Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[The Boy]

I don’t think because something is centuries old it deserves more respect. Especially when it’s limiting other people’s freedom.

As for your last point. Yes you can also discuss a movie and don’t watch it but it’s always better to watch is it to have a opinion that actually has some merit.

Which freedom is being limited? Noone is saying don't discuss and debate it, just don't be purposely offensive to your Islamic pupils and the local Muslim community.

As for the movie analogy, obviously it helps to watch and understand a two hour plot line before discussing it and in a world where it is not offensive yes it could help discussion to show the pictures. But surely it is better to describe a depiction to discuss than purposely alienate a section of your classroom. And even if it is not seen, opinions expressed will still certainly have merit as it is not exactly the style of the picture being discussed here.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

It seems to be a small peaceful protest according to local news but the Tories and right wing papers look to stoke the controversy nonetheless.

This isn't protest against teaching creationism it's protest against something which has no educational value and only causes offence. The teacher is clearly a knob and I'm sure as a school they don't try to offend their pupils whilst exploring issues.

Of course anyone who finds this offensive has the right to peacefully protest.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Which is quite scary that teacher shouldn’t discuss cartoons because they have to fear for their lives. So almost nobody does it and when someone does it he’s called stupid. The oppression of Islamic fundamentalists clearly works.

As I said whether it's correct or not is another issue - but I don't think it's right for a teacher to show young kids those images, especially if they have Muslims in the class too.

 

[Roane]

Which is quite scary that teacher shouldn’t discuss cartoons because they have to fear for their lives. So almost nobody does it and when someone does it he’s called stupid. The oppression of Islamic fundamentalists clearly works.

Bit of a leap there.

A teacher working in a school would be aware of any sensitivities that exist in any school and any area and make their lesson appropriate.

 

[The Boy]

Which is quite scary that teacher shouldn’t discuss cartoons because they have to fear for their lives. So almost nobody does it and when someone does it he’s called stupid. The oppression of Islamic fundamentalists clearly works.

No one is saying don't discuss it, we should definitely have these conversations in classrooms. But opening that discussion by showing it again immediately alienates an important demographic that are absolutely key to the conversation.

 

[Gehrman]

Not a very good teacher.

Actually he was our best teacher.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Which freedom is being limited? Noone is saying don't discuss and debate it, just don't be purposely offensive to your Islamic pupils and the local Muslim community.

As for the movie analogy, obviously it helps to watch and understand a two hour plot line before discussing it and in a world where it is not offensive yes it could help discussion to show the pictures. But surely it is better to describe a depiction to discuss than purposely alienate a section of your classroom. And even if it is not seen, opinions expressed will still certainly have merit as it is not exactly the style of the picture being discussed here.

It’s only deemed offensive by some people. Other people may find other cartoons offensive. It’s not uncommon for a cartoon to offense people. The subjects where is there is a kind of tension are actually the subjects where satirical cartoons are best used.

The freedom to draw Muhammed is being limited as is the freedom to freely discuss the cartoon in a classroom. Sometimes with death threats or murder as a result.

If you could only draw or show cartoons that no one finds offensive then that’s a huge limitation on the purpose of said cartoons. Surely you agree with that?

 

[Smores]

Of course anyone who finds this offensive has the right to peacefully protest.

They shouldn't need to. Schools can teach offensive subjects without causing offence.

I'm sure homophobic abuse, racial abuse, domestic violence are all explored without aiming particular offence at any pupils and if the teacher did their would rightly be protest.

If you want to teach that lesson the message should be that some find the cartoons offensive so don't be a dick. Not 'well we don't find it offensive' so here you go and let's discuss.

 

[Gehrman]

It seems to be a small peaceful protest according to local news but the Tories and right wing papers look to stoke the controversy nonetheless.

This isn't protest against teaching evolution/creationism it's protest against something which has no educational value and only causes offence. The teacher is clearly a knob and I'm sure as a school they don't try to offend their pupils whilst exploring issues.

Since he's under police protection I'm not sure how peacefull the threats are that he is receiving.

 

[K Stand Knut]

there seems to be a lot of people making presumptions based on the articles. No???

Until we know the context of how it was shown, shouldn’t people hold their judgements??

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

They shouldn't need to. Schools can teach offensive subjects without causing offence.

I'm sure homophobic abuse, racial abuse, domestic violence are all explored without aiming particular offence at any pupils and if the teacher did their would rightly be protest.

