Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[Gehrman]

In the video you posted.

Talking about how “their boys” had been blowing up British soldiers legs.

We don't know if that's true. The girl who brought up the story about Samuel Paty admitted that she didnt even attend and made it all up.

" Chnina also filed a complaint with the school, and encouraged people to protest at the school.[22] A meeting was held between the head teacher, the teacher, and an official from the education authority.[3] Chnina additionally filed a legal complaint about Paty's lesson, leading the teacher to go to the local police station accompanied by the principal.[3] Paty told investigators he could not understand the complaint because Chnina's daughter was not in class on the day Paty showed the cartoon.[3] In March 2021, Chnina's daughter, known as "Z", admitted she had been suspended from school due to truancy, since the day prior to Paty showing the cartoons, and, as such, she had not been in the classroom that day. Instead, she made up the cartoon story to appease her father. According to the Paty family lawyers, however, Brahim Chnina was aware that his daughter had been expelled before the cartoon incident.[55][56] "

 

[Carolina Red]

Is there a cliff notes version of exactly what’s happened here?

As in... what cartoon was used? What course was this in? What was the lesson being taught?

 

[diarm]

Cultural insensitivity is not harmful? If we start being culturally insensitive, where does it stop? When it gets hateful? When it gets vile?

No it is not. Not in the same way child porn or violence are.

It is offensive. But offensive and harmful are different things.

The right to offend, to be offended and to learn how to deal with offence are important. Hiding things away for fear of offending is dangerous.

 

[JakeC]

There’s no way this is a reasonable/proportionate response to a disagreement over the content of a lesson at school. Also note that they’re expanding the content of their complaints to include children being taught “inappropriate relationship and sex education”. We all know what that is referring to.

This is insanity.

Should he have shown the picture? Probably not. Its something that has been dealt with internally, religious groups do not get to dictate who a school hires and fires.

The level of retaliation is sickening.
Shame on those protesting outside the school. None of them are parents in the school, and majority are from outside the area.

 

[JakeC]

Is there a cliff notes version of exactly what’s happened here?

As in... what cartoon was used? What course was this in? What was the lesson being taught?

It was in a religion and ethics class about freedom of speech.

 

[Infra-red]

This discussion has sort of turned into a freedom of speech vs freedom of religion debate, which is understandable, but this isn't really a free speech issue, is it?

We do not have blasphemy laws in the UK - it is clear that this teacher, like everyone else in the country, is free to draw and display provocative cartoons of anyone they wish.

The question is surely whether or not it was appropriate for this teacher, while at work in his school, to display this cartoon in a lesson - to answer that, we really need to know the context (and none of us currently do). Many potential explanations present themselves, some innocent and some sinister.

 

[JakeC]

That’s a different teacher. And sounds like complete hearsay. Which is inevitable when a bunch of people get all riled up and Chinese whispers start. All we know for certain is what we’ve heard about the cartoon. Which was real enough for the school to have taken action.

The whole “protest” smacks of the usual suspects looking for an opportunity to stir shit. Hence the mention of sex education etc For a bunch of allegedly concerned parents it’s hard not to notice the absence of any mothers.

Its a farce.

 

[Infra-red]

Is there a cliff notes version of exactly what’s happened here?

As in... what cartoon was used? What course was this in? What was the lesson being taught?

We don't know a whole lot about the context, and the context is everything. The teacher has been suspended while an investigation is carried out.

 

[calodo2003]

What slippery slope comes out of teaching it is ok to hate and insulting your students is ok? Are you being serious right now? Why the feck do you think there was so much racism, sexism and oppression throughout history? There is nothing potential or maybe about it. People believed they were better than other groups. People taught kids it was ok to hate on them because they were different. This led to years of slavery, oppression, sexism, racism, genocides as some of these kids grew into people who viewed them as lesser so they were insignificant. "It doesn't matter if I push them out of this country, they have this belief therefore they are dumb and useless and a strain on resources."

I can't tell if you're being serious because it is very worrying if you are here.

The slippery slope defense is a fallacy, it’s a scare tactic that is used to try to bolster one.’a point. -Isms are rarely ever caused by one defined singular event which had cascading domino effects. It’s a hyperbolic tactic used to try to buttress the status quo. For example, any gun restrictions will create a slippery slope for total gun confiscation; if communism takes root in X, Y & Z will soon fall. And, in this case, allowing a satirical cartoon would lead to (insert -ism here). There’s far better arguments for potential mandating not being able to show the cartoons in a secondary school, the slippery slope argument is not one of them.

