What is the United Nations Doing to Irish Education? Global Citizenship and Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Introduction

This is Part 1 of a series which will examine the power of international organisations, NGOs and activists in Ireland. It deals with education and focuses specifically on imminent changes being made to the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) curriculum in Irish schools.

Part 1 deals with the international level, which is ultimately where these changes originate. Part 2 will deal with how this is implemented in Ireland and will focus on a number of institutions and individuals involved in this process at the national level.

Sex education began across Europe in the 1970s as a response to the sexual revolution and the emergence of “adolescence” as an intermediary period between childhood and adulthood, having originally started in Sweden in 1955.¹ It is also linked to the development and widespread distribution of contraception and free access to abortion. Mandatory RSE was introduced in Ireland as part of the SPHE curriculum in 1997.² Traditionally, sex education was biologically based and focused on reproduction, however, this has changed rapidly. By the 1980s HIV became the focus while in the 1990s sexual abuse became a key feature. In the 2000s, cultural trends and powerful lobbying produced a focus on sexism and homophobia.³

An entirely new RSE curriculum and ethos has been developed and parents need to understand how and why this has been achieved before they can effectively push back if they feel they need to. As we shall see, the United Nations (UN) and its organs are the drivers of this change.

In order to understand what is happening, a background in UN diplomacy and a grasp of the impact of a number of agreements made at this level of international relations are required. We also have to look at commitments made at the European level such as the European Social Charter. New concepts such as “smart consent” and pornography education are being introduced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) affiliated institutions in Ireland. LGBT-lobby demands for a more “queer” curriculum are also in the pipeline. We are a long way from biology and reproductive education taught to teenagers, and instead we are looking at a “holistic” approach where children are to begin learning about “age-appropriate” aspects in the classroom regarding their “sexuality” from the early primary school years.

How “Sustainability” Got Us Here

Before we proceed it is necessary for a crash course in international agreements that impact education in general and RSE in particular.

As strange as it may seem, the main driver of the new RSE programme is actually the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), of which we will only outline what is necessary for our purposes.

In 2012, the RIO+20 Conference on Sustainable Development was held, where a number of plans were made regarding the ongoing UN sustainability agenda. The previous Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) were to be developed further to become the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).⁴

While Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have gained increasing influence within the UN since the 1990s, the long negotiation process for the SDGs which was initiated at the Rio+20 Conference was the “first time in the UN’s history non-governmental representatives were given access to negotiate and set the agenda along with Nation States.”⁵

In 2015, the SDGs were agreed upon when “countries adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 associated targets”.⁶

The 17 goals are to be implemented by 2030. All UN countries, including Ireland, adopted the SDGs in 2015. Ireland’s David Donoghue and Kenya’s Macharia Kamau, who had been selected to lead the negotiations, informed the gathering of all UN Member States that agreement had been reached, and presented the final text: Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.⁷ Ambassador Donoghue co-facilitated and co-drafted the 2030 Agenda. In a video address launching the first Leave No One Behind Summit hosted by All Together in Dignity and Concern Worldwide in 2018, Donoghue stated that he was personally responsible for inserting the terminology, ‘we pledge that no one will be left behind’ into the final document.^{8 9}

In 2015 Donoghue stated in an interview with the IPI Global Observatory that,

“There’ll have to be a completely new mentality and approach in every country… even relatively large administrations in Europe haven’t yet fully grasped this, nor have they brought in new structures to coordinate across the government system which I think will be needed.”¹⁰

Since Agenda 21 was set in motion as a result of the original Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the UN, has incorporated the “principle of subsidiarity”. An academic book outlining the local implementation of Agenda 21 explains it succinctly.

