Shenali D Waduge

Across the world, Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) has NEVER entered school systems through transparent national debate or democratic approval. Instead, it has crept in quietly — rebranded under softer terms such as affective education,” anti-bullying,” inclusion,” and gender equality.” Italy is a textbook example of how this incremental, NGO-driven, externally influenced model unfolds — and why it ultimately provoked national alarm.

Italy is not a conservative, closed society. It is a liberal Western democracy, deeply integrated into the European Union, with long exposure to progressive social policies. Yet even in Italy, parents, educators, and lawmakers eventually recognized that sexuality and gender programmes introduced without clear limits, parental consent, or national mandate were crossing dangerous boundaries. The Italian experience demonstrates that when education policy bypasses parents, ignores cultural context, and treats children as instruments of social experimentation, the consequences become visible — and irreversible.

Sri Lanka now stands at a similar crossroads. What Italy permitted, questioned, and ultimately restricted after witnessing damage, Sri Lanka is being urged to adopt before any national debate, legal safeguards, or parental consent mechanisms are in place. Italy’s experience is therefore not a foreign curiosity — it is a warning for Sri Lanka.

While Italy did not initially have a mandatory CSE curriculum aligned to UNESCO’s ITGSE, from 1990s Italy allowed:

·       Decentralized sexuality/relationship education delivered through NGOs & external partners which were framed as

·       sexual education”

·       affective education”

·       gender equality”

·       anti-bullying”

·       inclusive programs”

Note the terms that are used to camouflage the agenda.

After 2010, UNESCO’s ITGSE was introduced under EU gender mainstreaming policies which were NOT VOTED as a national curriculum but entered schools through projects, partnerships, pilot initiatives (no different to some activities now taking place in Sri Lanka)

Italian schools hosted NGO-led programs that covered:

·       Gender identity concepts

·       Sexual orientation

·       Diversity & self-identification

·       Discussions beyond biology. 

With time, the outcomes were visible to the Italians. 

Italian parent groups, even parliamentarians became concerned.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-bans-gender-neutral-symbols-schools-latest-culture-clash-2025-03-21

Italy was witnessing:

Loss of parental consent & oversight:

·       Children exposed to sexuality/gender content without parents being informed

·      NGOs delivering content outside the national syllabus

·      Parents discovering materials after classroom delivery

Age-inappropriate exposure

·      Programmes introduced in primary schools

·      Topics extending beyond biology into:

o   identity self-definition

o   non-binary gender concepts

o   sexual orientation discussions at early ages

Psychological and social concerns

·      Reported confusion among younger children

·      Increased school complaints and parental protests

·      Perception that schools were overstepping educational boundaries

Institutional bypass

·      External organisations influencing children without democratic approval

·      Educational content influenced by international frameworks rather than national debate

If such was the response in a liberal western society, if the same subjects are launched in Sri Lanka – what would be the likely outcome?

Eventually the concerns drove political response after observing

·      Rising mental-health distress among adolescents

·      Increased identity-related referrals to counselling services

·      Higher levels of school-family conflict over curriculum

·      Large number of children prescribed anti-depressants, hormonal treatment

·      Increased reporting of sexual and gender issues among minors

Do we in Sri Lanka want to damage the lives of our children knowing the outcomes as Italy witnessed?

Italy reversed the programs they implemented.

Sri Lanka does not need to suffer the damage to reverse. 

Sri Lanka must therefore reject CSE in toto.

Key policy actions by Italy (2023–2024):

Mandatory parental consent for any school activity involving:

·       sexuality

·       gender identity

·       sexual orientation

Limits on primary-school exposure

Schools cannot introduce ideological content on gender without families’ approval.

Italy’s Official stand was simple:

·       Parents are the primary educators

·       Children require age-appropriate protection

·       Schools must not become vehicles for social engineering

·       Education policy must reflect national cultural and constitutional values

This is a preventive governance decision.

Italy took preventive action after witnessing the damage to the child.

Why would Sri Lanka’s policy makers & some educationists propose to cause the same damage by implementing CSE?

CSE programmes that entered Italian schools resulted in:

1.    Boundaries collapsing

·       Biology → identity → ideology

2.    Rollback made difficult

o   Materials already circulated (as seen in the buddy porn site in Sri Lanka)

o   Teachers already trained (UN agencies already training in Sri Lanka even before parental approval) 

3.    Trust is broken

o   Parents lose confidence in schools (unless this is an objective to end Kannangara’s Free Education in Sri Lanka)

4.    Policy becomes reactive

o   Governments act after exposure, not before (which is what we are now witnessing with the Sri Lanka Govt adamant to continue CSE whatever the objections)

Hence the insistence on early restriction rather than later correction is imperative.

Italy’s actions must be used as a warning example for Sri Lanka

·       It is a developed European democracy

·       It allowed decentralised sexuality/gender education without national mandate

·       It later acknowledged:

o   loss of parental control

o   lack of oversight

o   even cultural conflict in a liberal society

·       It then re-asserted state and parental authority

The lesson drawn by critics is not about Europe vs Asia, but about policy sequencing:

Once embedded, reversal is politically, socially, and institutionally costly – the damage to the child is often irreversible.

Italy demonstrates that:

·       Sexuality education introduced without clear legal limits, consent mechanisms, and national debate can trigger:

o   parental backlash

o   policy instability

o   social polarization

·       Governments may later restrict or reverse after exposure has already occurred, not before. This is a cowardly path to take. Legislators should read the pulse and realize why people are objecting and prevent the damage not allow the damage.

Italy’s reversal of CSE-type programmes was a corrective response to lived consequences. 

It came after parental authority was eroded, after age-inappropriate content reached young children, after trust between schools and families fractured, and after policymakers realised that once ideology enters the classroom, rolling it back is politically difficult and socially costly — while the harm to children cannot be undone.

Sri Lanka does not need to repeat this mistake to learn from it. A responsible state does not wait for children to be exposed, confused, medicated, or socially destabilised before acting. Preventive governance means protecting children before damage occurs — not issuing apologies after irreversible harm.

Italy has shown that even a liberal Western democracy ultimately recognised the necessity of parental primacy, age-appropriate education, cultural legitimacy, and national sovereignty in schooling. 

For Sri Lanka — with its civilisational heritage, constitutional obligations, and deep parental investment in education — the risks of importing CSE wholesale are not hypothetical. The outcomes are foreseeable.

Once embedded, reversal is late. 

Once trust is broken, it is hard to restore. 

Once childhood innocence is compromised, it cannot be legislated back.

We are dealing with humans not pieces of paper.

Italy chose correction after damage – Italy’s student population is 8.9million (total population 59million)
Sri Lanka still has the chance to choose prevention before damage.

Rejecting CSE is not failure. It is taking the side of Sri Lanka’s 4million children over advocacy handouts & NGO pressures.
It is the ONLY responsible action Sri Lanka’s Govt should take.

Shenali D Waduge