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.

Catholic schools are not entitled to promote Catholic views on sexuality according to former HSE regional manager

A former Health Services Executive (HSE), regional manager of health promotion, Dr Jackie Jones in an article in the Irish Times March 5^th unbelievably claims Catholic schools are not entitled to promote Catholic views on sexuality.

According to Dr Jones ‘Schools funded by taxpayers cannot include abstinence as part of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE). The R in RSE stands for relationships, not religion.’ She also claims that, ‘access to sex education is a right for students under the terms of Article 11.2 of the European Social Charter.’ Other views expressed by Dr Jones in her article include describing abstinence until marriage as an, ‘unachievable objective’, and despite convincing evidence to the contrary she claims that abstinence programmes do not delay sexual activity.

The Irish Times article follows and can be found on thislink

Unbelievably, talks on sexual abstinence are still delivered to post-primary school students by external agencies. A spokeswoman for an organisation called Pure in Heart was interviewed last week on RTÉ ’s Today with Seán O’Rourke.

Her message was it’s good to be pure and abstaining from sexual activity until marriage is the best option. Listeners, who texted in their views, were largely in favour of chastity education, thought teaching about purity was “refreshing”, and Catholic schools were entitled to promote Catholic views on sexuality. They are not.

Schools funded by taxpayers cannot include abstinence as part of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE). The R in RSE stands for relationships, not religion.

A Department of Education and Skills (DES) circular (0037/2010) issued to post-primary schools says that access to sex education is a right for students under the terms of Article 11.2 of the European Social Charter.

This must be “objective, based on contemporary scientific evidence and does not involve censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting information”.

All aspects of the RSE programme must be taught, including contraception, sexually transmitted infections and sexual orientation. “Elements of the programme cannot be omitted on the grounds of school ethos.” Each school must have an RSE policy, including how invited external agencies fit into the overall plan.

Circular 0023/2010 about RSE, Best Practice Guidelines for Post-Primary Schools , spells out the precise criteria that apply to classroom visitors.

“All programmes and events delivered by visitors and external agencies must use appropriate, evidence-based methodologies with clear educational outcomes.”

What might these be for abstinence programmes? Students will abstain from sexual activity until marriage? An unachievable objective.

Convincing evidence

There is convincing evidence that abstinence programmes do not delay sexual activity, have no impact on frequency of sexual activity or number of partners.

Perhaps the objective is that students will understand they can choose not to have sex? Surely they know this already. That is the whole purpose of the RSE programme.

Anyone over 17 years of age, married or single, gay or straight, can choose to have, or not have, consensual sex at any time.

The guidelines also spell out teaching approaches that should not be used.

Schools are advised to avoid the following methods: use of scare tactics (masturbation causes depression); sensationalist interventions (showing teenagers unconscious from alcohol use); testimonials (inviting in an ex-addict, alcoholic or sex abstainer); information-only interventions (a talk from a health specialist on sexually transmitted infections); once-off/short- term interventions (talks on hygiene by nurses or any other health topic); normalising risky behaviour (giving the impression that most teenagers get drunk, have sex and take drugs) and didactic methods (Powerpoint presentations).

Teenagers need comprehensive sexuality education which, theoretically, is delivered by the RSE programme. Unfortunately, whatever they are learning, it is not good enough.

Not working

The messages about choice, sexual rights, consent, and using negotiation skills are not getting through.

A January 2014 study, commissioned by Rape Crisis Network Ireland, found that university students, who would have taken the RSE programme just a few years before, see consent as a tacit unspoken process.

“The male gender role was to push the progression onward through successive stages, while the female role was described as acquiescing, showing willingness, or acting as gatekeepers to halt progression.

“It was seen as weird or amusing to consider consent as something that would be explicitly negotiated.”

Part of the problem is that while schools tick the boxes to say RSE is covered, there is no evidence about the quality of classes. A report published in January 2014, Results of Department of Education and Skills ‘Lifeskills’ Survey, 2012, showed that available data “do not provide any insight into the quality of RSE provision within schools”.

No one knows what contribution external agencies and visiting speakers make to learning outcomes even though they are used to support RSE programmes in 95 per cent of post-primary schools.

In most schools the input of the external facilitators is not effectively integrated into the relevant programme plan.

Programmes linking abstinence to purity, implying that anyone who engages in sex outside marriage is contaminated, have no place in schools.

