Debate contribution: Relationships and Sexuality Education
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Relationships and Sexuality Education
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484817
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We all have to acknowledge that never before in our society have children been under such pressure and had such difficult choices to make. It is up to us to help support them in every way that we can. RSE is a tool that can be used. It can be taught in a sensitive manner, encouraging children and young people to have self-respect and the ability to make safe, responsible and well-informed decisions so that they can form healthy, respectful relationships, in their teenage years and into the future. They need to know, as the Member for East Londonderry said, when they are being coerced, when to give consent and when it is appropriate to say no. I do not disagree with any of those sentiments.
However, while RSE is a compulsory part of the curriculum — we do not automatically get that from the motion — there is an obligation in our society and our education system to deliver RSE in conjunction with the school principal, the board of governors and the parents of pupils of a school. It is primarily because of the exclusion of parents that I am opposed to the motion. Schools have an ethos. I am thankful that schools in our community —
— no; I have a lot to get through — have a general, broad Christian ethos and that children are taught within those values. That is for the good of society and will stand them in good stead as they go forward. I regret that the motion does not refer to parents. Perhaps it is reflective of the Upper Bann representative's contempt for parents, grandparents, teachers, pastors and ministers that he referred to their gathering to discuss RSE in Portadown as:
"a dog-whistle to the far-right."
The Member for Upper Bann should remember that 13,500 people responded to the recent consultation on RSE. They were certainly not from the far right. As other Members have said, it is important to acknowledge that, in that consultation, many parents said that parents were best placed to discuss the issues with their children. There is evidence that, if parents discuss these issues with their children in a well-formed, loving home situation, that makes for the best outcome —.
No, I will not. The motion usurps the role of parents, teachers and boards of governors in taking a holistic view of their school, their ethos and what they will teach in RSE. An element of the debate pits children's rights against parents' rights. Much has been made of the rights of the child. I have just looked at article 2 of the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which makes it clear that:
"in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
That was reflected in the RSE legislation that was brought forward in England relatively recently. We appear to say in the motion, "Do what I say, and that is all that you can do". We need to respect the rights of parents. We need to respect the rights of teachers. Not all teachers will want to teach a standardised curriculum. They will want to teach according to their conscience. The motion refers to supporting teachers in the delivery of RSE. In November of last year, I wrote to the chief executive of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) because I was concerned about the number of references to organisations in the RSE hubs, some of which —.
They are not just extremely concerning; some of the organisations listed were being assessed for criminality. We need to support teachers with broad, balanced information rather than information that reflects only one view of society. The Member for Mid Ulster indicated that we should all learn from this. Of course we should, but perhaps she will also learn that describing puberty blockers as a health right for teenagers is also wrong, given the Cass report and the damage that has been done to children and young people by gender identity clinics.
692 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.43 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.46).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.30 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.46 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.39 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.43 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.46 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.44 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.97 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:01 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.