 

[bosnian_red]

The question is surely whether or not it was appropriate for this teacher, while at work in his school, to display this cartoon in a lesson - to answer that, we really need to know the context (and none of us currently do). Many potential explanations present themselves, some innocent and some sinister.

Yup. Except the cartoon he allegedly used was one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So its safe to say that regardless of context, it's inappropriate to use as a teacher and there aren't any positives to take from it.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I'm actually quite sure there isn't a single thing someone I don't know can say or show me that would genuinely offend me.

I guess I should feel blessed, but It does get me in trouble at times since I might make an offensive joke without realizing it would genuinely offend people (not talking about racist jokes mind).

 

[calodo2003]

We don't know if that's true. The girl who brought up the story about Samuel Paty admitted that she didnt even attend and made it all up.

" Chnina also filed a complaint with the school, and encouraged people to protest at the school.[22] A meeting was held between the head teacher, the teacher, and an official from the education authority.[3] Chnina additionally filed a legal complaint about Paty's lesson, leading the teacher to go to the local police station accompanied by the principal.[3] Paty told investigators he could not understand the complaint because Chnina's daughter was not in class on the day Paty showed the cartoon.[3] In March 2021, Chnina's daughter, known as "Z", admitted she had been suspended from school due to truancy, since the day prior to Paty showing the cartoons, and, as such, she had not been in the classroom that day. Instead, she made up the cartoon story to appease her father. According to the Paty family lawyers, however, Brahim Chnina was aware that his daughter had been expelled before the cartoon incident.[55][56] "

Forgot about this. Plays into the reality of constructed fake outrage that’s a part of this.

 

[calodo2003]

This discussion has sort of turned into a freedom of speech vs freedom of religion debate, which is understandable, but this isn't really a free speech issue, is it?

We do not have blasphemy laws in the UK - it is clear that this teacher, like everyone else in the country, is free to draw and display provocative cartoons of anyone they wish.

The question is surely whether or not it was appropriate for this teacher, while at work in his school, to display this cartoon in a lesson - to answer that, we really need to know the context (and none of us currently do). Many potential explanations present themselves, some innocent and some sinister.

Inside a class about religion & ethics, what the teacher did was absolutely appropriate. I’ve read about teachers informing classes about this specific topic in advance, no apparent outrage occurs. Not sure if the teacher forewarned the students (he should have), but not being able to discuss current events in a religion & ethics course due to offense that might be felt is ludicrous. It undermines the class itself.

 

[pierrethesnack]

So its safe to say that regardless of context, it's inappropriate to use as a teacher and there aren't any positives to take from it.

Don't think that's safe to say at all. Those cartoons and what followed was an important event that highlighted unwarranted limits to freedom of speech. It's only natural they're brought up for educational purposes.

 

[Smores]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

 

[Carolina Red]

It was in a religion and ethics class about freedom of speech.

We don't know a whole lot about the context, and the context is everything. The teacher has been suspended while an investigation is carried out.

Edit: yep, just saw in The Guardian (after reading 4 or 5 major stories that didn’t include that context) that it was a religious studies lesson.

Context definitely matters here. As a high school social studies teacher, I teach about all kinds of controversial topics - and political cartoons are something we frequently use because they’re part of the standards and required curriculum... including cartoons that are controversial. It’s part of the freedom to teach you’re supposed to have as an education professional.

 

[Gehrman]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

I'm not even sure if it's allowed by forum rules. We wouldn't have had this discussion though if the teacher hadn't shown the cartoon. Which means that both the police and the headmaster have given a grovelling apology and that the teacher is under police protection.

 

[bosnian_red]

The slippery slope defense is a fallacy, it’s a scare tactic that is used to try to bolster one.’a point. -Isms are rarely ever caused by one defined singular event which had cascading domino effects. It’s a hyperbolic tactic used to try to buttress the status quo. For example, any gun restrictions will create a slippery slope for total gun confiscation; if communism takes root in X, Y & Z will soon fall. And, in this case, allowing a satirical cartoon would lead to (insert -ism here). There’s far better arguments for potential mandating not being able to show the cartoons in a secondary school, the slippery slope argument is not one of them.

