EVRAS/RTBF: Dr Goaréguer’s right of reply
While many parents and child specialists are voicing their concerns about the new EVRAS programme, RTBF has come out with an accusatory article[1] with a whiff of conspiracism.
The “Décrypte” team did not hesitate to use dubious conflations, portraying citizens as an organised gang worthy of the Brabant Wallon killers… The aim: to poison the debate in order to stifle any contradiction.
Cited in the article, Dr Goaréguer, a psychiatrist by training, requested a right of reply. RTBF declined, hiding behind a legal loophole; nuanced debate and journalistic principles evidently carry little weight...
BAM! presents Dr Goaréguer’s reply, as well as RTBF’s refusal expressed by its lawyer.
|
Dr F. Goaréguer Limal, 13 November 2023 Dear Sir, Following the article published on your website on 16 September, I hereby exercise with you a right of reply, to be published without alteration or comment, given that I was cited by name in a manner that tarnishes my reputation. Indeed, there was no point in mentioning the Medical Council’s call to hear me after the arguments I had put forward to denounce the dangers of questionable patient care during the Covid crisis, notably for children. It was only a matter of inviting me to give my point of view following a malicious complaint by a third party whom I did not know, and in no way a call to order. This was therefore irrelevant and aimed only at casting an unwelcome doubt on my integrity and unduly discrediting me. As for the so-called “untruths” on my part contained in the “Zèbre” interview, they were in fact only factual truths. For you can indeed read this in the EVRAS guide: P.187 (for 9-11 year-olds):
Understanding pleasant and unpleasant sensations (gestures, erogenous zones, etc.) can help children express their desires, needs and limits and understand their sensations of pleasure. This learning should be linked to learning about intimacy and consent. Reference (50) refers to a Canadian article: [50] SERC. (s.d.). Sexual Development. Retrieved from Sexual Development - SERC This article begins with: CHILD SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT Sexuality begins at birth. … Moreover, this is not the only passage in which the EVRAS guide speaks of sexuality from birth: • P. 192 for 9-11 year-olds: “Sexuality is present from birth, and is imbued with the social context” So it is indeed a matter of talking about masturbation from the youngest age with children aged 5 to 8. Yet at 2 years old, if a child fiddles with their genitals, it is not associated with pleasure, let alone with sexuality, but with sensoriality (Dr R Brunod, “préserver l’innocence des enfants”, Les éditions du Bien commun, 2020). Moreover, the child does not linger over touching their genitals any more than over sucking their thumb or big toe. Associating the notion of pleasure-seeking with it stems from perceiving in children a sexuality similar to that of adults, and corresponds to no scientific data, but rather to the paedophile experiments of Alfred Kinsey, the first and only person to have developed this thesis (Dr Judith Reisman, “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, an Investigation Into the Human Sexuality Research of Alfred C. Kinsey ... [et Al.]”, Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990). The risk of confusing these concepts from the youngest age is that it encourages, or even legitimises, the approaches of predators (S. Ferenczi / Neuropsychiatrie de l’enfance et de l’adolescence 58 (2010) 10–14. doi: 10.1016/j.neurenf.2009.11.006) Moreover, if one notices that a child under 11 shows early sexualised or masturbatory behaviour, it is advisable to consider the possibility that this child has experienced abuse or inappropriate touching, or has witnessed scenes inappropriate for their age. Likewise for pornographies, one can read in the EVRAS guide:
It should be known that as soon as an adult talks to children about this kind of subject (pornographies), it has a potentially intrusive (psychological trauma) or arousing effect; and the child’s curiosity does the rest. Of course, it is said that only subjects brought up by the children are addressed. But this therefore means that if one of the children raises the topic in front of the rest of the class, all the others will be involved, whether or not they consented! Yet consent with regard to sexuality is not legally recognised before the age of 16 (article 417/6 of the Criminal Code). And presenting pornographic content, even as a mere description, may be classified as an attack on sexual integrity (article 417/7 of the Criminal Code). How could the Minister ignore these breaches of the law and endorse, or even promote, such content? How can parliamentarians find nothing wrong with it? The information on the website SAUVONS NOS ENFANTS, designed by the collective of which I am a member and covering the concepts mentioned above, is therefore in no way “conspiracist” but is based on purely factual. My only concern is that of a child psychiatrist anxious to preserve children’s mental health. Moreover, I am not the only one, given that there was a petition in Belgium signed by several child psychiatrists to this effect, reported at the time by La Libre: Non à l’hypersexualisation de nos enfants - La Libre There was also a similar petition in France on the same subject, also launched by child psychiatrists under the direction of Professor M Berger: We can therefore speak of a certain consensus among child mental health professionals, which should not be neglected, as it is, nor labelled conspiracist or disinformation. As for the template letter, it was drawn up by our lawyer, and you considered its content erroneous when it was not, because YES, the EVRAS guide is designed for children from the age of 5, and YES, it contains information about an adult sexuality that does not correspond to the age of these children and can therefore have an intrusive effect. For all intents and purposes, you can read on the website SAUVONS NOS ENFANTS a right-of-reply page that takes up your article Guide pour l’Éducation à la vie relationnelle, affective et sexuelle (Evras) : les critiques sont‑elles fondées ? And puts each of your objections in its place with supporting evidence, because YES, the opponents’ criticisms are well-founded. As for restricting EVRAS sessions to the 6th year of primary and the 4th year of secondary, you say so yourself in your article, as does the Minister: that is what is planned to begin with… Furthermore, circulars 9020 and 9044 are clear on this subject (page 6), as is draft decree 572 (2022-2023) - No. 1: EVRAS will be taught as part of the common core, that is, across all subjects in all years. So there is no reason to call erroneous the fears we put forward concerning the application of concepts from the EVRAS guide from the age of 5. Hoping to have clarified, through this right of reply, some erroneous positions conveyed in your article. I of course reserve all rights if necessary. |
|
|
The opinions expressed in this right of reply are solely those of its author and do not necessarily reflect those of BAM!
Standfirst and illustration by BAM!
[1] Complotistes, extrême droite et adeptes de théories pédocriminelles : voici le réseau des désinformateurs sur l’Evras en Belgique - rtbf.be