Marriage does not confer special wisdom about sex, or any other important human experience, which magically descends on a couple on the day of the ceremony. Abstinence education is like trying to teach someone to ride a bike with the brakes permanently on. It can’t be done.

The DES needs to stop these nonsense interventions now and start measuring the quality of RSE classes.

Dr Jacky Jones is a former HSE regional manager of health promotion

Action Alert: Estrela Report

We reported on October 22nd that the controversial Estrela report to the European Parliament on “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (SRHR) was referred back to the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM).

We can now report that this controversial report and is to be dealt with by the FEMM committee very swiftly. The report is scheduled to be discussed and voted on, in the Committee next Monday and Tuesday November 25^th and 26^th.

The report and resolution on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights presented by Portugese MEP Edite Estrela, actually represents an assault on parental rights and would undermine the Sovereignty of member states, in that it attempted to make abortion a fundamental human right, remove conscientious objection and introduce pornographic sexuality education even for young children .

The Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, COMECE, condemned the resolution and pointed out that the EU had no competence in the matter.

The report although presented by Edite Estrella is reported to be the work of  radical NGO’s including the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in Brussels. 

This was clearly stated by Ms Estrela herself as she thanked NGOs during discussion on the report on the evening prior to the plenary vote. The involvement of IPPF in the preparation of the report was confirmed within the FEMM Committee: IPPF Europe's representative publicly claimed having contributed to the draft report on the very same afternoon it was presented in the FEMM Committee.

The speed at which the report is coming back to the table is surprising given that there are many other reports awaiting attention. Not only has the FEMM Committee put this as the first item on its agenda for its next meeting on November 25^th, but the report and its resolution has also been placed on the draft agenda for the December plenary session

We recommend that readers should in the first instance contact the members of the Femm Committee before next Tuesday and to ask them the following:

• To promote transparency and the public parliamentary debate: the MEPs should be invited to explicitly express a request for amendments to be tabled in the Committee.

Explanation: As the agenda of the Committee stands today there is no room for amendments that could change the content of the report but the report would actually just be debated and then voted. According to the procedure of the European Parliament it is not necessary to make “cosmetic” changes when a report is referred back to its’ committee but the political contents should reflect the different political positions. 

• To vote the alternative resolution: 

This was tabled for the plenary session and therefore cannot be ignored. MEPs should be asked to ensure that the alternative resolution is voted in the Committee.

• Ask for a public vote in the Committee. 

The rules of the European Parliament allow for a nominal vote (roll call vote) in committee (art. 195-3 of the Rules of the European Parliament). A quarter of the voting members, i.e. in this case 9 of the 33 members must support such a request. All members of the Committee, both full members and substitutes can ask for a nominal vote. 

We will return to this issue next week to report on the outcome of the FEMM committee deliberations and with further recommendations.

Report on Dublin Family Conference

  Where is the Catholic Family Going in New Millennium Ireland?
 

We report today on the conference in support of life and family issues which was held in Dublin last Sunday and which was a great success. The conference was centered on  the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul ii  "Familiaris Consortio" which sets out a charter of rights for the family. In view of the importance of the presentations made during the conference we will report more fully on some of these over the next few weeks.

 The presentations included a wonderful explanation of the work of MaterCare in Africa by Dr Robert Walley its executive director. Dr Walley described his horror at the plight of women in the 3rd world and his development of a “Marshall Plan” for mothers to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and his difficulty in getting development aid from first world countries unless he included abortion and contraception services.

Dr Walley told the meeting he has developed a charter of rights for mothers which include the following

Article 1 
                           Every mother must be allowed and enabled to welcome the gift of her child.  Every child must be valued as a gift and must not be reduced to being considered as the object of someone else’s alleged right
Article 2
         Every mother has a right to respect for her dignity, religious, moral, social, and cultural values, and the right to be free from every form of unjust discrimination or coercion, during pregnancy, childbirth and afterwards.
Article 3
     Every mother and every child has the right to the treatment and care needed to try to ensure the survival of each of them during pregnancy and childbirth; nothing must ever be done deliberately and directly which causes or which is intended to cause the death or either of them, nor must anything morally upright be deliberately omitted in order to provoke the death of either; essential obstetrical care must always be provided during pregnancy, in childbirth and afterwards.

