Curriculum 21 – with Sex Education against Normal Children and their Families

by Gerd J. Weisensee, DLit, MSc, Managing Director of the Pro Life association

In mid-June the secretariat of the Swiss-German Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (D-EDK) quickly released an announcement. There will be “no sex education for four-year-old children” within the framework of the new “curriculum 21” which is worked out at present, the EDK affirms. Media reports suggesting otherwise were “wrong”. Inquiries came to the result that obviously responsible federal officials had acted unauthorized behind the back of the ministers of education.

A few days later in Berne national councillors of CVP (Christian Democratic Party), EDU (Federal Democratic Union) , FDP (Liberal Democratic Party) and SVP (Swiss People’s Party) and also the General Secretary of the EVP (Evangelical People’s Party) presented a “petition against sexualisation of the primary school”. They demand that parents are allowed to dispense their children from sex education that pupils are not instructed in “sex plays and sexual practices” and are not influenced in their “sexual orientation”.

Ministers of education are responsible for their departments

In various cantons there are similar protests. In Lucerne the young SVP is collecting signatures for a petition titled “No sex education for four-year-olds”.

Fears that already the smallest children shall be educated with partly insensitive methods are rejected by the EDK. She especially distances herself from a “principal paper” that was developed by the controversial Competence Centre for “sex education and school” located at the Pädagogi­sche Hochschule Zentralschweiz (Teacher Training Centre, Central Switzerland) in Lucerne.

The document was “neither produced by order nor with the help of the Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education”, its contents were “not binding for the curriculum 21”, the EDK says.

That’s only half of the truth. Correct is that the EDK has tried to evade the pressure of media and politics for quite a long time. A paper from November 2010 provided for “internal use” says: “Whereas experts from the Institute for Sex Education in Uster and the Competence Centre Sex Education and School in Lucerne want to establish sex education topics already in kindergarden, conservative circles oppose this plan vehemently.”

The “experts” (respectively those who act in favour of their private particular interests, the editors) thus demand sex education already in kindergarden, as the EDK admits. Therefore petitions and protests are not misguided.

Moreover: The institutes mentioned are not any secondary organisations or even private clubs who can write and say what they want. If the EDK denies any connection to the competence centre, she conceals the facts. There are close personal, institutional and financial relations between the federation, the cantons and so called “sex experts”.

Federal Office of Public Health hasalready squandered 1.343 million Swiss francs without due authority

Titus Bürgisser, controversial director and promoter of the sex-education, advises the curriculum developers. His “Competence Centre Sex” is part of the PHZ Lucerne. It is supported by the Confederation with hundreds of thousands of francs. A contract between the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) – the Aids section is taking the lead (chief officer is Roger Staub, who used to work at the Swiss Aids Association which had fallen into disrepute) – and the PHZ regulates the collaboration. The centre has so far been awarded 1.343 million francs in federal funds, contributions by the central Swiss cantons not included. This financial windfall reveals a clearly defined order: with the aid of the Competence Centre sex education is to be “implemented country-wide” at schools, it reads in the contract.

There are basically two variants. First: The retraction of the ministers of education is tactical – it would then be regarded as an attempt to evade political pressure in the election-year. Second: They are serious about their doubts about the competence of their own experts. But then the question arises, why should millions of taxpayers’ money be spent on institutions which – as the EDK put it – are “not binding”.

This clarifies what has to be done: the BAG is to close down its Aids section and leave this work to private organizations. The BAG has hired people who have already once experienced a rebuff by the National Council with the infamous “leather men” brochure. Second, the contract of the BAG with the PHZ in Lucerne is to be terminated with immediate effect. There is no need for a “Competence Centre Sex”. Finally, one should take a closer look at the advisory board of the PHZ. According to accounts received it is also the home of IPPF extremists etc. It also accomodates representatives of organizations which act for homosexuality (LOS, Pink Cross) or the right to abortion and support sexuality in freedom (PLANeS, Artane, etc.). It is not enough to these circles having misled the people to liberalize abortion up to birth; they are obviously striving for the cause of their perverse gender main-streaming philosophy. It is time to act.    •

Source: ProLife. Editorial 2/2011