They avoid each others in the staffroom.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Maybe I'm being naive.
I think the school have handled this right. They've apologised and said an investigation has found the picture to be inappropriate. The guy in question has apologised. Should be end of the matter.
Not excusing the attacks in France in any way or form here but the difference in how we dealt with this here is to try and calm the situation.
The protesters now need to be told to go home. And I think some muslims are doing that in current reports
This wouldn’t even be getting discussed if the response had been proportional and reasonable. None of us would have heard about it. Death threats aside, the issue here seems to be a wildly over the top response from the parents. To me they’re at least as much in the wrong here as the teacher. And we know very little about exactly what the teacher did wrong. We’re relying on hearsay (as are the parents)
If you take a step and think what is the problem here? What really needs to stop if we’re going to have a progressive, kind and well integrated society? It kind of blows my mind that anyone would focus on the teacher’s decision to show kids these cartoons.
Last edited:
I haven't used the cartoons, but if I were to do so (for example during a discussion about free speech or religious criticism), I would fully expect the school to back me up. And if they didn't, then the union certainly would.
Odd that such a furor was created, by all reports the teacher had such good pupil management skills.
First chuckle from this thread for me. Thanks for that!
This is why these conversations are often hypocritical. Many are unable to objectify a view without imposing their own beliefs in doing so. Also some of the opinions on here paint the Muslim people like extremism is in the majority and this is simply untrue. I've networked with some fantastic people who were Muslims. Though I don't agree with the doctrine I still have respect for the individuals.
For me the question would be why would you use the cartoons for free speech or religious criticism? I personally think that they are particularly poor material for those topics and are unlikely to actually serve you well.
Explain what you mean.
The European right-wings are trenchently anti-Muslim. It's the central pillar of most of those current day movements.
Do you think the teacher showing kids a cartoon to try and teach them about Charlie Hebdo has done the most harm to the perception of Muslims in the events discussed in this thread?
Of course they should, they are photographs of real life events that we can learn from by seeing. Show those picture and most people would agree that its horrible. So people seeing them helps the case of avoiding it happening again.
Same as i have no problem with news showing footage of 9/11, or pictures and even degrading drawings of the people who did it. I dont think too many people would react if you showed a drawing of a real suicide bomber with a bomb west on. Thats not the same as drawing Muhammad in one.
When it comes to the priest, its the same as above. Real life priest has actually molested children for decades. The least of their punishment should be getting an ironic cartoon.
I am not a believer, in anything else but the funk that be, and i understand what you are saying. I agree we should discuss it (more), i just fails to see what drawing a prophet if they dont want us to brings to the table in terms of furthering the process.
No, not in this sequence of events.
But the people who feel put upon aren't thinking about it strategically. Certainly not in the way that CE forum commentators have the luxury to.
They experience profiling, verbal/physical abuse, lost job opportunities, dehumanisation, etc. at a personal level. Their reactions to this case are obviously going to be influenced by that sense of oppression. All that's required here is some appreciation and sensitivity to those experiences as a minority. The school did the right thing.
Seems to me they could be great at starting a discussion on free speech, as long as the students are prepared for it. My job is to challenge the pupils. Obviously the presentation is important, but I don't think it's out of bounds at all. I'm currently teaching about the rise of fascism and the Nazis, and there was never any question of not showing anti-Jewish propaganda, for example. How can pupils really understand what is going on if we're going to hide things from them?
It's not like they're not aware of the existence of these sorts of things either. It's a subject much better dealt with in the classroom, rather than having them google it and end up who knows where with who knows what kind of extreme takes.
Almost all of those challenge they face have Islamophobia as their root cause. A huge step forward in addressing that would be to give moderate secular Muslims more of a voice and find a way to stop religious zealots stoking fires at the first hint of an opportunity. It’s a tough thing to do but it would do so much more for the overall well-being of Muslims in the west than doubling down on the right to take mortal offence at these cartoons.
Not to potentially create a tangent, suicide vests are a typical method of terrorism often (largely, perhaps) employed by terrorists of the Islamic faith. There’s no way around this fact. Offering such a fact in a cartoon styled through satire doesn’t negate this fact because it is unpalatable to those of that faith.
God / jesus christ themselves have been depicted poorly in satirical cartoons regarding the pedophilia in the Catholic church. There’s no difference here than how the prophet is depicted in his set of cartoons. The medium seems to be stoking the outrage, the larger message seems to be muted & mooted for sake of an unending argument over style.
There has to be a space for people who agree with your thoughts on the challenges and wrongs forced on Muslims in every day life, but also believe Islam cannot be exempt from ridicule and satire.
A cartoon is not the same as abuse, withholding job opportunities or dehumanisation. It simply isn't and it is incredibly dangerous and damaging to lump the two together.
Every time we pretend they are the same, we perpetuate the myth and monster of the cartoon. We entrench views that even more people are anti-Muslim when they are not and we make something ridiculous, a powerful weapon for those who would use religious beliefs for wrong.
