New post graduate course in Dublin City University (DCU) aims to hook children on sex!

Post by Marie Cummins.

The newest post graduate certificate in DCU entitled; Sexuality and Sexual Health Education is pointing towards an overly sexualised, secular society where anything goes, as long as you are in control. This collaborative partnership between DCU school of Nursing and the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) states that it will help individuals to 'make healthy decisions about sexuality and sexual health regardless of their position in the life span'. This loaded statement indicates that no matter what age a child is, they will be educated about sexual decisions and explicit sexual terms and behaviours unsuitable for their age. Now that these explicit courses are beginning to emerge in Ireland, Irish citizens need to fully understand the consequences and implications of such sexual programmes being promoted in school settings and health care settings.

The course undoubtedly is promoting CSE (Comprehensive Sexuality Education), which essentially includes issues such as abortion, promiscuity and LGBTQIA rights. Sexuality education as proposed by this new course promotes sexual rights at the expense of sexual health. Ultimately the goal of such programmes is to change the sexual and gender norms of society. A more accurate name to this course would be abortion, promiscuity and LGBTQIA rights education.

As outlined on the DCU website the key objectives of the course include to;

▪ Train a generation of educators in Sexuality & Sexual Health.

▪ Elaborate on sexuality-related literary, artistic and cultural discourses.

▪ Advocate for the implementation and where necessary the creation of social

  policy on sexuality, sexual health education, and sexual education promotion in

  relation to human rights that shape social justice and diversity.

Comprehensive sexuality education is promoted by powerful organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and UN agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNICEF, and UNFPA. Even the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) promotes CSE.

The controversial nature of CSE promotes the following:

• Masturbation to children as young as 5 years old

• Encourages children to explore their gender identity

• Teaches children about orgasm, homosexual and heterosexual sexual acts

• Promotes abortion as safe and without consequences

• Promotes CSE as a human right and promotes high risk sexual activities as safe.

• The program also teaches children about the right to abortion, and encourages

   them to advocate for sexual rights in laws and policies.

This comprehensive approach to sexuality education is pornographic in nature and fails to include emotional, physical and psychological health risks of promiscuous sexual activity.

PARENTAL RIGHTS

Despite the fact that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in Article 26.3

Says that: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” these programmes are taught without adequate parental notification or consultation. This is a gross violation of parental rights.

Provision is also being made at an international level which grant children privacy and confidentiality further alienating parental rights.

The question to ask here is; confidentiality from whom? and privacy from whom? This violation of the constitutional rights of parents to guide and educate their children will make it very difficult for parents to know what their children are being taught and shown at school. This so called ‘sexual liberation’ of children from the parents conservative or religious views regarding sexuality and indoctrinating them in a new worldview that coincides with various liberal political ideologies is extremely dangerous. The purpose of such programs is to expose children to explicit sexual content without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

This new course offered by DCU is only the beginning, the dangers of such explicit CSE needs to be exposed and our children must be protected from ludicrous liberal sexual agendas.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission appointment

The Iona Institute reports that Michael O’Flaherty – ‘who is still formally a Catholic priest’ – has been appointed as head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.  Mr. O’Flaherty (he has not yet been officially laicised) was to the fore in the drafting of the Yogyakarta Principles which promote and advocate, among other things, the legalising of homosexual adoption.    In taking over control of the NIHRC he is following in the footsteps of another notorious person who disregarded the whole notion of human rights with regard to the protection of human beings from the moment of conception until natural death.  That other person is Monica McWilliams. 

Michael O’Flaherty currently serves on the UN Human Rights Committee as Ireland’s representative, and he is also Professor of Applied Human Rights at the University of Nottingham.   Following reported Irish Government lobbying, O’Flaherty was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Committee once again.   He is a strong and vocal advocator for ‘rights’ for homosexuals and others of like agenda.

The Iona Institute says that, ‘Currently, the [Yogyakarta] Principles have no legal status’, but that lobbying on the part of homosexual groups would allow them to argue that domestic legislation could lead to soft-law international norms – ‘despite the absence of reference to such “norms” in actual hard-law treaties ratified by sovereign nations.’

