Showing posts with label Comprehensive sexuality education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comprehensive sexuality education. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Victory at UN Commission on Population and Development

-->
The first week in April was not a good week for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund which was first given the news at the outset of its conference, the Commission on Population and Development, that the Trump Administration had decided to withdraw funding of  around $75 million on the basis that UNFPA’s activities in China are complicit with that nation’s coercive population control program, the implementation of which includes forced abortion and involuntary sterilization.



The UNFPA problems continued later that week with a firm rejection of the anti life and family policies they and other UN organs are attempting to impose globally.  The outcome of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) was in fact a significant victory by pro-life and family forces and was the second time in three years that the Commission failed to produce an outcome document.



The 50th session of the Commission held at UN headquarters in New York, was themed, ‘Changing population age structures and sustainable development’. This was the first CPD since the Trump Administration took office in the US and was viewed by UNFPA and their anti-life allies, such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF), as a testing ground to establish the direction the administration would take when faced with demands for the acceptance of controversial language on sexual and reproductive rights and comprehensive sexuality education for children.



In recent years the negotiating strategy adopted by Western governments has been to insert many references to controversial issues in documents during the negotiating period and rely on the chair to issue a compromise text which inevitably retains some of those issues.
In this case the outcome document was similarly loaded up with controversial language and when the chair’s text was circulated early on Friday morning it was completely unacceptable. Negotiations continued all day Friday and a so called compromise text was produced by the Qatar Chair, Ambassador Alya Ahmed Al Thani, which in the end failed to satisfy either side leaving her with no option for her but to withdraw the text.



The decision by the chair to withdraw the document was enthusiastically welcomed by pro-life and pro-family NGO’s but was greeted with a shocked silence and anger by the anti-life and family brigade when the realisation sunk in that there would not be an outcome document and that their plans for sexualising children had been stopped.



One of the most poignant interventions was made by the Russian Federation’s delegate who told the meeting that pushing sexual and reproductive health rights as indivisible from human rights was nothing but an attempt to undermine international agreements on human rights.  Such formulations, he said, diluted basic human rights, which only discredited the Commission’s work.

 He also expressed opposition to use of the Commission as a “back door” through which to force various human rights concepts that did not meet the broader consensus.



Babatunde Osotimehin, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), expressed regret that the Commission had been unable to reach consensus on its outcome document for the second time adding that it was clearly a challenging time for the Commission. As population age structures changed, commitment to improving the lives of women and girls was becoming increasingly important, he said, and he urged all Member States to continue their funding of UNFPA so as to restore its core budget.

Monday, August 22, 2016

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.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

UN pro-abortion and sexual rights agenda defeated at major conference


The 48th UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD) ended on Friday April 18th with a firm rejection of the anti life and family policies the UN is attempting to impose globally. 

The 48th session of the Commission, was themed, ‘Integrating population issues into sustainable development, including in the post-2015 development agenda’. This was the last Commission before the upcoming negotiations on a new 15 year programme to be known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) and was regarded by UNFPA the UN population fund and their anti life allies, such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF), as their best opportunity to influence the outcome of the SDG’s by forcing the acceptance of controversial language on sexual and reproductive rights and comprehensive sexuality education.

In recent years the negotiating strategy adopted by Western governments has been to insert controversial issues into documents during the negotiating period and rely on the chair to issue a compromise text which inevitably retains some of those issues.
In this case negotiations on the outcome document over a period of 10 days were similarly loaded up with controversial language and by Thursday evening (April 16th) had become completely unacceptable. Negotiations continued on Friday when a so called compromise text was produced by the chair Ms. Bénédicte Frankinet from Belgium.  The Chair had removed a reference ‘sexual rights’ from the text but it still contained a number of unacceptable references.

Ms. Frankinet made it clear that her so called compromise text was final and demanded that the text be accepted without alteration as a consensus document. The Nigerian Ambassador Usman Sarki speaking on behalf of the African Group informed the meeting that the text needed further work and that in his opinion agreement could be reached in 10-15 minutes given the political will to do so. The chair was  unwilling to accommodate the concerns of the African countries regarding terminology such as ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ (CSE) and reproductive rights. Rather than qualify or delete the controversial terms the Chair withdrew the document.

The decision by the chair to withdraw the document was greeted with a shocked silence by the anti-life and family brigade, when the realisation sunk in that there would not now be any outcome document and that there was no agreement on how to integrate population policies in the post-2015 development agenda, the actual purpose of this year’s commission.

Ambassador Sarki, who had diplomatically tried to persuade the Chair to be more accommodating when he sought time to discuss proposed changes spoke very forcibly following the withdrawal of the document. “We came to the meeting with an open mind,” he said, adding that from the outset they had to deal with drafts “replete with controversial issues that have in the past not only proved difficult to deal with but are also extremely divisive in nature.” He put down a marker for future negotiations saying that member state delegations and UN officials “should refrain from putting language in drafts on which there is no consensus”.  He also said that lack of an outcome document should not be seen as a failure. “Member states”, he said, “have resisted the imposition of unhelpful ideas and concepts on all the membership.”

Mr.Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) told the meeting, in an obviously crestfallen manner, that he “regretted” that an agreement could not be reached and then went on to criticise countries for not being “tolerant,” because of their resistance to the UNFPA agenda.

The delegate from Nauru, Rennier Gadabe, complained about UNFPA harrassment of his Government during the negotiations “Does UNFPA he said, think they can do this because Nauru is the smallest member state?” UNFPA had pressured the Nauru Government to change its position on reproductive rights and CSE and was critical of the position taken by the Nauru UN delegation. The delegate angrily told the meeting that such tactics were “unacceptable.”

