“Children should be protected and their innocence preserved until they have had time to develop the maturity required to cope with adult sexual and emotional issues”.  That’s the view of Nick Griffin MEP with regard to the delivery of sex education in schools.

Last Friday (20^th January), Nadine Dorries’s Sex Education (required content) bill was due to receive its second reading in the House of Commons and Mr Griffin was contacted by a number of constituents, some urging him to vote in support of the bill and others requesting that he oppose it.  Although Nick, as a Member of the European Parliament, is not eligible to engage directly in the parliamentary business of the House of Commons, he is able to use his status as an MEP to highlight issues of concern and to campaign for change where existing policy is flawed.

In an unusual turn of events, the private member’s bill was withdrawn from the order of business by Nadine Dorries (Conservative MP for Mid Devon) on the day it was due to be debated in parliament.

With political commentators reporting that it is unlikely the bill will be rescheduled for debate, it appears that the proposal has suffered an unexpectedly abrupt demise. Responding to constituents on the MEP’s behalf, Nick’s constituency office explained why the Sex Education bill was denied due debate and why it prompted a venomous and unreasonable reaction from liberal campaign groups and the media.

“The MP for Mid Devon has refused to say publicly why the bill was withdrawn at the last minute, but the almost hysterical furore which greeted the bill’s proposal no doubt played a part in her decision. The vicious character assassination campaign waged in the media against Ms Dorries, co-ordinated by feminists, pro-abortion activists, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) groups, humanist and liberal organisations - coupled with a noisy demonstration outside Parliament to coincide with the listed debate - would have scared even the most committed politician into perhaps rethinking the stand they had taken. Being a Conservative politician, the potential impact on her political career of pursuing an evidently ill-received policy may also have influenced the MP’s decision to withdraw the bill.

“Dorries’s Sex Education bill has been described by its opponents, which as well as the groups listed above include a substantial number of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians, as “foolish”, “dangerously unrealistic” and “irresponsible” policy making. In Nick Griffin’s view, only in a society that has totally abandoned its moral compass and assents to the sexualisation of children, can such an unreasonable reaction follow a common sense suggestion that girls aged 13 to 16 (to counter-balance the explicit and extensive sex education currently delivered) should be given advice on “the benefits of abstinence”. After all, the bill merely highlights the obvious; that given the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe and the incidence of sexually transmitted disease is on the increase, it makes sense for children to be advised that abstinence is the only 100 per cent guarantee against the possibility of falling pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted infection.

“The reaction the bill received illuminates the strength of the laissez-faire moral code which straight-jackets social policy in Britain. It is not acceptable in today’s “politically correct” culture to present any opinion which fails to correspond completely with this dominant discourse. As Nadine Dorries discovered to her detriment, it is simply not done to point out an obvious truth if it contradicts the orthodox liberal view of the world.

“Mr Griffin believes that we owe it to our children to have the courage to speak the truth and the confidence to offer advice. Children should be protected and their innocence preserved until they have had time to develop the maturity required to cope with adult sexual and emotional issues. If Dorries’s Sex Education Bill had been allowed the courtesy of a sensible debate in Parliament, this might have provided a rare opportunity to hear a voice of reason which acknowledges that adults have a responsibility to provide moral direction to children. Unfortunately, as is too often the case in the corridors of democratic power, an opinion which has the temerity to deviate from the accepted norm has been silenced.

“The chance to re-balance the pendulum, which the majority of parents consider has swung too far in the direction of practical sexual education that is devoid of any emotional or moral content, has thus been squandered. With the possibility of debate on the merit of introducing a moral perspective into sex education repressed for the immediate future, this means that children (as young as six) will continue to be sexualised too soon through the provision of “education” about adult themes such as casual sex, same-sex relationships and autoeroticism.

“Although Mr Griffin is not eligible to engage in the parliamentary business of the House of Commons, he will use his vote in the European Parliament to ensure that alternative non-politically correct views are heard and that, in respect of matters relating to children, the innocence of childhood is protected.”