Attempts to solidify the state’s role as mothers and fathers within society continue to emerge.
Two lecturers from the University College Cork in Ireland co-wrote a recent paper arguing that a very explicit form of sexuality education is “primarily a child’s human right, independent of state discretion and/or parental rights.”
The academics frame sexuality education as “a child’s human right” that would essentially bypass any parents who may oppose it, or the “notion” that parents have a right “to withhold this education from their children if they see fit.”
“Child rights” pushed through comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) are the next frontier for institutions like the United Nations, organizations, academics, philanthropists and governments. Why? Because CSE targets the hearts and minds of the next generation, who are future voters. This type of curriculum also intentionally seeks to drive a wedge between parents and their children by undermining the values and beliefs that are taught to children in the home.
Last year, I reported on a Human Rights Watch submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Privacy Rights which, if implemented, would be a means for globalists to pressure nations to grant children legal rights to bypass parental consent.
These “rights” would give children absolute privacy when accessing the following: abortions, hormone injections for the purpose of gender transition and/or puberty blockers, online and offline information on any subject and to any materials (this means inside their classrooms, schools, at doctors offices, extracurricular activities, etc.), access to explicit information contained within Comprehensive Sexuality Education, male children using female bathrooms and change rooms, as well as medical provisions tailored for full access to minors with zero parental assistance or knowledge.
I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that the UN’s allies are petitioning the organization to help establish “child rights,” while academics are openly advocating for the same. But even this agenda has its flaws. International law clearly affirms the legal and moral rights of parents in directing their child’s education:
- “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26.3.
- “Parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child… [the state] shall render appropriate assistance to parents.” United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 18.
- Education should be directed to “the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity… and values.” United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 29.1(c) .
The UCC academics pointed several times to the European Court of Human Rights, writing that the court “has held that parental convictions that are ‘incompatible with human dignity’ or that ‘conflict with the fundamental right of the child to education’ are not protected. This provides a basis for arguing that the dignity of children requires the provision of sexuality education even against the wishes of parents.”
In other words, if you as a parent have convictions or a conscientious objection with something the school decided to teach your child — your views are bigoted, and are a harm to your child’s dignity. The same principle applies if you wanted to remove your child from a situation where they were learning information that was contrary to your beliefs.
Parents will always know what is best for their children, while bureaucrats, philanthropists, the UN and globalists alike never will. Trusting the latter to have all the solutions for the diversity of the world’s families is truly irrational. Children are not born and then surrendered to the government (and those who really pull their strings). They are born into a unique family, and that is by intelligent design. Children need guidance, discipline, and care on an individualized level. The best place for them to receive such is inside the safety and care of their family home, with parents who are free to make decisions based upon their needs, and not constrained by that of unelected (and elected) individuals with skewed agendas.