If we pander to notions that we shouldn’t sound the climate emergency alarm during inconvenient times or in perceivably inappropriate spaces – whether it be now, during the global Covid-19 epidemic, or in any other public time and space – then we neglect to act with the urgency that the issue of climate change so desperately demands.
Certainly, there are campaign organisations that need to think strategically about the spatiotemporal locations of their campaign actions in order for them to be effective. Moreover, it’s paramount that we sound the metaphorical alarm in the appropriate manner, catering the message in a way that is sensitive and accessible to those who hear it. However, on the whole, the issue of climate change requires campaigners to uncompromisingly speak out about it, whatever the weather. And, if there are comparisons to be drawn between climate change and the present global Covid-19 crisis – and assuming that some of the anxieties relating to the present crisis will have made people more amenable to emotionally engaging with and thus more able to meaningfully reflect upon climate change, a crisis preeminent among all others – then in most cases those comparisons should be drawn and relayed.
Undoubtedly, it’s important for us to recognise that presently many people will be experiencing hopelessness, loneliness or even loss. Hence, compassion and sensitivity to others and their experiences is critical when we engage in climate-related conversations, as is our tone. However, above all else, we must remain resolutely conscientious of our cause, for the impact of climate change is far greater than any present or historic crisis.
With that said, crises present fine opportunities to lobby, to challenge the status quo, to imprint a permanent impression upon those with whom we converse, for in such times one or two people might actually listen to what we have to say. So, if you have added time on your hands – as many people currently do – I would encourage you to talk about climate change. Moreover, write about it. Write to your local councillors (if you are in the UK, you can use this link to direct you to the correct website where you should be able to find contact details for your councillors), write to your MPs, write to your unions, to your friends and relatives. Write to those who have had their fingers in their ears for too long. It’s important that you do this because right now they might just listen.
As a teacher, I’ve written to the National Education Union, together with a handful of my local MPs and councillors. Over the coming days and weeks, I intend to write more.
I implore you to do the same.
“Good afternoon _______,
I hope you are keeping well.
I wanted to send you a short email to further emphasise the urgency of climate change, with the hope that the current crisis will give you and your colleagues cause to reflect and adjust your position.
In our previous correspondence, it was made clear to me that the NEU could not react to climate change without suitable cause. With that said, I could not help but notice the amount of effort the NEU has put into pressuring the government to act on Covid-19 in recent weeks. Undoubtedly the decision to do this was based upon the science, which estimates that if suitable precautionary measures are not taken, thousands of lives could be lost in the UK alone. I would therefore like to reassert that, for the same reason, the NEU has an obligation to pressure the government with as much fervour on the subject of climate change.
In fact, if you compare these two crises, the scientific consensus relating to the climate catastrophe is far graver. The projection for Covid -19 is that 1%-4% of those who contract the virus could die. In response to this, the union has lobbied the government ruthlessly and they have listened, shutting down schools and social infrastructures in response in order to save lives. This has come at a great cost to the economy but fortunately this has been accepted as a price worth paying.
In comparison, the scientific consensus for climate change is that human extinction within just a couple of generations is possible, billions (>12% of the global population) will certainly die, yet the union does nigh-on nothing. Furthermore, the government bends the truth about its response to climate change (https://acstark.net/…/11/19/when-governments-lie-citizens-…/). Contrary to the tone taken with respect to Covid-19, many within and many more external to the government have argued that the actions required to mitigate climate change would impact too greatly upon the economy.
So, it’s quite clear that either something else is at play here which is incentivising the union and the government to act on Covid-19 and/or disincentivising both to act on climate change, or the union and the government do not properly understand the gravity and urgency of the climate and ecological emergency.
My request to you is this: please, pass this email onto your colleagues and superiors so that they can consider their position more carefully. Maybe at this moment in time, they might be more amenable to considering a more appropriate course of action.
When it comes to climate change the Government lies to us, but we also lie to ourselves.
Again and again we are told by the honourable conservative political elite that the UK is a world leader in the fight against climate change. Many of us clearly realise that this neat slogan is often furtively utilised to dodge the question as to whether the UK Government is doing enough to avert a global climate catastrophe. Nonetheless, credit should be given where credit is due. In some respects it is certainly true, “the UK is leading action to tackle climate change”.
After all, the UK was the first nation to underwrite a legally-binding target to reduce CO2 emissions and has since improved upon that target, claiming that it intends to hit net-zero emissions by 2050 – a short 42 years after the initial target was passed by the UK Parliament. Furthermore, in an impressive display of executive vigour, the UK Government has greatly reduced its subsidising of coal mining for electricity generation, which proved especially difficult to achieve since the coal economy collapsed decades ago (1, 2, 3). Additionally, DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) appear to be deeply invested in the noble concept of carbon offsetting to make the expansion of Europe’s busiest airport ethical.
However world-leading this record may (or may not) be, it is not nearly a sufficient response to humanity’s existential crisis. Such a response requires nothing less than for us to establish a war footing against climate change; to divert all resources towards one goal: averting the extinction of humankind. Yet, the UK Government rejects this motion as rash and economically unviable. In other words, the Government gives precedence to the capitalist project of economic growth over any sufficient attempts to avert anthropogenic human extinction. What’s more, when the Government’s record on climate change is scrutinised it’s plain to see how pitiful it really is, and their slogan is exposed for what it is: pretentious trickery.
Unfortunately, the UK Government’s apparent leadership on climate change is eclipsed by its unwavering inclination to surreptitiously pass the buck. Whilst its emissions are falling nationally, the UK Government subsidises the fossil fuel industry more than any other EU nation and, what’s maybe worse, it refuses to subsidise renewables until 2025. On top of that, it provides billions of pounds in financial support to overseas fossil fuel industries. Again, there is merit in the UK’s achievements concerning its divestment from coal and its reduction in emissions. Yet, its mission to reach net-zero emissions nationally by 2050 is fundamentally negated if it continues to inconspicuously fund international fossil fuel industries and altogether fails to subsidise renewables. Indeed, it becomes clear that the UK Government is not being entirely truthful to its citizens. According to a study published by the Overseas Development Institute in 2018, the UK ranked 1st amongst all G7 nations for its fossil fuel subsidy commitments but last for its transparency. So, if the UK Government continues to insist that it is a world leader, it is so only in prevarication and dirty populist politics. Alternatively, perhaps the Government is simply incapable of recognising its own contradiction.