Former MEP Kathy Sinnott addressed the conference on the issue of the upcoming children’s rights referendum.
Ms Sinnott told the meeting that the Irish Government signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child without a referendum despite the fact that it conflicts with the Irish Constitution. The basic conflict revolves around the issue the most appropriate way of implementing children's rights and through whom, the parents or the State. The current Irish constitution favours parents however there is much pressure from the UN and EU to be the arbiter of children's rights. Where this has occurred in other countries  such as Sweden children are regularly taken into care for spurious reasons and can be given contraception and medical interventions such as abortion without parental knowledge or consent

Dr Eanna Johnson spoke about the current position regarding Catholic Catechises and the fact that a whole generation has gone by without adequate formation in faith and morals despite major expenditure on programmes such as “Alive O” which have proved to be not just inadequate but harmful to children's faith in contrast with the old penny Catechism and apologetics courses which was available to previous generations.

Patrick Fagan PhD spoke about his work and explained that by using official US  statistical information in his research he has produced incontrovertible evidence that the most appropriate environment for children is the natural family based on marriage. The statistically validated research  shows that outcomes of intact family units exceed all others in so many ways, including areas such as higher educational achievement and family income. The research shows that the intact family which has a strong faith and attend church regularly are the happiest and most fulfilled.

Antonia Tully described some of the milder sex education programmes that are used in Catholic Schools in England and Wales and told the meeting that she would not show some of the more explicit programmes that are available in other  schools because they are actually pornographic. Antonia then went on to describe the new “This is my Body” programme which is a school taught programme with the involvement of parents. There was huge interest in this programme as it is clearly a very sensitive and appropriate way of instructing children in the area.

Dr Tom Ward discussed the inalienable right of parents as the primary educators and protectors of their children against the background of two worldwide paradigms or blueprints for the family the Civilization of Love and Life on the one hand based on God and the family and the Culture of Death on the other hand based on the agenda of atheistic, wealthy, aggressive, Western elites.

Dr Ward told the conference that Many families in Spain, Poland, Hungary, Russia and the United States are rebelling against the state imposition of this failed atheistic paradigm and that they wish to replace it with a new Civilization of Love and Life, based on marriage between a man and a woman and their parental love and protection for their children. “We must urgently make common cause with them” he said

Hooking Kids on Sex

American Life League (ALL) report  that (A)after just four days on YouTube, "Hooking Kids on Sex," an investigative report on Planned Parenthood sex education, exceeded 200,000 views. Then, an ex-intern of Planned Parenthood got the white-hot video blocked by YouTube. In place of the downed video, a message now appears: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Jessica Faerman."

"Even people who thought they knew better were shocked by how Planned Parenthood promotes sex to youngsters," said Paul Rondeau, executive director at American Life League. "Remember when activists alleged that just the fact that Joe Camel was a cartoon character implied kids should smoke, so he was banned? Planned Parenthood cartoons directly tell children to have sex and show them how. These cartoons for ten-year-olds and teens are so sexually explicit that YouTube restricted our video about them to adult viewing only."

"Hooking Kids on Sex" shows that Planned Parenthood uses pornographic illustrations, contests, workshops, and even cartoons to encourage sexual activity at very early ages when sexual addiction can be a real concern. The report also documents "no pants sex parties" that are sponsored by Planned Parenthood and that offer free sex kits and free sex toys to college students.

"Now go read Obamacare," Rondeau continued. "In 'Hooking Kids on Sex II,' we show that Planned Parenthood's strategy is to restructure the family by changing how children view sex. This same stuff YouTube says is too explicit for a youngster is what Obamacare will pay Planned Parenthood to put in K-12 schools."

ALL leadership firmly believes that Planned Parenthood used Ms. Faerman's claim as a ploy to disrupt the viral explosion of the ALL Report. ALL will post the new video on private servers in addition to YouTube so that "Planned Parenthood cannot create disruptions with unsubstantiated claims." Further, ALL has engaged legal counsel, guaranteeing at the outset that the new video will not be taken down without a court order.