“While there are clearly problems of environment-and-development which require supra-national monitoring and regulation, it is the particular goal of LA21[Local Agenda 21] to indicate that those issues which can be effectively treated at the lowest level of governance, should be treated at that level.”¹¹

Former Minister for the Environment from 1994-1997, Brendan Howlin, wrote a very useful article in 2007 outlining how events in Rio in 1992 influenced the European Union, where “both the Maastricht Treaty and the Fifth Environment Action Programme ‘Towards Sustainability’ (1992) endorsed the concept of sustainable development”. This meant that “traditional policies must be replaced by an integrated approach to environment and development”. Howlin attended the original Rio conference while in opposition in the Labour Party.¹²

Another Labour member who attended the original Rio conference was current President, Michael D. Higgins who has frequently used rhetoric in his public speeches regarding sustainable development and the need for an entirely different approach to politics and the structure of society itself. As Adjunct Professor on Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, this fondness of the UN and its programmes is entirely expected.¹³ Indeed, President Higgins has spoken of his desire to restructure Ireland on terms favourable to the philosophy of the UN.

For example, in a July 2009 speech, President Higgins referred to emerging critiques of traditional politics which offer “a new political economy” emanating from the fringes of the social sciences. “Advanced thinking emerging from a new ecological awareness has been helpful in concentrating public awareness on the challenge posed by climate change.” He later explained that,

“We are coming to the end of simplistic dualism, of the Cartesian moment in intellectual thought. We have to recognise the diversity of our planet not only in a species sense, but also in terms of culture, memory and imagination”.¹⁴

President Higgins is describing a new form of global civilisation, one which the UN and thinkers such as Otto Scharmer are helping bring into view by influencing the influencers as it were, from Fortune 500 CEOs to politicians and on down the chain of influence to school teachers and the children they are nurturing.

The origin of these beliefs lies in Monism and neo-Platonism, which is a denial of dualism or the difference between God and man. It is the idea of “oneness”. In the 20th century, these kinds of beliefs were carried forth into the Perennial Philosophy popularised by Aldous Huxley. Perennialism is the belief that all global belief systems share a single metaphysical source. It is influenced by Theosophy and Eastern belief systems and became influential to the developers of the UN.

Aldous Huxley’s brother, Julian Huxley, was Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission of UNESCO and subsequently became Director General of UNESCO. In 1946, Huxley published a pamphlet called UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy whose title is self explanatory. Although much of Huxley’s eugenics has been jettisoned in favour of more recent, largely ideologically motivated evolutions in the social sciences and anthropology etc., his vision of a central body of scientific experts directing a world civilisation and culture is highly relevant still. In relation to his belief in the need to reconcile a synthesis between the east and west or between “collectivism and individualism” Huxley states,

“The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose.”¹⁵

This, combined with more recent developments such as anti-racism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, sexual liberation and the growth of civil society etc., has produced a powerful global force which has, as we shall see, immense control of global development, including education. There will be more on this in Part 2, but for now we must get back to Agenda 21 and its “principle of subsidiarity”.

Referring to the principle of subsidiarity present in the SDGs, UN Secretary-General António Guterres had this to say of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

“We must recognize that the United Nations is not the only actor, and in many cases not event the most important actor…This means building meaningful partnerships with the widest array of Governments, regional organizations, international financial institutions, civil society organizations, academia and the private sector, always being truthful to our mission as the guardian of the international norms that the Organization has generated over the past seven decades.”⁶

Another notable Irish connection to the SDGs is Patrick Paul Walsh, a Full Professor of International Development Studies and member of the Governing Authority in University College Dublin. Walsh is also the Director of the UCD Centre for Sustainable Development Studies. “During the academic year 2014-2015, he was a Visiting Senior Research Scholar, and Senior Advisor to the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), at the Earth Institute and an Adjunct Professor in the School of International Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York.”¹⁶

The SDSN was established in 2012 under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General with a view to “the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. SDSN works closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions, the private sector, and civil society.”¹⁷

Most relevant to our subject is the fact that Walsh was heavily involved with negotiating the SDGs. In a TedX talk from 2016 he outlines his role and the goals of the SDGs, which largely amount to a collection of cliches about “inclusive societies” and “sustainable environments”. Most unnerving might be his claim that the SDGs amount to “a moral compass for the 21^st century”. It is unclear why Walsh or anyone at the UN should feel they have the right to decide the moral compass of the entire world but he claims to hold that right nonetheless. Reassuringly, and without any sense that what he is saying is simply not true, considering that the sustainable development agenda is a product of career technocrats like him that most people have never heard of, let alone voted for, Walsh breathlessly announces,

“This agenda is truly an agenda that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is your agenda.”¹⁸

SDG4 – Quality Education

With all this explained, you may be wondering what this has to do with RSE and sex education. Well, first of all we have to see what the SDGs have to say about it and then see what they specifically want to achieve. At first glance SDG4, “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”, seems innocuous enough, but a UNESCO document explains how it differs and expands significantly from the older MDGs which it supersedes.

