"In these lessons they were taught sodomy, oral sex with reference to “blow jobs” and mutual masturbation."
 
There is a difference between providing relevant information (e.g. pregnancies, STIs, contraception, abortion, anatomy, etc.) and enabling frank discussion regarding sexuality for secondary students, and teaching them sex itself. Teenagers should be able to discover sex and its various forms on their own.
 
"...a “Schools Sex Manual”, subtitled “Nice Girls have Sex”..."
 
I suppose this is an attempt to change attitudes with regard to girls who frequently engage in sex, particularly those held by Muslims. However, sluttiness will never equate with virtue in any society, be it Islamic or libertarian. Moreover, Muslims consider all Western girls to be 'sluts' and 'whores,' and these opinions are self-serving because these "youths" actually do want to have sex with Western girls.
 
"There is also a full colour booklet (no expense spared when it comes to taxpayers’ money) for 13-year-olds called “The Good Grope Guide”..."
 
Why is this necessary?
 
"Brock Chisholm, the Canadian doctor who became Director-General of the World Health Organisation, decreed that children should be freed from national, religious and other cultural prejudices inflicted on them by their parents. He advocated that classroom sex education should be introduced, “eliminating the ways of the elders by force if necessary.” […]..."
 
Unfortunately, folkways cannot be eliminated without being replaced, and in the absence of a univeral, objective and abstract "guide" concerning sexuality, Chisholm's alternate values are no less contrived than those of the "elders."
 
"It is high time parents hit back and insisted on knowing what is being taught their children in secret and behind their backs. And let’s give children back their innocence."
 
I agree with the first statement; the second is problematic: what is "innocence"? has it been taken from children? if so, who is responsible and can it be returned to them?