Skip to comments.Legal battle on Gore climate film (UK schools)
Posted on 09/27/2007 3:48:52 AM PDT by decimon
A parent is urging a judge to reconsider a ruling that the government did not break the law when it sent schools copies of a film by Al Gore.
Stuart Dimmock, a father from Kent and a member of the New Party, is at London's High Court.
In late July, a judge there ruled that the decision to send the climate change film "An Inconvenient Truth" to England's secondary schools was lawful.
Mr Dimmock had argued that circulating the film amounted to indoctrination.
But the judge, Mr Justice Beatson, ruled: "The fact that the presenter is a public figure and active in US politics does not arguably make the film as a whole one of political indoctrination.
"Nor does the showing [of] it in an educational context as a supplement to other teaching methods, and accompanied by suitable reservations and indications as to what is political and controversial, arguably the 'promotion' of partisan political views."
Schools are being sent a copy of the film by the former US vice-president for use in science, geography or citizenship lessons.
It is part of a package of resources being sent to schools. In his original ruling in late July, the judge said the guidance had been put together by an expert panel.
He said it reminded teachers of their statutory duties, "including the need to take such steps as are practicable to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views in respect of parts of the film that raise political issues".
Mr Dimmock is at the High Court to ask the judge to reconsider his decision to dismiss the case.
He said: "I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.
"Climate change is important, but it should be taught to children in a neutral and measured manner. Indoctrinating school children in this manner is unprecedented and unacceptable."
At the time when the scheme was announced, earlier this year, the schools minister Jim Knight said climate change was one of the most important challenges facing the earth.
Resources being sent to schools would help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change, he said.
This word "indoctrinating" may be applicable in this case, but I think the court's decision is correct. You should stop the free flow of ideas, you should counteract them with real facts.
The school should have an obligation to present ALL the facts to the students, which should mean the students can see for themselves what a complete farce the movie really is.
The problem is that while the government schools "should" have an obligation to present all the facts they rarely if ever do.
should = shouldn't, I'm sure
I'd agree with you if I thought this is how the schools should be spending their time, i.e., the time of their students.
>>The school should have an obligation to present ALL the facts to the students,
Primary schools (K-12 in the U.S.) have no business spending any significant time at all on this issue, when the students don’t know basic H.S.-level biology, chemistry, and physics.
Right, and that's the argument. Instead of arguing they shouldn't show this film, the debate should lie with them presenting ALL the known facts on the subject. The parents, educators, and children should demand to be presented with ALL the facts.
This is the reason why there should not BE ANY compuslory government schools or tax dollars to support the same.
When a family is locked into government schools because their tax money deprives them of the power of choice, all you can do is sue or protest. It’s a lot more difficult to vote with your feet when the money you’d need to do so is going to government schools.
They are disarmed, declawed heavily surveyled subjects now and most of them can't leave the gilded cage even if they wanted to.
And I see a problem with false dichotomies being presented as a balanced view. Balancing Gore's lunacy with some counter-lunacy would be to limit the debate to lunatics.
I think the argument the gentleman is using is that they are presenting this film as factual. This is wrong. To show it is not wrong, but to present it as scientific fact is definitely wrong and is, in fact, indoctrination since it seeks to impress false doctrine upon impressionable minds.
Clearly the indoctrination is not working - thank God for innate British scepticism!
When glaciers start forcing people to flee northern cities, this period in history is going to seem very stupid.
‘It dosen’t matter in the UK anymore its just fine adjustments now-their slavery is complete.
They are disarmed, declawed heavily surveyled subjects now and most of them can’t leave the gilded cage even if they wanted to.’
So much ignorance in such a small post! If we are disarmed, how do I manage to own two shotguns and a rifle, legally, in England? Surveyled? (sic) We have lots of cctv in public places and you have the NSA, but I am sure they monitor you benevolently. Subjects? I’m afraid not - citizens for many years now. Can’t leave? Compare the proportion of UK pasport holders to US ones. . . .
Could be. One story I haven't seen for a few years involves the rising salinity of the Mediterranean Sea. That salinity is supposedly related to coldness/glaciation in northern Europe.
Yeah! But wait until Castro/Chavez/Mugabe/Rodham Hussein dies ...
No wait, you were seriously talking about the UK?
Well that was demented. You know "Clockwork Orange", "Brazil" and "1984" are just movies, right? They're not documentaries?
If the world were actually getting warmer, the temperature would have to go up somewhere.
Last year saw the largest ozone hole ever recorded in the antarctic in spite of the ban on chlorofluorocarbons. It turns out its caused by cold temperatures. The antarctic averaged 9 degrees colder than normal.
Last year it snowed in Lisbon, Portugal. This hasn’t happened since 1954.
It snowed in Buenos Aires this year for the first time since 1918.
Where’s the warming?
In fevered brains.
Okay, I was just indulging myself with that. At any given time the Earth is either warming of cooling. At present, we may well be in a long-term warming trend. Or we may be in a short-term warming trend within a longer cooling trend. Or we may all be talking through a paper rectum. We have, based on knowledge of the past, some idea of what will come but can only speculate as to which climate trend we are currently in.
There is significant evidence that we are still in an ice age.
The earth is 6-10 degrees colder than usual.
There are glaciers in several places and ice caps at the poles. This is not typical.
Glaciers covered the poles down to about 40-45 degrees north longitude about 11,000 years ago. They’re gone now.
While there are some proposals that seem to work for certain eras, there is no complete understanding of why the earth heats up and cools down, or when it will begin to warm again.
I’m sure it has something to do with paper rectums.
“We don’t need no education/We don’t need no thought control....”