This follows the million-dollar survey conducted five years ago by the Australian Human Rights Commission which proved a huge letdown for the activists because all that was found was a lot of unwanted staring and tiny rates of sexual assault.

I was the only journalist in Australia to suggest we should be celebrating our safe universities.

KANGAROO

Whilst mainstream media beat up a new narrative about widespread campus “sexual violence” which activists used to bully universities into setting up the kangaroo courts, implementing sexual consent courses and the like.

Now they’ve tried again, and contrary to what has appeared in the media in recent weeks, the results are even more disappointing for feminists.

The latest survey published recently found that sexual harassment rates were less than a third of those reported in 2015-16 (eight per cent compared to 26 per cent), and minimal rates of assault (1.1 per cent for the year surveyed compared to the earlier figure of 0.8 per cent).

What a joke, given that they’d done everything they could to expand the definitions of sexual misconduct.

The latest survey included as harassment such gestures as staring, making comments about your private life or physical appearance, and repeated requests to go on a date.

The response rate for the survey was just 11.6 per cent – 43,819 self-selected responses from those invited to participate, who were in turn just part of the 1.6m university students in this country.

So, the new report is based on a piddling 2.7 per cent of the student population.

Not that the facts or statistics matter two hoots when our media remains determined to sing from the radical feminist songbook.

They carefully shifted the goalposts, highlighting such critical matters as the newly discovered peak sexual assault rates for pansexual students and claiming one in three students experienced sexual assault over their lifetimes – statistics that include incidents of assaults for school children unrelated to any campus crisis.

Additionally, no one bothered to look at official sexual assault rates for this age group.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey shows sexual harassment rates for 18-24-year-olds at 27.3 per cent and sexual assault at 3.4 per cent – making it very clear that our universities are extremely safe compared to the general community.

Yet the propaganda campaign rolls on.

CONSENT

It was recently announced that all Australian high school students are to be taught about sexual consent. Mandatory education programs are being rolled out across the country teaching boys not to rape.

It’s mainly due to Sydney schoolgirl activist Chanel Contos who burst into the limelight last year when she announced that a school sex education course had led her to discover she’d been raped two years earlier.

As a 13-year-old she alleges she had been “coerced” to go down on a boy at a party, but it took a Year 10 school sex education course for her to realise what had happened to her.

She started a website encouraging other girls to tell stories of similar sexual assaults and nearly 2000 obliged.

Ever since she’s been out there calling out male misbehaviour and lobbying for school sexual consent courses.

We heard shocking stories of drunk girls waking up to discover males taking advantage of them, boys behaving badly, circulating photos of their mates having sex, etc – some truly unacceptable examples of male behaviour.

When questions started appearing in online comments about why so vulnerable youngsters were attending these alcohol and drug-fuelled parties, any suggestion that girls needed to take care of themselves were howled down.

There was only one permissible narrative – toxic males and helpless females.

Now sexual consent education will reinforce that message.

SNAPSHOT

I’ve recently been sent snapshots taken from the brand-new curriculum being introduced in one South Australian school.

It’s fascinating seeing how the educators twist themselves into knots to avoid any hint of victim-blaming. They’ve come up with a new slogan: “Vulnerability is not the same as responsibility”.

Take, for example, this little scenario featuring Kim. Be warned, it’s pretty confusing because we aren’t given the gender of Kim, who uses the pronoun “they”.

Kim is out drinking, and a man “they” knows offers “them” a ride home but instead drives to a secluded spot, parks, and wants to have sex.

Our educators spell out the message very clearly: it’s the villain, the driver, who is 100 per cent responsible for his actions and whether or not Kim is safe.

Kim is simply “vulnerable” as a result of decisions “they” have made to get into this situation.

In this particular scenario, we don’t know the gender of the potential victim, but the bulk of the responsibility/vulnerability examples given in the curriculum involves males taking advantage of girls who arguably signal sexual interest in various ways by wearing low-cut dresses; or inviting a boy to “snuggle” with them in a private room at a party.

Another snapshot shows a classic example, featuring Jen and Luke. Note that it is taken from an American publication called “Men Stopping Rape” – which says it all.

VULNERABLE

The predominantly female teachers who will be guiding the students’ discussion of these scenes will no doubt work to convince the kids that the boy is inevitably 100 per cent responsible while the innocent girl is simply vulnerable.

The curriculum does include one scenario, Ali and Josh, describing the situation of a girl who has sex because she fears her boyfriend might dump her if she doesn’t. That’s true to life – a very good example of a girl giving consent she may later regret.