I'm not surprised to see this from an organization that has previously compared its pro-LGBT opponents to Nazis four separate times, all of which were sincere, not rhetorical or in jest.
Here's what happened.
In Australia, the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program is aiming to combat anti-LGBT bullying in schools. It appears to have run into opposition from anti-LGBT bigots. It was launched on June 13 this year. The increased opposition in recent times may be due to the election of a Labor government in my home state of Victoria on November 29. Premier Daniel Andrews is promising to strengthen anti-discrimination laws, legalize same-sex adoption, recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and has already appointed a Minister for Equality, the first in the country. The government is strongly in favor of the program.
The Australian Christian Lobby, however, is not. They have up on their website a blog post about the program, and they are distributing a letter and a brochure opposing it. Collectively, the blog post, the letter and the brochure describe the program as:
dangerous and controversial.
an activist campaign that imposes a sexual agenda on children.
thinly disguised propaganda to normalise homosexual behaviour and cross dressing among students at an age when some may be confused about their identity.
a radical sexual agenda pushed on Aussie kids.
social engineering.
LGBT propaganda disguised as an anti-bullying program.
Here are some of the problems that they have with the program:
It inappropriately sexualises the classroom. By encouraging students to “come out” as gay, lesbian or transgender, the program exposes students to serious physical and psychological health risks. Encouraging confused boys to use girls’ toilets and change rooms (and vice versa) is inappropriate and could lead to problems with sexual harrassment.
In New South Wales, the “Proud Schools” pilot program (similar to the Safe Schools Coalition program) resulted in reverse bullying in Burwood Girls High School. When students were pressured to support same-sex “marriage” by signing a mural, girls who wanted to uphold true marriage – as the union of a man and a woman – were abused and bullied.
Puberty is an emotional time for many students who are still developing their sense of identity, and focusing attention on homosexuality is unhelpful at this time. Most teens who experience same-sex attraction become opposite-sex attracted in adulthood. They should not be falsely led to believe that their adolescent attractions are necessarily fixed and permanent. Students with current same-sex attractions should not be encouraged to embrace activity linked with serious health risks.
Emphasising homosexual bullying tells other bullied students that the reasons they are mocked or abused are not as important, deepening their sense of injustice and despair. School communities should foster courtesy and respect for all other students, not just some.
I find these two concerns quite onimous:
This safe Schools Coalition program leads to a school culture where children are no longer free to question sexual lifestyles that deviate from the heterosexual norm. One has to wonder whether a child who questions the assumptions and values in the program, will be labelled homophobic.
Whilst the SSC program is run under the guise of reducing bullying, its method is to create an affirming and celebratory culture of sexuality in the school environment.
In fairness to them, the letter and the brochure also made these statements:
We deplore all forms of school bullying.
All students deserve a safe school environment[.]
School communities should foster courtesy and respect for all other students, not just some.
A child who is experiencing inner questioning and is not happy within themselves should receive the support of parents, teachers and qualified counsellors.
Now I want to respond to some of the claims made by the letter.
First, a response to their claim that bullying based on sexual orientation is rare. To support this, they cited a study from the Toronto District School Board. This is all that needs to be said. The situation in Toronto is not likely to be the same as the situation in Australia.
Here is the situation in Australia:
- 66% of LGBT youth have experienced verbal abuse because of their sexuality.
- 18% have experienced physical violence.
- 16% have attempted suicide.
- 33% have self-harmed.
- 42% have contemplated either suicide or self-harm.
This is what the ACL does not want to address.
Now onto their statements about gender non-conformity. They have said that gender non-conforming youth are "suffering from gender dysphoria", which is "analogous to anorexia", and "need compassion, but not reinforcement of their confusion." In actuality, gender dysphoria is the distress that may result from gender non-conformity, not the gender non-conformity itself. Their anorexia analogy doesn't look good, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on if they are saying that gender non-conformity is as harmful as anorexia. It appears that they're saying that the two are actually similar in the regard that both involve someone experiencing the opposite of what the reality is. But even this is not true, as you are whatever gender you identify as. And their statement that gender non-conforming youth need to have their reality and identity denied as false is just plain dangerous.
Now onto their claim that by "encouraging students to “come out” as gay, lesbian or transgender, the program exposes students to serious physical and psychological health risks." They think that being gay, lesbian or transgender automatically means serious physical and psychological health risks. I find it funny that while the religious right always makes a point of separating inclination from action, they refuse to actually accept this consequence of that reasoning: the inclination does not make you unhealthy. If you do something sexually risky, you may face a health problem. But the inclination, in and of itself, leads to nothing. The psychological health problems come from bullying, harassment and discrimination because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, which the ACL wants to make sure nothing is done about.