In view of the explicit content the following link to the video requires judicious and careful use link

Sex education as sexual sabotage

 We have reported on the issue of sex education programmes in the past and the fact that very young children are being given very explicit information. See also BLOGs of Oct. 26 2010

The Daily Mail in a recent article reports that parents across the UK are in revolt at the explicit nature of sex education being taught to very young children. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the prior right of parents to choose the type of education to be given to their children. It is good to see that parents are at last fighting back against a nanny state

John Smeaton of SPUC in a recent BLOG highlighted the fight for children's minds and hearts currently being waged in schools and advised readers that SPUC's Safe at School campaign is co-hosting a meeting in Westminster today December 1st, from 11am to 1pm, entitled: "Sex education as sexual sabotage". The other co-host is the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children under the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group.
The speakers will include

• Dr Judith Reisman: the global expert on Alfred Kinsey, creator of the canon of modern sex education. It is his ‘scientific research’ which underpins what our children are being taught under the guise of sex ‘education’.

• Mrs Lynette Burrows: a leading commentator on the family. Her published works include “Fight for the Family: The Adults Behind Children’s Rights.”

SPUC annual conference

The SPUC annual conference which took place last weekend provided an excellent insight into the current state of the pro-life movement both in the UK and internationally. 

The presentations included an insightful talk by Fiorella Nash on maternal mortality, an in-depth look at sex education in schools by Antonia Tully and a particularly noteworthy address by Bobby Schindler in which he spoke of his family's battle to keep his sister, Terri Schiavo, alive after a court ruled that her nutrition and hydration be withdrawn. Other aspects of the conference included a wonderful presentation by SPUC youth members, the launching of the new SPUC talk for schools, a variety of workshops and the awarding of a pro-life award to Peter Saunders of Christian Medical Fellowship who gave a presentation on "How the pro-euthanasia lobby works".

We concentrate today on Bobby Schlindler's address but will return to some of the other topics in future BLOGS

Bobby told the conference his sister's death was the "Roe v Wade of the euthanasia movement in the United States." Bobby talked of his family's battle to keep Terri alive after a court ruled that her food and hydration be withdrawn back in 2000..

Bobby told the meeting that in the first 2 years following her collapse Terri's medical records showed that her rehabilitation treatment was effective and she was starting to speak. "We were very hopeful about these tiny steps," he recalled.

Things took a turn for the worse after a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992 in which Terri was awarded $1.5m for her treatment and her husband Michael was awarded $600,000. According to Bobby it was after this ruling and receiving the monies that things changed for Terri: the relationship between Terri's husband Michael and the Schindler family broke down and all communications stopped in 1993.

Shortly after this the family learned Michael had requested nurses not to provide Terri with antiobiotics for an infection. When they refused he moved her to another facility with the same request. Those nurses also refused. By 1998 he had engaged a pro-euthanasia attorney and the family received a letter stating that they would seek to have Terri's food and fluids removed and that Terri had wanted this. In 1999 legislation was changed in the state to define food and fluids as medical treatment.

Terri's case went to trial in 2000 and the judge ruled in favour of Michael Schiavo despite the serious questions about her living will or that Michael was set to inherit the money from her death. Bobby said:

"I'm still to this day amazed at the publicity Terri's case received specifically because it was already happening every day. Before the case Terri was very much alive, but the media protrayed her as someone whose quality of life was so poor that this action was in her best interests. Even medics were surprised at how responsive she was despite being neglected for so long. My sister wasn't brain dead. They call this an end of life issue but it isn't. Terri was very much alive. It became an end of life discussion when she wasn't at the end of her life."

According to Bobby what happened to Terri is now ordinary practice across America. It has even been argued that the definition of articifical feeding should be expanded to include more than a feeding tube but also spoon-feeding and that even bringing a tray to patients as diet must receive medical approval. Bobby told the conference he estimates hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people are now directly affected by the sort of thing that happened to Terri, and that's not even looking at terminal sedation cases or other ways of putting people to death. Bobby said:

"We now decide who lives and who dies on a quality of life judgement."

He also said some vulnerable people are now being described as 'non-persons' by many academics in the States. He added:

"The biggest thing we're up against is apathy, people don't care until it happens to someone they know."

He also said the pro-euthanasia lobby is now very powerful and has the backing of a media willing to distort the truth and a growing insensitivity towards people like my Terri, compounded by the language people use to refer to the vulnerable. Language like 'vegetable' should be abolished from our vocabulary, he said, as it serves no purpose but it's entrenched in our mentality and is validated by our mainstream media.

Bobby ended by recalling the experience of his family as they watched over Terri in her final weeks. He said:

"Our family had to watch Terri die of dehydration, watch her deteriorate."

