Łukasz Warzecha: The Revolutionary Assault of Barbara Nowacka

First Regulation has 81 pages and is entitled "Regulation of the Minister of Education amending the regulation on the basis of pre-school curriculum and the basis of general education for primary school, including for students with average or crucial intellectual disabilities, general education for the sector-specific first-cycle school, general education for peculiar school equipping for work and general education for post-secondary school". Second counts pages 57 and is entitled "Regulation of the Minister of Education amending the regulation on the basis of general education programmes for general advanced school, method school and second-cycle sector".

It sounds confusing and innocent, but we are talking about a draft programme basis for the subject of wellness education (in the same regulations we besides have the basis for the programme subject of civic education), which is to become mandatory in the full almost full training cycle from next year. At the moment, the projects are at the phase of opinion and public consultation (the time for them is 20 November, that is, in a moment).

Detailed analysis of papers exceeds the measurement of the publicist text – I will deal with them in more item in the nearest video blog on my channel (to subscribe to which I constantly encourage). It is worth showing, however, what is the large manipulation done by Mrs Nowacka.

First, we are dealing with fraud. A powerful indoctrination and ideological layer of the fresh subject was masked under the neutral name of wellness education. Who could be against wellness education? However, 1 might ask why a separate subject, erstwhile – as the critics of Mrs Nowacka's actions indicate – in fact all the essential information was included in the programs of biology or upbringing for household life.

That is, in order to be able to include purely ideological elements in the program, and the opponents to be able to ridicule as those who argue modern wellness education.

Secondly, another level of manipulation involves utilizing a well-known method utilized not only in this area. This is the contentious view, on which there is no agreement, which causes tensions and is not widely accepted, is presented as a fact or the only acceptable and "scientific" position, about which no debate is possible. This is what happens with making life hard for drivers – supposedly apparent and the only possible and "scientific" solution is to throw cars out of cities, and preferably to destruct individual motorization in general. likewise with climateism: we are to be convinced that any view another than the unreservedly accepting hypothesis about the anthropogenic causes of climate change and climate policy created on the basis of it, is dazed and unauthorised. Hence, the effort to stick the patch of "climate negationists" to skeptics in order to bring about association with Holocaust negationists.

It's identical in the wellness education program. Let's take an example. In section VIII, "Sexual Health" for Classes VII and VIII (ps. 26 and 27 of the project), the student says that the student "develops the concept of psychosexual orientation and its improvement directions (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual); explains the concepts of sex identity, cisperity, transsexuality". What's going on? The point is to teach students (12-13 years old) that there is no average or abnormality. There are equal directions for the improvement of “psychosexual orientation”. In addition, we have here the introduction of ideological language and new-fashioned, absurd concepts specified as "cipitality", which is an ideological way of describing a completely average person. Women and men – this does not require any additions. But in the version that Mrs Nowack wants to put to her children, it is 1 of many possible equivalent versions of "identity" – with the addition of "cis".

There is simply a sharp dispute about all these issues about their assessment, their qualifications, their social consequences. Therefore, an effort to impose a certain way of seeing these categories by a school without any uncertainty violates the constitutional right of parents to rise children according to their worldview.

We have a akin situation in the programme for the same classes, in Chapter II: Physical health. On page 19, the student states that “it explains the importance of vaccination in the past and now; it distinguishes between compulsory and recommended vaccinations; it discusses what anti-vaccination movements are, what is disinformation about vaccinations and how to recognise it”. While reliable cognition of vaccines does not give emergence to controversy, the last part of the issue clearly concerns issues that should not be taught at all. It is adequate to callback that as ‘anti-vaccinationists’ during the pandemic, qualified and those who claimed that micromachines were smuggled in the vaccines, as well as those who raised scientificly justified doubts about the cycle of their preparation and testing, civilian liberties violated by force on vaccination or studies already emerging, questioning the effectiveness or indicating risks arising from the usage of vaccines in certain groups of people. Only individual highly naive or ill-willed could claim that this point of wellness education would not service to push the sanitarian faction.

On the another hand, in the upper-primary school programme, among the optional issues in section VII "Sexual Health" (p. 48 of the applicable project), the student "dissembles legal and social issues related to LGBTQ+ membership" or, alternatively, "describes sex stereotypes, including those relating to the sexual sphere, and discusses their negative impact on human improvement and interpersonal relations and discusses ways to counter them".

Thirdly, the task contains elements that do not truly have anything to do with health, but will be an excellent mechanics for indoctrinating pupils. This is mainly about the scope of issues in the “mental health” and “social health”. What does it mean, for example, that a student (p. 24 of the task for primary schools) “examines his behaviour, feelings and needs in different situations in terms of self-esteem building”? We're entering this area far beyond what the school should be able to do. The question of "building self-esteem" is closely linked to the worldview and way of raising. You can build your own value by believing that you don't gotta give anything of yourself to anyone, due to the fact that you are inactive the top man on earth; and you can besides make self-esteem dependent on what has actually been done and what has been made of yourself to others, including community, nation, community. What right does the school intend to enter into specified delicate matters with shoes – most likely besides by provoking only the right look?

If individual complained about Minister Przemysław Czarnek for his foreignity in imposing any solutions and he can afford an nonsubjective look, he must admit that Mrs Nowacka is much worse in this respect. That's the revolutionist's 100 percent mentality. The minister clearly makes it clear that she does not care about any criticism, even massed and reaching from many sides – as is the case with the ban on housework. While raising for household life was optional, wellness education will be mandatory – and at the same time there is almost no discussion about it, due to the fact that alleged public consultation is simply a drink for water and I don't think anyone has the illusion that they can change anything significant.

I feel sorry for parents whose children will go to this mill, due to the fact that the grinding – especially with progressive teachers – will be terrible. Not everyone will be able to usage the antidote at home, many parents with conservative views will think that it is better to adapt than to go with school on the thighs, risking the child's assessment on the certificate – and that is what Mrs Nowacka is counting on. Yet only mass protest and obstruction of activities – and you can imagine different ways – can give something here. The cynic, which is Mr. Tusk, can only work if he considers the political cost of revolutionary assaults to the Minister to be unprofitable to him.

Luke Warches