I think the slippery slope point was about it being a bad idea to teach it is okay to insult people, disrespect a group of peoples beliefs, etc. They teach it by actually doing it in their class. You asked how was a teacher insulting or offending its students and peers a slippery slope. It's a slippery slope because a teacher acting like this leads to impressionable kids behaving like this, thinking they are better than others who have different beliefs, which they grow up into positions of power sometimes and still act with the same hate and lack of tolerance for others. This lack of tolerance and understanding and feeling of superiority is what leads to all forms of racism, sexism, and far worse tragedies. You start with treating this group of people differently, insulting them, pushing them away slowly, and then it escalates.

You don't think this is how it works? You don't think that years and years of just general opinions and teachings of a certain way of thinking is what caused anyone who isn't a white male to be oppressed in some way? Of course it is. Plenty of good, normal, reasonable and progressive people still had a lot of racism in a lot of ways. It was normal in the 18 and 1900's to treat people of colour or women differently. It wasn't because they were all bad people. It's because a bad way of thinking was so entrenched in their teachings, in their every day actions. That general opinion of others being "inferior" led to years of oppression, racism, sexism, whatever it is. Even the most progressive people at the time still probably had a sense of it, because it was everywhere around and you couldn't escape it.

A teacher teaching it is ok to hate on certain beliefs leads to a group of people having the same way of thinking against that other group, and it snowballs.

 

[pierrethesnack]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

I would assume that's because most of the people engaging in this thread have already seen them multiple times, I am not sure the same can be said for kids who currently in school, it's basically ancient history for them.

 

[KirkDuyt]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

Doesn't mean it should be illegal though. Being offensive is just that, offensive. People take their beliefs too seriously.

I personally wouldn't goad religious people with stuff they find offensive, because I try not to be a cnut (which incidentally is the only line that should be in the Bible according to Jim Jeffries), but who cares, it's just religion.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

Isn't it a bit unfair to get upset at someone for doing something against a religion they don't follow or believe in ? I understand that the Muslim fate has respect for their Prophet and wouldn't want him depicted in anyway that's not acceptable by their religion by those who are Muslims but if someone does not follow that religion or belief then why do they need to conform to those beliefs ? This is limited to it not being a form of hate or intentional disrespect against a certain religion of course.

 

[2 man midfield]

You keep saying this and what I'm saying is that is not the case. You genuinely think these folks protesting just don't like it?

Why else would they protest it?

 

[Infra-red]

Inside a class about religion & ethics, what the teacher did was absolutely appropriate. I’ve read about teachers informing classes about this specific topic in advance, no apparent outrage occurs. Not sure if the teacher forewarned the students (he should have), but not being able to discuss current events in a religion & ethics course due to offense that might be felt is ludicrous. It undermines the class itself.

You may well be right. Plenty of innocent and sinister explanations immediately present themselves. Context is everything and we don't know much at this stage. I'm reluctant to vociferously condemn or defend until we have some more information.

 

[Gehrman]

I'm actually quite sure there isn't a single thing someone I don't know can say or show me that would genuinely offend me.

I guess I should feel blessed, but It does get me in trouble at times since I might make an offensive joke without realizing it would genuinely offend people (not talking about racist jokes mind).

Are you a Dirk Kuyt fan?

 

[KirkDuyt]

Are you a Dirk Kuyt fan?

Bastard..

 

[Infra-red]

Yup. Except the cartoon he allegedly used was one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So its safe to say that regardless of context, it's inappropriate to use as a teacher and there aren't any positives to take from it.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I think one can imagine circumstances in which it might be appropriate to include such images in a wider discussion about free speech/blasphemy/ethics/satire in an educational context.

I'm not saying that is the case here, because I simply do not have enough information to make a determination one way or the other. For all I know, he is the worst kind of anti-Muslim bigot and deserving of immediate termination from his job.

I think everyone simply needs to wait for the investigation to be concluded.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yup. Except the cartoon he allegedly used was one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So its safe to say that regardless of context, it's inappropriate to use as a teacher and there aren't any positives to take from it.

Controversial political cartoons are frequently part of many social studies (world religion falls under this umbrella) courses

 

[Eugenius]

You don't understand the meaning of caricatures and satire do you? I don't actually find the cartoons funny, but in general I'm not into cartoons. Point being if mass killings and terrorism occur because a cartoonist associates Muhammed with terrorism they only strenghen that perception. Which is why the problem is not the cartoon, but the complete mass violent reaction to such a cartoon. I'd also like to add that life story of Muhammed is massivly different than Jesus and Buddha Shakyamuni. I'd place him more together than Moses than anyone else.

