By CAM LUCADOU-WELLS
A GROUP advocating for an end to family violence has attacked a Casey councillor’s criticisms of a respectful-relationships schools program.
Our Watch chief executive Mary Barry said it was “absurd” of Casey councillor Rosalie Crestani to suggest that the state’s Building Respectful Relationships program was sexualising children.
“This confuses the problem with the solution.”
Ms Barry said the program taught young people to reject aggressive behaviour, sexualisation, discrimination and gender stereotyping.
“Young people have told us that due to a lack of guidance from parents, teachers and role models, they turn to popular culture – music, film, television, video games and pornography – to get information about relationships, sex, and the way men and women, boys and girls are supposed to act.”
She said young people had access to a widening array of negative messages on sex and relationships in popular culture and online.
Young males were first accessing porn as young as 9 years old, Ms Barry said.
“Respectful relationships education gives young people the skills to identify, critique and reject such sexualisation and foster healthy personal identities based on the principles of respect and equality. It uses age-appropriate materials and proven teaching techniques.”
Ms Barry said a recent Royal Commission on family violence recommended the rollout of the schools program after a successful 12-month pilot.
“We can continue down the path of letting young people work out how they feel about sex and relationships guided only by damaging influences and the advice of their peers.
Or we can do what the evidence says works.”
At a meeting on 19 April, Casey councillors almost unanimously backed Cr Crestani’s motion against the program.
Cr Crestani described the program in public schools as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” that promoted premature sexualising of young people, citing Casey Multifaith Networks’ concerns about explicit content.
“The community from so many walks of life have expressed outrage.”
It was a “sexually political agenda”, akin to a “communistic approach of having the child controlled by the state”, Cr Crestani said.
