Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[shamans]

One can be a liberal & still believe the cartoon should be allowed to be shown in the appropriate classroom environment.

I didn't call this viewpoint out in the first place. It was the viewpoint that "Free speech. All good" as if the freedom of speech existing alone gives you the right to do whatever you wanna do or say (and if it does, it also cannot offend anybody)

 

[Gehrman]

It would be in the liberal spirit, or how I understand it in todays world anyway, to stand for marginalized groups and what offends them. Just because you do not understand something or agree with it doesn't mean they have to see it your way.

Something was taught in class. That offends a lot of people. They voiced it. What's your solution to it? It shouldn't offend you or if it serves no purpose we will not do it (or at least have a waiver that class will be about these subjects so don't attend if you don't want to).

I don't believe muslims in europe are entitled to any further laws that protects them from being offended or Islam from being critized. It's up to schools to decide how they want to handle these things, but it should not be made by pressure from threats and intimidation.

 

[hobbers]

Its fine to a degree if you're a comedian doing offensive jokes. It's not ok for a teacher or a position of leadership to be disrespectful against a group of people.

There are plenty of topics teachers are rightly expected to broach that could be deemed "disrespectful" (if by that we mean will cause offence) to large groups of people.

We've already seen exactly that with the sex and sexuality/family structures parts of the inclusion and diversity curriculum. Those protestors in Birmingham looked equally as offended as the ones in Batley, and it seems the ones in Batley are now using this as an excuse to bring that debate back into the public eye.

It is absolutely ok for teachers to impart a curriculum that is disrespectful to religious beliefs in a secular society.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

No I am not confusing the two. But sometimes, critiques hide behind "we are just criticizing" shield to push their agenda against Islam. That agenda can be all the way to hate to just not wanting practicing muslims in the west.

Genuine criticism happens all the time. This idea that criticism of Islam is met with instant death from most of muslim population is crazy. As I said before universities here have high level classes here discussing Islam in detail and criticizing every aspect of it. I have not heard of a single person protest that because it's educational and a free society to critique.

Even online on forums and the internet there are so many discussion board criticizing Islam. No one has a problem.

That's totally different than what happened here. At the very least, if the teacher was so interested in this important life lesson why could he not have warned the students beforehand or made them sign a wavier that they'll be discussing topics that are offensive to the muslim community so please do not show up?

He could’ve done that I agree. Still no need to make such a fuss about it.

 

[shamans]

It’s actually very liberal to think so. Banning of cartoons is very conservative.

"Banning of cartoons". What about "banning of paint". Is that liberal or conservative?

 

[calodo2003]

I didn't call this viewpoint out in the first place. It was the viewpoint that "Free speech. All good" as if the freedom of speech existing alone gives you the right to do whatever you wanna do or say (and if it does, it also cannot offend anybody)

Now you’re parsing, but fine.

Wow, shamans certainly have taken a credibility hit in recent months.

 

[Striker10]

See stuff like this annoys me. All well and good to be offended by the use of the cartoon, IMO shouldn't be used as I don't see any educational value. But why start bringing the entire educational curriculum and sex Ed and all that into this. Religion shouldn't mix with any of that. It should only ever be brought into the picture for history lessons, and then left there. There is literally no other benefit for blending it into any other topic and it'll only cause further divide and weaken your own case by trying to push the other topics. A mixture of the "I don't trust the government" folk and the "God will save me" folk are the reason why there is any sort of skepticism and debate about vaccines right now with covid too. It's dumb. Politics and religion have 0 impact on the science behind a vaccine, and that logic should extent to a lot of subjects within school.

yeah but going to your point what is wrong questioning? you talk of people who question...like its a bad thing but many question nothing and they are fools. Because those same people end up propping up those who ARE committing crimes. It would help the world if people were intelligent but you seem to want a dumbed down trusting population when there IS so many lies. So much corruption. The level of which you don't appear to understand for you judge the people for how they think...rather then looking at what is going on in the world. That someone could try to be president of America for example and get money from drug companies for their election campaign (for example) and there be no conflict of interest. This is the real conspiracy and the problem. It goes on all the time. Because I bet if one person got hurt as a result, you wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep and that's the problem. So be careful what you wish for.

