A new Social, Personal, and Health Education (SPHE) textbook trashes traditional Irish families as backward and bigoted, idealises diverse families and forces students to choose which family they’d prefer to belong to, fumes Niamh Uí Bhriain in Gript. Here’s an excerpt:
Did you know that if you love GAA, and have a family business, and play Irish music, and holiday in Ireland, might be critical of RTÉ, and support Irish filmmaking – and maybe keep hens, and think potatoes are tasty – you are Family A in a SPHE handbook being used in Irish schools since 2023? And its very obvious that Family A are not just inferior to diverse families, but they are probably bigoted, insular and small-minded too.
The chapter in the SPHE book – ironically entitled “All different, All equal” – was brought to the attention of Carol Nolan TD this week by a furious parent who said her 12 year-old son had come home with it from school, having started first year this week. …
Two families are compared in this exercise. If you are more like Family A, you are not diverse, and that is your terrible failing – because failure to achieve that holy grail essential for modern virtue-signalling means that, despite the supposed emphasis on equality, you are definitely and absolutely a lesser family, and you can be subjected to lazy, offensive, stereotyping – not just online or in the media – but in the classroom.
You are narrow-minded, gastronomically illiterate, hicks. You hate people who don’t share the same religion, and even your cattle look slightly stupid probably because they are a reflection on their owners. …
Now, obviously Family A don’t really fully exist, because there almost isn’t a person in Ireland (the country with brutal emigration rates due to ferocious colonialism and indifferent governance) who doesn’t have relatives abroad, or who doesn’t eat pizza or who wouldn’t enjoy seeing a bit of the world, but, of course, not every item in this sneering description needs to apply. If “all your family members are Irish”, and maybe you like Irish dancing and play hurling, the gist is that this is your family, because this is how labels and stereotypes and caricatures are applied, something you’d think the authors of a SPHE handbook would know. Maybe they do, and they wrote this garbage anyway. …
Then we come to Family B, who are obviously preferable in every way because they are diverse and therefore marvellous. Not for them the Stone Age mindset of favouring GAA or learning slow airs. Look, they have smartphones and pizzas, and funky square glasses are obviously super-mad-craic and lovely and gorgeous and kind and open-minded. We haven’t a bad word to say about them.
They “love change and difference” and support their kids in whatever life-path they choose, unlike rotten Family A who are forcing their poor children to slave away in the mouldy old family business – but hey, why would the families who take great pride in being the second or third or fourth generation to be productive members of society passing on an essential trade and providing employment, be offended? (Irish people aren’t allowed to be offended anyway, we’re too far down the misery and exploitation hierarchy despite 800 years of living under the lash of arid censure to quote Donagh McDonagh). …
But this absurd, insidious classroom exercise actually gets worse. The kids are then told, after discussing the advantages and disadvantages of Family B (though there are obviously no disadvantages in the description) that they must decide which family is more inclusive? Gosh, one wonders what answer the kids have been primed to give?
And then we come to the most egregious part of the exercise: “After your class share their answers to the first three questions decide which family you would choose to belong to”.
We’re rating families in the classroom now? Under the pretence of respecting diversity? This is actually a disgusting exercise in the bullying of schoolchildren whose families, like being Irish, are proud of being Irish, and who therefore could find themselves targeted in a way in school – an outcome that should be completely and absolutely unacceptable to any parent.
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
48 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AJPotts
11 months ago
The judiciary needs to be put in its place. The people are sovereign. Withdrawing from the reach of the European Court of Human Rights is a necessary condition for the restoration of democracy in England.
BLiar’s UK 1998 HRA act embeds the German Empire’s HR and open borders. This is the ‘legal’ reason why nothing is being done. The uniparty does not care. They all make money from it.
No government can protect its people from something that doesn’t exist. This means that this is not about controlling the weather, so what is it about controlling?
“People and all their activities, including birthrates and population growth. resources including oil, coal and gas, rare minerals etc etc”. —–That will just about cover it for starters.
You asked “so what is it controlling” and I answered. ——–You are correct it isn’t and never was about the climate. —–Infact I would go so far as to say it is about almost everything else EXCEPT the climate.
This is just as crazy as the Canadian idiot suing the govt because he wants them to fund his fetish to have both a prick and a pussy. He can go f- himself (literally and figuratively)
No govt can singularly protect its people from something that, by definition, is global. This is patently absurd. Moreover, “One woman said she could not leave her house for three weeks during the summer.” is not a threat to her life.
As US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent in the “gay marriage” case:
“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our 2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES THOMAS, J., dissenting Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Obama called the Constitution “A document of negative Liberties” . he said “It says what the government cannot do to you, but does not say what the government can do for you”. ———–No doubt protecting us all from climate change would be one of those things Obama and the democrats would want to do for people—-to “protect us”
When St Barry says ‘do for you’ he means ‘do to you’. And that’s what Common Law and Constituions are for, to stop Governments being actively engaged in deciding what you must have.
