1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEFINING CSE......................................................................................................................................... 4

NOT LIMITED TO GHANA – GLOBAL IN DIMENSION....................................................................5

COMMON COMPONENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE SEXUALITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS...7

CONTENT OF INTERNATIONAL CSE................................................................................................. 9

LEARNING OBJECTIVES OF CSE GUIDELINES.............................................................................11

THE END OF THE MATTER................................................................................................................. 12

MISINFORMATION BY CONSULTANTS THROUGH THE MEDIA...............................................15

2
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
by Solomon APPIAH

F
or some days now, family campaigners, religious groups and ordinary

Ghanaians have raised an outcry in the media about the Government of

Ghana’s Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) policy

document. One news outlet ran the story ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education:

Education Minister lied to us – Catholic Bishops cry out’. There are others like that.

Much of the discourse contains misinformation that this post will seek to address

such as: What is CSE? What does it entail? Has it been implemented elsewhere?

Where does it come from? These are a few of the questions this post will attempt to

address, however in a very succinct form due to a lack of space for a topic like this.

Figure 1: Source Documents for CSE

3
DEFINING CSE
There is no generally accepted definition but one proffered by Family

Watch International, a nonprofit organization bearing a Special

Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United

Nations is this: “CSE is a highly controversial,―rights-based approach to

sex education that encompasses a great deal more than just teaching

children and youth about sexual intercourse and human reproduction.

Developed in the West, primarily in the United States, CSE is now being

implemented in most countries around the world. Comprehensive

sexuality education programs seek to change society by changing sexual

and gender norms and teaching youth to advocate for their sexual rights.

Most CSE programs promote acceptance of diverse sexual identities and

orientations and enlist youth in combatting “homophobia” and

“heterosexism”. These CSE programs have an almost obsessive focus on

sexual pleasure, instructing children and youth at the earliest ages on how

to obtain sexual pleasure in a variety of ways. Some programs even

encourage sexual exploration for children as young as age five. Planned

Parenthood, one of the largest purveyors of sexuality education in the

United States, explains on their website that sexuality education addresses

“values exploration,” “safer sex,” “sexual attitudes and values,” “sexual

orientation,” and “sexual pleasure.” 1

1
Planned Parenthood website: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/implementing-sex-education-
23516.htm#Accurate. Accessed on January 19, 2012

4
NOT LIMITED TO GHANA – GLOBAL IN DIMENSION

Interestingly, this problem where the general public is kicking against a

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) policy program is not limited to

Ghana. A simple internet search will show citizens all around the word

including in the UK, USA, Canada, Namibia are protesting CSE

implementation in their educational systems. The United Nations through

the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) as well as the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and other

organizations are the tip of the spear pushing governments to implement

these ‘comprehensive’ sexuality education policies but the hands that

moved the spear include but are not limited to the International Planned

Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Sexuality Information and

Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). How does SIECUS

5
promote CSE internationally today? UNESCO works in partnership with

SIECUS. A former director of SIECUS is one of the principle authors of its

International Guidelines on Sexuality Education.

There are some in the Ghanaian media who suggested that this policy

emanated originally and solely from the Ghana Education Service. This is

ludicrous. It’s a global agenda aimed at globalizing Sexuality Education.

This global agenda has been carefully deployed from the international

sphere to local levels. The logos on the Ghana document page (ii) refute

the claim of those making such an argument. One wonders if the

government gained anything in exchange for adopting these guidelines.

UNESCO, in collaboration with other UN agencies—including UNICEF, the

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Health

Organization (WHO) are the ones who originally published the

“International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, first released in 2009 in

draft form. Ghana’s CSE policy is simply an offshoot of this main policy.

After a huge public outcry at the inappropriate and graphic nature of the

Guidelines, UNESCO revised them, removing some of the most explicit

language and has now published a somewhat less controversial version”.

The outcry has been ongoing since 2009 when the first draft was released.

But governments refuse to listen.

The Dailymail UK published an article on 23 September 2019, titled

‘Children as young as SIX are to be given compulsory self-touching lessons

6
that critics say are sexualising youngsters’. The article states, “Some

parents believe the lessons – part of a controversial new sex and

relationships teaching programme called All About Me – are ‘sexualising’

their young children. All About Me is being rolled out across 241 primaries

by Warwickshire County Council and could be adopted by other local

authorities next year as part of the Government’s overhaul of Relationship

and Sex Education (RSE)”.

What is the RSE? It is the UK’s version of Ghana’s CSE. The BBC also carried

a story on 12 July 2018 titled, “Canada province cancels new sex-ed

curriculum after protests”. The Namibian, a newspaper also carried the

story “Churches frown on sex education”. In this paper, “The Council of

Churches in Namibia and some parents have called for the removal of the

comprehensive sexuality education from the school curriculum due to

what they term immorality. Revised in 2013, the comprehensive sex

education (CSE) course is part of the life skills subject, and meant to give

pupils in Grade 4 to Grade 12 the skills and values to make appropriate and

healthy choices in their sexual lives.”. In California, parents protested the

CSE guidelines.