This isn’t altogether an impossible idea. A similar praxis of compartmentalisation is reflected in the growing popular culture around sustainability. Even though the growth of this culture signals a long-awaited, welcome increase in public awareness concerning the climate and ecological emergency, it also actively encourages us to greenwash our lives. Take carbon offsetting as a case in point. If, like Elton John, you believe that throwing money into carbon offsetting schemes will miraculously make your air miles eco-friendly, you are woefully mistaken. Sure, carbon offsetting constitutes doing something. In theory it’s a respectable way of funding carbon capture and storage projects or other similarly green initiatives. However, offsetting our carbon-heavy lifestyles definitely does not constitute doing enough – it is far from a sufficient response to the emergency at hand. Fundamentally, it prevents us from doing what is necessary: it prevents us from having to face up to the harsh reality of the climate emergency; it dissuades us from rebelling against ourselves; from rebelling against our own destructive habits and desires; and coerces us into continuing with business as usual. Convinced we are saintly, we thus allow ourselves to conscientiously wreck the planet rather than impetuously so.
Sure, it’s better than denying the existence of climate change. It is also better than ignoring it. Yet, the emissions we offset – say by flying, eating meat or travelling in SUVs – still involve pumping copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. When we invest in carbon offsetting, we are simply passing the buck; quickly and conveniently we relieve ourselves of our environmental responsibilities and in the process we inhibit any meaningful cultural change. In an era when what we do today will undoubtedly determine whether or not civilised societies will exist in a hundred years, merely offsetting these emissions is not enough. The concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is greater than it’s been for millions of years and it takes centuries for atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to reduce naturally. So, to do anything other than to actively attempt to reduce its concentration as much as possible is insane. To do anything other than to establish a war footing against climate change is insane. Compartmentalisation is practiced by the insane.
Further still, a recent study by the European
Commission found that 85% of carbon offsets are unlikely to produce any real
reduction in carbon emissions. So, we are kidding ourselves if we think that carbon
offsetting lets us off the hook. It is rarely even helpful, let alone sufficient.
Given the circumstances, a sufficient response to climate change entails doing the best we can possibly do to reduce our emissions, not merely offsetting them or shipping them off to distant lands and pretending we have nothing to do with them. Ultimately, the UK Government needs to go fully fossil fuel free. That’s what a leader would do. On top of that, we the citizens ought to go flight free. Anything else would constitute insanity.
Rationale The promotion of British values in schools is a rather contentious issue, not least because teachers are legally obligated to promote and protect ‘fundamental British values’ (FBVs) (DfE,2014,p.5). I witnessed this in practice, whilst working as a Learning Support Assistant, where a Year 7 English class was explicitly taught about Britishness as an independent scheme of work (SOW). Deeply traditional British imagery was ubiquitously employed throughout these lessons (such as the Union Jack, Big Ben and Churchill) and students were directed to reflect upon and discuss the meaning of Britishness – which ultimately led to stereotypical conversations about the importance of tea, football, the monarchy and empire. This narrow conception of Britishness was unchallenged by the teacher which greatly disconcerted me.
As an indigenous British national,
I saw this as an unbalanced conception of Britishness since the SOW failed to
highlight values representative of my own views on Britishness (including
multiculturalism, tolerance, freedom of speech and democracy). If the objective
of the SOW was to enable people to better understand what Britishness means or
to help them identify with the British community, then for me it had failed. What
concerned me more was that over a quarter of the class were not of British
heritage. I wondered: if I had found it difficult to relate to the narrow
conception of Britishness prevalent in those lessons, some students had probably
found it difficult too. Surely, I thought, teachers should attempt to challenge
narrow conceptions of Britishness in order to make such lessons relatable and
accessible to all students.
This is what sparked my interest in
FBVs. I began asking myself questions, such as:
What truly is ‘Britishness’?
What are British values?
Do the British people share a homogenous set of values?
Are British values not just universal values?
Why and how was this legal obligation to promote and protect FBVs introduced?
Is the project to promote and protect FBVs self-defeating?
This essay is concerned with these
final two questions. Specifically, by understanding the pretext for the
introduction of FBVs and teachers’ legal obligation to promote and protect them,
I aim to understand in what ways the policy surrounding FBVs might be – or at
least appear to be – self-defeating. Furthermore, if they are self-defeating, I
wish to examine whether teachers are necessarily hindered in their practices as
There is a plethora of ways to
explore the question of whether the project of FBVs is self-defeating. Nevertheless,
here we will address just two. The first concerns whether FBVs are intended to
be inclusive. As will be revealed, there are strong reasons to believe that
they are. Yet, I will argue that there is a risk that FBVs can appear to merely
feign rather than embody inclusion. Secondly, I wish to highlight how the broad advice
on how to promote and protect FBVs may conflict with the specific duty to
promote and protect democracy – for, democracy is one of the FBVs
(Ofsted,2018,pp.42). We begin, however, by looking at why and how FBVs and
teachers’ legal obligation to promote and protect them were introduced.
The Pretext for the Introduction
It appears that a change in the British political landscape was
instrumental to the introduction of FBVs. Britain’s involvement in the USA’s ‘War
on Terror’ in the early 2000s arguably helped to institutionalise a politics of
anti-terrorism and securitisation (Kapoor,2013,p.1029) which can be seen to
have catalysed a notable shift in UK public policy concerns away from what was
called ‘state multiculturalism’
(Holmwood & O’Toole,2018,pp.6-7). Later, in 2011, the Prime Minister, David
claimed that “state multiculturalism […]
encouraged different cultures to live separate lives […] apart from the
mainstream” and in order to “belong” in Britain one must believe in “certain
values”, values which Cameron believed were not shared by some ethnic minority
groups (Cameron,2011). These values
were subsequently defined in Britain’s anti-extremism Prevent Strategy as “fundamental
British values” (FBVs) within its definition of ‘extremism’, which itself was defined
as “vocal or active opposition” to FBVs (Crown,2011,p.107).
British Values (FBVs):
The rule of law;
Individual liberty; and
Mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and
beliefs and for those without faith.