UNFPA has over the last few years spent hundreds of thousands of dollars arranging conferences throughout the world, in places like, Accra, Kuala Lumpur, Ocho Rios, Montevideo and other venues, with the sole purpose of firstly influencing the outcome of this session of the Commission and ultimately the Sustainable Development Goals. 


Friday, June 13, 2014

The onward march of the Culture of death in the international institutions.


Completing our series on the Nigerian pro-life conference held in Abuja, Nigeria, on June 5th and 6, we report on a presentation by Patrick Buckley, UN lobbyist for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). 
Mr. Buckley in his presentation, ‘The onward march of the Culture of death in the international institutions’, told the audience of between 1500-2000 people that no United Nations Treaty or Convention includes a right to abortion, on the contrary he said, they uphold the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.
Photograph shows Patrick Buckley with Antonia Tully and Jean Fleuron  of SPUC
In brief the agenda, aptly named, by St John Paul ii, the “Culture of Death’ attacks the accepted moral code based on natural law and Judaeo Christian principles, it can and does kill the body and it can also kill the soul.
The agenda in the International Institutions attempts to change society by changing sexual and gender norms through the introduction of, so called, ‘sexual and reproductive rights’ and seeks to:
  • ·      Reduce population by making contraception available globally.
  • ·      Deny the right to life from conception and attempt to declare abortion to be a human right.
  • ·      Promote acceptance of diverse sexual activities, sexual orientations and gender identities.
  • ·      Attack marriage and the family and undermine parental rights.
  • ·      Sexualise young people by insisting on the teaching of so called ‘comprehensive sexuality education’.
  • ·      Attack freedom of speech, religion and conscience.

In his 1993 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae (EV 28), Saint John Paul II wrote:
‘(…) we are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the "culture of death" and the "culture of life". We find ourselves not only "faced with" but necessarily "in the midst of" this conflict: we are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life’.

Pope St. John Paul ii, in response to a demarché from US President Clinton in 2004 saying that the Cairo Conference would create a right to abortion on demand, called for civil society organizations to attend the conference and oppose that agenda, resulting in it being halted.
The Beijing conference in 1995 attempted to put a similar agenda in place but once again the attempt to declare a human right to abortion was halted and the gender agenda also included in the Beijing proposals was stopped.

When the attempts to attain the goal of a human right to abortion through the Cairo and Beijing Conferences, failed there was a high level decision in the UN to change the rules and to find other ways to achieve the complete agenda. Two alternative strategies were developed.
The first was a “stealth strategy” which commenced at a round table meeting in Glen Cove, New York in 1996. Participants from UNFPA the UN Population Fund, the office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, representatives from the UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies and select NGOs met and developed a strategy to reinterpret existing treaties in order to find a so called 'right’ to abortion-on-demand, in universally accepted norms, such as the right to life.

The second strategy used by the pro-abortionists was that of attempting to establish customary international law by constant repetition of concepts such as ‘sexual and reproductive rights’.
-->
Both strategies failed to achieve their goal of abortion on demand.

Mr. Buckley told the meeting that we are entering into very challenging times in that a number of UN multi year programmes are coming to an end at the end of 2014 and 2015. The original ICPD (CAIRO) programme ends at the end of this year, 2014 and both the Beijing programme and the Millennium Development Goals finish at the end of 2015. The UN is therefore in the process of arranging the extension of these programmes and at the same time debating a new 15 year programme, which will be known as the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ or SDG’s. Attempts are currently underway to include the entire culture of death agenda in the SDG’s

In a way he said, this period is rather like the time in 1994 when Saint JP ii called Civil Society together to oppose the agenda.
UNFPA and its associates including IPPF and IPAS carried out a review to determine what is standing in the way of implementing their complete agenda which involves abortion on demand, so called sexual rights, and comprehensive sexuality education for minors. They then developed a new plan to remove the obstacles and fully implement their agenda.
Briefly they identified the Holy See as the major obstacle standing in the way of their agenda and they decided to prioritize the sexualization of adolescents and youth.
The new approach can be seen in action when one looks at the recent attacks on the Holy See by both the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on torture, which are a blatant attempt to isolate and silence the Holy See at a critical time in order to ensure their deadly agenda is accepted.

The new approach can also be identified through the seemingly never-ending series of regional meetings on youth held at various venues throughout the world such as the UNFPA, UN ECA and African Union Commission meeting Addis Ababa in 2013, which published the Addis Ababa Declaration on Population and Development in Africa beyond 2014, The Colombo Declaration on Youth Mainstreaming in the Post-2015 Development Agenda’and the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration December 2012, to name but a few.

Mr. Buckley then turned to the issue of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), which he described as a highly controversial, rights-based approach to sex education that encompasses much more than simply teaching children and youth about sexual intercourse and human reproduction.
CSE he said encourages:
            Acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities,
            Promotion of the use of condoms,
            Promotion of abortion as acceptable and safe,
            Encourages youth to advocate for sexual rights,
            Teaches youth without parental knowledge or consent under the guise of confidentiality or      privacy rights,
            Promotion of sexual pleasure as a right,
            Promotion of masturbation as healthy and normal,
            Claims that access to CSE is a human right,
            Teaches children and youth they are sexual from birth,
            Encourages sexual activities too disgusting to mention,
            Encourages peer-to-peer sexuality education.

Comprehensive sexuality education is completely unacceptable, it is pornographic, it damages young people and robs them of their childhood.

Mr. Buckley finished by making a strong and urgent appeal to the international community to stand firm in the face of these attacks. He told the conference that we cannot let them win, because what we are dealing with is actually the lives of the children of this and succeeding generations, our children and our grandchildren.
Children, he said, have a right to a child hood and programmes like this are completely unacceptable.