When people ask what she looked like at that time he says he can only compare her to victims of Auschwitz. Her appearance, he said, was horrific. She had blood pouring in her eyes in the last days. It was disturbing to watch and not a peaceful way to die. And for Bobby the most heart wrenching thing was watching my parents.
To compound the family's grief George Philos, Michael's attorney, gave a press conference after Terri's death and said she'd never looked so beautiful as in the last week of her death.

Since Terri's death her family has formed the Life and Hope Network to help other families in the same situation in the US and around the world.

The truth and meaning of human sexuality

In view of the recent attempt by the former UN special rapporteur on education to push an international agenda aimed at sexualising children from an early age I think it is appropriate to consider the alternative The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality – Guidelines for Education within the Family which was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1995. It is essential reading for all parents (not just Catholics) who are concerned about the totally inappropriate and dangerous so-called ‘sex education’ that is provided in schools today. These are some of the chapter headings in the document: ‘True Love and Chastity’, ‘Father and mother as educators’, ‘Paths of formation within the family’, ‘Learning stages’ (this chapter covers ‘Four principles regarding information about sexuality’ – the years of innocence, puberty, adolescence in one’s plan in life, towards adulthood), and ‘Practical Guidelines’.

The Introduction to The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality suggests to us that:

‘Among the many difficulties parents encounter today, despite different social contexts, one certainly stands out: giving children an adequate preparation for adult life, particularly with regard to education in the true meaning of sexuality. There are many reasons for this difficulty and not all of them are new.
‘In the past, even when the family did not provide specific sexual education, the general culture was permeated by respect for fundamental values and hence served to protect and maintain them. In the greater part of society, both in developed and developing countries, the decline of traditional models has left children deprived of consistent and positive guidance, while parents find themselves unprepared to provide adequate answers. This new context is made worse by what we observe: an eclipse of the truth about man which, among other things, exerts pressure to reduce sex to something commonplace. …
‘Then the school, making itself available to carry out programmes of sex education, has often done this by taking the place of the family and, most of the time, with the aim of only providing information. Sometimes this really leads to the deformation of consciences. …’

On another occasion I hope to tell you about a related and valuable book entitled Tried but Untested – The aims and outcomes of sex education in schools. It was published in 1995, but its relevance to ‘sex education’ in schools today is even more disturbing than when it originally appeared.

Sexuality education for Children

On October 22 and 26th I blogged about the report on ‘Comprehensive sexuality education’, which was debated in the third committee of UN General Assembly in New York this week. My Blog of Oct 26th relates how strong opposition to the proposal to sexualise children from an early age sent the clear and unambiguous message to those countries and organisations pushing the agenda that there is no such right as an 'internationally recognized right to comprehensive sexuality education'!

Consequently, the UN Special Rapporteur’s attempt to advance sexual rights around the world by claiming that there is an international right to “comprehensive sexuality education” was thwarted. This was a victory for common sense but we all need to be vigilant because this agenda is already being pursued in many countries and attempts are being made to introduce it to children at an early age. The tendency is to do so gradually first between the ages of 10-12 and then claiming the need to lower the age to those at the beginning of their school years

In Ireland for example a booklet entitled ‘Busy Bodies’ was issued in 2007 by the Health Promotion Department of the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) South, and funded by the then Crisis Pregnancy Agency (now called the Crisis Pregnancy Programme, and incorporated into the Department of Health). The booklet is addressed to children in 5th and 6th class of primary school (between 10 and 12/13 years of age). In a note to parents and teachers it is stated that:

‘This booklet is meant to complement the ‘Busy Bodies’ DVD, which your child will probably have seen at school. The booklet and the DVD are used in 5th and 6th class of primary school, as part of the Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) programme. This programme is an integral part of the Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) programme, which has been part of the school curriculum for a number of years. … Basic information about sexual reproduction is also given. …’

It is, and it is appallingly graphic. I wonder how many parents are aware of the existence of this booklet, and I wonder how parents know that the booklet, and the DVD, will have been given to and shown to their children while they are in school?

Radical report on sexual rights to be debated in the United Nations General Assembly

A radical report on the right to “comprehensive sexuality education” aimed at sexualizing children from a very early age, will be discussed by the UN General Assembly (GA) in New York on Monday next October 25th. This report which was presented to the GA by Vernor Munoz as the final act of his term as UN special rapporteur on education appears to have been prepared by “the Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women’s Rights” Link to report

Mr. Munoz in submitting this report clearly exceeded his mandate by using his office and this report to promote the radical “sexual rights” agenda. The report is designed to try to establish a new international right to “comprehensive sexuality education” by claiming it already exists. He claims that all countries are already obligated by existing international agreements to provide explicit “sexual” education in their schools and argues that meeting these obligations requires governments to incorporate the elements of the radical sexual rights agenda in their school curricula.


