Ecofascist Teacher Makes Example of Six-Year-Old

To instill eco-obedience, our moonbat rulers have to start young, before we're capable of realizing that their rules are arbitrary and meaningless, serving only as an excuse to exercise coercion for the sake of coercion. For example:
A couple in Laval, Que. has sparked a fierce debate over how far schools should go to teach children about environmental responsibility after their six-year-old son was shut out of a kindergarten draw to win a stuffed animal because he had an environmentally unfriendly sandwich bag in his lunchbox.

Marc-André Lanciault said he hadn't heard of the school's draw or any environmental policy until his wife, Isabel Théorêt, was making their son Félix a sandwich and he begged them not to put it in a plastic bag.

"He said, 'No mommy, you can't do that. Not a Ziploc,'" Mr. Lanciault said.

Through tears, the boy told his parents that the school had held a draw to win a stuffed teddy bear and only children who didn't have any plastic sandwich bags could enter. The family normally uses Tupperware, but it was all in the dishwasher, and so they had packed their son's ham sandwich in a plastic bag.

When Mr. Lanciault questioned his son's teacher, she confirmed the school had staged the draw at a lunchtime daycare and that any student with a plastic sandwich bag was excluded. "You know Mr. Lanciault, it's not very good for the environment," the teacher told him.
It doesn't matter whether reusable containers that have to be washed are any better for the environment than plastic bags, which is under debate. The point is to single out those whose parents don't conform to the latest moonbat fad as eco-sinners.

Mr. Lanciault nearly grasps the essence of enviromoonbattery:
"At the end of the day my son doesn't know why he shouldn't use a Ziploc bag. It's not only the bag, it's the whole idea that we're being brainwashed from everywhere. They told us Ziploc bags are bad, so we've stopped thinking about it and just started applying the rule."
There is no reason not to use plastic bags, other than the high priests of political correctness having proclaimed them to be sinful. The point is the same as for religious dietary restrictions: to obey for the sake of obeying in a show of obeisance. Does even a New York Times reader really think that forbidding affordable light bulbs will improve the weather, or that sentencing millions of Third World children to death by malaria is less harmful than essentially harmless DDT?

The targets of environmental proscriptions are chosen more or less randomly. Why not declare that the color orange makes ice caps melt? Or that the letter R threatens the habitat of the delta smelt? It would make as much sense as singling out a small child for ostracization over a sandwich bag.