COMMON COMPONENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE SEXUALITY

EDUCATION PROGRAMS
 Promote masturbation as healthy and normal

7
  Encourage acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual

orientations and gender identities

 Promote condoms as “safe” without disclosing failure rates

 Promote abortion as safe and without consequences

 Encourage youth to advocate for sexual rights

 Teach youth without parental knowledge or consent under the

guise of “confidentiality” or “privacy rights”

 Promote sexual pleasure as a right and an important component

of sexual health

 Claim access to “comprehensive sexuality education” is a human

right

 Teach children and youth they are sexual from birth

 Encourage anal and oral sex

 Encourage “peer to peer sexuality education

In the current debate of CSE in the Ghana media, government

spokespersons say that the content is none of the above. Makes me

wonder how naïve they are. The UK never started with Children as young

as six being taught about touching or ‘stimulating’ their own genitals in

class. It is a progressive strategy plus these are just guidelines and not the

actual content. Initially in the UK, “Family campaigners and religious

groups warned that vague guidelines issued by the Department for

Education meant schools could soon be providing sexual material to

young children that many parents would consider inappropriate.” The

8
prophecy has been fulfilled and even politicians who were for it have

expressed concern. It would be wise for Ghana to learn from others who

have already gone this way in adopting the positives and discarding the

negatives. Ghana’s CSE program is derived from the International

Guidelines on Sexuality Education which is broader and more unclad than

the vague guidelines in the Ghana document. But that is where it takes its

cue from.

CONTENT OF INTERNATIONAL CSE

The following is an excerpt from Family Watch International:

“One of the most dangerous concepts promoted by the Guidelines is

that sexual behaviors can be pleasurable and without risk of

unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Statements such as, “Contraceptives and condoms give people the

opportunity to enjoy their sexuality without unintended

consequences,” give youth a false sense of security by failing to

disclose the fact that condoms have high failure rates especially

when used by youth.

Much of the document promotes “respect” for “sexual and gender

diversity” and “people with diverse sexual expressions,” and it

encourages ministries of education to “consult with lesbian, gay,

bisexual and transgender groups” as programs are developed.

Under the definition for “sexual orientation” this example is listed: “a

9
 man who becomes a woman and is attracted to other women would

be identified as a lesbian.” The Guidelines undermine parental rights

and state that “teachers are likely to be the most skilled and trusted

source of information” and “have a responsibility to act in the place

of parents.” These Guidelines ultimately would increase in youth the

very negative consequences of sexual behavior that they claim to

prevent. So, as defined by UNESCO, comprehensive sexuality

education is very dangerous indeed.

One of the learning objectives [of sexuality education] is to “change

social norms”.

UNESCO‘s most recent version of their comprehensive sexuality

education guidelines that was produced after the huge public

outcry regarding their first version also includes a title change:

International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education.

Although the most offensive parts of the original publication have

been toned down, there is still some disturbing material.

By its own description the “companion document (Volume II)

presents a ‘basic minimum package’ of topics and learning

objectives for a sexuality education programme for children and

young people from 5 to 18+ years of age and includes a bibliography

of useful resources.” (Vol. II p. 3). This latest UNESCO publication

10
 openly states that some of the learning objectives “will attempt

to change social norms,” and are designed to “remove social and

attitudinal barriers to sexuality education.” (Vol. II p. 3).

In this new version, parents are still considered an obstacle to

sexuality education: “Many young people approach adulthood faced

with conflicting and confusing messages about sexuality and

gender. This is often exacerbated by embarrassment, silence and

disapproval of open discussion of sexual matters by adults, including

parents and teachers, at the very time when it is most needed” (Vol.

II p. 2).

Cultural and religious values also are still viewed as an impediment:

“Effective sexuality education is important because of the impact of

cultural values and religious beliefs on all individuals, and especially

on young people, in their understanding of this issue and in

managing relationships with their parents, teachers, other adults

and their communities” (Vol. II p. 2).

11
LEARNING OBJECTIVES OF CSE GUIDELINES
There are many objectives for ages 5-8, 9-12, and 12-15 but let us take a look

at the 9-12 for lack of time. As stated by Family Watch International, “These

original Guidelines were intended to drive sex education programs taught

to children in schools worldwide. The Guidelines maintained that children

have a right to receive instruction in sexual pleasure, masturbation and

homosexuality, among other things.

The following are excerpts from some of the “Learning Objectives” from

the original Guidelines:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR LEVEL I (AGES 5-8)

 Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable

when touched by oneself. (p. 43)

 It is natural to explore and touch

parts of one‘s own body. (p. 48)

 Bodies can feel good when touched.

(p. 48)

 Touching and rubbing one‘s

genitals is called masturbation. (p.