“What is also new to SDG4 is the focus on the relevance of learning outcomes both for the world of work, as well as for citizenship in a global and interconnected world.”¹⁹

There are several targets regarding education but SDG 4.7 is worth quoting in its entirety due to the ideological agenda contained within.

“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and nonviolence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”²⁰

UNESCO & The Incheon Declaration

Now is a good time to explain the role of UNESCO in global education and implementing SDG4 specifically. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation is a specialised UN body with a mandate regarding global education amongst other competencies.

In May 2015, Ministers, various delegations, officials of multilateral and bilateral organisations, representatives of civil society, the teaching profession, youth and the private sector, gathered at the invitation of the Director-General of UNESCO in Incheon, Korea for the World Education Forum 2015 (WEF 2015). According to the Declaration produced, this conference was staged to,

“reaffirm the vision of the worldwide movement for Education for All initiated in Jomtien²¹ in 1990 and reiterated in Dakar²² in 2000”²³

Emphasising the more radical ethos of the SDGs, only the Dakar document from 2000 references “sexuality” education and gender in the context of “gender equality” between girls and boys in education. Indeed, the term gender is used 69 times in the document but it is in terms of female empowerment, which is a long-standing issue that the UN is pursuing, in particular in the developing world where cultural liberalism is not established.

In 2016, UNESCO produced a document called Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. It fully endorsed and called on every stakeholder to help implement the SDGs and specifically all of SDG4.7 referenced above.

Indeed, the term “comprehensive sexuality education” is specifically referenced as an integral part of SDG4.7 along with concepts such as human rights, gender equality, health and climate change.²⁴

It is beyond the scope of this essay to critique all of the ideological beliefs incorporated in concepts such as “global citizenship”, “cultural diversity” and the “sustainable development” crusade. These are long-held creeds of the liberal and Gnostic belief system that has developed around the UN and UNESCO increasingly over the years, a kind of secular religion with “Human Rights” as replacements for the Ten Commandments. The assumed axioms of multiculturalism and anti-racism are long-standing UNESCO hobbyhorses as well. These are typically only applied in western nations.

The Education 2030 document declares that, based on a number of preceding UN declarations such as the Declaration on Human Rights, “Education is a fundamental human right and an enabling right” and that it should be “free and compulsory” which means that the above quoted ideological viewpoints are also part of a human right.

The concept of “global citizenship education” (GCE) is dealt with in a UNESCO document from 2013 called Global citizenship education: preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. This document acknowledges that “there are a number of ongoing tensions with the concepts of global citizenship and global citizenship education”.²⁵

“The notion of ‘citizenship’ has been broadened as a multiple-perspective concept. It is linked with growing interdependency and interconnectedness between countries in economic, cultural and social areas, through increased international trade, migration, communication, etc.”²⁵

The Incheon Declaration document says it is “rights-based and inspired by a humanistic vision of education and development, based on the principles of human rights and dignity, social justice, peace, inclusion and protection, as well as cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity”. It leaves no doubt of its objectives and describes a,

“holistic and humanistic vision, which contributes to a new model of development. That vision goes beyond a utilitarian approach to education and integrates the multiple dimensions of human existence.”²⁴

The Final Report of the Incheon Conference sheds more light on what the stakeholders have in mind regarding “Comprehensive Sexuality Education”.

“A safe transition to adulthood requires knowledge and skills about sexuality, health and rights. All young people have the right to education about their health: this should be relevant to their lives, help them prepare for puberty and protect them from HIV and unintended pregnancy.”²⁶

Later, we will see what more specific UNESCO and WHO guidelines for national governments to follow actually recommend regarding Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). The content is explicit and draws no line between radical ideological viewpoints and more scientifically grounded content regarding pregnancy and STIs.

