Minister responds unsatisfactorily to VVD parliamentary questions calling for a ban on the Dutch TFP

"Are you willing to investigate a ban [on the TFP] in the Netherlands as well?" VVD MPs Bente Becker and Daan de Kort asked Minister Mariëlle Paul in March. Civitas Christiana [Dutch TFP] should just be banned, the MPs thought, because of criticism of Spring Fever Week. Now the minister answers, making unsubstantiated accusations of 'fake news'.

Spring Fever Week

Education Minister Paul (VVD) calls it "undesirable" that the teaching material for Spring Fever Week has been labeled "immoral" by us. The minister also disapproves of our calling on schools not to use the Rutgers material and "falsely giving the impression" that it sexualizes children. In doing so, the VVD minister is backing the controversial teaching material, which, however, as it becomes better known, is attracting wider and wider opposition from parents and the Dutch public.

Growing Sexual Indoctrination

The minister is setting her sights on Civitas Christiana, the parent foundation of campaigns such as Culture Under Fire, Family in Danger, Stirezo Pro-Life, and TFP Student Action Europe. A shared action point of these campaigns is the growing sexual indoctrination in schools. Based on teaching materials, we note that Spring Fever Week normalizes homosexuality but also abortion and transgenderism.

'Straight against Goals'

"The foundation [TFP] thereby suggests that homosexuality is not normal," the minister said, which "goes diametrically against the aims of citizenship mission".

The Minister confirms that Spring Fever aims at LGBT Indoctrination

This is quite something. Minister Paul here acknowledges that the Rutgers material is meant to normalize homosexuality among schoolchildren. She thus confirms what we raise at Spring Fever Week: that it aims at LGBT indoctrination. And Civitas Christiana is just saying - in line with God's commandments and the natural law that is of all times and countries - that homosexuality is "not normal". Something that should certainly not be normalized in preschoolers.

Christian Talk of Sexuality is banned from Schools

It fully realizes what is happening here. The Christian view of (homo)sexuality is being banned from education. It is being declared contrary to learning objectives. This is an unprecedented infringement on the freedom of Christians to practice their faith. The mask of tolerance and freedom finally falls off and the face of left-liberal anti-christendom is visible in its utter ugliness.

Colouring only within Rainbow Lines

This infringement of religious freedom is not even noticed by the Reformatorisch Dagblad newspaper, which writes about the ministerial responses. With her commitment to normalizing homosexuality, the minister is drawing a line under Reformed education. That will henceforth be allowed to color only within the lines of the rainbow.

Constitutional Rights at Stake

The sexual indoctrination that the minister - obviously without calling it that - has now in fact admitted, even as an explicit goal, goes squarely against the constitutional rights of parents, against freedom of education and freedom of religion, and insofar as parents and Civitas Christiana are prevented from speaking out against it, against freedom of expression.

Schools are not allowed to think differently

It is rather hypocritical then to insist that engaging with Rutgers and cooperating schools with Spring Fever Week would be "voluntary", as the minister stresses, when on the other hand she stresses that schools - in whom the government has a "rock-solid trust" according to the decision note - are not supposed to have or develop different views on this than just those of Rutgers, so ostentatiously put forward by the state.

Read also: France Invites Disaster by Becoming the World’s First Country to Enshrine Abortion into Constitution

Idle Accusation of Fake News

The minister accuses our action material of lacking "context and facts" and thus containing "inaccurate and incomplete information" which would be "unacceptable". Paul even calls it "fake news". If our claims were "fake", why did Rutgers hastily remove books from the Spring Fever list after we published about it?

Evidence lacking

The minister sticks to this vague and mood-making insinuation but does not provide any concrete example for her criticism. The bare fact that Civitas Christiana dares to denounce the material of the government-funded Rutgers is in itself "unacceptable", which is another bigoted step beyond the earlier "undesirable" that the teaching material for Spring Fever Week has been labeled "immoral" by us.

Minister crosses Red Line

But isn't it rather undesirable and unacceptable for a minister to dismiss the actions of a civil society organization like ours, which acts within the limits of the law? Surely citizens are allowed to criticize some corollaries of government policy? Is it not rather the minister himself who here crosses the red lines of propriety in a democratic constitutional state?

Bente Becker and Daan de Kort

Her bigoted bias mirrors that of the questioners, VVD party colleagues Bente Becker and Daan de Kort. They call Civitas Christiana an "advocacy group" that would have an "intimidating effect" because of "a compelling ideological agenda", as if the exact opposite were not the case: as if it were not Rutgers, supported by this government, rolling out the LGBT-agenda unasked for over schoolchildren.

Teachers are afraid to speak out

It is precisely against this, that the protest of Family in Danger, supported by many parents and teachers - who dare not speak out openly for fear of repercussions – is held.

Criticism of Curriculum should be allowed

Flattering is the MPs' designation of Civitas Christiana as an organization "which is working on a large scale" to "influence the curriculum". The question arises: if that were the case, what is wrong with that? If the curriculum is flawed, surely it is normal or even the duty of media or civil society organizations to expose it? Surely that is then their right and an action in the public interest?

'Liberal' MPs

The fact that two 'liberal' MPs and a minister, or if necessary an entire cabinet, have a different opinion on this does not change that. Or rather: it should not in a functioning democracy.

Vote-mongering with Imputations

The extent to which the two 'liberal' MPs are out to muzzle other opinions that are disagreeable to them is blatantly evident in their latest questions. For instance, they ask the minister what she knows about Civitas Christiana, and whether the 'Social Stability Expertise Unit (ESS)' of the Ministry of Social Affairs is keeping a watchful eye on us. This amounts to the suspicion that Civitas Christiana would engage in subversive activities. Vote-mongering, which the minister uncritically goes along with.

Intolerant one-two Punch

For what does the minister reply? She is aware, she says, that Civitas Christiana "advocates the preservation of Christian traditions in society". That is true, but probably the minister thought that sounded a bit too innocent, because she adds, "They give their meaning and interpretation to that." Perhaps that is so, but there is no denying the insinuating undertone. It is all pretty unsavory what the minister is showing here, prompted by MPs from her own party, with whom she is playing a bigoted one-two punch.

Ugly Monkey Out of the Sleeve

At the very end of the questions, the monkey comes right out of the sleeve. A particularly ugly monkey: the VVD MPs would like to see Civitas Christiana's criticism of Spring Fever Week completely silenced. They do so by pointing to the French organization Civitas, whose name is partly similar to that of Civitas Christiana, but they have nothing to do with each other: not historically, not even indirectly, just nothing at all.

Minister leaves Misunderstanding

Instead of clearing up this misunderstanding (the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad itself, which circulated it, has neatly rectified it), the minister leaves it in place. Yes, an association with a similar name in France is banned, but to what extent it has anything to do with Civitas Christiana is "not known" to the minister. So maybe it is, the minister suggests, she just didn't get to the bottom of it. This is how you perpetuate slander that suits you, even in a government document.