WorldNetDaily is reporting on another case out of Germany that is set to come before the European Court of Human Rights.  It doesn’t exactly involve homeschooling as the parents opted to remove their children for four days and four days only in order to protect them from the state’s sexual education program.

“Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children,” Kiska said. “These parents were well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach their children a view of sexuality that is in accord with their own religious beliefs instead of sending them to a class and stageplay they found objectionable.  WorldNetDaily

I agree with the first sentence, but looking at rights as they are granted under the Convention is a bit problematic.  And I’m not so sure the Convention is so clearly protective of the family in this regard.  Way back in the 70s, a similar case was brought up against Denmark when its sexual education program became mandatory in the schools.  And the court sided with the state with an opinion that seems to have direct bearing on this case.

These considerations are indeed of a moral order, but they are very general in character and do not entail overstepping the bounds of what a democratic State may regard as the public interest.  Examination of the legislation in dispute establishes in fact that it in no way amounts to indoctrination aimed at advocating a specific kind of sexual behaviour.  It does not make a point of exalting sex or inciting pupils to indulge precociously in practices that are dangerous for their stability, health or future or that many parents consider reprehensible.  Further, it does not affect the right of parents to enlighten and advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children, natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their children on a path in line with the parents’ own religious and philisophical convictions. [Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen et Pedersen c. Danemark]

So this sex ed case must somehow separate itself from that sex ed case.  Is it indoctrination?  Does it advocate a specific kind of sexual behavior?  Does it exalt sex, incite pupils to indulge in risky behaviors?  Does it encourage behaviors that “many parents” find reprehensible?  The ruling affirms that parents have some sort of rights in the upbringing of their children, but it also asserts rights for the democratic State regarding the “public interest.”  A continual point of tension in these discussions, but somehow, I have little hope the parents will prevail.

So what about the program these parents are objecting to?  “My Body is Mine,” or “Mein Körper gehört mir” is an interactive lesson sequence focused on protecting children from sexual abuse.  There is also a book by the same title put out by pro familia, a German founder member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.  Although the book and program obviously deal with the same topic, it is unclear from the state materials I looked at whether its program has anything to do with this book.

The play itself is divided into three parts:

1. How to say no
2. Dealing with strangers
3. Where to get help

On the surface, nothing looks offensive.  It is certainly nothing like the last sex ed program out of Germany that caused such a stir.  The parent handbook, too, raises no particular concerns.  It is all about how children need to be respected in their boundaries, need to know it is OK to say no, need to know the difference between good and bad secrets, need to know who to talk to if something happens (and that it isn’t their fault if it does).

There are also cards available to use online or to print off which provides a lot more information.  Really, all I found objectionable in and of itself was the discussion regarding “yes” and “no” feelings.  We all have them. . .feelings that something just isn’t right or that everything is fine.  And it is important for children to become aware of that feeling inside that tells them a situation is not right.  This, too, seems to be the point the family WND reports on found offensive.

These cards have nothing to do with “if it feels good, do it,” however.  That sounds more like the “other” program.  I just was a little uncomfortable leaving a child to determine based on his “yes” and “no” feelings whether it was a good idea to go with a strange man who said he had newborn puppies to show him.  Thankfully, however, that isn’t the only criteria given for deciding if a situation is safe.  The other two include whether a trusted person knows where you are and whether there is someone nearby who can help you if something goes wrong. [Edited to add:  Christine of The Thinking Mother has a good explanation in comments of what is meant by these feelings.  It isn't about sex, but trusting your instincts in a situation.]

I definitely agree that parents should be the ones teaching this kind of material to their children.  It should be old news by the time they hear it in school.  In fact, I believe that is the best (and maybe only) way to really counteract any objectionable material a school may present:  Be the first to teach it.  At the same time, however, I have a difficult time believing the court will see this as “indoctrination” unless there is a lot more to the program than is available online.

Elscheidt Dojan sexual education World Net Daily