Although by abolishing the Health Education Curriculum, Constitutional Court judges have reiterated on several occasions that their job was not to evaluate public policy, the unanimous ruling said that the contentious Module 4 regulating sexual and gender equality and sexually responsible behaviour was dealing with "issues that were still considered delicate by our society."
Assessing the Health Education Curriculum, the Constitutional Court said the state had not fulfilled its procedural constitutional obligation to align the Health Education Curriculum in state schools with constitutional law and parental freedom to choose education for their children.
Even though only the curriculum's Module 4, which deals with sexual and gender equality and sexually responsible behaviour, was disputed, the Constitutional Court decided to abolish the entire curriculum because the disputed points related to the entire document.
"The Constitutional Court finds its unacceptable that a parents' council had not been asked to voice its opinion prior to the Curriculum going into effect nor had the National Education Council been included in the process..."
Commenting on the "socially delicate" Module 4, the Constitutional Court said that despite its acceptable objectives, "it is not necessary to provide special arguments that these were topics which parents generally see as areas in which freedoms and protection of their personal, religious or philosophical beliefs needed to be taken into account and protected."
The Constitutional Court underlined that its decision did not prevent, but encouraged relevant bodies to systematically and comprehensively prepare the implementation of the health education programme in elementary and high schools in a procedure which will be in line with constitutional regulations.