If the world, was honest and fair? Then you have a point. But we were not born of hive mind. You can blame God, Religion etc all you like for this. But I promise you none of you people who think this way actually care for anyone but you. Not if you think that no one has a right.....a human right to say no. We think for ourselves. It's based on looking at many things. Not just one or two. And the foundation is having zero bias. And that means looking at how we interpret information to begin. Do not put yourself up as God because getting back to 'normalcy' will be tied into blackmailing people to take something they've said no to. But because the conversation is controlled, the media have really put it in the minds of the people by controlling the conversation and by locking people up and leaving them under duress. New Normal. Second wave. Third Wave. Now we can get back to normal but you gotta take the vaccine? They control the conversation.

But I mention God. And One thing people to understand is that if you remove God from man. Something WILL look to replace God. You cannot remove the concept. For me there is intelligent design. But people don't get, you cannot remove God. Religion is bull but God IS God. And if you remove God, a man will step in Gods place because someones running this place. Someones dictating this place. Whether it be a body that controls the money. That's probably the biggest right. Science is another. 'Trust the science'. We've heard that one. Science ain't the issue. A gun ain't an issue. It's how these things are used that can be the issue.

 

[shamans]

There are plenty of topics teachers are rightly expected to broach that could be deemed "disrespectful" (if by that we mean will cause offence) to large groups of people.

We've already seen exactly that with the sex and sexuality/family structures parts of the inclusion and diversity curriculum. Those protestors in Birmingham looked equally as offended as the ones in Batley, and it seems the ones in Batley are now using this as an excuse to bring that debate back into the public eye.

It is absolutely ok for teachers to impart a curriculum that is disrespectful to religious beliefs in a secular society.

You can have that debate once its part of the curriculum. This was not. If the teachers and schools and nation decides it should be then go on and include it and be open about it. What's happening now is bad faith tactics of instigation and proving a point.

 

[shamans]

Now you’re parsing, but fine.

Wow, shamans certainly have taken a credibility hit in recent months.

In specific I was calling out carolina red and shamana so I'm not sure what you're on about.

 

[shamans]

He could’ve done that I agree. Still no need to make such a fuss about it.

What was the fuss? the right to protest?

 

[calodo2003]

In specific I was calling out carolina red and shamana so I'm not sure what you're on about.

Sorry, didn’t realize I couldn’t play certain reindeer games.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

What was the fuss? the right to protest?

Standing outside a school demanding prosecution. Although they have the right to protest I do think it goes a bit far to protest an honest decision by a teacher to learn his students something outside his school. It’s a cartoon after all.

You were talking about fair weather liberals but I wonder if those people protesting will be there when a cartoon of Trump will be shown in the class room or any politician for that matter.

 

[shamans]

Standing outside a school demanding prosecution. Although they have the right to protest I do think it goes a bit far to protest an honest decision by a teacher to learn his students something outside his school. It’s a cartoon after all.

I don't know if you're doing it on purpose about being a "cartoon after all". Zwarte Piet is paint after all as well. I also do not believe it was an honest decision. As I said before, if the teacher truly wanted to be honest:

1) Include it in the curriculum
2) Warn students beforehand that next lesson will have this
3) Do not show cartoons and just talk about it

I think teachers should in general not stray from their curriculum so much anyway.

 

[JakeC]

From what I understand the problem here is that the teacher went against the ethos of the school, hence the apology from the school.

I'm sure more will become clear as this continues. And I'm going by what I have heard/been told by folk near there and whose kids attend the school (including kids of my cousins) so it may come to lighht that it's different to what I'm told.

The teacher himself had said to the class that the pics he was going to show were highly offensive

If the teacher said that he's going to show them highly offensive images, he should be sacked. If that was the case, offense was 100 given, and not just taken.

Setting out with the express mindset that what he is sharing is offensive, is very different to bringing up a relevent topic WRT religion, ethics, and freedom of speech.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I don't know if you're doing it on purpose about being a "cartoon after all". Zwarte Piet is paint after all as well. I also do not believe it was an honest decision. As I said before, if the teacher truly wanted to be honest:

1) Include it in the curriculum
2) Warn students beforehand that next lesson will have this
3) Do not show cartoons and just talk about it

I think teachers should in general not stray from their curriculum so much anyway.

There is a vast difference between ridiculing someone’s race which they were born with and ridiculing someone’s believes which they themselves choose. I really don’t see any problem with the cartoons. There are plenty of offensive cartoons of several subjects. Never seemed to bother those people before.

 

[Ventura]

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.

Because otherwise they'll literally murder you. Isn't that good enough reason?