Michael O’Flaherty was one of the invited speakers at the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs NGO Human Rights Forum in 2006 and again in 2007, in Dublin.  At the 2007 Forum he spoke on ‘the work of the human rights treaty bodies’, and what he saw as ‘resistance problems’ in that ‘some states will not play with the system at all; they will not ratify the treaties and the whole framework therefore just passes them gloriously by.’  However, he said, there is ‘a movement towards universal ratification of these treaties’, and mentioned the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an example in this regard.

As is well known, the liberal Fine Gael/Labour government in Ireland is making huge efforts to ensure that a ‘children’s rights’ referendum takes place in the very near future.  The terms of the referendum – which would, if carried, ensure that an amendment inimical to the true rights of families and children would be inserted into the Constitution of Ireland – have yet to be finalised, but it is feared that the final wording will not be in the best interests of society

Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity meets firm resistance at Human Rights Council in Geneva

The debate on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action at the Human rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday was used by a loose coalition of member States to launch a statement on  "ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity"

Columbia presenting the document  on behalf of the group indicated that it had the support of 82 States. The Columbian statement recalled previous statements made in the Human Rights Council in 2006 and in the General Assembly in 2008. Three counter statements were made opposing the Columbian statement, one by the Organisation of Islamic Conference the OIC group delivered by Pakistan, one by the African Group delivered by Nigeria and one by the Russian Federation.

In making the OIC statement Akim Vetikhar Ahmed of Pakistan reaffirmed the counter statement delivered at the 71^st meeting of the 63 session of the General Assembly in New York in 2008 referring to the so called notion of sexual orientation and the misrepresentation of the concept of gender. He also asserted that the Vienna Declaration does not include such notions

 Grigory Luki Yantsev on behalf of the Russian Federation rejected all forms of discrimination against any group  and while agreeing that this is a sensitive issue said that the Federation do not agree with those countries that have turned the protection of persons on the basis of sexual orientation into a tool for promoting corresponding lifestyles and behaviour

Mr Ositadinma Anaedu of Nigeria on behalf of the African Group told the meeting there was no consensus on the issue of sexual orientation and traced the history of attempts to include it back to the Durban meeting in 2001 where it was rejected and it has been continuously rejected in both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly whenever the issue was raised. He told the meeting that this is an undefined concept and the African heads of Government had reached an agreement at their 2010 meeting not to accept undefined terms. He told the meeting that his group resent the attempt at the imposition of values on them that they do not share.

The US delegation strongly advocated for LGBT rights and said they were proud to join the countries supporting the sexual orientation and gender identity declaration, comparing the initiative to the struggle for democracy in other parts of the world, for example, in the Middle East. The US delegate stated that the declaration "creates no new rights".

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi made a statement opposing the initiative saying that the Church, and other people of conscience, understand that sexuality is a gift that should only be understood and expressed within its genuine context, between one man and one women in a committed marriage. Archbishop Tomasi also clarified misunderstandings and misuse of terminology that permeate this debate at the UN.

The Holy See he said “wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity.  This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience”

Archbishop Tomasi also told the meeting that the Holy See wished “to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session.  The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances”.

More propaganda from Irish President on Homosexual lifestyles

 Mrs. Mary McAleese, President of Ireland, has once more spoken out publicly in support of homosexuals and their lifestyle.   It seems to be quite a recurrent theme of hers – unless, of course, it is that the Irish media likes to dwell on these matters and to highlight any mention of the homosexual agenda, particularly from such a public figure as the President.    

On this occasion, Mrs. McAleese was speaking at a ‘Traveller Pride Week’, when awards were given for various categories of achievement within the traveller community.  ‘Travellers’ is the name now given to those who form that group within Irish society once known as ‘Tinkers’ (arising from their chief craft and occupation of tin-smithing).   They are a wonderful people, with great family and religious traditions, but over the past few decades their traditional way of life – travelling from place to place around Ireland, and providing valuable services for the ‘settled’ population – has become more and more difficult as traditional trades have been replaced by more ‘modern’ and ‘up-to-date’ technology.