Specifically, in the report Munoz states that he “considers that pleasure in an enjoyment of sexuality . . . should be one of the goals of comprehensive sexual education, abolishing guilt feelings about eroticism that restrict sexuality to the mere reproductive function.”
 With regard to HIV the report declares that “restricting sexual education to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases . . . may create an erroneous association between sexuality and disease, which is as harmful as associating it with sin.” The report further claims that this “right” can only be realized if children “receive comprehensive sexual education from the outset of our schooling.”

In other words, according to this report, children as young as five or possibly even preschoolers must be taught about their right to sexual pleasure.

With regard to religion, the report warns that in some cases “sexual education has been obstructed in the name of religious ideas” and then adds that “comprehensive education acts as a guarantor of a democratic and pluralistic environment.” The report also criticizes “barriers to sexual education, such as allowing parents to exempt their children from such education.”

So in other words, religions and parents should not interfere with the government’s supposed obligation to sexualize children in order to guarantee this “democratic and pluralistic environment”

The report discusses what helps young people “have better sexual lives, as if improving the sexual lives of youth is a valid goal of governments, and it strangely states that the “goal of education for sexuality” (which is significantly different from traditional sex education) is “to develop a transforming role for men by going beyond the strictly genital and physical aspect,” whatever that means.

The report cites the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Guidelines on Sexuality Education that calls for respect for “diversity of sexual orientations and identities” and cites a UN Committee ruling that governments are “required to ensure that sexual education programmes did not reinforce stereotypes or perpetuate prejudices regarding sexual orientation.”

The report also endorses the radical “Yogyakarta Principles”, which is the foundation document of the sexual rights movement, claiming that these Principles “have to be taken into account in education” because of its “inclusion of the diversity perspective.”

The report concludes by calling upon the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to “investigate specific problems relating to barriers and challenges to effective enjoyment of the right to comprehensive sexual education” and for the UN Human Rights Council to question Member States during their periodic reviews before the committee about how they are ensuring the “enjoyment of the right to comprehensive sexual education.”

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

Abstinence-only sex education to be defunded

President Obama's health budget proposals for 2010, eliminates funding for abstinence-only sex education programmes and increases funds for the provision of condoms and contraceptive-based sex education. The budget eliminates the $133 million set aside for CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) and Title V Abstinence Education Program, the two main federal abstinence-education initiatives. (AP report)

Abstinence only programmes have received about US$1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s and have proved to be very effective. The only 100 percent effective way of preventing all STDs and premarital pregnancies is to abstain from sex until marriage to an uninfected spouse and to remain faithful within marriage. Contraceptive based sex education not only denies young adults this most basic truth but also places them in danger of infection from a variety of STD’s and to unplanned pregnancies.

The proposed budget according to an Abstinence Clearinghouse press release calls for an additional $150 million for contraceptive-only education, which includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories,

See also SPUC Director BLOG POST

NACF's open letter

John Smeaton reports that the National Association of Catholic Families in the UK has penned an open letter to the Catholic Education Service, accusing the CES of "arrogantly and undemocratically [attempting] to usurp our rights (as parents) and challenge our moral authority as primary educators and protectors of our children".

The letter follows Oona Stannard, Director of CES, publicly welcoming Government plans to make Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in all primary and secondary schools. However, it is also a visible sign of the growing dissatisfaction and anger among ordinary Catholic parents, who feel betrayed by a service that is supposed to support them in the education of their children but instead appears to be selling out to the demands of an aggressively anti-life government.

The Catholic Education Services needs to start taking the views of Catholic parents seriously or risk losing any credibility among the increasingly embattled Catholic minority of England and Wales. Might I suggest that Oona Stannard takes another look at the excellent Fit for Mission? Schools document by Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue on the subject of Catholic education?

Ending Anti-Woman Sex Education

Britain's Opposition Party, the Conservatives, appear to have finally woken up to some of the dangers to women inherent in current sex education policies. Their new strategy 'Ending Violence Against Women' apparently includes teaching children about the concept of consent as part of sex education classes. After decades of teaching that sex is 'all about me', some one may just possibly have got the message that young people need to be taught that sex is about more than self-satisfaction.