 

[JakeC]

Speaking as Muslim bloke from the area, with plenty of family/connections in Batley... This whole thing is total bullshit. Absolutely zero need for a protest - the school was dealing with the issue and the community just fine - and most folk that I've spoken to just wish they hadn't.... Blown this whole thing out of proportion by doing so.

Are the group who protested a known entity?

 

[shamans]

There is a vast difference between ridiculing someone’s race which they were born with and ridiculing someone’s believes which they themselves choose. I really don’t see any problem with the cartoons. There are plenty of offensive cartoons of several subjects. Never seemed to bother those people before.

You are also born into a religion and it shapes you quiet a bit whether that's good or bad .

 

[Roane]

There are plenty of topics teachers are rightly expected to broach that could be deemed "disrespectful" (if by that we mean will cause offence) to large groups of people.

We've already seen exactly that with the sex and sexuality/family structures parts of the inclusion and diversity curriculum. Those protestors in Birmingham looked equally as offended as the ones in Batley, and it seems the ones in Batley are now using this as an excuse to bring that debate back into the public eye.

It is absolutely ok for teachers to impart a curriculum that is disrespectful to religious beliefs in a secular society.

Barley school places a great emphasis on spirituality of their students.

How would you say that fits into your view about secular society?

*Just a question that interested me. Playing DA of you will

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Are the group who protested a known entity?

Nah not at all, I heard most of them didn't even have kids at the school (but I don't know that for certain)

 

[Roane]

If the teacher said that he's going to show them highly offensive images, he should be sacked. If that was the case, offense was 100 given, and not just taken.

Setting out with the express mindset that what he is sharing is offensive, is very different to bringing up a relevent topic WRT religion, ethics, and freedom of speech.

As I said some of this is not confirmed. However some students have started a petition to reinstate the teacher in question and they mentioned that he had specified that what he was going to show was highly offensive. No mention of a "you can leave if offended" type of thing

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

You are also born into a religion and it shapes you quiet a bit whether that's good or bad .

All the more reason to include religious critisism in education.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I think there's a big difference in using it from an educational POV as a teacher, and as a random artist or satirical comic or whatever.
But to your first point, isn't it the same thing as how same-sex marriage was such an issue for so long? Telling them we can make fun of you, deal with it and don't get offended by it? Shouldn't the answer be don't make something offensive in the first place? Especially when literally the entire purpose of the thing in question was to offend someone.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think taking away something's severity or seriousness by ridiculing it is in itself a tool to teach people perspective.

As for gay marriage, I think there's a large gap between making fun of people and denying them equal rights.

Either way, these things are sensitive. Intentionally offending people is not necessarily good, but the freedom to offend people definitely is in my book.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I understand where you're coming from, but I think taking away something's severity or seriousness by ridiculing it is in itself a tool to teach people perspective.

As for gay marriage, I think there's a large gap between making fun of people and denying them equal rights.

Either way, these things are sensitive. Intentionally offending people is not necessarily good, but the freedom to offend people definitely is in my book.

The freedom of offend people is included in freedom of speech. All kind of things offend people. If you would exclude all things that may offend people there is an awful lot you can’t say. For starters. Being gay is ok, the earth is round, the earth is flat, abortion is ok, abortion is bad. Jesus is the prophet, Muhammed is the last prophet. All those things some people find offensive. All the holy books are full of offensive things.

Cartoons are waaayyy down the list if we should start banning things in my opinion.

 

[Roane]

Are the group who protested a known entity?

Think it's become a free for all now as cameras are there.

I think this is an obvious problem and complicates things for those looking in.

One group is a charity who used to have input into the school (financially as well but saying will withdraw now and setting conditions).

My past work got me "involved" in certain matters and the Birmingham case with LGBT had this too. In the end the media focus became those who should not have had a say in my opinion. And I personally believe the issue there was more than just LGBT on a school agenda. I'm not sure if some of the "guest speakers" were appropriate to certain age groups. I'm not talking of a transgender persom here. More the guys with S and M gear , as in just leather underpants on a leash.

Maybe I'm being a prude but it wasn't something I thought was relevant or appropriate.

In the same way I think some of these people are not relevant and/or appropriate to be getting news time

 

[rotherham_red]

Serious question - what potential slippery slopes have actually occurred to negative consequence?

The slope being it's fine to offend literal children for having what you think are dumb beliefs. It's a fecked up way of looking at the world. Or at least it is to me.

If it ain't to you, then I suppose it's not really worth continuing this debate.