UN Reforms to Implement the SDGs

Before we look at more detailed UNESCO documents on sex education, we will see how the UN implemented reform to help with the delivery of the SDGs. In 2018, “the United Nations Learning Advisory Council for the 2030 Agenda was established. The Council supports the alignment of resident coordinator system capabilities with the new demands arising from the repositioning of the United Nations development system. The Council brings together the heads of 15 United Nations learning and training institutions…”²⁷

This includes, “the UNDP, the United Nations System Staff College, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, the training centre of the International Labour Organization, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the United Nations Global Compact, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and the World Bank.”²⁸

The new group reports directly “to the Deputy Secretary-General and Chair of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group” who is Amina J. Mohammed.²⁹

As an aside, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), whose head sits on the aforementioned Learning Council for the 2030 Agenda established in 2018, is one of the six main organs of the UN and is involved with coordinating the economic and social aspects of the UN’s agenda. This would include the SDGs in particular. Emer Herity, another Irish presence in the UN, is Secretary of ECOSOC at the UN in New York, she is a Graduate of University College Dublin.

The GEM Report

The aforementioned Incheon World Education Forum in 2015 also gave power to the Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report to monitor the progress of the 2030 Goals. The Final Report explains how the GEM Report came to be established by taking the existing EFA Global Monitoring Report and restructuring it to “continue as the Global Education Monitoring Report with a renewed mandate”.³⁰ The final report of the Incheon World Education Forum explains the GEM Report’s role in monitoring the implementation of SDG4.

“We also request that the Education for All Global Monitoring Report be continued as an independent Global Education Monitoring Report (GEMR), hosted and published by UNESCO, as the mechanism for monitoring and reporting on the proposed SDG4 and on education in the other proposed SDGs, within the mechanism to be established to monitor and review the implementation of the proposed SDGs.”^{31 32}

The GEM Report is funded by Irish Aid, the foreign affairs departments of various countries, and philanthropies such as the Open Society Foundations of George Soros and various UN bodies.³³ It was originally set up in 2002 and “is an indispensable part of the global education architecture”.³⁴ This is how the GEM Report defines its role regarding SDG4.

“The GEM Report’s vision is to serve as the main resource for decision makers who seek comparative research and knowledge to inform their actions on inclusive and equitable quality education at national, regional and global levels…We commit to maintaining the highest standards in our reporting of evidence and data so as to be able to inform advocacy and hold education stakeholders to account for delivering on their commitment to SDG 4.”³⁴

Professor in global education policy and Director of UNESCO’s GEM Report from 2014-17, Aaron Benavot, described SDG4.7 as a “revolutionary target” in education. Benavot said in an interview that there has never been a “global educational policy regime” that speaks to the “humanistic, moral, social purposes of education.³⁵

In June 2019 GEM Report published a Policy Paper entitled Facing the facts: the case for comprehensive sexuality education in which it is explained that CSE must be “part of education and health ministries’ core business, and must be backed up by supportive laws, coherent policies and dedicated budgets.”³⁶

“To overcome social opposition and operational constraints, government leadership must have a clear mandate
and justification to help it carry out the actions necessary to successfully provide comprehensive sexuality education…”

The International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education published by UNESCO in 2009 and updated in 2018 is recommended by GEM Report for national policy development regarding RSE. It is to these standards that we shall now turn.

UNESCO Documents on Sex Education

In 2015 UNESCO produced a report summarising what its approach to sex education would be. It called for “comprehensive” sex education that is “age-appropriate” and which provides “scientifically accurate, realistic, non-judgmental information”.³⁷ In Part 2 we will show how the material cited within this and the following documents is influencing Irish RSE policy. The 2015 UNESCO report cites the original UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education from 2009.

“ The International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (UNESCO, 2009) proposes an age-appropriate set of topics and learning objectives that constitutes a CSE programme for ages 5 to 18+. The Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe recommend starting CSE education from birth.”³⁷

In 2018, UNESCO revised their International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education document. Professor Paul Montgomery and Wendy Knerr of University of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention were commissioned to review the new evidence. The review of curricula and curricular frameworks was carried out by an American NGO called Advocates for Youth.³⁸ This organisation was founded in 1980 and focuses on “young people’s rights to honest sexual health information; accessible, confidential, and affordable sexual health services”.³⁹ Notable is their Rights. Respect. Responsibility. sex education curriculum.⁴⁰

UNESCO also convened an advisory group in order to guide the revisions of their International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. The “Comprehensive Sexuality Education Advisory Group comprised technical experts from across the globe, working in the fields of education, health, youth development, human rights and gender equality.”