Shortly after, from September of 2012 the new
Teachers Standards required teachers to protect
Subsequently, the politics of anti-terrorism and securitisation was further proliferated
by national and international incidents of terrorism, the growth of notorious
terrorist organisations and the so-called Trojan Horse Affair in 2014
(Lander,2016,p.275). Consequently, the DfE published non-statutory advice
relating to the promotion of FBVs as
a part of social, moral, spiritual and cultural (SMSC) development in schools
multicultural state or society, or a state that advocates being multicultural.
 Here is an excerpt which shows this: “What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons for us all. In the UK, some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practised at home by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.” (Cameron,2011).
“Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: … not undermining
fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual
liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and
As we shall see, there are elements of the pretext of FBVs which could cause us
to believe that they might be self-defeating. By drawing upon some of those
elements my central claim within this section is that if FBVs are
intended to be inclusive, then they risk appearing to feign inclusion rather
than embodying it. This is because some of the history surrounding education
policies concerning Britain’s minority groups, as well as some aspects of the
pretext for the introduction of teachers’ obligation to promote and protect FBVs,
can appear to be racist. I will focus on the government’s treatment of the Swan
Report of 1985 and then on the Trojan Horse Affair of 2014 as two illustrative
According to Robin Richardson, in
the late-1980s central government sought to “de-emphasize and marginalize the
conclusions and recommendations of the Swann Report” (Richardson,2015,p.38) which
identified a distinct need in schools for “change where attitudes to the ethnic
minorities are concerned” and that a “[m]ulticultural understanding… [ought] to
permeate all aspects of a school’s work” (Swann,1985,pp.767-769). In support of
its marginalisation, Beverley Shaw argued that an education founded on “universal
tolerance and understanding” would fail to respect its students’ social, ethnic
or religious identities “for such an education cannot of its nature reinforce
home and family values” without creating the social divisions it is intended to
repair (Shaw,1988,p.258). However, one might contend that Shaw’s reasoning is flawed
because (A) it is mistaken about the role that schools have with respect to
reinforcing home and family values (or, as I will term them, ‘cultural values’);
and, more importantly, (B) the rationale by which that mistaken role is assumed
can appear to be (and may even be) racist.
With respect to (A), Shaw’s argument
could be invalidated if one believed that schools have no role in necessarily reinforcing (viz. instructing on) cultural
values but rather have a role in educating
on (viz. informing on, revealing, or modelling) them. The process of reinforcing certain cultural values may,
indeed, involve excluding other cultural values since it would necessitate
being selective when deciding which to reinforce.
Hence, as Shaw remarks, in a culturally plural school setting, reinforcing cultural values might almost
necessarily fail to respect some students’ identities. Conversely, the process
of educating on cultural values has
the potential to succeed in respecting all students’ identities because it is
not as restricted by ideas concerning prescriptivity.
Accordingly, Shaw is mistaken in repudiating the Swann Report on the belief
that the kind of education it recommended fails to respect its students’
identities, for that need not be the case if one believes schools have a role
in educating on cultural values
rather than reinforcing them.
For reinforcing all of the world’s cultural values would be impossible.
say ‘potential’ because, despite it being logically possible that all cultural
values are respected, some cultural values may still be perceived as unworthy
Importantly, concerning (B), some
people might view the kind of rationale employed by Shaw as racist. The assumption
that education ought to reinforce certain cultural values arguably entails the implicit
premise that there exists a specific set of cultural values – rather than
‘universal’ values – which is inherently superior to others, including those of
resident ethnic minorities, and is thus more deserving of being reinforced. It
is these kinds of attitudes and “inherited myths” with which the Swann Report
was concerned (Swann,1985,p.769) – attitudes purporting that ethnic minority
cultures and their respective values are inherently inferior to those of the
mainstream culture. Furthermore, it is beyond mere speculation to suggest that
many people would qualify such attitudes as racist. Hence, if the central
government’s move in the late-1980s to de-emphasise and marginalise the
recommendations of the Swann Report was seen to be decided upon reasoning
equivalent or similar to that of Shaw’s, it could quite conceivably be
considered by some as a racist move.
The government’s marginalisation of
the Swann Report is just one example of how racism might be seen to be present
in the history surrounding education policies. For those concerned with the possibility
that its marginalisation was racist, the question for today is: is it possible that FBVs were conceived on
the back of similar attitudes to those which ostensibly denounced the Swann
At first glance, the answer is potentially
yes. For, FBVs are identified by
their title as being distinctly ‘British’ values, suggesting that they are
cultural values unique to Britain. Thus, it could be claimed that FBVs are
racist, in a way similar to the allegation made against Shaw in (B), by “implying
that Britain is somehow better and more civilised than other countries”
(NASUWT,2016,p.6). This would explain why teachers are duty-bound to promote
and protect FBVs and why the government defined ‘extremism’ as “vocal
or active opposition” to FBVs (Crown,2011,p.107).
However, it would be unfair to cry
‘racism!’ too quickly. For, upon looking at the individual values
which constitute FBVs it becomes clear that they are “certainly not unique to
Britain” (NASUWT,2016,p.6). For, democracy (FBV1); the rule
of law (FBV2); individual liberty (FBV3); and mutual respect for and tolerance
of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith (FBV4)
are all values held in multiple countries and cultures worldwide. Therefore, to
prevent people from mistaking FBVs as uniquely British values, moreover to
prevent “alienation and division”, it would be prudent to understand FBVs as ‘Universal
Values’ (NASUWT,2016,p.6). So, perhaps despite their name, FBVs were not
devised from racist attitudes since they appear to embody Universal Values –
values which are not exclusive to Britain.
