When Cardinal Keith O’Brien used the pages of The Sunday Times last weekend to issue his warning about developments in sex education, some of his opponents reacted with apoplectic fury. One member of Scotland’s notoriously self- regarding educational establishment advised him to shut his mouth. Others wept crocodile tears of concern over the cardinal’s alleged failure to understand issues of personal morality. But the consensus among Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green politicians at Holyrood was “least said soonest mended”.
Recognising as they do the dramatic extent to which the Scottish executive misjudged national opinion during the battle over the repeal of section 28, they prefer not to talk about sex. It always seems to cause trouble.
There is a solid reason for that. One does not need to start from a religious perspective to recognise that on questions of sexual health and morality devolved government has repeatedly proved itself remote from popular sentiment. Time and again on questions of contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted disease and promiscuity, ministers have revealed attitudes far more permissive than are considered mainstream by even the most tolerant Scots.
Sexual relations between children below the age of consent are now common. The rate of teenage pregnancy in Scotland has reached an unprecedented high. Sexual infections once thought to have been eradicated are again prevalent. But confronted with this evidence the ministers responsible for sex education and sexual health in Scotland appear determined not to consider one plausible possibility. They reject the very suggestion that liberalising sex education may have caused problems rather than curing them.
The progressive morality that was developed in the 1960s and became the basis of educational philosophy in the 1970s was not meant to cause harm. The intention was to banish fear. A generation raised on tales of vulnerable young people excluded from polite society for the sin of having sex yearned to create a fairer, more compassionate Scotland.
Many of the changes inspired by that liberal generation are now regarded as the foundation stones of personal freedom. But solutions that were necessary to achieve reform in a censorious and intolerant society are not necessarily appropriate in a Scotland where the problem appears to many parents to be too little morality, not too much. Ideological liberals, including Malcolm Chisholm, the health minister, and his predecessor, Susan Deacon, seem unwilling to recognise that times have changed.
Chisholm’s reaction to O’Brien’s sincere concern about what may be taught to Scottish children under the new sexual health strategy due to be published by the executive this autumn was depressingly arrogant. Backed by the weight of teaching unions, the STUC and the alarmingly unrepresentative Scottish Parent Teacher Council, Chisholm sought to kill the debate stone dead.
Well, you have to throw a stone to get the pool to ripple, as the old saying goes, and O’Brien deserves our gratitude for doing just that. His belief that the new guidelines may expose extremely young children to graphic sexual imagery may be exaggerated. His warning that Chisholm is about to authorise “child abuse” in Scottish primary schools certainly sounded over the top. But the more significant truth is that without O’Brien’s warning, these issues would not even be subject to proper discussion.
The inheritors of a proud liberal tradition have adopted a particularly illiberal approach to democracy. They have allowed themselves to become convinced that parents understand their children less thoroughly than teachers, social workers, doctors and government ministers. Chisholm’s determination to ensure that contraceptives can be distributed to children without parental knowledge is not tolerant. Nor is his support for authorising abortions in cases where the girl’s parents are unaware she is pregnant.
These policies involve forcing extreme permissiveness down the throats of parents. It should not come as a surprise to the minister that his enthusiastic support for them causes parents to worry a great deal about what “sex and relationship education” in primary schools and “relationship education” for pre-school children will actually mean. There is a fine line between teaching young children to avoid abusive adults and introducing them to concepts that may frighten and corrupt them. Many Scottish parents believe they are better equipped to identify that line for their children than even the most well-intentioned teacher.
If, as Chisholm blandly insists, there is no intention to make use of inappropriate material then he should not be reluctant to discuss precisely what new approach is proposed for Scottish schools. The minister claims he is determined to put values, morality and the benefits of abstention at the heart of sex education for teenagers. His protestations would be more convincing if he would remove the barriers of secrecy from his consultation process and allow parents to take part.
The minister might find it helpful to consider why many liberal parents are grateful to O’Brien. I do not share his opinions on contraception or abortion. As the father of three daughters I will encourage them to use the former and will not hesitate to support them if they ever choose to abort children they do not wish to bring into the world. But I will, desperately, want to know if any of my daughters is undergoing the trauma of unwanted pregnancy. And I will despise any health or educational professional who believes their understanding of my children is more sensitive than my own.
Promoting debate does not mean dictating the outcome. Scotland’s appalling record on teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted disease may require a change in the way we educate our children about sex.
Chisholm has shown by his actions that he is a fully paid-up member of the harm-reduction school of sex education. This doctrine asserts there is nothing anyone can do to prevent teenagers experimenting with sex and that the role of the state is to ensure that they can experiment safely. The flaw is that decades of experience have failed to deliver convincing proof that this works. Teenagers with access to contraception persistently fail to use it. Access to abortion has not reduced the psychological trauma it causes in some women.
Chisholm should recognise that state-imposed permissive orthodoxy is an imperfect response to teenage sexuality and risks causing serious offence when applied to younger children. That is not an extreme view. Experience has shown that it is the sincere opinion of many sensible Scottish parents. O’Brien’s intervention raised the possibility that their views may be heard. If the minister really believes in transparent democracy he should be grateful. Clarity, honesty and candour may lead to effective sex education in a way that neither liberal nor religious zealotry yet have.