“have to protect people from climate change”. ———-Which ofcourse means everything that is contained in NET ZERO. ——We will remove your petrol car to protect you from climate change. We will take away your gas boiler to protect you from climate change. We will take away all the cheap energy and give you expensive energy, we will force you to have a smart meter all to protect you from climate change. ——Basically we will just get the entire GREEN BLOB force you back to preindustrial times with it all to “protect you”———————-ha ha ha ah a jeezus. ——Why am I laughing, because it would only be funny if it was not so utterly PATHETIC
wokeman
11 months ago
As opposed to protecting ppl from freezing to death in this ice age in which we live.
It is a rather bold assertion that a government has a duty to protect against the natural ordering of things. They might have a duty to protect you from a criminal or an enemy state. This can clearly be seen as part of the social contract. But I don’t see how it could ever be argued that a government has a duty to protect its people from climate change. You might say that any government is duty bound to examine any crisis that might come along or any activity which might be detrimentally affecting the weather but they are attempting to say something different. They have violated logic in the attempted persuance of a scam. Thankfully the whole world is starting to get it. It is as if we, the masses, are some sort of pustule and they will inject needle after needle into it in the hope that it might go away.
Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
I’m not completely convinced. So many of the constituencies in the last GE were won with turnouts well under 20k. FPTP is an obvious impediment, but anger is a fabulous motivator, so campaign to make people angry (if they’re not already). Likely we’d be called conspiracists, deplatformed or insulted but I’m politically homeless right now and really pissed off…
I think FPTP should go. Even though countries with PR seem to be doing no better, at least there’s a chance of getting a voice.
“Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
Would it be…
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago
My advice would be listen to some music and read some poetry because thereis no space in their universe for either. Like Bob Marley him say, we chant down Babylon.
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago
We all know and can feel that something really big is about to happen. And so your humanity should drive you towards how we manage that situation and its aftermath because it will probably mean the end of a lot of things. If we are true Brits and really care about reality then we need to be fine tuned to the reality to come.And given the scale of loss that is going to occur over the next few months there won’t be any room for insincerity. We have achieved a lot on these islands in the last two thousand years and well before and we need to look after each other. That will be the main measure when we are sized up.
Jabby Mcstiff
11 months ago
We are moving into different times. Lets say you got a suden urge to build a boat in your front room – you and your son. This is where we are at so lets develop an understanding based on humanity because of what is to come. This isn’t going to be the way things were in the past on a lot of levels. This time is very bad for women and girls especially given the progress over the last two hundred years. We aim to keep it together and as men we will protect the female realm I’m sure. All I can say is that I devote my time to keeping things together. I put my life in the way of any attempt to destroy it.
“yet another attempted ideological power grab on the part of a self-selecting and self-serving elite out of touch with reality”.”
Could equally apply to the U.N. NATO and the WHO. Hope she’s noticed though I doubt it.
Hester
11 months ago
As many of us have said on this site and others Covid was the test run for Locking us up and taking away our freedoms in preparation for the big one, tyranny and a new world order under the auspices of Climate change and emergency. These people are dangerous and are the enemy of freedom and all that is good about western society. We let them rule us and take notice of their directives at our peril.
How is it they get to tell us what to do from inside two large water tanks on stilts?
kev
11 months ago
3 words – Burden Of Proof
What is it, provide it unredacted and be prepared to debate it. We want the raw unsullied empirical data, so we ourselves can apply the Scientific method ourselves, with all necessary rigour, and see if we can replicate their claims and finding.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The judiciary needs to be put in its place. The people are sovereign. Withdrawing from the reach of the European Court of Human Rights is a necessary condition for the restoration of democracy in England.
BLiar’s UK 1998 HRA act embeds the German Empire’s HR and open borders. This is the ‘legal’ reason why nothing is being done. The uniparty does not care. They all make money from it.
And then put our Supreme Court in its place: no more overreach
No government can protect its people from something that doesn’t exist. This means that this is not about controlling the weather, so what is it about controlling?
“People and all their activities, including birthrates and population growth. resources including oil, coal and gas, rare minerals etc etc”. —–That will just about cover it for starters.
Of course my question was rhetorical.
You asked “so what is it controlling” and I answered. ——–You are correct it isn’t and never was about the climate. —–Infact I would go so far as to say it is about almost everything else EXCEPT the climate.
We’re basically going back to the dark ages.
Instead of witches and the devil it’s global warming. The thing pushed by religious fanatics and used by the sociopathic to crush people in their way.
Plus throw in the odd “pandemic” to ramp up the fear
This is just as crazy as the Canadian idiot suing the govt because he wants them to fund his fetish to have both a prick and a pussy. He can go f- himself (literally and figuratively)
No govt can singularly protect its people from something that, by definition, is global. This is patently absurd. Moreover, “One woman said she could not leave her house for three weeks during the summer.” is not a threat to her life.
What will they do? Provide the populace with Umbrella’s in the winter and parasols and fans in the summer?
Or maybe fairy dust, and lashings of wishful thinking?