Now, too, the so-called ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ gurus have taken up the ‘cause’ of the travelling people, and not always for their betterment.

To get back to Mrs. McAleese, however – addressing the travellers, she is quoted as having said that they have faced ‘more than a few Everests of negativity’, so that their stories of success are ‘exactly what we need to hear at this difficult time.’  She went on to say that minorities within the traveller community, ‘such as people who were gay’ had to ‘cope with being doubly excluded’.   ‘For many kids who grew up … as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, we know that very often the first words of exclusion that they will hear … will likely be in their own home.’   One of the ten Traveller Pride awards was won – surprise, surprise – by the ‘Gay Traveller Support Group’.     Another award winner declared that: ‘There are a hundred ways to be a Traveller and being gay is just one of them.’

Mrs. McAleese, too, despite the numerous requests and entreaties to her earlier this year not to do so, signed into law the ‘Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill’ with unseemly haste (see my blog of 29 July 2010).    This Bill, now enacted into law, is a big threat to family and life in Ireland, but Mrs. Aleese – despite her duty as custodian of the Constitution of Ireland – chose instead to ignore the special protection afforded and guaranteed to the family by the Constitution, and acquiesced instead with the promoters of the homosexual agenda both in Ireland and, particularly, in Europe.

The Irish national television station doesn’t lag behind in this matter either.   On a recent Friday night programme, the ‘Late Late Show’, the presenter was interviewing the members of a music/singing band.  Having touched on the family situation of three members of the band, and mention being made of their wives, children, etc., he came to the fourth member and congratulated him on his forthcoming marriage.   It emerged, however, that the ‘marriage’ and ‘engagement’ (also referred to) were between two homosexuals.   Sadly there was not a whisper of a reaction from the audience present.  I wonder what is the reaction of the population at large who watch this particular programme in their thousands, and whether we have been sufficiently indoctrinated to accept the homosexual lifestyle as being a normal way of life. 

 

Even the current weekend ‘Magazine’ produced by one of the Irish daily newspapers highlights homosexuals and makes reference to Mrs. McAleese’s support for them. (The ‘Magazine’ will be lying around in houses for a week from now, as it also contains all television and radio programmes for that period).

Sad times, when such propaganda can be so easily provided to ‘soften up’ the people of Ireland.

John Smeaton’s blog for 4 December 2010 touches on the same subject.

New Book: Pill is Marital 'Cancer' -- Mentally, Physically and Spiritually

Christian Newswire reports that Irish pharmacist and pro-life leader Patrick McCrystal is in New York City this week for the U.S. launch of his second book, which deals with the devastating effect contraception has on marriages and the culture as a whole.

McCrystal's book comes on the heels of Nancy Gibb's recent expose in Time magazine, "Love, Sex, Freedom and The Paradox of the Pill," which celebrates the "first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick." This was followed by the surprisingly candid commentary on the Pill by movie star and celebrity sex symbol Raquel Welch, who sees the lasting legacy of the Pill as the breakdown of marriage and the family: "I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy."

"Contraception is a most potent destroyer of marital harmony," said McCrystal, author of Who's at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ. "Most would be surprised to see me and Raquel Welch lining up on the same side of a debate, but she makes some very smart and accurate points in her column," observed McCrystal. "While her diagnosis is correct, my book goes a step further to offer the prescription that can help heal ailing couples: re-centering their marriage on Christ."

A trained pharmacist, McCrystal stopped dispensing the contraceptive pill in 1993 because of its abortion-causing nature. This decision resulted in the loss of his job and subsequent unemployment for three years. Undaunted, he has since spent thousands of hours researching, writing and speaking internationally on contraception and related issues. He is the chairman of Human Life International's Ireland office. One who "practices what he preaches," McCrystal resides in Northern Ireland with his wife, Therese, and is the father of 5 children.

On Friday, McCrystal will be joined in New York by Tony and Ann Crowe, a young Irish couple who bear witness to how contraception almost destroyed their marriage and how they were able to reverse the toxic situation.