I think I have enough of a grasp on the concept of satire. I think we are approaching this from two different angles though.

Obviously there are a fair few dim witted extremists out there, but still a minority. The main debate in this thread is freedom of expression vs freedom to offend.

 

[calodo2003]

I think the slippery slope point was about it being a bad idea to teach it is okay to insult people, disrespect a group of peoples beliefs, etc. They teach it by actually doing it in their class. You asked how was a teacher insulting or offending its students and peers a slippery slope. It's a slippery slope because a teacher acting like this leads to impressionable kids behaving like this, thinking they are better than others who have different beliefs, which they grow up into positions of power sometimes and still act with the same hate and lack of tolerance for others. This lack of tolerance and understanding and feeling of superiority is what leads to all forms of racism, sexism, and far worse tragedies. You start with treating this group of people differently, insulting them, pushing them away slowly, and then it escalates.

You don't think this is how it works? You don't think that years and years of just general opinions and teachings of a certain way of thinking is what caused anyone who isn't a white male to be oppressed in some way? Of course it is. Plenty of good, normal, reasonable and progressive people still had a lot of racism in a lot of ways. It was normal in the 18 and 1900's to treat people of colour or women differently. It wasn't because they were all bad people. It's because a bad way of thinking was so entrenched in their teachings, in their every day actions. That general opinion of others being "inferior" led to years of oppression, racism, sexism, whatever it is. Even the most progressive people at the time still probably had a sense of it, because it was everywhere around and you couldn't escape it.

A teacher teaching it is ok to hate on certain beliefs leads to a group of people having the same way of thinking against that other group, and it snowballs.

Yes, a whole lot goes into the perpetuating of -isms, that’s why a macro approach to the problem is far better than getting mired in details. Just like in the gun debate, any meaningful reform is always negated by slippery slope arguments about any meaningful reform; the overall betterment of society gets forgotten. The debate that would exist in the discussion about the cartoon outweighs any offense it may cause imo as everyone can better themselves by participating in the argument. The topic of phobias & -isms can be discussed more broadly & effectively without such censorship. Hyperbolic statements don’t help such discourse.

 

[diarm]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

This is such a silly, lazy argument. Posting the image serves no purpose in this discussion and it is not the job of any of us in here to teach anyone else in here. Most of us are not children and most of us will have seen the cartoons before.

I speak about religion without posting passages of religious text. I speak about racism without sharing pictures of racist propoganda or attacks every time.

It doesn't mean I wasn't shown those images when learning about those things in school and that they weren't appropriate educational tools then.

By showing these cartoons to children, we take away the power for them to become something bigger than they are.

Not having to shove them down the throat of people who are offending them on a forum is a different thing to striking them off curriculums.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm actually quite sure there isn't a single thing someone I don't know can say or show me that would genuinely offend me.

I guess I should feel blessed, but It does get me in trouble at times since I might make an offensive joke without realizing it would genuinely offend people (not talking about racist jokes mind).

You look like Amélie Mauresmo.

 

[Gehrman]

If the cartoon was Muhammed with a bomb in turban it's from Jyllands Posten and not Charlie Hebdo. Just to be clear. Don't know if that makes any difference.

 

[calodo2003]

It's amazing that we're on page 15 without anyone posting the picture. It's almost as if you don't need to share offensive material to have a debate on the issue surrounding it.

We’ve all seen them (or had the ability to see them & choose not to do so). They’re widely disseminated throughout the internet. It’s not like every child in the class was going to be shown these / heard about these for the first time.

 

[bosnian_red]

Don't think that's safe to say at all. Those cartoons and what followed was an important event that highlighted unwarranted limits to freedom of speech. It's only natural they're brought up for educational purposes.

Freedom of speech does not equal the freedom to offend. What does somebody gain out of straight up insulting someone for no reason? There's nothing about that that can serve as educational material. Those cartoons were created to offend an entire religion. People got offended. Extremists, which exist in every group, caused a tragedy. If someone went in your face and just started insulting your family, or went and drew a picture disrespecting your parents or kids, I'd suspect you (or anyone) would punch them in the face, or at least react in some way negatively.

