By Malcolm Roberts
The World Health Organisation has orchestrated a ‘framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists’ titled, Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe.
Its purpose is to standardise (in other words override) the diverse teaching practices of each sovereign nation within Europe and the wider international community with regards to sexual education.
Having all-but forced European nations to comply, the United Nations is seeking to expand a similar framework to all UN member states – including Australia. This framework is called International Guidance on Sexuality Education, produced as part of UN Education 2030 and counter-signed by UNICEF. The WHO are now actively promoting the framework. In mid-April of 2023, the Commission on Population and Development failed to reach a consensus on advancing the strategy, providing a reprieve … for now.
‘Nobody is happy with this result,’ said a spokesperson representing Senegal. They went on to point out that people come from different ‘horizons and realities’ and that the commission must ‘respect all cultures’. The problem with communist-style policy is that it demands a uniform approach with identical ideological outcomes irrespective of culture.
And what sort of ‘vision’ does the WHO have in mind for the world’s children?
Their preferred framework demands that sex education begin at birth and be guided by the State via the relentless work of educators instead of the current model of parent-led development with catch-up assistance from schools.
European countries have already begun integrating the WHO agenda into their curricula with Germany, for example, using the WHO document ‘widely’ for ‘development and revision, advocacy work, and training educators’.
Quite frankly, the Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe is a ‘rapey’ document that reads like the mind of a child-fiddling psychopath given control of public health.
The UN document makes their intention very clear that:
‘This framework aims to empower children and young people to develop respectful social and sexual relationships. These skills can help children and young people form respectful and healthy relationships with family members, peers, friends and romantic or sexual partners.’
The Framework also teaches children what consent consists of, meaning they assume a child can content to sex.
The WHO lays out its reason for teaching children aged 0-6 the detail of biological reproduction – that is, children who are still young enough to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. By age 6, the WHO wants the education industry – and presumably their teachers – to expose children to the concepts of intercourse, masturbation, and pornography. By age 9, they are expected to reach an ‘adult’ knowledge of sex including teaching of masturbation and viewing of online pornography. At age 12 – remembering that we are still talking about young children – the WHO wishes the official European education course to explore political and emotional responses to sex, puberty, and gender.
Starting sex education at birth is an indication of the mindset of these people. 0-4 year-olds should be able to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual interaction and develop a ‘positive attitude’ to the different sexual lifestyles of adults.
These standards, if you can call them that, form part of an initiative launched by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 2008 and were further developed by the Federal Centre for Health Education with the collaboration of 19 ‘experts’ from Western European countries.
In their own words, it was created as part of a ‘new need’ for sexual education ‘triggered by various developments during the past decades’. These include ‘globalisation 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 the sexual abuse of children and adolescents and, not least, changing attitudes towards sexuality and changing sexual behaviour among young people’.
It sounds as though bad parenting, incompatible cultural practices, and a lacklustre policing of child abuse is being used as an excuse to do away with fundamental child protection standards and the innocence of children that the West used to pride itself in.
The original argument for introducing basic levels of sex education into the school system centred around child safety. These courses were designed as a catch-up, particularly for young girls who had reached an age where it was possible for them to get pregnant, to ensure they understood reproductive essentials in order to protect themselves. The point was to avoid dangerous adolescent pregnancies and abuse – not to encourage sexual behaviour in minors.
Now it appears that adults seeking affirmation for their sexual choices are flooding the education system with age-inappropriate content that is being solidified through the edicts of unelected global bureaucracies such as the WHO.
In this case, the education framework points out that there is an increase in the spread of sexual diseases among children and a rise in teen pregnancies across Europe – but what the report does not explain is that this is largely being seen among migrant demographics after coming from cultures where the abuse and sexualisation of children is common compared to European standards.
There are countless articles detailed a doubling of child abuse in recent years, with some publications describing Europe as ‘a hub of child abuse material’ and Save the Children reporting that child migrants are being ‘systematically abused by police, people smugglers, and other adults’.
It could be argued that policies, like that of former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and her 2015 ‘refugee pledge’ encouraging Europe to open the floodgates to mass migration (and thus the escalation of people smuggling rings) is largely to blame for the danger children in Europe now face.
The solution would seem obvious: focus on the integration of migrant communities into the established moral order of European nations and severely punish adults who carry on illegal practices imported from their homelands while enforcing extreme criminal penalties on people smugglers and the police who assist them.
Above all, you might imagine that parents and the education system would seek to shelter children from the sexual world in their formative years to ensure the cycle of degeneracy was broken.
That is not what is being proposed by the WHO.
In reference to traditional (and highly successful) sex education in schools, the WHO says:
‘Traditionally, sexuality education has focused on the potential risks of sexuality, such as unintended pregnancy and STI. This negative focus is often frightening for children and young people: moreover, it does not respond to their need for information and skills and, in all too many cases, it simply has no relevance to their lives.’
Well, yes, children should be frightened of pregnancy – it could kill them. As for a ‘need for information and skills’, children do not need ‘skills’ in sexual practice. Indeed, the document appears to lament that most Western children have their first sexual encounter between 16-18.
The WHO adds:
‘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 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.’
Remember, we are speaking of children, not teenagers.
There are significant ethical problems with this document that jump out of the page. For example, during its complaint about traditional ‘age appropriate’ sexual education in schools, the WHO insists that ‘it is more correct to use the term “development-appropriate” because not all children develop at the same pace’.
As the document goes on, it appears to misuse the sacred concept of fundamental human rights to claim that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ‘clearly states the right to information and the State’s obligation to provide children with educational measures’ which includes ‘sexual rights as human rights related to sexuality’ and that ‘everybody [has the right] to access sexuality education’.
