Michael Gove has been in the papers a lot recently. I still can’t think of him enthusiastically describing London as a place to have ‘loads of hot sex’ without feeling a combination of astonishment and faint queasiness in my stomach.
The juxtaposition of Gove and ‘hot sex’ is such an unlikely and unappetizing combination for so many reasons, and the fact that the Education Minister would use this expression at all merely confirms him as one of the most obnoxious and revolting characters amongst the strange and grotesque collection of gargoyles that the British electoral system has inexplicably propelled into positions of power over the nation.
Be that as it may, there are many more reasons to be repelled by the Education Secretary/Minister for Hot Sex. And just when you think you have exhausted all the possibilities, Gove can always be guaranteed to provide another. Take yesterday’s report in the Daily Mail that ‘eco-activist’ teachers are poisoning the minds of the nation’s children with ‘green propaganda’.
These allegations are based on the report Climate Control: Brainwashing in Our Schools by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a thinktank set up by climate change ‘skeptic’ Nigel Lawson, which supposedly found that eco-activist teachers were being given ‘free rein’ in the nation’s schools, and that innocent pupils were being transformed into ‘foot soldiers of the green movement.’
The report strongly suggests that these developments are part of a global conspiracy to ‘indoctrinate’ children and promote a ‘sustainability agenda’ supposedly dating back to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Naturally the EU is involved, as well as UNESCO, the UN, and the IPCC, all of whom share the same dark desire’ to ‘ link primary and secondary schools across Europe to discuss, engage, and commit to undertake actions to limit the change in climate.’
Goodness, I hear you cry, can it really have come to this? But the plot thickens drastically, as we learn that educational initiatives such as the Climate Change Schools Project are engaging in Maoist-style attempts to ‘train children to police their parents’. And then there is the sinister Geographical Association, which wants to use geography lessons to ‘encourage children to think about issues such as the alleged imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels, and what concrete actions – taking showers rather than baths, cycling rather than using cars, recycling newspapers and so on.’
No! Please don’t go on! I hear you saying. Can these climate changers really be so evil and so unscrupulous? Yes they can. There are Environmental Science exam papers which ask pupils to write a letter explaining ‘ why recycling is a good thing/what things should be recycled/where to put items for recycling.’
The report found that teaching on ‘sustainability’ and green issues pervaded the whole curriculum, from French to religious education, and that one RE exam asked children to ‘explain actions religious people might take to look after the planet’ accompanied by a marking scheme whose suggested answers included ‘avoid polluting the world’, ‘recycle’, ‘reduce carbon footprint’ – and even ‘protest when necessary’ and ‘join action groups such as Greenpeace’.
By now you must be as sick to the stomach as I was, but stay with me reader because the worst is yet to come. According to the report, the ‘curriculum has been undergoing a long process of subversion, one that is now largely complete.’ And this process of ‘subversion’ has deliberately reduced our children to gibbering terrorized babes, peering out above the blankets at a climate change education syllabus in which ‘ the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.’
The report also found ‘ widespread evidence that children are becoming scared and disturbed by the constant refrain of doom from their teachers.’ This ‘evidence’ consisted of a survey of 500 American pre-teens which found that ‘ one in three children aged between 6 and 11 feared that the Earth would not exist when they reached adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats.’
Another 2007 survey in the UK ‘ showed that half of young children aged between seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern ‘, while a UNICEF study reported that ‘ three-quarters of 11 to 16-year-olds in the UK were worried about how global warming was going to change the world.’
The report does not show that any of these conclusions were the result of actions by teachers. Nor does it consider another possibility, namely that children might be afraid of climate change and concerned about the future of the planet because of what they see on the news rather than because of ‘brainwashing’.
Last July Gove was obliged to backtrack on plans to remove climate change from geography classes at key stages 1-3, following pressure from teachers, environmentalists, and scientists. Over 21,000 pupils signed a petition protesting the government’s plans to change the syllabus. No one has ever suggested that teachers or ‘eco-activists’ made them do this.
Nevertheless the Minister for Hot Sex doesn’t like to be thwarted, and he has told the world that he views the GWPF’s report ‘with concern’. and warned head teachers that ‘Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so.’
So now it could be against the law to teach kids that it might be a good idea to recycle? Anything is possible in the Minister for Hot Sex’s world. After all, one of Gove’s spokesmen says
‘Ministers are clear that the new national curriculum must equip young people with the core knowledge they need to understand the weather, climate, the Earth’s atmosphere, physical geography and the interaction between nature and the environment. That means in both science and geography, pupils must learn the facts and processes which underpin public discussion of climate change. They must not be directed towards a particular campaigning agenda.’
It’s in moments like this that you are reminded why the fate of the planet is in peril. It’s not just the almost psychopathic indifference to the disastrous events that we have already seen in this country and in many others, or the constant stream of warnings emanating from scientists about the catastrophic possibilities that might lie ahead, it’s the sheer gimlet-eyed stupidity and fanaticism of the individuals who actually have their hands on the levers of power.
Lawson’s organization is – mystifyingly – a registered charity, even though it functions as a lobbying group to express its concern ‘about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated’ to mitigate global warming. Nigel Lawson has business connections to coal-producing companies including Europe’s biggest single polluter, the Belachatow Power Plant.
Who actually funds the GWPF and why won’t it say? Could these connections also indicate an ‘agenda’? Don’t expect the Minister for Hot Sex, or the Daily Mail, or James Delingpole to ask these questions, in their rush to protect the brains of the nation’s children which merely demonstrates an alarming lack of activity in their own.