 

[Synco]

I also think you could show a Swastika in a class. Pretty sure no one finds that offensive?

It’s not offensive in a class about nazism.

The context is totally different. Examples of Nazi propaganda would be presented as expressions of a barbaric ideology, not as something whose validity is up for open discussion. The analogy would only work if you wanted to portray the cartoon as an example of hate speech. And since I don't think you want to do that, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot with that argument.

@nimic I see the same kind of category error in your posts on teaching about Nazism. What you say about the subject as such is absolutely fine, of course.

(Tbc, I don't know what the teacher exactly had in mind for his lesson, so this is mainly about what forum users have said.)

 

[Synco]

My stance on this matter would depend on several details of the case I don't know about. But concentrating on what has been said in here, three remarks:

1. If it's true that the cartoon of Muhammad wearing a bomb as traditional headdress was shown, this is not just about some random portrayal of the prophet. That cartoon is an (anti-Islamic) political statement on current day affairs. Using such imagery means intermixing questions of secularism and 'free speech' with popular xenophobic stereotypes about Muslims.

So if that teacher had wanted to discuss religious taboos and public speech, but not xenophobia against Muslims (which I ultimately don't know), he has undermined his own project. If he didn't understand that cartoons like that make it not just a question of secularism, but of xenophobia, it shows ignorance.

2. This is not about some random expression of speech in a random public space, this is about teaching at a public school. Different rules apply. One of the elementary duties of a teacher is to create an environment for discussion everybody can participate in. This may well mean that the teacher has to hold back on things he wants to challenge. If you know that a particular approach will alienate part of your class upfront, you don't insist on your 'right to offend' and pull through. You try to find a better approach.

3. All of this said, the teacher surely doesn't deserve the public scandal coming at him in the slightest. All the more so if he has been threatened, as reports say. This issue should mainly be resolved between school, students, and parents, but it's already been blown out of any reasonable proportion, and it will inevitably get exploited further from both right wing and Islamist demagogues.

 

[calodo2003]

The slope being it's fine to offend literal children for having what you think are dumb beliefs. It's a fecked up way of looking at the world. Or at least it is to me.

If it ain't to you, then I suppose it's not really worth continuing this debate.

The slippery slope argument could also be used by saying that if you ban a potentially offensive cartoon in class, where does that end? Can potentially offensive movies be shown or should they be censored? When does that dip into textbook content? Where does that end?

There’s better debates to have than throwing out the slippery slope hyperbole. There will always be tension as you where the line is drawn, but highly emotional virtual non sequiturs like this don’t engender debate.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

The slope being it's fine to offend literal children for having what you think are dumb beliefs. It's a fecked up way of looking at the world. Or at least it is to me.

If it ain't to you, then I suppose it's not really worth continuing this debate.

It’s good in education to see things you deem offensive or feel uncomfortable with and discuss that with the teacher and fellow students. It helps you in society as in society you get confronted with things you don’t like too.

 

[Roane]

The freedom of offend people is included in freedom of speech. All kind of things offend people. If you would exclude all things that may offend people there is an awful lot you can’t say. For starters. Being gay is ok, the earth is round, the earth is flat, abortion is ok, abortion is bad. Jesus is the prophet, Muhammed is the last prophet. All those things some people find offensive. All the holy books are full of offensive things.

Cartoons are waaayyy down the list if we should start banning things in my opinion.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the issue being simply about cartoons.

Sunni muslims specifically don't draw any of the prophets but as far as I can remember (and I'm late 40's) other groups have drawn cartoons and pictures of prophets (including Muhammad) and there has been no uproar.

The CH cartoons were specifically done in a manner to offend and some may so fair enough. It is disingenuous to suggest they did this to other issues without some form of come back (Sarkozys son and sine and iirc pics of Israeli PM). So there was sanctioning and punishment.

Drawing a prophets face on a pig etc is not just merely a cartoon or focussing on social commentary like cartoons in newspapers. So let's not pretend otherwise.

People are free to agree or disagree with those cartoons but we can't lump it into one category imo

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the issue being simply about cartoons.

Sunni muslims specifically don't draw any of the prophets but as far as I can remember (and I'm late 40's) other groups have drawn cartoons and pictures of prophets (including Muhammad) and there has been no uproar.

The CH cartoons were specifically done in a manner to offend and some may so fair enough. It is disingenuous to suggest they did this to other issues without some form of come back (Sarkozys son and sine and iirc pics of Israeli PM). So there was sanctioning and punishment.