European Parliament Contempt for National Sovereignty

The European Parliament has once again shown its contempt for the sovereignty of member states of the European Union and additionally for family rights and the rights of the child, by introducing a resolution castigating Lithuania. The resolution which was debated in the European Parliament today Wednesday 16th Sept. and will be voted on tomorrow, related to a law passed recently by the Lithuanian Parliament to protect minors from inappropriate information.

On 14 July 2009, the Lithuanian Parliament approved an amendment to the national Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, which will come into force on 1 March 2010. Under this amendment it will be prohibited ‘to directly disseminate to minors […] public information whereby homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations are promoted’, because it has ‘a detrimental effect on the development of minors’,

The Liberals, Greens. Socialist, and Communist group of the European Parliament tabled 6 identical oral questions to the EU Commission and the EU Council of Ministers attacking the new law and asking them to issue a statement whether or not this amendment to a national law is incompatible with human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in international and European conventions and notably with freedom of expression, The whole tenor of this attack on the Lithuanian law is based on the view that non discrimination policy is more important than the rights of the child or parental rights. There was a refusal to recognize the relevant paragraphs of the international human rights instruments regarding the rights of the child and the rights of the family. Many of the speeches condemned the Lithuanian law however some MEP’s pointed out that the debate was inappropriate and reminded the Parliament that Lithuania is a sovereign nation

A particularly enlightened speech was given by Slovakian MEP Anna Zaborska who told the Parliament

˝In 2006, Slovakia was condemned by the EU institutions because of a freedom of conscience clause in its national legislation. Today a national law from Lithuania which aims to protect minors from sexualisation by society is condemned by the EU institutions.
I consider our meeting to be a manipulation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is not a legally binding instrument. The EU Parliament is ignoring the legitimacy of the national Parliament of a Member State. The EU Parliament also requests an Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency, but this Agency has no mandate to assess the legal quality of a national law.

I wonder what the Irish people will think about these procedures in advance of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What else can they think but that soon, Ireland also will be condemned because of its laws that protect the family and life? I profoundly regret that the European Parliament does not respect the basic principles of diversity and national culture, and that we question the protection of children and the right of parents to educate them.˝

The issue will be voted on tomorrow Thursday 17th September

Sex Ed and Learning Disabilities

Catholic Action UK report that FPA (formerly Family Planning Association) used Sexual Health Week to launch a campaign promoting explicit sex education among children with learning difficulties.

The CD-Rom produced by FPA apparently contains explicit depictions of sex and masturbation and, according to Audrey Simpson of FPA: "It's more explicit than mainstream sex-education."

This is yet another aspect of the FPA campaign to sexualise children at an earlier age because of the self evident failure of previous programmes to reduce either teen pregnancy or STD levels

Despite the failure of the current approach the FPA recently called for parents to lose the right to take their children out of sex education classes and wants compulsory lessons to start at the age of four.

Humanae Vitae 40 Years On

The landmark Papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) which was published by Pope Paul VI, 40 years ago this week has claims to being the most controversial encyclical of modern times.

The encyclical which reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on the regulation of births is perhaps the most misunderstood papal
encyclical. It simply teaches the truth about human sexuality, a truth which was (and still is) unpaletable, a truth that became the spark which led to decades of doubt and dissent among many Catholics, plunging us into what Pope John Paul II so aptly called the “culture of Death.” Denounced by critics inside and outside the Church, Humanae Vitae has nevertheless proved to be chillingly prophetic in its warnings. Forty years later this encyclical is more relevant than ever

The Encyclical warned of four trends which would occur if the use of artificial contraception became widespread. First it claimed there would be a general lowering of moral standards throughout society. The second claim was that there would be a rise in infidelity. The third claim was that there would be a lessening of respect for women by men, and finally that it would lead to the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments. Any truthful analysis of modern society will clearly show that all of these predictions have come to pass, each with its own drastic consequences, the moral destruction of society Paul VI warned about in his encyclical can be seen all around us.

A new website set up to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Humamae Vitae contains a wealth of information on the issues and is well worth a visit

,