Rspca Claims In Fact Sheets Distributed To Schoool Kids

[Steve]

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/cattle/rspca-faces-lawsuit-threat/2235335.aspx

A WESTERN Queensland cattle producer is enlisting support for legal action against the RSPCA over defamatory claims in fact sheets distributed to school children.

Ann Britton of Goodwood near Boulia, says the fact sheets falsely accuse Australia’s cattle industry of cruelty and put words into the mouths of nine year olds in a misleading form letter that targets Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Mrs Britton has received support from across the country. The Federal Member for Durack, Barry Haase has urged the parents of school children to speak out against RSPCA propaganda in a ‘Teacher’s Guide to Live Exports’ which it has posted on the ‘World of Animal Welfare’ website.

“Of course, these fact sheets are propaganda and do not portray the complete live export story,” Mr Haase said.

Mrs Britton said she began her campaign after the RSPCA ignored her written objections. “Their site asks readers to have their say,” she says. “But when I wrote them a note about their false claims and their brainwashing, they failed to respond.

“So I have taken my complaints to AgForce. I want to see our rural industries defended in court. The tactics of the RSPCA are those of a dictatorship, not the kind of balanced treatment you’d expect in a classroom.”

An RSPCA spokeswoman, Lisa Chalk, defended the organisation saying that teachers go to the website knowing they will get an RSPCA animal welfare perspective. “Teachers can then decide what to do with that information,” she said. “I might add that there has been more activity to improve facilities in Indonesia in the past five weeks than what we have seen in the past 10 years and that is solely as a result of animal protection groups willing to be the watchdog for this industry.”

Mrs Britton said the RSPCA was encouraging children aged between nine and thirteen to sign a form-letter. “It allows them to fill in their names and then it uses the children to say ‘please stop our animals from being treated so cruelly’,” she said.

“This misleading form-letter is then addressed to the Prime Minister. Few children at that age have a fully informed opinion about the issues presented in the letter. I’d say few parents and few teachers know the whole story either. So it is just not right to sidestep the facts and put words into the mouths of children.

“I challenge anyone who shares my concerns to write their own letter to the PM,” she said. The Government will be receiving these false statements. It should hear how our children are being taught lies by the RSPCA.”

Mr Haase accused the RSPCA of overstepping the line.

[raz]

Jaysus. PETA tactics, much??? Leave the poor bloody kids out of the debate - that's just ridiculous

[GeckoTree]

They have to try and get em young, before they grow a brainstem.

Edited July 24, 2011 by -GT-

[Steve]

I know nothing of law suits and dont really have the energy to debate whether the info is or isnt right but as a parent Im really against anything like this being distributed at schools.

Im all for kids getting educated and kept up on current affairs etc but when its a biased propoganda on any subject which only present one side Im not happy for my kids to be educated that way.

When its handed out at school the kids feel its has more credence and viability than they do when they come across it in other places.Whether I agree with what the flyer says or not shouldnt be the issue but rather the basic principal of hammering our kids with onesided un balanced information.

[WoofnHoof]

I think you'll find this sort of thing has been happening in schools for years I've heard of kids in schools being told to write letters to the prime minister about his or that social issue it's pretty common from what I've heard and seen.

[Steve]

Well Ive got 8 kids 2 of whom are still at school and I have around a dozen grandkids in school in 3 states and its not common as far as Im aware. Now and then you may get a teacher who is a bit left side and pushes a bit but actually distributing animal rights propoganda isnt something that I have seen to be common. Its a hard sell once they get to uni but in my experience its un common enough to still be ticked off and complain to the school if it happens.

[WoofnHoof]

I've heard of it plenty of times not specifically animal welfare issues but similar ones with kids writing to the PM about refugees, asking the PM to apologise for the stolen generation etc. Just a quick google brought up one lesson plan where an assignment task is to write to the PM about renewable energy:

Individually, students write a letter to the Prime Minister outlining their support or opposition to the use of wind power, as a means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and include evidence supporting their case based on their system of values.

[GeckoTree]

Well in that case I think the teacher getting kids to write are just as messed up as the RSPCA fact sheet.

A kid can not fathom beyond a most basic concept of primitive emotion all that is involved. Less so with propaganda materials being placed in front of them..

That said Gillard seems just as intelligent and may reply in same prose.

[Aidan3]

Its a hard sell once they get to uni

Must depend on the course? I don't recall ever being sold a political agenda. Primary school was a different matter entirely.

[Steve]

Its a hard sell once they get to uni

Must depend on the course? I don't recall ever being sold a political agenda. Primary school was a different matter entirely.

No I didnt mean the tutors were that way inclined - in fact just the opposite in my experience they encourage people to research and make up their own mind but its more likely that this type of propoganda is distributed by other students etc.

