By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies. Click here for more information on the cookies we use.


Defending life
from conception to natural death


MP supports family groups in opposing pornography in schools

17 January 2014

London: David Amess, a leading pro-life MP, has backed a petition calling on Michael Gove, the education secretary, to resist calls for pornography to be presented in the classroom as part of sex education lessons.

The petition was organised by Safe at School, a parent advocacy group. It came in opposition to calls by Sex Education Forum, an influential lobby group, which represents many anti-family and anti-life groups. The Department for Education has invited the Sex Education Forum (SEF) to help write guidelines for schools on how to teach pupils about pornography.

David Amess joined Safe at School supporters in presenting a petition of over 22,000 signatures to the Department for Education yesterday evening:

Pictured left to right: Antonia Tully (Safe at School); Dr Lisa Nolland (Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group); David Amess MP; Yusuf Patel (SREIslamic); Edmund Adamus (Director for Marriage & Family Life, Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster)

Mr Amess said: "The  petition calls for children to be protected from pornography - not exposed to it in the classroom, as the Sex Education Forum has suggested. Children don't need to see pornography in the classroom to realise that there is something wrong about indecent images. Young people have an innate sense of modesty about their bodies which, unless it is eroded by adults, provides a natural protection against corruption. The sexualisation of young people whether for commercial reasons or ideological ones is something that our educational institutions should strongly resist."

Antonia Tully, national co-ordinator of Safe at School, said: "The Sex Education Forum has already produced suggestions and lesson ideas for teachers on how to teach children about pornography. These lessons are not about warning children and teenagers about the dangers of pornography. The SEF lessons are promoting pornography; encouraging children and teenagers to explore and embrace it."

Mrs Tully added: "The Department for Education has not announced any change in the statutory guidelines for teaching sex education, which schools are obliged to follow. The expert group is only writing advice for schools. There is a danger that schools will be confused and think that they have to follow this advice."

Safe at School, along with 20 pro-family groups and individuals, including David Amess and eight other MPs, sent Michael Gove an open letter calling on him to recognise that parents are the primary educators of their children on sexual matters - see The letter stated any group writing sex education guidelines for schools must include organisations which recognise the primacy of parents.

Mrs Tully said: "Most parents would be horrified to see the approach that the SEF is taking. The SEF message is: 'As long as you can tell the difference between reality and pornography, there's no problem'. Rather, parents are the right people to teach their own children about sexual matters."

Antonia Tully, national co-ordinator of Safe at School, can be contacted on landline 020 8407 3463 or mobile 07926 007175.

Safe at School is a campaign of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)

SPUC's communications department can be contacted on:

To subscribe to SPUC's email information services, please use the Newsletter Sign-up form to the right of this article.

Add your comment

Comments (1)

  • Rami

    11 October 2015, 7:47am

    I will probably get yeleld at for this but....While Harper runs the country as an economist (as it should be run, I might add) and has done better than previous prime ministers, that doesn't excuse his complete unwillingness to address pro-life issues. He avoids them because he knows- one way or another- he will pay for it politically. Voting someone like him in not only supports him and his stand (or lack thereof), it also gives no impetus for him to revisit any issue. He knows he will always get support, no matter how much someone may hold their noses and vote.Just my thoughts.

    Your comment has been submitted and is currently awaiting approval

Share this article