‘All persons, without discrimination, have the right to education and information generally and to comprehensive sexuality education and information necessary and useful to exercise full citizenship and equality in private, public, and political domain.’
It lists humans rights as the ‘guiding principle’ of the WHO Reproductive Health Strategy in search of those lofty and terrifying ‘international development goals’ that have caused so much horror in Western nations in other aspects of society including – but not limited to – the bid to lock people into 15 minute cities.
‘Sexual health needs to be promoted as an essential strategy in reaching the Millennium Development Goals…’
This is followed by the dubious claim that ‘the fear that sexuality education might lead to more or earlier sexuality activity by young people is not justified, as research results show’.
Regardless of this ‘research’, real-world results show a generation of increasingly sexualised children and moves to normalise paedophilia among activist communities under the guise of terms such as ‘minor-attracted persons’.
Germany, one of the early adopters of the framework, has seen a dramatic rise in sexualised violence against minors, listing 17,704 children in 2022 as victims of sexual violence. One of the leading causes of this abuse? Young people sharing sexual images on social media – which is unsurprising given they are being sexually encouraged by the State from infancy.
As for the adult perpetrators, Germany might have more luck stamping out abuse if it increased its sentencing. On one occasion in 2019, two men aged 56 and 33 were jailed for only 13 and 12 years respectively for abusing hundreds – possibly as many as a thousand – children at a campsite over a period of 20 years, assaulting children aged 3-14.
Meanwhile, the saturation of kindergartens and classrooms with LGBTQ+ and trans ideology has led to a rapid increase in children – who are too young to be thinking about sexual relationships – identifying as part of these movements or becoming confused about their gender to the extent that they become severely distressed. In both Europe and the states, this has created a lucrative medical industry in the chemical and surgical interference of children’s bodies the results of which children will never recover from.
Children are impressionable. Opening up their world to adult sexual content is wholly inappropriate.
‘When talking about the sexual behaviour of children and young people, it is very important to keep in mind that sexuality is different for children and adults,’ says the WHO. ‘Adults give sexual significance to behaviour on the basis of their adult experiences and sometimes find it very difficult to see things through children’s eyes. Yet it is essential to adopt their perspective. […] The development of sexual behaviour, feelings, and cognitions begins in the womb and continues throughout a person’s lifetime. Precursors of later sexual perception, such as the ability to enjoy physical contact, are present from birth.’
Which sounds awfully like the WHO believes a baby enjoying its parent holding its hand is linked to sexual feelings.
‘Children have sexual feelings even in early infancy. Between the second and third year of their lives, they discover the physical differences between men and women.’
‘During this time, children start to discover their own bodies (early childhood masturbation, self-stimulation) and they may also try to examine the bodies of their friends (playing doctor) […] from the age of three, they understand that adults are secretive about this subject. They test adults’ limits, for instance by undressing without warning or by using sexually charged language.’
The conclusions this report draws is not that society and its adults should protect children from the complex and confusing process of growing up into an adult – keeping them safe from not only themselves, but from other adults who might seek to abuse them.
‘Sexuality education starts at birth,’ claims the WHO and, ‘sexuality education is firmly based on gender equality, self-determination, and the acceptance of diversity.’
The implementation of this horror show comes via the Sexuality Education Matrix and includes questions such as, ‘Why should sexuality education start before the age of four?’
Within the Matrix, 0-4 year-olds will be taught about pregnancy and birth, the enjoyment of child masturbation, gender identity, and different types of ‘love’. 4-6 year-olds will be encouraged to ‘consolidate their gender identity’ and acceptable feelings of love and understand that ‘all feelings are okay, but not all actions taken as a result of these feelings’.
And so it goes on.
As the UN proudly declares, ‘Teachers must equip children to have sexual relationships.’
Why? Why is it the role of the State to encourage the sexual behaviour of children? More to the point, why would anyone allow the United Nations or World Health Organisation to be involved in the protection of children when their organisations have been repeatedly involved in sexual abuse and child rape in the third world?
A recent report found that the WHO failed in its obligation to tackle ‘widespread sexual abuse during the Ebola response in the Congo’.
It was alleged that WHO staff were aware of the serious allegations in May of 2019, but nothing was done about it until October of 2020 – keep in mind this is the organisation that wants to micromanage the sexual education of Western children.
The investigation found that at least 83 victims said they had been lured into sex work, with the investigation finding that people were promised jobs in exchange for sexual relationships during a time of extreme vulnerability. At least 29 pregnancies resulted from this abuse.
‘How many times do I have to speak before (the doctors) at WHO responsible for the sexual abuse are punished? If WHO does not take radical measures, we will conclude that the organisation has been made rotten by rapists…’ said a Congolese woman, who worked at an Ebola clinic in north-eastern Congo, as reported by AP News.
It’s not the first time the WHO or the UN has been caught up abusing the people it is charged with helping, with one the co-director of the AIDS-Free World saying, ‘The process itself is the opposite of justice. The UN is the only institution in the world that is allowed to investigate itself. The WHO’s head handpicked experts to lead a commission to look into criminal allegations against the agency’s personnel and senior officials.’
Further, according to The New Humanitarian, the independent commission criticised the WHO ‘for a “systematic tendency” to reject all reports of sexual exploitation and abuse unless they were made in writing’.
Let us not forget that an Associated Press investigation from 2017 accused 100 United Nations peacekeepers of running a child sex ring in Haiti for a decade with over 2,000 complaints of sexual abuse made against UN peacekeepers.
Why would any nation allow an organisation accused of the institutionalised abuse of women and children in third-world nations to dictate sexual education for minors?
The United Nations and the World Health Organisation are the last places on Earth that we should be taking advice from regarding the health and prosperity of our children…