On terms of the actual topic, it's a random piece of history, yes. I don't see any educational value in it, but anyway, go ahead and teach about it or talk about it. What possible benefit do you get from showing the image that caused all the issues? It's disrespectful against a large group of people. You are a teacher at a school for ages 4-16. Pictures like that have no place in a learning environment. It doesn't serve any purpose. You can talk about it if you so choose without showing the offensive cartoons that would still disrespect any Islamic person. Showing the image, to those ages, will only lead to kids using the image for comedic value and further fuel any bullying issues and further marginalize a group that already has issues with that, further add to hate and dividing groups of people rather than just living with each other and accepting and respecting the beliefs of another for what they are.

 

[KirkDuyt]

You look like Amélie Mauresmo.

This is more accurate than I want to admit

 

[VorZakone]

Freedom of speech does not equal the freedom to offend. What does somebody gain out of straight up insulting someone for no reason? There's nothing about that that can serve as educational material. Those cartoons were created to offend an entire religion. People got offended. Extremists, which exist in every group, caused a tragedy. If someone went in your face and just started insulting your family, or went and drew a picture disrespecting your parents or kids, I'd suspect you (or anyone) would punch them in the face, or at least react in some way negatively.

On terms of the actual topic, it's a random piece of history, yes. I don't see any educational value in it, but anyway, go ahead and teach about it or talk about it. What possible benefit do you get from showing the image that caused all the issues? It's disrespectful against a large group of people. You are a teacher at a school for ages 4-16. Pictures like that have no place in a learning environment. It doesn't serve any purpose. You can talk about it if you so choose without showing the offensive cartoons that would still disrespect any Islamic person. Showing the image, to those ages, will only lead to kids using the image for comedic value and further fuel any bullying issues and further marginalize a group that already has issues with that, further add to hate and dividing groups of people rather than just living with each other and accepting and respecting the beliefs of another for what they are.

Are Muslims not more offended than other religious communities? It's not only Islam that is offended through cartoons.

 

[groovyalbert]

There’s no way this is a reasonable/proportionate response to a disagreement over the content of a lesson at school. Also note that they’re expanding the content of their complaints to include children being taught “inappropriate relationship and sex education”. We all know what that is referring to.

I'm sorry, but that's terrifying. If anyone here holds dear any liberal values/supports the gains made my women/gay/non-binary folk in recent decades, then this is the biggest red-flag you'll come across. Shameful.

 

[bosnian_red]

Doesn't mean it should be illegal though. Being offensive is just that, offensive. People take their beliefs too seriously.

I personally wouldn't goad religious people with stuff they find offensive, because I try not to be a cnut (which incidentally is the only line that should be in the Bible according to Jim Jeffries), but who cares, it's just religion.

Don't think people are saying it should be illegal. The issue is its a teacher in a school for ages 4-16, and he showed it to his class. You shouldn't go to jail for using the picture. You probably should be sacked for using a picture that would disrespect an entire group of people though, from a position of leadership. You are a teacher, the goal should be to raise kids to be respectful and tolerant, not fuel hate and push groups of people away.

 

[finneh]

This is such a silly, lazy argument. Posting the image serves no purpose in this discussion and it is not the job of any of us in here to teach anyone else in here. Most of us are not children and most of us will have seen the cartoons before.

I speak about religion without posting passages of religious text. I speak about racism without sharing pictures of racist propoganda or attacks every time.

It doesn't mean I wasn't shown those images when learning about those things in school and that they weren't appropriate educational tools then.

By showing these cartoons to children, we take away the power for them to become something bigger than they are.

Not having to shove them down the throat of people who are offending them on a forum is a different thing to striking them off curriculums.

Plus these 15 pages are a direct result of someone showing the images. Had they not done so this discussion would not be happening.

The result of causing offence is millions of people taking part in an important conversation. Who knows maybe a few hundred people or more who previously held the ridiculous view that showing a drawing should be a cause of outrage or violence may have had their views change as a result of the debate starting from this teachers offending.

 

[bosnian_red]

Are Muslims not more offended than other religious communities? It's not only Islam that is offended through cartoons.

Not sure what your point is? Yes, all people can be offended by everything. A big responsibility of a teachers job is to be respectful of all people's beliefs. Choosing to use a picture that served no purpose other than to offend, is not respectful. I'm not saying it's illegal to use a picture like that. I'm saying you're probably a cnut if you release that image, and then furthermore you should be punished if you use that image in your class as a teacher.