Further evidencing that FBVs were
not devised from racist attitudes, in the Department for Education’s advice for
promoting FBVs in practice they state, “[i]t is not necessary for schools or
individuals to ‘promote’ teachings, beliefs or opinions that conflict with
their own, but nor is it acceptable for schools to promote discrimination
against people or groups on the basis of their belief, opinion or background”
(DfE,2014,p.6). This embodies FBV4 and it is an example of how the promotion of
FBVs is intended to be inclusive, qua
respectful for and tolerant of those with different faiths and beliefs, in
The problem with this is that there is a risk that
those who might view the kind of rationale employed by Shaw as racist may thus
see FBV4 as an ad-hoc attempt at
making FBVs seem more inclusive when in reality they are not. This contention could
be inspired or compounded by the pretext for the introduction of FBVs
and teachers’ obligation to promote and protect them, since it appears to encourage
differential treatment of minority groups (Strathers,2017,p.100), contradicting
FBV4. This, according to Richardson, is because “the discourse of politicians
[…] implies that a central purpose of teaching British values is to control and
regulate young Muslims” (Richardson,2015,p.45). The Trojan Horse Affair
exemplifies this allegation: In March 2014 the Sunday Times reported on a Muslim plot to take over the governing
bodies of a collection of Birmingham schools (Richardson,2015,p.39). Soon
after, the national press was fuelled by headlines warning of Islamic
extremists, fundamentalism and a “Jihadist plot to take over schools”
(Richardson,2015,p.40; quoting the Birmingham
Mail on 7th March 2014), now referred to as the Birmingham
Trojan Horse Affair. The document alleged as proof of this plot was a forgery
(Richardson,2015,p.40). Yet, well before any state-led investigations were able
to make this official conclusion – moreover, before hearings from teachers of
the implicated schools were conducted – the government cited the Trojan Horse
Affair as justification for its new plans to counter extremism (Holmwood &
O’Toole,2018,p.16). The introduction of the aforementioned obligation conferred
upon teachers to promote FBVs as a part of SMSC development in schools
constituted an element of these plans. Hence, the treatment of Muslims in this
case (and the potential perception that they were scapegoated for political
ends) could be considered by some as amounting to “a betrayal of the very
values that the teachers in the Birmingham [Trojan Horse Affair] case are held
to have disavowed” (Holmewood & O’Toole,2018,p.20), those being the
fundamental British values – especially FBV4.
So, it is possible that FBVs were
conceived on the back of similar attitudes to those which possibly inspired the
marginalisation of the Swann Report. It is because of this that FBVs risk
appearing to feign inclusion rather than embodying it. Teachers are encouraged
to be inclusive in their practice, to embody and model FBV4 (DfE,2014,p.6), yet
at times, both in the past and with respect to pertinent recent events, the
central British government appear to have actively contradicted FBV4.
Be that as it may, I would argue
that the practice of promoting and protecting FBV4 is not necessarily
undermined by these events. For, even if FBVs were devised with racist intent,
this need not have any impact upon the practices of a teacher when promoting
and protecting them. The teacher can, regardless of recent history, protect and
respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for
those without faith”, by educating on FBVs. Furthermore, rethinking
FBVs as Universal Values could help to prevent any conflation between narrow
stereotypical conceptions of Britishness with values education and help
teachers consider their obligation to promote and protect FBVs in a more
inclusive fashion (NASUWT,2016,p.6), in line with FBV4.
However, an element of teaching practices relating to the promotion and
protection of democracy (FBV1) which could be seen as self-defeating concerns
the non-statutory advice relating to the promotion of FBVs as a part of SMSC. This
advice instructs teachers to “enable students” to “respect the civil and criminal law of England”,
“to acquire a […] respect for public institutions and services in England” and
to “encourage respect for the basis on which the law is made and applied in
England” (DfE,2014,p.5). However, practitioners may have reservations “concerning
the appropriateness of teaching students to respect public institutions and the
Laws of […] England when a key element of critical and empowering education
should arguably be that they are equipped with the capacities to challenge the state and its actions”
(Struthers,2016,pp.98-99; referencing Goodwin,2014). This could be argued on
the basis that a state’s citizens must have the capacity to take properly
informed democratic action to safeguard themselves against the state and other powerful
entities, such as when those entities threaten Human Rights or contradict FBVs,
which requires that its citizens hold a degree of scepticism with respect to
the state. In short, democracy necessitates having a degree of freedom not to
respect the state. Arguably, therefore, by instructing teachers to encourage
students to respect the state, the DfE’s guidance regarding the promotion and
protection of democracy (FBV1) is potentially self-defeating.
That being said, teachers could reinterpret
the DfE’s advice to avoid this. Teachers may, for instance, reinterpret ‘enabling
students to respect’ the civil and criminal law of England as meaning that they
ought to enable and encourage their
students to abideby the civil
and criminal law of England. For, abiding by laws need not necessitate
respecting them. Hence, through reinterpreting the DfE’s instructions, it is
possible that democracy can be promoted and protected by teachers in practice
in a way that is not self-defeating.
Yet, another way in which the practice
of promoting FBVs could be seen to contradict democracy relates to how FBVs are promoted. If promoting FBVs
equates to reinforcing them, just as
Shaw assumed teachers should do, then there is a danger that an allegation
could be made stating that the promotion of FBVs is merely a political tool to
nationalistically indoctrinate students. Having said that, if it is believed
that the process by which FBVs are promoted equates to educating on them, then this allegation might be quashed. Fortunately,
it is possible to infer from the DfE’s advice that the latter method is
preferred. This is because the language within their description of “the
understanding and knowledge expected of pupils as a result of schools promoting
fundamental British values” appears to connote an educating on approach when it states that students should have “an
understanding” of democracy or “an appreciation” for the rule of law and other
such things which characterise FBVs (DfE,2014,pp.5-6). Conversely, if it had stated rather more
obstinately that students “must believe” in democracy and the rule of law, then
we could potentially infer that it connotes a reinforcing approach to promoting FBVs.
So, whilst the guidance on how to promote FBVs could be seen to be
self-defeating by potentially (perhaps unwittingly) encouraging practices which
could arguably subvert democracy, teachers are able to interpret the guidance
such that democracy is nonetheless promoted and protected in their practice.
Furthermore, we can infer from the language of the guidance that teachers can
achieve this by educating on FBVs
rather than reinforcing them.
Similarly, whilst some history concerning education policies and elements of the pretext for the introduction of FBVs and teachers’ obligation to promote and protect them might be seen to be racist and thus undermine FBV4, the FBVs, through being in essence Universal Values, are not themselves racist. Therefore, teachers are able to promote and protect FBVs without undermining them, again by educating on them.
(2005). ‘Analysing the Historical Evolution of Ethnic Education
Policy-Making in England, 1965- 2005’, in Historical
Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, Vol. 30, No. 4 (114) (2005), pp. 176-190.
Rompton OBE, A. (1981). West Indian
Children in our Schools: Interim report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children
from Ethnic Minority Groups, HMSO, London.
Shaw, B. (1988). ‘The Incoherence of Multicultural
Education’, in British Journal of
Educational Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.250-259.