Drawing a prophets face on a pig etc is not just merely a cartoon or focussing on social commentary like cartoons in newspapers. So let's not pretend otherwise.

People are free to agree or disagree with those cartoons but we can't lump it into one category imo

I’m certainly not a fan of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo.

 

[Carolina Red]

Context does matter. This was in UK in an area with a high percentage of Muslims. I wonder if you would be willing to show historical, offensive caricatures of Martin Luther King that have been made by KKK members? Purely for education?

Literally have shown multiple KKK propaganda cartoons. And Nazi ones. And Apartheid ones. Etc.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Literally have shown multiple KKK propaganda cartoons. And Nazi ones. And Apartheid ones. Etc.

We too in the Netherlands (apart from KKK) and then you discuss them. People seem to think that by showing the cartoon you agree with it. I personally dislike the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as I don’t find them particularly good satire. Though showing them isn’t wrong. Maybe you all come to the conclusion in that class room that it’s indeed wrong to draw them.

A free discussion what on earth is harmful about that?

 

[Gehrman]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the issue being simply about cartoons.

Sunni muslims specifically don't draw any of the prophets but as far as I can remember (and I'm late 40's) other groups have drawn cartoons and pictures of prophets (including Muhammad) and there has been no uproar.

The CH cartoons were specifically done in a manner to offend and some may so fair enough. It is disingenuous to suggest they did this to other issues without some form of come back (Sarkozys son and sine and iirc pics of Israeli PM). So there was sanctioning and punishment.

Drawing a prophets face on a pig etc is not just merely a cartoon or focussing on social commentary like cartoons in newspapers. So let's not pretend otherwise.

People are free to agree or disagree with those cartoons but we can't lump it into one category imo

I don't believe JP or Charlie Hebdo ever did this. It was the offended Danish muslims who made up the picture itself in order too stir up more trouble when they went to Egyp to try and stir up outrage about it. Charlie Hebdo made cartoons of Muhammed to treat Islam by the same standard as they do Christianity and Judaism. That was also part of the original point of Jyllands Posten.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

The context is totally different. Examples of Nazi propaganda would be presented as expressions of a barbaric ideology, not as something whose validity is up for open discussion. The analogy would only work if you wanted to portray the cartoon as an example of hate speech. And since I don't think you want to do that, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot with that argument.

@nimic I see the same kind of category error in your posts on teaching about Nazism. What you say about the subject as such is absolutely fine, of course.

(Tbc, I don't know what the teacher exactly had in mind for his lesson, so this is mainly about what forum users have said.)

You can discuss several subjects at the same time so blasphemy, Xenophoby, freedom of speech, religious oppression. Have a good discussion about it. Surely that’s healthy.

 

[Carolina Red]

We too in the Netherlands (apart from KKK) and then you discuss them. People seem to think that by showing the cartoon you agree with it. I personally dislike the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as I don’t find them particularly good satire. Though showing them isn’t wrong. Maybe you all come to the conclusion in that class room that it’s indeed wrong to draw them.

A free discussion what on earth is harmful about that?

Bingo.

Any student taught by me in the last decade was not surprised by the racist Dr. Seuss books that caused such a stir recently... why? Because I showed them the racist anti-Japanese American cartoons he made during World War II and we discussed them.

 

[Roane]

I’m certainly not a fan of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo.

Tbh it doesn't matter to me if you are or not, it's not my idea of good cartoons either and I'm a fan of certain cartoons in certain newspapers which try and put humour or sum up a situation. And I'm certainly not pointing any fingers at individuals.

I'm just pointing, to what I feel, the wider context of using certain subject matter or lumping different things into one category.

Not all cartoons are equal sort of thing

 

[Roane]

We too in the Netherlands (apart from KKK) and then you discuss them. People seem to think that by showing the cartoon you agree with it. I personally dislike the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as I don’t find them particularly good satire. Though showing them isn’t wrong. Maybe you all come to the conclusion in that class room that it’s indeed wrong to draw them.

A free discussion what on earth is harmful about that?

Again going by what I've read and heard with regards to the Batley school, I'm not sure showing that picture and asking who is right the publication or the terrorists is appropriate, if that's what happened and how it was phrased.

 

[Carolina Red]

My sister is in the same job. re teacher in a secondary school. She says the teacher probably should have known better, and that it would lead to this.

Shes correct, but the backlash is ridiculous.

Again... do we know what cartoon was used and do we know how he used it?