“It included researchers, ministry of education officials, young people, NGO programme implementers and development partners. In order to gather input from multiple stakeholders, and to assess the use and usefulness of the original Guidance among its intended audience, the revision process also involved an online survey of user perspectives on the original Guidance; targeted focus group discussions at country level; and a global stakeholder consultation meeting.”³⁸

Notable through their absence are the views of parents. Below is page 36 of the revised International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education from 2018 that gives an overview of the concepts, topics and learning objectives.

Key Concept 3 is called “Understanding Gender” and deals with new ideological definitions of gender which are taught as if they are as scientifically valid as biological science. At ages 5-8, gender is introduced, children are encouraged to “define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different”. At age 9-12, the child will be able to “Identify examples of how social norms, cultural norms, and religious beliefs can influence gender roles” and “explain how someone’s gender identity may not match their biological sex”.

Political ideological concepts developed by the organised LGBT lobby since the 1970s such as “homophobia” and “transphobia” are referred to extensively. There is an air of militant activism about this material and no consideration is given for cultures that don’t agree with such views. None of the logical criticisms of psychologists or medical professionals who hold differing views are presented, nor are philosophical challenges to such theorising. Instead children are bombarded with highly debatable propaganda which claims that women are the victims of “gender inequality”, while men or boys are largely irrelevant unless they happen to have some sort of non-conforming gender identity.

In short, the document is a distillation of the radical views which became prevalent in elite universities over the last few decades, except now this material is packaged as being scientifically verified by organs such as UNESCO and provided as rote learning material to highly suggestible children who have no means to challenge such content.

World Health Organisation Documents

UNESCO is not the only UN body concerned with sex education. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is also heavily invested in what children learn and when they learn it.

In 2010, the WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA in Cologne published Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists. Along with the 2018 UNESCO International Technical Guidance document referenced above, it is one of the main documents guiding sex education policy in Ireland.

Apparently, this document was “developed as a response to the need for sexuality education standards that has recently become apparent in the WHO European Region”. It also claims that it was “intended to contribute to the introduction of holistic sexuality education”.⁴¹

“Holistic sexuality education gives children and young people unbiased, scientifically correct information on all aspects of sexuality and, at the same time, helps them to develop the skills to act upon this information. Thus it contributes to the development of respectful, open-minded attitudes and helps to build equitable societies.”⁴¹

The report blasts “traditional” sex education that focuses on the “potential risks of sexuality, such as unintended pregnancy and STI”, which it claims is “often frightening for children and young people”. It also says that “it does not respond to their need for information and skills”. Seemingly gender and LGBT ideology from the age of 4 is in no way frightening however.

“A holistic approach based on an understanding of sexuality as an area of human potential helps children and young people to develop essential skills to enable them to self-determine their sexuality and their relationships at the various developmental stages. It supports them in becoming more empowered in order to live out their sexuality and their partnerships in a fulfilling and responsible manner. These skills are also essential for protecting themselves from possible risks.”⁴²

The report claims that this new ethos is justified because of “globalization and migration of new population groups with different cultural and religious backgrounds, the rapid spread of new media, particularly the Internet and mobile phone technology, the emergence and spread of HIV/AIDS, increasing concerns about sexual abuse of children and adolescents and, not least, changing attitudes towards sexuality and changing sexual behaviour among young people.”⁴³

The document also invokes the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which “clearly states the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds (Article 13); Article 19 refers to States’ obligation to provide children with educational measures to protect them, inter alia, from sexual abuse”.⁴¹

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is the world’s largest NGO in the area of “sexual and reproductive health”, has also developed its own Declaration on Sexual Rights which is referred to in the report.

The report claims that parents and families are not capable of dealing with sex education because “these informal sources themselves often lack the necessary knowledge, particularly when complex and technical information is needed (such as that pertaining to contraception or transmission modes of STI)”.