Struthers, A. (2016). ‘Teaching British Values in Our
Schools: But why not Human Rights?’, in Social
& Legal Studies 2017, Vol.26(1) pp.89-110, Sage.
Swann, M. (1985). Education for All: Report of the
Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority
Groups, HMSO, London.
Just because Thanos erased half of all life in order to bring balance to the universe it doesn’t mean that everyone who is concerned about overpopulation is also an eco-fascist beset on subjugation and murder. It is quite probable that they’re simply anxious about the climate and ecological breakdown and see overpopulation as a legitimate cause. We needn’t assume to know any more than that; whom they blame, if they blame anyone, and what solutions they endorse we cannot assume to know. Sure, there is a distinct risk that arguments about overpopulation and their purported solutions can, and have been, subverted by fascist reasoning. However, concerns about overpopulation are not intrinsically fascist. On the contrary, in many cases such concerns are typically apolitical, much like “iceberg ahead!” implies “politics aside, we need to avert disaster!”. Such proclamations deserve our attention.
After all, the Malthusian premise that exponential human population growth will one day inevitably exceed Earth’s finite stock of resources is a compelling one. Just watch a few episodes of David Attenborough’s Our Planet and one will discover that we are already “totally out of balance with nature”.
In today’s prevailing global capitalist context, overpopulation is already in effect, for the logic of capitalism implies that we prosper today in lieu of living tomorrow.
Despite this present imbalance, however, there is an increasingly fashionable argument permeating amongst social thinkers contending that global society is maturing to a point where overpopulation needn’t be an issue of concern. Call this the Sub-Replacement Argument. This argument is made on the assumption that the ‘third-world’ societies predominantly responsible for global population growth, due to their (delayed) industrialisation and socio-economic development will soon have greater access to education and contraception (importantly, education and contraception are proven to be essential in reducing reproduction rates in developed countries). Couple this with current statistics showing that developed countries have a collective ‘sub-replacement fertility rate’ – meaning new generations are less populous than preceding generations – and there is a strong argument to suggest that: Once capitalism pulls Africa and Asia out of the third-world, they too will have sub-replacement fertility rates! Thus, their populations, just like those of the world’s better, more advanced nations, will begin to diminish and those cries of ‘global overpopulation!’ will all be in vain.
Nonetheless, this covertly neocolonial argument fails on two accounts. Firstly, the fact that now, during the human epoch – the Anthropocene – Earth is experiencing its 6th Great Extinction, at a rate 100 times faster than normal, we can be certain that the issue of overpopulation is already pressing. Even if the third-world does attain sub-replacement fertility rates in the not-too-distant future, it’s already too late; innumerable irreversible tragedies have already come to pass.
That being said, maybe what counts as ‘overpopulation’ differs depending upon what politico-economic system the term is applied. Indeed, one may argue that in the context of the currently prevailing system overpopulation is already underway because capitalism’s tautological requirement for growth guarantees exponential ecological degradation. This inevitable degradation inexorably leads to agricultural collapse and thus the Malthusian premise is a priori fulfilled. In accounting terms, we are already overpopulated; theoretically speaking, humans exceeded Earth’s finite stock of resources long ago, it’s just that the effects are yet to be properly experienced on a global scale.
YES! Yet, this is unfortunately where the Sub-Replacement Argument fails again. We cannot possibly assume that a post-capitalist world is necessarily capable of enabling third-world countries to meaningfully develop. It may be, but we cannot assume it will be. For it is quite possible that in such a world standards of living in third-world countries would stagnate, whilst standards of living would by necessity have to decrease in ‘developed’ countries. This could arguably lead to increasingly limited access to education and contraception worldwide. So, it is possible that even if we manage to overcome the climate breakdown, there could well be another existential crisis lurking in the shadows of the future: overpopulation.
This is the overpopulation myth, the myth that overpopulation isn’t a legitimate cause for concern, when of course it is. In today’s prevailing global capitalist context, overpopulation is already in effect, for the logic of capitalism implies that we prosper today in lieu of living tomorrow. And we cannot be sure how overpopulation might feature if our dreams for systematic change become a reality.
So, we are left with two options. We can choose either certain death-by-capitalism, whereby the climate breakdown and overpopulation will kill us; or we can choose a transition out of capitalism into the ominous unknown, the shadows, wherein overpopulation might kill us. I know which I’d choose. My question is what one would you choose? In any case, I implore you to rebel against yourself.
In Owen Jones’ recent interview video with Extinction Rebellion, Roger Hallam criticises the political ‘left’ as having been perpetually dishonest about what economic action is required to mitigate the climate breakdown and what cultural changes this will necessitate. He contends that the ‘left’ have become so embroiled, so entrenched in the (conceptually politically right-wing) neoliberal ideal they are unable to conceive of human life “in anything other than cost-benefit, materialistic terms”. Their proposed resolutions have therefore assumed that market forces are enough to tackle climate change: business as usual WILL work, it just needs tweaking! They were wrong, whilst Roger is correct: The ‘left’ – the supposed political guardians of justice and equality – have fundamentally failed to realise that at the very heart of any suitable action to mitigating the climate breakdown requires a redefinition and restructuring of our society and economy. Just like all life on this planet, justice and equality depend upon this for their survival.
It can feel as though we need to go through our very own personal extinction in order to prevent a global one.
So, the political ‘left’ need to become Left again. For many of us, this has long been clear to see. Thankfully, it appears that they’re (just) starting to see the light. But we, and they, need to be clear about what the necessary changes in our society will require of us culturally and personally. Roger was unequivocal about this. It requires us to accept, moreover embrace, lower standards of living. For freeing ourselves from our capitalist indoctrination involves repudiating everything tied up in capitalism’s tautological relationship with growth. So we must retract from our supposed inter-generational contract with every consecutive generation to give them a better standard of living than the previous (I say ‘supposed’ because I’ve never seen nor signed this thing). It’s a faulty contract, the objectives of which cannot be sustained by virtue of its very design. We pursue its fulfilment in vain, and at what price? At best, the end of civil society, justice and equality; at worst, the end of human existence altogether.