So he showed a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist - perpetuating the myth that all Muslims are terrorists - in a school where incidents of bullying against Muslims had been on the increase? Seems like a bit of a colossal wanker to me.
Cartoons / animation has done much for allowing for dialogue & conversation about topics which we would have avoided as humans. I quite dislike the medium, but there’s no doubt that cartoons like The Simpson’s & South Park have made discussing polarizing topics a bit more easier in the couple of decades.
Seems a bit targeted to disavow the use of satirical cartoons in this case. The medium is quite widespread & common these days.
None of us were there - so don’t know the context - but don’t you think a nuanced and thoughtful discussion on the harmful stereotypes portrayed in that cartoon could help with the bullying?
Showing that cartoon does not automatically perpetuate any myth. A good teacher could have shown that cartoon and led a good discussion on all the aspects of it, including teaching how such imagery could perpetuate damaging myths about the Muslim community. The whole point of a school is to teach complex issues and subjects. This lesson could have done really positive things if approached correctly.
Is there a link to this?
Or is it just an example of the story growing into something within the void created by making it taboo?
This is a bit of a trope, that a cartoon is depicting all muslims as being terrorists. Understanding the medium allows for this logical conclusion.
Are these cartoons perpetuating the myth that all catholic priests are nonces or are they discussing an historical fact within Catholicism’s history much in the same way that the prophet cartoons are discussing an historical fact in Islam’s history? I tend to think it’s a discussion of a part of each religion’s recent history with some very biting satire...
https://www.catholicleague.org/cartoons-18/
If the church had succeeded in banning 'Life of Brian' it would have been an exercise of church power over people with other beliefs. If they claimed 'hurt feelings' or being offended it would not matter to the fact it was about power and control.
When muslims at the other side of the world claimed to be offended by 'The Satanic Verses' they hadn't read, it was clearly about power, despite the fact it might have actually offended a muslim.
But now a group of muslims is claiming that their feelings are hurt by a cartoon that happens to breach a religious rule of them, it's only about those poor muslims and their completely natural feelings and not about power and control?
I'm not buying that, those parents could also have taught their kids that they should be grateful for their right to practice their religion and it comes with other people's right not to practice that reliigion and ignore islamic religious rules. But muslim parents tend not to, because islam teaches muslims that islamic religious rules are for all to obey. Islam is not relating to freedom of religion very well yet, to put it mildly and optimistically. And this is just another example, no matter how wel mannered the parents and other muslims somehow involved expressed their view.
I'm not familiar with the works of Peterson but offending people is important because that's what happens or is claimed when challenging authority. A good political cartoon should make the politician involved feel offended. It's also important because if people get offended a lot, claiming offence can't be used to silence views some or many disagree with. That's what this is also about, silencing criticism of islam just like claims of 'islamophobia' as if religion criticism is some kind of racism is also about silencing critics. So we're back to power and control again.
I believe the idea that you can't show cartoons in a class room because of a religious rule is radical. The way they express that idea is not and I appreciate that but that doesn't change the radical nature of that idea.
He made a fecking idiotic mistake lets not beat around the bush.
You are correct in that we weren’t there and the context is absolutely vital so maybe he isn’t a colossal wanker. However, the class was an RE class on blasphemy - which I’m assuming is more about the use of Mohammed’s image - and not a nuanced discussion about harmful stereotypes. There is a more-than-likely possibility that when that image was put up some kids in that class may have found it amusing whilst others in the class will have been left feeling extremely awkward.
That's not the point and you are giving cartoons too much credit. Most topics have been dealt through far better medium such as theater and literature, through tragedy, comedy and also satire and I'm purposely putting aside none artistic media. One of the biggest problem with the likes of Charlie Hebdo and that kind of cartoonsl is that they are for a mature audience since you need to understand a relatively complex context through a relatively simple, yet complex imagery. That's where people shouldn't be naive, it's very easy to not understand what is going on when you don't have all the tools.
I'm not against them, I'm not against showing them but I'm against this idea that they are appropriate in all situations and by appropriate I'm not talking about being offensive or not but about their ability to effectively support the point being made. More often than not, they don't.
I dont think people should be doing that either, as. its very dissrespectfull and dont bring much good with it.
There is a big difference here though.
Muslims dont think Muhammad should be portrayed at all, while Christians use the image of Jesus and God all the time.
So my point is only that if showing drawing of Muhammad dont bring anything good with it (which i dont think it does) we should respect their wish to dont do it. And i feel that much of the discussion surrounding this is people just wanting to do it "just because they should not be offended by seeing it". Not you btw.
I can't think of a better class than RE in which to explore ideas on stereotypes and the dangers of blasphemy laws or taboos.
I would suggest that this shows that the west and western values have become more tolerant and less racist since the seventies rather than western values giving into religious fanatics.
There is a huge difference here. Christianity has a rich history of iconography, religion and picturing Jesus has played a massive role in the history of western art, which is why people bought up in western culture may have difficulty understanding why this is offensive. Islamic culture dosn't have that same history of iconography at all, there are certainly pieces of Isamic art that are thought to represent the Prophet, but they would never have been on public display and certainly never seen in a mosque.