As US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent in the “gay marriage” case:
“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our 2 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES THOMAS, J., dissenting Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”
Exactly so.
Obama called the Constitution “A document of negative Liberties” . he said “It says what the government cannot do to you, but does not say what the government can do for you”. ———–No doubt protecting us all from climate change would be one of those things Obama and the democrats would want to do for people—-to “protect us”
When St Barry says ‘do for you’ he means ‘do to you’. And that’s what Common Law and Constituions are for, to stop Governments being actively engaged in deciding what you must have.
And in deciding what other people must have, that will be taken from you.
Thanks. I didn’t realise he had said that. No surprise to learn that’s what he thinks, but interesting he was happy to admit to it publicly.
wink
The architectural ugliness of the ECHR building, which resembles a pair of slurry silos, is a metaphor for many of the decisions they take.
“have to protect people from climate change”. ———-Which ofcourse means everything that is contained in NET ZERO. ——We will remove your petrol car to protect you from climate change. We will take away your gas boiler to protect you from climate change. We will take away all the cheap energy and give you expensive energy, we will force you to have a smart meter all to protect you from climate change. ——Basically we will just get the entire GREEN BLOB force you back to preindustrial times with it all to “protect you”———————-ha ha ha ah a jeezus. ——Why am I laughing, because it would only be funny if it was not so utterly PATHETIC
As opposed to protecting ppl from freezing to death in this ice age in which we live.
Doesn’t harm have to be proven?
I have not read up on the three cases. I imagine the complainants have made some vague references to anxiety which makes it all your* fault.
*’Your’ being a reference to whoever they’re complaining about.
Presumably the judges will take their bench down to the beach and get cross when the incoming tide makes their feet wet.
Surely you are not suggesting they are as stupid as a certain king, long ago? Then of course there is the present one. Does nothing ever change?
It is a rather bold assertion that a government has a duty to protect against the natural ordering of things. They might have a duty to protect you from a criminal or an enemy state. This can clearly be seen as part of the social contract. But I don’t see how it could ever be argued that a government has a duty to protect its people from climate change. You might say that any government is duty bound to examine any crisis that might come along or any activity which might be detrimentally affecting the weather but they are attempting to say something different. They have violated logic in the attempted persuance of a scam. Thankfully the whole world is starting to get it. It is as if we, the masses, are some sort of pustule and they will inject needle after needle into it in the hope that it might go away.
They forget they work for us.
Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
I’m not completely convinced. So many of the constituencies in the last GE were won with turnouts well under 20k. FPTP is an obvious impediment, but anger is a fabulous motivator, so campaign to make people angry (if they’re not already). Likely we’d be called conspiracists, deplatformed or insulted but I’m politically homeless right now and really pissed off…
I think FPTP should go. Even though countries with PR seem to be doing no better, at least there’s a chance of getting a voice.
“Oft quoted here (although phrasing escapes me) “we cannot vote our way out of this”
Would it be…
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
My advice would be listen to some music and read some poetry because thereis no space in their universe for either. Like Bob Marley him say, we chant down Babylon.
We all know and can feel that something really big is about to happen. And so your humanity should drive you towards how we manage that situation and its aftermath because it will probably mean the end of a lot of things. If we are true Brits and really care about reality then we need to be fine tuned to the reality to come.And given the scale of loss that is going to occur over the next few months there won’t be any room for insincerity. We have achieved a lot on these islands in the last two thousand years and well before and we need to look after each other. That will be the main measure when we are sized up.
We are moving into different times. Lets say you got a suden urge to build a boat in your front room – you and your son. This is where we are at so lets develop an understanding based on humanity because of what is to come. This isn’t going to be the way things were in the past on a lot of levels. This time is very bad for women and girls especially given the progress over the last two hundred years. We aim to keep it together and as men we will protect the female realm I’m sure. All I can say is that I devote my time to keeping things together. I put my life in the way of any attempt to destroy it.
“I put my life in the way of any attempt to destroy it.”
Please explain what you mean.
Physical life is by its nature temporary and inevitably ends in physical death.
On the other hand spiritual life is eternal and cannot be destroyed.
So what are you ‘putting your life in the way of any attempt to destroy it’?
“yet another attempted ideological power grab on the part of a self-selecting and self-serving elite out of touch with reality”.”
Could equally apply to the U.N. NATO and the WHO. Hope she’s noticed though I doubt it.
As many of us have said on this site and others Covid was the test run for Locking us up and taking away our freedoms in preparation for the big one, tyranny and a new world order under the auspices of Climate change and emergency. These people are dangerous and are the enemy of freedom and all that is good about western society. We let them rule us and take notice of their directives at our peril.
Seconded
How is it they get to tell us what to do from inside two large water tanks on stilts?
3 words – Burden Of Proof
What is it, provide it unredacted and be prepared to debate it. We want the raw unsullied empirical data, so we ourselves can apply the Scientific method ourselves, with all necessary rigour, and see if we can replicate their claims and finding.