Therefore, we need to redefine ourselves, every one of us; we need to change our expectations of what life entails. Reducing our standard of living involves changing a whole host of our own personal life-defining ideas. We need to be willing to fully extend the service life of everything we own, instead of repeatedly repurchasing unnecessary replacements. We need to re-skill ourselves so as not to be reliant on corporate manufacturers. We need to be canny, creative and imaginative. And we can be! We must reuse, recycle, repair and adapt our clothes again and again and again, until they are literally unusable as objects of clothing; and then up-cycle them into rags and quilts. We must re-green and re-wild our concreted areas, reconnect with the wilderness, walk upon, re-learn, appreciate and cultivate our privately owned microcosmic lands. We must localise ourselves (without vulgarising ourselves into xenophobes), so that we can walk, push or cycle ourselves to work, the grocer, to our friends and families. Concede that animal husbandry is one of the greatest causes of environmental degradation, and thus accept that meat ought to be reserved for special occasions, or better yet not be consumed at all. Accept that we needn’t pollute our drains with noxious chemicals when we wash ourselves and our possessions; realise that we needn’t shower every single day in order to be sanitary.
And this needn’t amount to austerity as we currently understand it – as a degrading, unrelenting existence at the margins of civilisation, wherein nothing possesses beauty or meaning. Kings and queens of empires old had austere lives compared to many of us. Ingenuity in practical utility can be appreciated in aesthetic terms. Yes, the story, the history and destiny, and the scars of our possessions can cause us to marvel over them, giving them aesthetic merit. Further still, in the process of changing ourselves, our conceptions of objective perfection will entirely evaporate, but the ‘civil’ part our civilisation will not. THAT is what we are doing this for. There is meaning in all this. So, don’t mistake reduced ‘living standards’ for reduced ‘quality of life.’ They are very different things. Happiness and contentment are in this imagined society, and can wholly be found in the process of transitioning to it.
I’ve said it before: the changes required will not be easy. We will all experience some strife in the process of challenging and changing ourselves. I’ve experienced it myself, and last week I met many people at the Extinction Rebellion protests in London that had, are or were beginning to experience their own internal mental rebellions: I am not you anymore, I am someone else; I wish there was another way but there isn’t, so leave me be! This internal, somewhat subconscious self-rejection is relentlessly tiring because redefining ourselves, re-finding ourselves is a tortuous task. There is no physicality to this kind of lost-ness; we are truly alone in an ethereally grievous mental-state. Those who’ve experienced it may now know very little about who they are, but they have realised that our self-image is inextricably bound up in our culture, and that culture has been hogtied by a now rotting politico-economic system. For us, denouncing this system is like pronouncing in the 19th century that “God is dead”. It can feel as though we are left in possession of nothing, yet still have everything to lose. It can feel as though we need to go through our very own personal extinction in order to prevent a global one.
Yet there is something that keeps us going. There is hope. There is solidarity and love. More importantly, there is a new social contract to draw up, and quickly. Its objectives may just about be attainable, if we really try; if we continue to rebel. This contract won’t catalyse injustice, inequality and global extinction. No, neither will this contract aspire to give our future generations a better standard of living. Instead, it will aspire to give them life. No luxuries. Just food to eat and air to breathe. In essence, that’s all Extinction Rebellion are asking for: that we allow our children to live.
We rebel for life. Viva la Rebellion.
This article was recently posted on the Extinction Rebellion blog, XRblog.
Extinction Rebellion is a breath of fresh air, you might say literally. I could almost taste the oxygen in the London air this week as I paraded around Parliament Square, stood in solidarity with my sisters and brothers at Waterloo Bridge, and received abuse whilst heading the Edgeware Road blockade at Marble Arch.
Extinction Rebellion continue to display a form of activism that has been remiss in the UK for an extremely long time. Finally, a small collection of people (Gale Bradbrook,Roger Hallam and Jamie Kelsey Fry being key players) have managed to consolidate the world’s many grassroots activist organisations and convinced them to re-brand under as single banner. And, surprisingly, their objectives are not muddled. They’re clear and easy to remember and regurgitate, which is especially useful when a naive and myopic passer-by aggressively asks and asserts, “Oi, you prick! Tell me – just tell me! – what do you want out of this?! It’s a F###ing joke!”
Tell the truth The government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.
2. Act now The government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025 (as advised by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change Report).
3. Beyond Politics The government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
This is not vague. Neither is it unreasonable.
The most up-to-date scientific projections of climate change
tell us that at best we are facing the end of civil society as we know it: A
world partially submerged by water, ravaged by extreme weather events, wherein
humankind struggles to subsist because of food and water shortages and where
masses of people are displaced and/or die because of conflicts waged over basic
resources. At worst, on the other hand, the projections tell us that the Earth
will no longer remain inhabitable: No human life.
I agree! Neither
possible world is one I want my children growing up in. It’s a case of picking
the best of a bad bunch of options. Yet, to do that, we need to start telling the
Scientists began speculating about the possibility of climate change back in the 19th century. In the 1970’s the evidence really started to shine bright, and since the late 80’s there has been a concerted effort by scientists and activists alike to better know and share the truth about climate change. Due to the structures of power pervading our societies, these truths still fail to permeate through our shared consciousness and popular culture. The only way to at least try to improve those projections is to speak truth to each other and collectively speak truth to power.
I really am sorry about the inconvenience, Mr Commuter – we all are.Yet, dare I say, your personal inconvenience is a small price to pay in order to prevent the collapse of civilisation.
Everywhere I look I see countless miniature empires. This makes sense when one considers the many necrophilous sectarians ostensibly populating Britain, as their morals seem to be founded (if Brexit is anything to go by) in the delusional glory of this little island’s historically imperial sovereignty. Small-man syndrome is a natural phenomenon, even at the state level. However, worryingly, even members of today’s ‘hipster’, left-wing subculture – cultural decedents of a cleaner living, hitchhiking, happy-go-lucky, hippy era – revel in the excesses of their individual realms. Today everyone is an emperor. Myopic, capitalistic narcissism is pervasive. It’s killing humanism and the planet with it.
Taken from his recent book, Happy (his recent and a fascinating serious prose on welfare philosophy), Derren Brown hits the nail on the head, when he says, “‘Get what you want’ remains a mantra of modern living, as if we each had the birthright to accumulate whatever we think will make us happy.” We’re programmed to desire, indoctrinated even. Society is set up to consume. Without our desires being quenched by consumption, we’re destined to be miserable. This is the message we’re sold.