The following two organisations are cited by the WHO report as “renowned organizations” which are said to have supplied the input on “psychosexual development”.

Based in Belgium, SENSOA is an organisation under the IPPF umbrella which aims to “promote sexual and reproductive health and rights”⁴⁴ SENSOA is also part of Countdown 2030, a “Consortium of 15 leading European non-governmental organizations working to ensure advancement of human rights and investment in family planning”. In Ireland they are partnered with the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA).⁴⁵ SENSOA is also partnered with the United Nations Population Fund, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and the Aids and the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights amongst others.⁴⁶

The second organisation is called Rutgers Nisso Group, based in the Netherlands and also a member of the IPPF. In addition to funding from the Dutch government, they receive donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Amongst their main areas of focus is “Comprehensive sexuality education for young people” and “sexual and gender diversity”.

“Rutgers has consultative status with ECOSOC. At special sessions of the United Nations, such as the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) and the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), we may submit a written statement and are also often scheduled to speak. In this way, we can express our views on relevant topics.”⁴⁷

Referencing the work of these two bodies, the WHO report states that sexuality education needs to start as early as possible because,

“Psychology, especially developmental psychology, has shown that children are born as sexual beings and that their sexuality develops in different stages, which are linked to the child’s development in general and the associated developmental task.”⁴³

A summary of children’s sexual development is given from before birth where it states that “feelings and cognitions begins in the womb and continues throughout a person’s lifetime”. It is interesting that both of these bodies, and the IPPF, believe abortion is a human right for all women despite acknowledging a high level of “cognitions” and “feelings” before birth. The report states that “Precursors of later sexual perception, such as the ability to enjoy physical contact, are present from birth”. Below are reproduced some of the recommendations of what would be taught in various age groups starting from birth up until age 12.

(Click on an image to view it in full size and cycle through. You can read the full report here .)

Notable in these recommendations is the immediate introduction of pregnancy and “gender roles”, as well as “the right to explore gender identities” for children from birth. Between ages 4 and 6, a child is supposed to “consolidate their gender identity” and consider the concept of “same-sex relationships” while developing an “acceptance of diversity”.

All that we have learned so far are UN commitments that in and of themselves are not mandatory. Many countries sign up to UN commitments in order to save face, but have little intention of implementing the changes. Only changes in national laws and EU regulations can alter the law in each country. Next, we will look at how the UN sustainability agenda is enforced at the European level.

The Council of Europe

As referred to above, the European Union endorsed the principle of sustainable development in the Maastricht Treaty and the 1992 Fifth Environment Action Programme, “Towards Sustainability”. This is not the whole story however.

The European Social Charter is a “Council of Europe treaty that guarantees fundamental social and economic rights as a counterpart to the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to civil and political rights. It guarantees a broad range of everyday human rights related to employment, housing, health, education, social protection and welfare.”⁴⁸

The Council of Europe (COE) website explains in no uncertain terms that “No other legal instrument at pan-European level can provide such an extensive and complete protection of social rights as that provided by the Charter, which also serves as a point of reference in European Union law”. It continues, “most of the social rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are based on the relevant articles of the Charter. The Charter is therefore seen as the Social Constitution of Europe and represents an essential component of the continent’s human rights architecture.”⁴⁸

A vitally important Oireachtas report describes how both UN obligations and the European Social Charter align and furthermore confirms that the Department of Education is acutely aware of this fact.

“As a United Nations member state, Ireland is obliged to comply with human rights, including the right to sexuality and reproductive health education. The Department of Education and Skills (DES) has been proactive in highlighting that the provision of sexuality education is a human rights obligation under the European Social Charter. Following the decision of the European Committee of Social Rights in the case of Interrights v. Croatia, which interpreted Article 11.2 of the Charter as requiring that health education be ‘provided throughout the entire period of schooling’, the DES issued a circular emphasising that sexuality education is defined as being “objective, based on contemporary scientific evidence and does not involve censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting information.”⁴⁹

Underscoring this fact even more robustly is the statement on the COE website that fully reinforces SDG4.7 specifically, declaring, “education is increasingly seen as a defence against the rise of violence, racism, extremism, xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance.”⁵⁰ Founded in 1954, the COE is a separate organisation from the European Union with a similar ethos to the UN. For example, the COE has been involved in altering how history has been taught since its inception including “the necessity to introduce the idea of Europe in history teaching” at its first conference.⁵¹

What we see in the COE is an organisation with a very similar ethos to the UN but that has legal jurisdiction to enforce its agenda in a way that the UN generally does not.

