Recently, the Administrative Court of Braga (Portugal) dismissed a father’s case that aimed to stop his two sons, outstanding students, failing their school year for not attending Citizenship and Development classes. This is a process that has dragged on since the 2018/2019 academic year. The confrontation is marked by the involvement of the Secretary of State for Education, João Costa, who does not accept the conscientious objections of parents who consider that the subject goes against art. 43rd of the Constitution and art. 26rd of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is claimed that the classes are harmless and that it will promote good citizenship practices. Really? After reading the class materials, it is very clear that, in fact, there is a promotion of “gender theory”, which has no grounding in science (which is why it is called “gender ideology”), the early sexualization of children and the deconstruction of Family, among other approaches that demonstrate contempt for national culture, identity and sovereignty. There is clear evidence of indoctrination and social engineering, of which only a tiny part is described, with scandalously inappropriate resources used for teaching.
The references to Gender Equality are more than 40 per cent of all topics for study within the subject. Therefore, this topic clearly assumes particular importance in the (very doubtful) intentions of the Government.
Under the pretext of “gender equality” which is abused as a Trojan horse for “gender ideology” – the government is seeking to enforce ideas about gender fluidity and remove biological facts about the human body and our sex.
With a view to encourage “gender ideology”, “inclusive” language is proposed as a precedent for “neutral language”. The materials implicitly call the use of a generic masculine a deep rooted sexist terminology and that by tearing up how our language traditionally works it will change the perception of what it means to be women and men.
Considering that the promotion of “gender ideology” is always accompanied by the early sexualization of children, there is no lack of allusions to the latter, with inappropriate objectives. For example, the intention is for children aged six to twelve: to understand and respect diversity in sexuality and sexual orientation and from ten to twelve years old: identify different contraceptive methods.
Scandalous, too, are practical exercises aimed at young people aged between twelve and fifteen. These include: “Who manifests the first desire for greater sexual intimacy?”; “Who is responsible for talking about the use of contraceptive methods and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections?” and “What principles, then, should guide the affective and sexual relationship between individuals?”. These are underage children that the government seems to be wanting to push towards sex.
There is also no lack of evidence of the intention to deconstruct the Family, as conceived in the foundations of Western society. One example in pre-school guidance says that “diversity requires some reflections: does it make sense to celebrate Father’s Day or Mother’s Day as was traditionally done? How do you explain this diversity of situations to children?”
It even seems that generational conflict is promoted. The guidance recognises that the “lessons” “could conflict with families…” but then goes on to say that it is ok to cause family strife as “it should be remembered that there is a dimension of conflict essential to development and learning.”
It overtly seeks to break apart the traditional and consistently most stable form of relationship – marriage. It hides this behind a façade of LGBT talking points that are in turn directly criticising heterosexuality in women by calling it an “overestimation, by women” of the importance of marriage and heterosexual relationships. Note also, that it is only criticising women and not men.
Moreover, there is contempt for national culture, identity and sovereignty in the Citizenship and Development syllabus. It openly calls for the teaching of citizenship to be distanced from the “concept of nation”. Instead, it focuses on the nonsensical idea of how globalization means that we are part of a “deterritorialized Global Citizenship, founded on common values”. This is something that completely ignores how many nations have wildly different values. This lack of recognition for basic principles means that the syllabus’ call for “accepting the multiplicity of people’s belongings” is hopelessly flawed. Inevitably it leads to domestic tension and instability as a refusal to promote cultural assimilation only ever leads to division.
To achieve the syllabus’ ends, “practical exercises” are proposed, clear social engineering mechanisms. In pre-school, children are led to “question the relationship between biological identity and personality characteristics (that is, the relationship between sex and gender)”.
Other exercises are proposed that further break with enforce specific views. For example, simulation or role-playing» for boy and girl activities” and “research about the life of animals with forms of expression of sexuality different from human, such as the snail; and non-stereotyped ways of expressing gender, such as the aggressive queen bee or the caring father beaver.”
I was disconcerted to find further inappropriate approaches to certain themes such as a women’s life goals. One example is the discussion quote “Women are the pillars of homes. They must be prepared to earn their daily bread if they have the misfortune of finding a man who spends his life in the taverns playing and getting drunk”, he sentenced”.
Later on in the teaching materials career is defined as a priority in women’s lives, disregarding any choice. Six identical graphs are presented, comparing the occupation of business executives and senior officials by marital status, insinuating that married women in contrast to separated, divorced, widowed and single women, are hampered in their professional success and career progression. This is clearly an attempt to drive women away from marriage and discourage them from the clearly possible duo of marriage and successful careers. The basis for this? An outdated study that has less than 20 per cent of respondents calling marriage an obstacle to a woman’s career.
I mentioned earlier how the syllabus seems to promote confrontation between children and their parents. There are also of practical exercises that are nothing more than obvious demonstrations of surveillance and “reporting” of family conflict and structure.
Included in the teaching resources are Amnesty International’s educational manuals, which contain an apology for free and indiscriminate abortion, where “women’s rights” are always referred to, without reference to the embryo/foetus as a human life to be protected.
In the field of Sexuality, LGBT activism is promoted, through the presentation of brochures and documents from the Ex Aequo and ILGA Network (which are listed as “useful links”) and the defence of Gender Ideology is not lacking in the “resources”.
For all that has been presented, it is not surprising that, aware of the ongoing process of acculturation and indoctrination, a father would seek to prevent his children from being forced to attend classes in “Development and Citizenship”. Unfortunately, this father has faced barriers typical of authoritarian regimes, which intend to impose ideology on Education, punishing non-compliance.
Families, parents, teachers and educators must unite and rise up to abolish indoctrination in Education, as an unconstitutional process, because the children do not belong to the State.
“The State cannot program education and culture according to any philosophical, aesthetic, political, ideological or religious guidelines.” – nr.2 of Article 43 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
“The priority of the right to choose the kind of education to give to their children belongs to parents.” – Paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.