As a result, we’re constantly seeking to expand our empires in the pursuit of something more addictive, more socially corrosive than crystal meth. Purchasing is the tool by which we seek our little hits of serotonin and dopamine, each dose a sparrows-step toward securing a peculiarly phantom mental state: happiness. Obsessively, most of us seek it, but in vain. The era of achieving happiness collaterally is long over. Now, we seek it as an end in itself. More fool us.
We’re so addicted to these minute hits of gratification that we don’t let anything or anyone get in the way of our attaining them. This is not a clean drug, its cut with numerous toxins. It kills. Collateral damages, in the form of physical (1, 2), mental, environmental (1, 2, 3, 4) and cultural sickness (1, 3, 2), have been normalised. It’s an unfortunate necessity but a necessity all the same; a small price to pay for “happiness”. Crucially, we reject that our pursuit of happiness is damningly self-defeating (perhaps through fear of self-loathing). Moreover, those that indiscriminately pursue happiness are often considered virtuous. This is despite their holding a complete disregard for traditional virtues such as moderation, wisdom, morality, or empathy and a sense of community.
Social media compounds the issue, providing “short term, dopamine-driven feedback loops” (1, 2) which manipulate us into to further embellishing and flaunting our lively possessions – the flags of our empires – in the virtual world, as we unwittingly encourage one another to consume more still.
What is deeply disconcerting is that the means by which we might relearn the value of empathy, community and virtue, and consequently rediscover happiness as contentedness, is being dismantled. With central government stripping powers of discretionary spending from local councils and redirecting the cash to Whitehall, our communal infrastructure is rapidly disintegrating. With it go the remnants of a once humanistic, community-based Great British culture. Youth centres, libraries, care homes, parks and public gardens are being left to ruin, so that the state can financially compete on a global scale in order to recreate the illusion of a “Great British Empire”.
It’s difficult to decide which of Britain’s politico-economic ideologies are causing all this: sectarianism, capitalism or neo-liberalism? It could be any or all of them. However, all of them scream the same battle-cry, wealth and empire are all.
The elephant in the room is trampling all over us. Yet we’re still living, thinking and talking as though it were not there.
Climate change is so inescapable, so entangled within the definition of our politico-economic system, that to explore it, to educate about it, is to create a wide-spread existential crisis wherein the persistence of the very thing by which millions of us in some way identify and define ourselves – our culture – is perceived as both necessary for very short-term pleasure but morally abominable for the sake of those millions who have, are or will suffer and die as a consequence of it.
As such, discussions surrounding the climate breakdown are not being appropriately entertained by those in power (nor the media). They know that such discussions, if made publicly, would expose our economic system for what it really is (i.e., the root cause of the climate issue), and would certainly cause public outcry – they know that very well. However, maintained as a mere side issue, the realities of climate change will unlikely be exposed and the necessary changes never made. Those in power will retain their grip.
In reality, however, they are not psychopaths. They are not intentionally drowning,burning and starving people (though that is what they/we are all doing). They’re simply petrified to face up to the moral imperative. They’re fully aware of their irrationalities; they can feel the increasing pull of their inner cognitive dissonances. But to talk about climate change would require them to iron out their irrationalities, bring their subconscious biases to the fore, force them to realise their complicity in Othering, which would ultimately oblige them to change who they are. Regrettably, to many, that notion is more terrifying than the seemingly distant idea that our culture, in keeping with its very definition, is currently committing mass genocide (1, 2,3, 4).
You see, it is not simply the case that people must accept climate change as a reality. We must also explore its causes and implications and talk about them and shout about them, and be outwardly furious with the forces that continue in trying to avert our eyes from them– even if this means that in so doing we ourselves suffer a little. For the sake of humanity, and for those you profess to love, be willing to challenge yourself. Be willing to talk about climate change. Further still, encourage it.
But the media is talking about climate change, is it not? Yes, albeit sporadically and obtusely. The typical style of the ostensibly rare pieces of coverage concerning the relationship between climate change and, for example, Hurricane Irma or Harvey obstruct the wider conversation. That conversation would lead us to recognise that our deep-seated consumerism, our self-professed right to newer, better, more, is the cause of it all. (I suspect it’d also lead us to recognise that the depraved neo-liberal system in which we live is based on a theory of democratic “consent without consent”).
Many of the reports caveat that freak weather events are not caused by climate change (1, 2). This is extremely damaging for two reasons: Firstly, the inclusion of such caveats (regardless of whether such a report exaggerates that the increasing ferocity, frequency and consequent suffering to ‘natural disasters’ is directly linked to human-induced climate change) foolishly reassures already steadfast climate change sceptics. Secondly, and most importantly, this caveating deflects blame away from those who created the problem, i.e., us! – the post-industrial capitalist world. It serves to destroy our sense of agency, enabling us to reject responsibility. It solidifies climate change as a side issue, as something not deserving of inquiry or exposition, and ultimately promotes the damning political praxis of business as usual.
As long as the media persists in caveating, as long as we fail in holding those in power to account, and as long as we entertain the deluded idea that we and the culture by which we define ourselves is not the problem, the greater the catastrophes will become. It is our duty to start talking openly and candidly about the elephant in the room.
A word has been washing around in the media, spilling from the plump and pouted lips of politicians and journalists everywhere, with a meaning that is surreptitiously adapted at every convenient opportunity. It’s as though they’re all in on the act, utilising the word to make specious claims about things which in reality they have no factually-based ideas. The only certainty about this term is that it serves a receptacle function, enabling any debate within which it plays a significant role to be argued from divergent purposes, ever evading truth and certainty. Is it a Trojan Horse, a decoy, a false premise, or just utterly confused empty talk? What are people really talking about when they speak of ‘populism’?
One answer is that populism denotes a society with a heightened degree of political engagement. In which case, the term ‘populism’ has recently been used as a veil to mask what is otherwise known as democracy, disguising it as an undesirable, even radical ideology deserving of great criticism. When sold under the guise of an “-ism”, the term becomes categorised alongside real ideologies, truly deserving of our concern (be it socialism, capitalism, fascism – now rebranded, the ‘alt-right’ – etcetera). And when the term is propagated by the media, given precedence in discourse above some truly heinous, yet increasingly popular alternative political and economic systems, more important issues relating to the corruptive intention of this term’s use become buried and forgotten under pages and pages of hypocrisy: Long live democracy, down with populism! This is the layman’s view, and has been interpreted by many as David Cameron’s view also.