The difference between a church and mosque is a really good example of this. Churches have stained glass windows depicting Jesus, the stations of the cross, the crucifix, you see representations of Jesus everywhere. You won't find any equivalent of that in a mosque. Instead you normally get Islamic calligraphy art and decorative patterns. Not representing the prophet is a big deal!
Teachers don't show the Muhammed cartoon with a bomb in his turban in these classes to perpetuate the myth that all muslims are terrorists FFS. It's to show that this is one of the images that sparked off the whole cartoon crisis.
But then you completely discount how impactful cartoons / animation has become as a medium in current culture. It would be wonderful to have such conversations through different medium, but that’s not the reality of today’s culture, as sad as this often is.
How does one become a ‘mature’ adult, through being limited in what one can see or discuss on a topic or being challenged & potentially made to feel uncomfortable to open discourse? I would always prefer the latter, but that’s just me.
The bolded, fine. We have a different view of the situation and thats why we have differents opinions. I can see some (sadly the loudest) as that, but still a very small portion. Not really relevant and mostly anecdotical, but i dont know a single muslim who thinks that i should live by their rules.
The Italic, Offending people is important when it further the progress. If it just brings misery its not important at all imo.
Claiming offence should not be used to silence views, i agree. But it should be taken to consideration, and if the offensive act or words is deemed irrelevant to the progression, its unnecessary and should not be present in the discussion.
Why does the wishes of a few outweigh the wishes of the many? Sorry to sound crass, but why should non-believers of a story comport their life differently due to the believers in a story, a belief in a story with which they were not born, but something they grew into either through parental choice for them or finding it themselves? We’re talking ultimately about fairness here, this also smacks of unfairness.
That’s also a bit of a stretch, that the majority of times this is discussed in an educational setting is done out of a ‘gotcha’ stance or a ‘shock’ stance. It’s no doubt thought provoking & uncomfortable to discuss for most, but that doesn’t mean the discussions trying to be had are all disingenuous.
And, no worries on that disclaimer at the end, didn’t / haven’t taken any offense thus far, but I appreciate it. I enjoy this debate when it is done with a modicum of rationality. I’m somewhat heartened by this thread potentially getting to double digits in pages before it starts getting detailed through hyperbole, -isms, etc.
Last edited:
That’s fine and dandy, but because one version of the story doesn’t comport itself in such a way doesn’t mean that the rest of the world (regardless of its flavor or belief in it) has to comport itself in the same way. You’re using the medium again as your biggest criticism, meaning we can’t get to be able to discuss realities of situations due to how they are presented into the human discourse? This is peak absurdity.
Which is really a weird motivation honestly.
It's your right to do something based solely on the idea that it will offend. It also makes you a weirdo.
This line of thinking is complete madness to me.
All over the planet, we are learning about decades and decades of clerical abuse, that was allowed to continue precisely because people were afraid to confront religious norms.
Ridiculing priests for being nonces has done more to protect children than any other single measure. Of course, it is a shame that the good priests get lumped in under the same umbrella but when the church as an institution not only refused to confront the issues, but actively covered them up, this was what was left.
I think we are doing police, elected officials, prosecutors, investigative journalists, victims, and whistleblowers in the church a huge disservice when it comes to exposing sexual abuse by priests.
Clownery is very low on the totem pole. This is like when comedians have an inflated view of their role in society.
I dont think you sound crass.
Well, i think its two reason in just this case that the wishes of the few should outweigh the many.
1. It cost so little for the many to obey the wish. All we have to do is not draw something.
2. I am not sure that the people who dont want Muhammad to be drawn is actually in a minority compared to the amount of people who wants to draw it.
I dont think its unfair, in the sense of it costs us nothing (here is where i understand the discussion actually is as i dont think it matters that we dont do the drawings, but i understand the hear the counterpart which means it actually matters)
How am I discounting something, I didn't suggest to not use them at all but use them appropriately? If anything you are the one discounting every other medium with a strange claim when almost all conversations are done through those other mediums, today's culture isn't lived through cartoons, cartoons are a fringe medium that's why on these topics the reference is Charlie Hebdo who are a failed paper that doesn't sell well.
Also you seemingly didn't read or care about what I wrote. I didn't tell you to not use them, I specifically said the opposite, I didn't talk about mature adult, I said mature audience and I also alluded to what a mature audience was in this context, it's an audience that understand the topic because one of the particularity of these cartoons is that they give little informations to its audience which means that the audience has to know about the topic beforehand, the audience also has to know what satire is in the first place.
So to make it very simple, the medium that you are going to use always depends on your audience. Two audiences aren't equal and if you want your message to be understood, you need to adapt otherwise you are as the proverb say, pissing in the wind.
That exact quote was about drawing Jesus or God, not priests.
This is what i said about the priests :
"When it comes to the priest, its the same as above. Real life priest has actually molested children for decades. The least of their punishment should be getting an ironic cartoon"