up, and children can be taught in a safe environment. There are also online schools that have sprung up in recent years that have good reputations.
This stops when parents, grandparents, teachers, each member of the Board of Trustees in every school, and concerned citizens just peacefully say No.
Perhaps it may also be worthwhile to also take a look behind the various agendas that seek to divide us and find who it is that is keen for us to be divided? Most Kiwis readily accept that adults are free to make their own personal decisions, as long as it doesn’t harm others. There is no argument with that, but our young children are not in a position to make such complex assessments yet, and it is not the business of a government to take it upon themselves to indoctrinate young children on subjects like puberty blockers, particularly with the life-long risks.
Who seeks to divide us on our sex, our beliefs, the colour of our skin, our morality, and our spiritual nature? What are the intentions? Who is in talks with new world orders and one-world governments?
Who is it that only allows “free speech” for an accepted political view, but employs a vicious cancel-culture and accusations of hate speech if one dares to disagree? Perhaps be wary of those who say they “represent” us, but appear to mistakenly assume that means they can “rule” over us, which is a lie.
Research, and draw your own conclusions. One of the best ways of defeating tyranny is to refuse to allow them to divide us and to peacefully decline to be involved with any instruction that you disagree with.
While discovering your answers for the best way forward for you and your family, let’s keep our children, our families, our spiritual beliefs, our morality, and the wonder of nature, safe.
Take time to laugh and love and be with those you care for, where free exchanges of ideas are always welcome. And never let anyone deter you from doing what you do best to create a beautiful and wondrous world and to protect all that is pure and good.
To be free is to be capable of thinking one’s own thoughts – not the thoughts merely
of the body, or of society, but thoughts generated by one’s deepest, most original,
most essential and spiritual self, one’s individuality.
Rudolf Steiner
