Just when you thought there might be a dearth of stories about people claiming to favor diversity while ironically using their political clout to crush choice, another comes along. This time, the tale of one-size-fits-all political control comes from Holland, where, on Tuesday, April 11, the lower house of the Dutch Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of penalizing schools that do not teach “Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans Awareness.”
As RT reports:
The proposal was put forth by Socialist Party (SP) parliamentarian Jasper van Dijk, who wants schools to be fined or face administrative action if they consistently refuse to teach their students about sexual diversity.
The move passed easily, and is now headed to the Upper House in Holland, where it is expected to pass as well.
Take a moment to be totally shocked that the proposal was submitted by a socialist. As we all know, collectivists are big fans of choice, diversity, and differing opinions. Dissent and local control, differentiation and decentralization are the real hallmarks of the paternalistic bureaucratic state, right?
In all seriousness, it might seem more than a bit contradictory for people to compel taxpayers to pay for an education program that teaches kids about the virtues of voluntary peaceful association and same-sex love.
As RT notes:
The LGBT-friendly proposal comes after heterosexual Dutch men across the Netherlands and elsewhere held hands with other men earlier this month, in a symbol of solidarity after a hand-holding gay couple was attacked in Arnhem. Images of the movement were posted on social media under the hashtag #allemannenhandinhand (all men, holding hands).
But does forcing people to pay taxes into a school system to teach kids “peace” really help? In fact, if society already is responding this way, then one can see that the government education mandate really isn’t necessary. Dutch society already shuns violence against gay people.
Lest this view be seen as anti-gay, or anti-lesbian or anti-anything, we can note that this problem of forcing people to pay for some aspect of public education applies to every other aspect of the government-run school system, from what is on a literature reading list, to what is in the school lunch, to the hours the school operates, to what is taught in history or science class. It makes people argue an fight, and, if people really want it, then there is a market for it and no one needs to be taxed.
This move in Holland is an excellent example of the idea that society is always ahead of the state. If government supposedly reflects the society from which it comes, then there is no need to pass a law mandating that schools teach some important social lesson. Private opinions already show it, and private market forces can do the job. If the majority of society already shows that it cares about respecting different lifestyles, there is no need to force people to pay for it, thus contradicting the message of peace and choice.
Sadly, this is not a line of thought one ought to expect any Dutch school to explore.