Perhaps, however, populism isn’t about the political actions or championing of the common folk and their expressions against whichever branch of the politico-economic elite that they deem either (at best) detached from the needs of society or (at worst) entirely uncivilised. Maybe it has nothing to do with political empowerment or mobilisation whatsoever. Maybe it’s simply a descriptive term, used as shorthand to express a state of democracy, whereby the people take democratic action as a consequence of the system force-feeding them ‘untruths’ within a ‘post-factual’ era – still implying thatit is the people and not the system that is untrustworthy, denigrating the value of democracy without appearing to do so. Indeed, a world in which the people’s opinions can do easily be called into question would be utterly enticing, would it not? Opportunities to defend the infallible necessity of radical paternalism would regularly present themselves, clearing the road to a seemingly democratic plutocracy! Bliss. Oh what a beautiful world… I kid, of course, but that’s how Donald Trump’s cabinet seem to be benefiting from populism (1, 2).
In one sense, these two ideas – that populism describes a state of true democracy and that it is the leaders, the protagonists and not the people who are the populists – both hold true. Just as an activist movement can be described as democratic action, so too can a populist movement. Similarly, activist and populist movements and groups share the characteristic of being led by those who we might also refer to as activists or populists. This might suggest that activism and populism are one and the same; activists are populists and populists are activists.
However, what differentiates these two schools (as far as I see it), if they are truly differentiable at all, is that activism is led by the virtuous and populism is lead by the incongruous. What this means is that, quite unfortunately, well-intentioned, politically-engaged people, who might otherwise be seen as activists, unknowingly become populists when their chieftains decide to take the low road, promoting their positions through deceitful means, justifying them using pseudo-academic literature. (Which is suggested by the rhetoric and subsequent rise of history’s most prominent populist leaders as being so tightly associated with and attributed to post-fact politics. As two examples of this rising trend, Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump come to mind here. Hence, whilst Bernie Sanders may be described, perhaps even criticised as a champion of activism, Trump is populism’s equivalent, as was Hitler during his rise). In short, populism is activism’s evil twin.
So, whilst activism is the attempt by the people to perpetuate democracy through social empowerment, populism is the attempt to perpetuate politico-economic empowerment through pseudo-democracy. Populism is democracy gone wrong. And whether or not you find this conception compelling, one thing is for sure: ‘populism’ is rarely ever what is seems.
The Glorious Twelfth has passed. Which means that for the next 25 weeks droves of white, upper-class, tweed-adorned cronies, sharing in their conceited politico-moral sensibilities, will make to the Scottish Highlands, the Peaks and North Yorkshire (and anywhere else that’ll entertain them) to take part in a legalised blood frenzy.
It’s not that I have anything against the upper-class per se. It’s the corrupt, plutocratic manner by which many of them reign financially supreme that I detest. Yes, I’m sure many less-advantaged folk fancy the idea of blood ‘sports’ too, but that shouldn’t deflect from the fact that, for the most part, game shooting just isn’t an activity accessible to the masses. With a day’s shoot likely to cost £20,000 to £40,000(in some cases up to £70,000), membership to this exclusive club is granted almost solely to the conservative financial elite.
Ironically, for some of the beneficiaries,oracularly denouncing benefits claimershas become a casual past-time. They conveniently fail to recognise that they’re the same as those they condemn. You see, despite the fact that they’re given a different name, subsidies (in this context at least) are nothing more than benefits for the rich. Benefits exploited by incredibly wealthy grouse moor proprietors, such as the Daily Mail’s editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre(who earned £5.36m in 2014-15) and pub-chain owner Michael Cannon (who’s net-worth is £240m), who’ve evidently already been heavily advantaged by a vastly disproportionate wealth distribution system. These plutocrats just don’t need the help. While benefits are cut and living standards for the lower classes continue to decline, the country’s richest are given pocket-money and told to go out and play. Adding insult to injury, these subsidies propagate financial inequality and miss-educated bigotry. It’s entirely unnecessary, offensive and damning to the every-day taxpayer.
Since the establishment of gaming estates, the continuous decline of this country’s wildlife has been less attributable to collateral damage and more to all-out assault (as is eloquently detailed in Roger Lovegrove’s Silent Fields: The long decline of a nation’s wildlife). Indeed, there is much intention to the BASC’s general omissions of the wider facts.
Why does the BASC value some creatures less? The answer is simple. They find them economically undesirable. They’re a hindrance to gamekeeping. They out-compete and at times prey upon gamebirds, ransack nests and feed upon their young. Unhabituated to human linearity (the human obsession to organise and manageeverything), and unfamiliar with the concept of arbitrary borders, they wander, nest and predate wherever they please. Consequently, gamekeepers regard them as vermin, failing to recognise that the backbone of our world economy relies heavily upon a relatively healthy and stable global ecosystem. Yet, in our progressively liberal world, with laws prohibiting the senseless killing of wildlife, groundskeepers, the BASC, indeed all blood sports enthusiasts cannot risk being seen to denigrate any creatures, given the possibility of wide-spread public denouncement. Instead they sell falsities, hoping to foster a culture of ignorance, so that they can continue to exclusively quench their everlasting thirst for blood.
Occasionally, when they realise they’re opposition is qualified enough to expose their quasi-logics (as Chris Packham recently has) they resort toelementary politico-economic arguments, appealing to fear rather than reason. They argue that particular rural communities would fall apart if the shooting industry ceased to exist, since much of their income relies upon the industry. But this line – that there exists no alternative method of financial stimulation in rural areas other than by the running of killing estates – is a fear-mongering fallacy. We don’t permit human trafficking because failure to do so would put many people out of work. We disallow it because it’s wrong, inhumane, entirely immoral. And the same logic should apply to blood sports. They form a barbaric and damaging industry, and ought to be relegated to the history books.
When I first heard of this day, the glorious twelfth, I wondered what I’d been missing out on. I was ready for some sort of personal enlightenment. Instead I found disappointment, a deep sense of discomfort. For me the glorious twelfth celebrated something exceptionally inglorious. It celebrated wide-spread naivety, extreme social and environmental injustice, and a common indifference to the needless slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of birds.