Conclusion

This has been an overview of the international sustainable development agenda pursued by the UN and other bodies and what changes they wish to implement to education globally. The concept of representative government and of sovereignty is entirely vestigial when we observe how laws are made based on technocratic dictates implemented by a political class that sees its job as being an extension of this structure and a media which fulfills the third role of PR department.

The next part in this series will deal with these organisations’ presence in Ireland and how they engineer society to accept their demands.

1. Keating et al.
   “Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in Primary and Post-Primary Irish Schools: A Research Paper,” November 2018, https://www.ncca.ie/media/3781/relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse-in-primary-and-post-primary-irish-schools-a-research-paper.pdf.[↩]
2. Ann Nolan,
   “Spotlight – School-based relationships and sexuality education (RSE): lessons for policy and practice,” 24 September, 2018, https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2018/2018-09-25_spotlight-school-based-relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse-lessons-for-policy-and-practice_en.pdf.[↩]
3. Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), “SEXUALITY EDUCATION: Policy brief No. 1,” (2016), https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/379043/Sexuality_education_Policy_brief_No_1.pdf.[↩]
4. United Nations, “United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20,” accessed September 2020, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20.[↩]
5. Patrick Paul Walsh, “Advocating for the Role of Academia, Science and Technology in the UN Sustainable Development Goals,” archived 11 April, 2022, https://web.archive.org/web/20220411133342/https://www.ucd.ie/research/impact/researchimpact/case-studies/pdf/CASE_STUDY_PatrickPaulWalsh.pdf.[↩]
6. United Nations, “Sustainable Development Goals,” accessed September 2020, https://www.un.org/partnerships/content/sustainable-development-goals.[↩][↩]
7. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” August 2, 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20230307184941/https://www.dfa.ie/pmun/newyork/development/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/.[↩]
8. Pierre Klein youtube, “A Video Messsage from David Donoghue to the participants of Leave No One Behind Summit,” 15 October 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApSogVs_jw.[↩]
9. All Together in Dignity – Ireland, “The first Irish ‘Leave No One Behind’ Summit,” 21 September, 2018, https://archive.ph/2024.10.02-204210/https://www.atdireland.ie/wp/lnobsummit/.[↩]
10. IPI Global Observatory, “Implementing UN Global Goals Requires New Mentality: Interview with David Donoghue,” October 26, 2015, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2015/10/united-nations-sustainable-development-goals-david-donoghue/.[↩]
11. William M Lafferty & Katarina Eckerberg Eds. “From The Earth Summit To Local Agenda 21,” (Earthscan Publications, 1998) 8.[↩]
12. Brendan Howlin, “From Rio to here,” May 14, 2007, https://passivehouseplus.ie/articles/policy/from-rio-to-here.[↩]
13. Michael D. Higgins, “Renewing the Republic,” Liberties Press, 2011) 32.[↩]
14. Michael D. Higgins, “Renewing the Republic,” Liberties Press, 2011) 88.[↩]
15. Julian Huxley, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy,” (Euston Grove Press, 2010) 61.[↩]
16. University College Dublin, Patrick Paul Walsh biography, accessed September 2020, https://people.ucd.ie/ppwalsh.[↩]
17. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, “About Us,” accessed September 2020, https://www.unsdsn.org/about-us.[↩]
18. TedX, “UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda | Patrick Paul Walsh | TEDxFulbrightDublin,” February 26, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy8kit9gnbM.[↩]
19. UNESCO, “Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4:
    Education 2030,” accessed September 2020, https://www.campaignforeducation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SDG4.pdf.[↩]
20. Global Campaign for Education, “SDG4s 10 targets,” accessed September 2020, https://www.campaignforeducation.org/en/who-we-are/the-international-education-framework-2/the-sustainable-development-goal-4/sdg4s-10-targets/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2e6O4IjO6wIVCbrtCh1_GAY7EAAYASAAEgI_d_D_BwE.[↩]
21. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000097551[↩]
22. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/2023/pdf/2023.pdf[↩]
