Maxim Institute on Environmental Indoctrination
From Real Issues 18.5.06
Most Kiwis agree that protecting the environment is generally a good thing, but they certainly don't agree on the best way to do it - especially not politicos. And when they debate environmental issues, whether it is the government's forcible cessation of native logging on the West Coast, or what should be taught in the National Curriculum, controversy is sure to follow.
Last week, Dr. Nick Smith called for the National Party to embrace a new vision for the environment and formulate a coherent policy based on "National Party values". He highlighted the need to set out a broad approach to the environment based on "trusting people" to manage their resources, and the principle of "sustainability". Dr. Smith puts "sustainability" and environmental stewardship in a framework including private enterprise, development, decentralisation and stewardship for future generations.
This came hot on the heels of a new report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE); See Change: Learning and Education for Sustainability, which called for a greater emphasis on "sustainability education" in society and in the curriculum. The PCE Report also promotes "education for sustainability", but puts the concept of environmental protection in a framework diametrically opposed to that articulated by Nick Smith. "Sustainability", according to the report, is tied to values of peace, reducing inequality, diversity and human rights. While the report loudly disclaims "indoctrination", it also admits that these values are invariably political.
In calling for more support for "sustainability education", then, the authors of the report are pushing an agenda based on the almost neo-Marxist "transformation" and "interrogation" of unjust social and cultural structures. It is important to remember that our approach to protecting the environment is not solely a matter of biology and environmental science. We bring to the debate our assumptions about human nature and the role of government. It is vital that these are honestly put onto the table and debated along with the policies to which they give rise, especially when, as with the PCE, they use tax-payer funds and the school curriculum as a pulpit from which to preach.
Most Kiwis agree that protecting the environment is generally a good thing, but they certainly don't agree on the best way to do it - especially not politicos. And when they debate environmental issues, whether it is the government's forcible cessation of native logging on the West Coast, or what should be taught in the National Curriculum, controversy is sure to follow.
Last week, Dr. Nick Smith called for the National Party to embrace a new vision for the environment and formulate a coherent policy based on "National Party values". He highlighted the need to set out a broad approach to the environment based on "trusting people" to manage their resources, and the principle of "sustainability". Dr. Smith puts "sustainability" and environmental stewardship in a framework including private enterprise, development, decentralisation and stewardship for future generations.
This came hot on the heels of a new report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE); See Change: Learning and Education for Sustainability, which called for a greater emphasis on "sustainability education" in society and in the curriculum. The PCE Report also promotes "education for sustainability", but puts the concept of environmental protection in a framework diametrically opposed to that articulated by Nick Smith. "Sustainability", according to the report, is tied to values of peace, reducing inequality, diversity and human rights. While the report loudly disclaims "indoctrination", it also admits that these values are invariably political.
In calling for more support for "sustainability education", then, the authors of the report are pushing an agenda based on the almost neo-Marxist "transformation" and "interrogation" of unjust social and cultural structures. It is important to remember that our approach to protecting the environment is not solely a matter of biology and environmental science. We bring to the debate our assumptions about human nature and the role of government. It is vital that these are honestly put onto the table and debated along with the policies to which they give rise, especially when, as with the PCE, they use tax-payer funds and the school curriculum as a pulpit from which to preach.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
5/21/2006 03:15:00 PM
5 Comments:
"is tied to values of peace, reducing inequality, diversity and human rights."
your joking right??? you actually have a problem with peace inequality diversity and human rights. Please tell me I read the post wrong because your really shaking my faith in people
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Canterbury ACT on Campus member Stanley Climbfall has been banned from a Left wing blog for debating tax cuts.
Stanley calls on all who support the Right to continue the discussion and show that oppression of the people does not kill the liberal vision. Lefties are also invited to participate and further build on their arguments.
"We cannot allow people to be misinformed by shutting down debate. Statements such as "Stan, you seem to put a lot of faith in tax cuts. The problem here is that it’s by no means proven that they have the results you suggest." and "I’ve always found it hilarious how ready people are to believe fix the economy and everything else will magically fix itself. It sounds kind of like salesman talk." will only allow economic ignorance to continuously plague the blogosphere. If we want people to understand what ACT and National are advocating we need to fight the suppression of differing points of views." Stanley said.
Site owner Andrew Brehaut attacks the Maxim Institute by labelling their core responsibilities as "guns and gay bashing". He calls Rodney Hide and Heather Roy residents of "Toad Hall". The relevant link is http://brehaut.net/blog/2006/05/19/core-responsibilities-are-guns-and-gay-bashing/
ENDS
anon. Socialist buzzwords. They don't mean what most of us would normally accept them to mean.
hmm "peace, reducing inequality, diversity and human rights" they seem pretty clear to me. I know that most of the socialists believe them in the same way as the rest of us
劈腿,劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,劈腿劈腿劈腿,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 外遇,外遇,外遇, 偷情,第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,徵信社,徵信社,外遇,外遇,抓姦,徵信,徵信公司, 外遇,徵信 包二奶 跟蹤 監控 徵信,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信,徵信, 徵信社,徵信社,徵信社, 徵信社,徵信社,外遇,第三者,徵信社,偵探社,徵信社,偵探社 ,偵探社, 偵探社,偵探社,偵探,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務,家事服務家事服務家事服務,家事服務,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,持久,離婚,徵信社,徵信社,徵信,徵信社,外遇,離婚,劈腿,持久,持久,持久持久持久,劈腿,徵信,徵信社,外遇外遇外遇,外遇徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信徵信社,徵信,徵信徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社徵信社,徵信社,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,網頁設計,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,徵信社,
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home