48)

 Masturbation is not harmful, but

should be done in private. (p. 48)

 People receive messages about sex, gender, and sexuality from their

cultures and religions. (p. 39)”

12
 

THE END OF THE MATTER

The Ghana government should count the cost of implementing such a

policy—bearing in mind the consequences in other countries. Personally, I

do not see the benefits of such a policy in its present form as derived from

the UN, in the long run. If the argument is to reduce AIDs prevalence,

abstinence is the best route as proven in Uganda. If the government has

bought the lie that CSE is a human rights issue, that’s simply not true.

Consider the following:

“The Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right

to Education was submitted to the General Assembly on July 23,

2010. In it, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Vernon

Muñoz, rather than focus on the legitimate educational needs of the

world’s children, centered entirely on what he called the “issue of the

human right to comprehensive sexual education” for children, which

he incorrectly asserts is “grounded in human dignity and in

international human rights law.”

The promotion of sexual rights is prominent in the Special

Rapporteur‘s report; however, his positions are supported primarily

by citing the comments and recommendations of human rights

treaty bodies, the works of nongovernmental organizations, and on

personal interpretation, rather than the global consensus of binding

13
 human rights instruments. The misuse of such documents in his

official capacity and, in fact, much of the report itself, constitutes a

violation of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-

holders of the Human Rights Council articles 3(a), 6(a), 6(c), 7, and

8(c).

I will not attempt to conjecture the reason for the adoption of CSE by the

Ghana government but teaching children about sex at such a young age

WILL ultimately end Ghana where the stated objectives of UN’s

International sexuality education programs plan to land nations, which is

to:

 change cultural and religious values

 change society by changing social norms

 remove social and attitudinal barriers to sexuality education

Why do the main authors seek to change cultural, religious and societal

values? SIECUS one of whose Directors helped in authoring the

International CSE Guidelines, “was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone, the

former medical director of Planned Parenthood, with seed money from

Hugh Hefner, the man who founded Playboy magazine. … Mary believed

there was an urgent need to break from traditional views of sexuality.

Sex-ed had too much negativity—too much focus on unwanted pregnancy

and diseases. The real problem, she insisted, was that society is puritanical

14
and repressed. There were too many ”no‘s” in sex-ed”. Changing these

norms all over the world will lead to a one world standard for sex ed (a

globalization of sex-ed)—hence using the UN as the tool to internationalize

CSE.

The idea of CSE in itself is not a bad idea. What makes the strain from the

UN dangerous is the stated intent. If Ghana is to reform it socio-cultural

values, Ghana should be in the driving seat and have a say in what is to be

changed. A one-size-fits-all approach that disregards cultural and societal

values is not the best approach. Countries must have a say in how they

reform or reshape their societies and individual differences should be

celebrated not castigated. If Ghana thinks CSE is the way to go, go ahead

but don’t swallow some instructions and guidelines from the UN and other

organizations hook, line and sinker. Adapt it to your context while

respecting the age old cultural and religious values unique to the country.

The government may have spared itself the grief it is getting from society

if it had simply done better stakeholder consultation or sought views via

townhall meetings. They did not because they know that this nation does

not accept such values as espoused by SIECUS, IPPF and what is written in

the International Guidelines. In any case, there are more pressing issues

the government could tackle for its citizens.

15
MISINFORMATION BY CONSULTANTS THROUGH THE MEDIA

Yesterday (September 30, 2019), there was public outrage at portions of a

document purported to be the manual to be used for the controversial

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) curriculum in Ghanaian schools.

The document titled ‘KnowitOwnitLiveit: Comprehensive Sexuality

Education Manual’ showed content the Ghanaian public deemed

inappropriate for training children.

A consultant to the CSE program took to the airwaves and denied

knowledge of this ‘KnowitOwnitLiveit: Comprehensive Sexuality Education

16
Manual’ developed by and for the ECOWAS CEDERD region. This was an

outright lie because on page 5 (1) (iv) and (v) of the 2018 Ghana FP2020

Commitment Self Reporting Questionnaire, it states clearly that:

(iv) A civil society led and developed content “KnowItOwnItLiveIt”

CSE manual has been adopted together with a GES source book for

teachers on CSE as the content guides to drive the implementation

of CSE.

(v) The guideline and the manuals have been submitted to the

Minister of Education and the Ghana Education service for

verification and adoption.

Interestingly, the cover page of the manual has the PPAG Ghana — one of

the backers— logo on the cover page.

And by the way, why is the main hand behind this push internationally the

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and locally the National

Population Council. Here’s a direct quote from the 2018 Ghana FP2020

Commitment Self Reporting Questionnaire 2018, “(i)Currently, the National

Population Council has led a process to develop a national guideline for

the delivery of CSE in Ghana. (ii) The national guideline defines clearly age

appropriate content that should be delivered at the various stages of

education and is based on UNFAP, UNESCO and IPPF standards”. What

has population to do with CSE? Just asking? Is there anything the

government is not saying about the true aim of this rollout and policy?

17
18