23. UNESCO, “Incheon Declaration: Education 2030: Towards Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Lifelong Learning for All,” accessed September 2020, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233137.[↩]
24. UNESCO, “Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning…,” accessed September 2020, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656.[↩][↩]
25. UNESCO, “Global citizenship education: preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century,” (2013), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000227729.[↩][↩]
26. UNESCO, “World Education Forum 2015: FINAL REPORT,” (2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20220310111430/http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ED_new/pdf/WEF_report_E.pdf.[↩]
27. ECOSOC, “E/2019/62*,” accessed September 2020, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n19/114/03/pdf/n1911403.pdf.[↩]
28. ECOSOC, “E/2019/62*,” accessed September 2020, https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/E/2019/62.[↩]
29. UN Secretary-General, “Amina J. Mohammed,” accessed September 2020, https://www.un.org/sg/en/dsg/index.shtml.[↩]
30. UNESCO, “World Education Forum 2015: FINAL REPORT,” accessed September 2020, http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ED_new/pdf/WEF_report_E.pdf.[↩]
31. UNESCO, “World Education Forum 2015: FINAL REPORT,” (2015), http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ED_new/pdf/WEF_report_E.pdf.[↩]
32. UNESCO, “Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning…,” (2016), https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656.[↩]
33. UNESCO: GEM Report, “Funders,” accessed September 2020, https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/funders.[↩]
34. UNESCO: GEM Report, “About,” accessed September 2020, https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/about.[↩][↩]
35. FreshEd with Will Brehm Podcast, “The past and future of SDG4.7 (Aaron Benavot),” December 24, 2018, https://freshedpodcast.com/benavot/.[↩]
36. GEM Report, “Facing the facts: the case for comprehensive sexuality education,” June 2019, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368231/PDF/368231eng.pdf.multi.[↩]
37. UNESCO, “EMERGING EVIDENCE, LESSONS AND PRACTICE IN COMPREHENSIVE SEXUALITY EDUCATION: A GLOBAL REVIEW,” (2015), https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/CSE_Global_Review_2015.pdf.[↩][↩]
38. UNESCO, “International technical guidance on sexuality education: An evidence-informed approach,” (2018), https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/ITGSE_en.pdf.[↩][↩]
39. Advocates for Youth,”Our Vision,” accessed September 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20181108095156/http://advocatesforyouth.org/3rs-curriculum/vision.[↩]
40. Rights. Respect. Responsibility, “A K-12 Sexuality Education Curriculum,” accessed September 2018, https://3rs.org/3rs-curriculum/about-3rs/.[↩]
41. WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists,” (2010), https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf.[↩][↩][↩]
42. WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists,” (2010), https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf.[↩]
43. WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists,” (2010), https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf.[↩][↩]
44. SENSOA International, “What we do,” accessed September 2020, https://www.sensoainternational.be/what-we-do.html.[↩]
45. Countdown 2030, “About Us,” accessed September 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20200809145910/https://www.countdown2030europe.org/index.php/about-us/who-we-are.[↩]
46. SENSOA, “Our Partners,” accessed September 2020, https://www.sensoainternational.be/our-partners.html.[↩]
47. Rutgers, “Who we are,” accessed September 2020, https://www.rutgers.international/who-we-are/organisation.[↩]
48. Council of Europe, “The European Social Charter,” accessed September 2020, https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-social-charter.[↩][↩]
49. Oireachtas Library and Research Service, “School-based relationships and sexuality education (RSE): lessons for public policy,” accessed September 2020, https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2018/2018-09-25_spotlight-school-based-relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse-lessons-for-policy-and-practice_en.pdf.[↩]
50. Council of Europe, “4.7 Education for sustainable development and global citizenship,” accessed September 2020, https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/4.7-education-for-sustainable-development-and-global-citizenship.[↩]
51. Council of Europe, “History textbooks (1953-1991),” accessed September 2020, https://www.coe.int/en/web/history-teaching/history-textbooks.[↩]