[Steve]

I've heard of it plenty of times not specifically animal welfare issues but similar ones with kids writing to the PM about refugees, asking the PM to apologise for the stolen generation etc. Just a quick google brought up one lesson plan where an assignment task is to write to the PM about renewable energy:

Individually, students write a letter to the Prime Minister outlining their support or opposition to the use of wind power, as a means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and include evidence supporting their case based on their system of values.

Thats not the same thing the kids are encouraged to write letter to outline their support or opposition - that encourages debate and research and objectivity what we are talking about inthe news release isnt the same.

[suziwong66]

I've heard of it plenty of times not specifically animal welfare issues but similar ones with kids writing to the PM about refugees, asking the PM to apologise for the stolen generation etc. Just a quick google brought up one lesson plan where an assignment task is to write to the PM about renewable energy:

Individually, students write a letter to the Prime Minister outlining their support or opposition to the use of wind power, as a means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and include evidence supporting their case based on their system of values.

Thats not the same thing the kids are encouraged to write letter to outline their support or opposition - that encourages debate and research and objectivity what we are talking about inthe news release isnt the same.

Thank you Steve, you are entirely correct. As a primary/ jnr primary educator i can say we do indeed try to teach using methodologies that encourage students to develop the higher order thinking skills that allow students to research, compare and analyse data from an objective stance. Yes, we will question their beliefs and ask them to rationally justify them so they develop logical thinking. We want thinkers and 'do-ers' in society and we teach using methodologies that encourage and develop these qualities. We do not encourage students to be apathetic to the issues of their local, national and global communities. This is a prime example of the importance of ethics education and philosophy education for kids in schools.... factually correct informed debate is GOOD for children so they can develop their higher order thinking skills and learn to be active members of their community and stand up for what they think is right. When we teach higher order thinking skills like critical thinking, we give students the skills to question propoganda and not apathetically accept the subjective position that is implied in the message. They learn for themselves what is right and true for them; based on informed fact that is discovered through investigative learning.

[suziwong66]

I know nothing of law suits and dont really have the energy to debate whether the info is or isnt right but as a parent Im really against anything like this being distributed at schools.

Im all for kids getting educated and kept up on current affairs etc but when its a biased propoganda on any subject which only present one side Im not happy for my kids to be educated that way.

When its handed out at school the kids feel its has more credence and viability than they do when they come across it in other places.Whether I agree with what the flyer says or not shouldnt be the issue but rather the basic principal of hammering our kids with onesided un balanced information.

A good educator will use the material as a teaching aide to instigate informed debate on the validity of the message in the leaflet; a methodology called 'community of inquiry' is a great way to do this. Additionally, no school, neither State nor Independent is free from propaganda. A prime example is the 'Australian Values' leaflet that was released to State schools nationally a number of years ago by the then Howard Government. A great deal of debate in many classrooms came from the leaflet with students being asked such questions as: "What makes these values Australian?"; "Do these so called Australian values include all Australians or just some?"; "Who is included and who in excluded in these values?"; "Do these values represent your family?" and; "Do these values represent everyone you know?" etc etc. I have no problem with my children being exposed to propaganda but only as long as they are taught the higher order thinking skills that develop such aspects like critical analysis. I want my children to think for themselves based on informed factual opinion; not ignorant biased opinion.

[WoofnHoof]

The RSPCA is a lobby group I'd hardly expect them to provide a 'two sides of the story' factsheet, it's up to the teacher to get info on the other perspectives there is plenty out there from MLA and other livestock groups. My understanding of it is that this information is made available for teachers not just distributed randomly through schools. Not really sure why it's so surprising or upsetting to anyone

[Steve]

I know nothing of law suits and dont really have the energy to debate whether the info is or isnt right but as a parent Im really against anything like this being distributed at schools.

Im all for kids getting educated and kept up on current affairs etc but when its a biased propoganda on any subject which only present one side Im not happy for my kids to be educated that way.

When its handed out at school the kids feel its has more credence and viability than they do when they come across it in other places.Whether I agree with what the flyer says or not shouldnt be the issue but rather the basic principal of hammering our kids with onesided un balanced information.

A good educator will use the material as a teaching aide to instigate informed debate on the validity of the message in the leaflet; a methodology called 'community of inquiry' is a great way to do this. Additionally, no school, neither State nor Independent is free from propaganda. A prime example is the 'Australian Values' leaflet that was released to State schools nationally a number of years ago by the then Howard Government. A great deal of debate in many classrooms came from the leaflet with students being asked such questions as: "What makes these values Australian?"; "Do these so called Australian values include all Australians or just some?"; "Who is included and who in excluded in these values?"; "Do these values represent your family?" and; "Do these values represent everyone you know?" etc etc. I have no problem with my children being exposed to propaganda but only as long as they are taught the higher order thinking skills that develop such aspects like critical analysis. I want my children to think for themselves based on informed factual opinion; not ignorant biased opinion.

Yep.

