Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I agree with 50% of what Senator Ruane just said. When she says that sexual education and relationships and sexual education should always be accurate and condemns inaccuracy I agree with her 100%. When, however, she speaks about education being delivered in a way that is moralistic, I ask myself if she is talking about values and whether by "moralistic" she means anything that disagrees with her set of values. Does she believe that only her set of values should imbue what is taught in schools? While the term is an unpleasant one, it seems to me that education of any kind cannot but be moralistic in the sense that it cannot be divorced from the values that have to accompany the facts.

I will take the example of abortion. A significant number of people in this country, including parents of schoolgoing children, believe that abortion ends an innocent child's life. Many people will send their children to Christian schools, but not just Christian schools, in the expectation that, along with solidarity with the poor and homeless, collections for people in the developing world and important discussions about climate change, that their children will be taught that it is unjust to take away the life of an innocent child, even if the law of a particular country in a particular time and place allows it.

When I was going to school I do not think I learned about the White Rose movement in Germany. Its members were a bunch of amazing students who stood up against the might of Hitler and distributed leaflets in Munich University. I visited the museum dedicated to honouring their memory. Those students paid for their actions with their lives. They had values of inclusivity and respect for the dignity of human life which meant that they could not obey and support the law then in force in the country. That is an area of political and social endeavour that we are only beginning to discuss in this country. It is called conscientious objection and concerns what a person has a duty to do when he or she believes that the laws of the state do an injustice. Listening to Senators Byrne and Ruane, I would be very frightened for the future of the minorities in this country who have a different view when it comes to certain values. I even wonder whether those proposing change are terribly interested in a full and bald statement of the facts. If we are going to talk about abortion, will children be told how abortions take place? Will they be told about how late term abortions take place and about how, sometimes, abortionists cut the vocal cords of the late-term babies so that they are not heard to cry? Will that be part of the new factual reality we are going to get in what people want to call "objective education"?

Make no mistake about this; everybody has values but people's values differ. I have no hesitation in saying that the values I support might well be minority values in this country on certain issues at this time. It is not, however, as small a minority as others might think. Many parents would be deeply concerned, and there is growing concern, at the drift of at least some of what came out of the joint committee. I refer in particular to the willingness to talk about modern views on gender and identity as though we all agreed on what that loose term "modern" must mean. I also noted the emphasis on teaching RSE and SPHE objectively and factually, as though it were possible to divorce the facts which are spoken of, hopefully in age-appropriate ways, from the values that underlie those issues in the way that I discussed regarding abortion.

What about the issue of gender identity? Many parents are concerned at the push to impose a particular view on that issue in advance of the science. Many people believe there is no credible basis for stating that children are non-binary. That might be a controversial thing to say but many parents in this country would agree with what I have just said. They would be able to point to the absence of scientific evidence on many of these issues that people are now pushing as if they were settled. Let us take, for example, the issue of a child whose gender identity is different from his or her objective sexual identity as identified at birth. Are we going to be allowed a discussion about whether a child who experiences that disconnection might grow out of it in some cases? If the science were to show that would sometimes be capable of happening, would we be allowed to talk about that in schools in science class or would that offend a new prevailing ideology?

We need to be careful not to replace what was seen as one narrow ideology which prevailed in the past with another that is perhaps just as intolerant, and perhaps even more intolerant. Senator Gallagher stated he supposed parents are the primary educators. I noted the use of the word "suppose" as it was very powerful in this case. I do not want to speak for the Senator for whom I have great time but I took the words "I suppose" to mean that we are not really meant to talk about this issue. I say that because at the root of this is a desire to impose something on parents. I have great respect for the Minister. I do not believe he stated that children are primary educators. When I hear it said that external providers of RSE instruction should be regulated by the Department of Education and Skills, what that means seems clear. It means that people are out to impose a one-size-fits-all view of human relationships and sexuality, backed up by the State and the most influential people in it at this time. That is not pluralism. It is not acceptable. It is certainly not in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution, which accords to faith communities the right to establish schools and hospitals. When the Minister talks about the characteristic ethos of schools as though it is some kind of block on progress or factual education, he does a great disservice to the quality of education provided in faith-inspired schools. That education is factual but recognises that one cannot divorce facts from values. Senator Maria Byrne stated that what is taught in one school should be taught in another. I am very frightened for parents and children if that is the kind of dictatorial approach to be taken.

Certainly there must be changes in the area of patronage so that the now diverse views on all of these issues can be taken into account and reflected in the types of schools available to parents. People should never feel obliged to send their children to schools which are imbued with a certain ethos - an ethos which has supported much of what we understand as good values in our country, on everything from care for the environment to solidarity with the poor, although we never talk about that. Whether parents believe in solidarity with the poor or survival of the fittest, it is by all means their prerogative as parents to determine the values their children are brought up with and should encounter in schools. They should certainly have access to schools which reference those values and teach in their light. When politicians claim that every child should be subject to the same set of values they are engaging in a dictatorial grab for children's hearts and minds, over and above the wishes of their parents for values that by and large they are very comfortable with. I refer to values around respect for the dignity of each human person and fundamental principles around the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage and so on.

I plead with people not to dress up their desire for control of the future as some desire to make RSE and SPHE objective and factual. That is a euphemism for what many people are really looking for, which is to impose a new set of values. I do not really care if they are the majority values in this country, because the test of a civilised modern society is the space it allows for minority views. Those people should be honest and say they are unhappy with the values that underlie the education given to children in these areas, which, by and large, is factual. They should be democrats and accept that they do not have the right to control everybody's mind. They must accept that taxpayers, who are parents, are the first authority in determining who educates their children and according to what view of life.

Where I will support them is in saying that nothing taught in school should ever be anything other than purely factual. I actually support the provision of information about matters with which the characteristic sprit of the school might not be comfortable. I strongly support the right of the school not to leave a vacuum of values when it comes to talking about things as fundamental to personal happiness as a person's sexuality or issues of reproduction. Take the issue of consent. We all agree that consent is really important and we need to get it across to young people that sexual relationships should never take place without established consent. However, most parents would be very dissatisfied with the tendency to talk about consent as though it is the only thing that matters. Many parents want their children to be taught to respect members of the opposite sex and perhaps to delay sexual activity until they have found the loving partners with whom they want to bring children into the world. Some people may sneer at those values. That is their prerogative. However, it is not their right to impose a set of values on people who disagree with them for their own ideological reasons.

I will conclude by saying that tolerance is a two-way street. There is a certain speaking out of both sides of the mouth in saying that we must not frighten the horses and nothing is decided here yet. Everything the Minister says leaves out the very fundamental consideration that we must have diversity in our education system and we must allow education according to the values proposed by schools insofar as they are supported by the parents who send their children to them.