They also made the claim that "[e]ncouraging confused boys to use girls’ toilets and change rooms (and vice versa) is inappropriate and could lead to problems with sexual harrassment [sic]." Never mind the fact that this is complete bullshit.
They claimed that a similar program in the state of New South Wales led to the bullying of students who oppose marriage equality. Any bullying that did occur is very wrong, and I condemn it unequivocally. But one thing strikes me here: it sounds like they do want something done about this bullying, even as they want to stick their head in the sand about anti-LGBT bullying. Secondly, all this incident calls for is a rethink of one tiny element of it: the signing of a pro-marriage equality mural. All that needs to be done is ensure that no students are singled out by an encouragement to do something. You don't need to do away with the program entirely.
They said that same-sex attracted young people will be told that they are certainly gay, which may not be the case. I'd like to share my experience on this question.
My attractions to members of my own sex began last year. I believe it was Sunday, September 29 when I saw on the Internet a photo of two young guys at a beach with their arms around each other. I liked the look of it, and it put into my mind a flicker of the idea that I might be somewhat inclined in this direction. This possibility was substantially reinforced on Friday, October 11. I was in a class at school (I'm 17) with one of my best friends, who is another guy. I was really glad when we sat next to each other. And during the class, we were watching a video, and the two of us leaned a little bit towards each other in case we wanted to quietly say something. I could feel warmth coming off him, and I liked it. I was thinking about this class hours later.
These feelings and awareness continued, and got a little stronger. On Sunday, October 20, I concluded that I was attracted to him. On Wednesday, October 23, I asked my mother about what I was feeling. At the time, my feelings weren't that strong, and I didn't convey what I was feeling as clearly and strongly as what it actually was. My mother said it was nothing, and I believed her. For a few days, I stopped thinking about it.
Sometime between Monday, October 28 and Thursday, October 31, a sense of what I was feeling came back. I then had that weekend plus Monday and Tuesday off, during which I was thinking about it. I returned to school on Wednesday, November 6.
And I had never felt what I felt on that day.
Suddenly, I had profound romantic feelings for him. I loved talking to him, because I could look at his face. I was quick to respond to any question he asked me. I couldn't turn back to my work without glancing at him one last time.
These feelings only increased over the next couple of weeks. I started to really look forward to my classes with him. I always made sure that I sat next to him. Any time I was with him, I had my feelings for him flood up inside me. Riding the bus home in the afternoon, I would dream about kissing him. On the night of Friday, November 22, after questioning from my mother as to what I was thinking about, I revealed it to both my parents.
What followed from that was a serious of conversations that I had with my mother as to what it meant, which lasted until about March this year. In this time, I have had strong sexual attractions to numerous other guys. This brings it back to the ACL's claim. I don't know what's going to happen from here. I cannot definitively tell you if I am gay, straight or bi. (Although, the fact that I had, when I was 10, a crush on another boy seems to indicate to me that this is probably going to be enduring.) But for God's sake, ACL, I do know that the fact that same-sex attractions might not be enduring is no reason to abandon all efforts to combat bullying based on sexual orientation. What kind of tortured logic is that? It might not last, so don't do anything about the bullying?
They also said that "emphasizing" anti-LGBT bullying sends a message that other types of bullying doesn't matter. This is a very narrow-minded view of a very serious issue. In trying to get rid of a problem, you have to focus on the causes of the problem. You have to make it so people don't want to do it in the first place. That involves changing attitudes towards LGBT youth. And it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fact that schools try to understand why bullying occurs for all bullying anyway. They do try to understand the causes and motivations so they can eliminate them. Sometimes, sexual orientation is one of those causes. So you focus on it. I would also contend that bullying on the grounds of an immutable characteristic is worse than other types of bullying, because it attacks the very values that society needs to continue to function in ways that other bullying does not, values like tolerance and pluralism.
Finally, in other news that will surely piss off the ACL: Our High Court has refused to hear an appeal from a Christian camp group that, back in 2007, refused to book a camp for a community health group running a camp for a group of same-sex attracted young people. The denial of an appeal lets stand a ruling from April this year by the Victorian Court of Appeal that found that the camp group had unlawfully discriminated because of the refusal.