[Steve]

The RSPCA is a lobby group I'd hardly expect them to provide a 'two sides of the story' factsheet, it's up to the teacher to get info on the other perspectives there is plenty out there from MLA and other livestock groups. My understanding of it is that this information is made available for teachers not just distributed randomly through schools. Not really sure why it's so surprising or upsetting to anyone

Actually the RSPCA is a bit more than a lobby group and they are given much higher credibility due to the various roles they play and the fact that they are given taxpayers donations and money to promote their agenda. If both sides are going to have a chance at getting the other point of view across where do they get the funding available to the RSPCA to present the opposing views? By law as a charity they are restricted in how much they can lobby so they use it under the guise of education.

[WoofnHoof]

The RSPCA is a lobby group I'd hardly expect them to provide a 'two sides of the story' factsheet, it's up to the teacher to get info on the other perspectives there is plenty out there from MLA and other livestock groups. My understanding of it is that this information is made available for teachers not just distributed randomly through schools. Not really sure why it's so surprising or upsetting to anyone

Actually the RSPCA is a bit more than a lobby group and they are given much higher credibility due to the various roles they play and the fact that they are given taxpayers donations and money to promote their agenda. If both sides are going to have a chance at getting the other point of view across where do they get the funding available to the RSPCA to present the opposing views? By law as a charity they are restricted in how much they can lobby so they use it under the guise of education.

The industry funds it's own campaigns to promote it's point of view, unless you'd like government funding to go to an industry body in the interests of 'balance'? Would you have a problem with industry fact sheets promoting live export as hunky dory? Would they get blasted for pushing their own agenda and not providing info on both sides? What about the government's carbon tax 'education campaign'? Maybe you should write to Ms Gillard expressing your concerns about the blatant pushing of agendas under the guise of education using taxpayers money?

I get that a there are problems with the RSPCA in general but in terms of this issue nothing is being forced down anyone's throat it is up to

teachers to decide how to present the information to students, it's no different to an industry 'fact sheet' IMO.

[Steve]

The RSPCA is a lobby group I'd hardly expect them to provide a 'two sides of the story' factsheet, it's up to the teacher to get info on the other perspectives there is plenty out there from MLA and other livestock groups. My understanding of it is that this information is made available for teachers not just distributed randomly through schools. Not really sure why it's so surprising or upsetting to anyone

Actually the RSPCA is a bit more than a lobby group and they are given much higher credibility due to the various roles they play and the fact that they are given taxpayers donations and money to promote their agenda. If both sides are going to have a chance at getting the other point of view across where do they get the funding available to the RSPCA to present the opposing views? By law as a charity they are restricted in how much they can lobby so they use it under the guise of education.

The industry funds it's own campaigns to promote it's point of view, unless you'd like government funding to go to an industry body in the interests of 'balance'? Would you have a problem with industry fact sheets promoting live export as hunky dory? Would they get blasted for pushing their own agenda and not providing info on both sides? What about the government's carbon tax 'education campaign'? Maybe you should write to Ms Gillard expressing your concerns about the blatant pushing of agendas under the guise of education using taxpayers money?

I get that a there are problems with the RSPCA in general but in terms of this issue nothing is being forced down anyone's throat it is up to

teachers to decide how to present the information to students, it's no different to an industry 'fact sheet' IMO.

No thanks I dont want the government to fund industry to balance it - why treat me as if Im an idiot

What about the government's carbon tax- sigh - is no where near like the RSPCA using funds obtained for the charitable work they do to fund their own agenda. If the government were putting out a flyer to defend their actions and why they have made the decisions they have re live exports thats hardly the same as the RSPCA doing so.

These kids are between 9 and thirteen and if they were my kids I would want to know that they were being given a balanced factual view and encouraged to discuss it with their parents and even then I dont believe kids that age can get it all enough to write to a prime minister and ask for anything.

If their target was 17 year olds as part of a structured program to make em research and decide for themselves that would be completely different.In fact my 17 year old and I have had some great conversations about it all and if he decided to write to the PM completely different. My 14 year old is a completey different issue- and by the way this isnt just about the RSPCA for me its anyone who wants to present propoganda on any subject and ask for them to take action.

[BJean]

Using the Education system to influence community values and policy development is in some of the RSPCA early 2000s Fin Reports, as part of their future objectives etc.

These days you can find the evolved version in their 2011 objectives -

To prevent cruelty to animals by ensuring the enforcement of existing laws at federal and state level.

To procure the passage of such amending or new legislation as is necessary for the protection of animals.

To develop and promote policies for the humane treatment of animals that reflect contemporary values and scientific knowledge.

To educate the community with regard to the humane treatment of animals.

To engage with relevant stakeholders to improve animal welfare.

To sustain an intelligent public opinion regarding animal welfare.

To operate facilities for the care and protection of animals

Basically the RSPCA tell Australians what is enlightened and then Australians agree to put their 'contemporary' thinking system in place.

I guess people in Australia aren't that bright when it comes to some things. We're an apologist bunch with not much backbone.