What nobody is prepared to admit, however, is that the bill for the so-called 'sexual liberation' of the 60s is being paid by women. Under the guise of empowering women to enjoy their sexuality, the twisted ideology of laissez-faire, value-free sex has contributed to violence and abuse towards women by turning women into sex objects for male satisfaction. It will not be enough to teach children about consent, though it is a small step forward. The whole ideology of sexuality that is taught in schools and promoted through the media has got to change dramatically before women can begin to be treated with the respect and dignity to which they are entitled.

Sexualising five-year-olds

An e-petition is circulating, asking the British Government not to introduce sex education lessons for children as young as five.

Government plans to impose sex education on infants has been greeted with considerable public anger, which leads me to hope - just a little - that the sex-obsessed authorities might have gone a step too far this time and that the whole thing could backfire if individual citizens persist in condemning these evil plans.

If you are involved with schools in the UK, particularly if you have school-age children, please consider becoming involved with SPUC's Safe at School campaign.

Scouts to promote condoms

The Scouts are to start giving young people sex advice, including handing out condoms, organising trips to sex clinics and referring teenagers to pro-abortion agencies such as FPA. They are using the usual mantra of self-justification: "We must be realistic and accept that around a third of young people are sexually active before 16," explains Chief Scout Peter Duncan. They could try and be realistic about why so many young people are sexually active, the possibility that field trips to sex clinics, free condoms and other gimmicks are fuelling the very problem the Scouts claim to want to address.

Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, pointed out: "Learning about contraception in local Scout groups gives the impression that young people are expected to be sexually active and that there is nothing wrong with teenage sexual experimentation."

This is a very sad move for young people and well-meaning individuals like Peter Duncan don't seem to see it. There are fewer and fewer places of real safety and innocence left to young people where they can enjoy themselves and engage in positive, worthy activities. In the name teaching children to be 'safe' and 'responsible', the Scouts are destroying yet another place of safety for children.

A tragic way to celebrate 100 years of the Scouting movement.

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.

Coercive Population Control proposed for Philippines

A major confrontation is developing in the Philippines where the Catholic Bishop’s Commission is opposing anti life legislation currently being pushed through Parliament.

The proposed legislation, “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development, and For Other Purposes”, would create a new agency called the Commission on Population that would institutionalize artificial birth control, implement sex education for students as early as the fifth grade and pave the way for legalized abortion. It also recommends that a two child policy should be adopted and obliges all health providers to provide for male and female sterilization regardless of conscientious objection.

The bill requires collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) between employers and employees to provide reproductive health care services. Where there are no CBAs, employers are compelled to provide the same. It is also a direct attack on parents as the primary educators of minor children

The Bill provides for the use of abortifacient hormonal contraceptives and injectables, intrauterine devices and other allied reproductive health service products and supplies, which will be considered essential medicines and made available for free by all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

The legislation also proposes dismissal, imprisonment and heavy fines for anyone who fails to comply with the measure. This Bill is a direct attack on human life, the family, marriage, the freedom to found a family and to decide on the number and spacing of children, freedom of conscience, and parent’s rights in respect of minor children.

This bill is a completely unacceptable totalitarian measure bordering on the coercive population control methods used in China’s one child policy

Sex clinics on School Premises

Researchers from the University of the West of England have claimed in a study that young people are more likely to visit drop-in sexual health clinics if they open on school premises. The study looked at 16 such clinics, which received around 500 visits from pupils as young as 11 every month.

Of the 515 pupils tracked over a 15-month period, over 100 girls were given the Pill or the longer-lasting injection, 55 girls were given the morning-after pill, nine had positive pregnancy tests and one girl was referred to an abortion facility no fewer than three times. Only 26% of youngsters in the sample were advised by nurses to delay sex.

David Paton, professor of economics at Nottingham University’s Business School was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying:

“Pretty much all the research on school-based family planning clinics suggests they have little or no impact on teenage pregnancy rates. There is a possibility that such services change the behaviour of some young people and may increase risk-taking sexual behaviour.”

In spite of the all too obvious failure of such policies, the British government is continuing in its efforts to impose contraception, abortion and ever more explicit sex education on schoolchildren, without the knowledge or consent of parents. It is little wonder that Britain is rapidly gaining a reputation as the teenage pregnancy and abortion capital of Europe.