If you want to teach that lesson the message should be that some find the cartoons offensive so don't be a dick. Not 'well we don't find it offensive' so here you go and let's discuss.

What if I and others find cartoons of a Dutch politician offensive? Don’t show them or else you are a dick? Religious opinions aren’t more valuable then other opinions. Religions do have the tendency to think that way which is one of the reasons satirical cartoons of religions have a purpose and have had for ages.

 

[The Boy]

It’s only deemed offensive by some people. Other people may find other cartoons offensive. It’s not uncommon for a cartoon to offense people. The subjects where is there is a kind of tension are actually the subjects where satirical cartoons are best used.

The freedom to draw Muhammed is being limited as is the freedom to freely discuss the cartoon in a classroom. Sometimes with death threats or murder as a result.

If you could only draw or show cartoons that no one finds offensive then that’s a huge limitation on the purpose of said cartoons. Surely you agree with that?

I said in an earlier post that the publication in Charlie Hebdo had a much stronger argument and I agree that boundaries news/satire publications are dangerous IMO. But this was a classroom.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I said in an earlier post that the publication in Charlie Hebdo had a much stronger argument and I agree that boundaries news/satire publications are dangerous IMO. But this was a classroom.

Wouldn’t that be the exact place to teach young people about satire?

 

[dumbo]

Remember when the Tories banned Gerry Adams' voice?

Doesn't add much to the central issue here, but still interesting as a random memory of authoritarian-Tory depravity.

 

[Gehrman]

According to this video, it was a cartoon from Jyllands Posten and not Charlie Hebdo, and it was done on the subject of blasphemy which would probably be a wider class on freedom of speech.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Smores]

What if I and others find cartoons of a Dutch politician offensive? Don’t show them or else you are a dick? Religious opinions aren’t more valuable then other opinions. Religions do have the tendency to think that way which is one of the reasons satirical cartoons of religions have a purpose and have had for ages.

I'm an atheist I'd get rid of religion if i could but it's still important to understand deeply held beliefs. Your comparison is just showing a real lack of understanding to be honest, if you actually you think it's the same.

Elements of religion do need challenging but this isn't one that is causing offence to anyone. It's a small ask.

 

[Gehrman]

 

[Moby]

Aren't fairy tales supposed to be a part of primary school curriculum?

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I'm an atheist I'd get rid of religion if i could but it's still important to understand deeply held beliefs. Your comparison is just showing a real lack of understanding to be honest, if you actually you think it's the same.

Elements of religion do need challenging but this isn't one that is causing offence to anyone. It's a small ask.

I don’t think we should make a distinction between beliefs and deeply held believes. Who decides which delieve is deeply held and which one is not.

 

[T00lsh3d]

How the hell do you weight up the pros and cons of this, assess the risks....then still think it’s a good idea? I suggest people that do this are contrary and ‘edgy’ by nature...surely it’s obvious by now it’s going to garner negative attention

 

[Roane]

Actually he was our best teacher.

I used to teach in the 90's. Only did two years in a secondary school and then changed career paths.

I, like most teachers, have personal views that maybe different to views of other folk.

As a teacher though it isn't about implementing my own views on pupils. It's about creating and atmosphere and a safe space for pupils to discuss and reach their own conclusions.

Teaching religion as a Muslim and saying the rest are rubbish is bad teaching.

 

[Gehrman]

I used to teach in the 90's. Only did two years in a secondary school and then changed career paths.

I, like most teachers, have personal views that maybe different to views of other folk.

As a teacher though it isn't about implementing my own views on pupils. It's about creating and atmosphere and a safe space for pupils to discuss and reach their own conclusions.

Teaching religion as a Muslim and saying the rest are rubbish is bad teaching.

A teacher isn't imposing his views on his students. He is sharing his views and I think a good teacher should make you critically examine your own views.

 

[Roane]

Suspension of the teacher and a written apology from the school would suggest that something wasn't right, no?

I think context is important and there hasn't really been any information that I've seen as to what the lesson was and why the image was used.

Anyone know?

 

[calodo2003]

In before...

 

[adexkola]

When I was in highschool, these type of cartoons were used as an example of satire, in classes of french and literature. There was no particular political or religious message attached to it.

I get satirical cartoons (I remember learning about cartoonists like Thomas Nast who covered corruption in NYC). I don't understand the point of showing offensive images without a superseding educational objective. Surely the mere discussion of their existence and the value of free speech can be discussed without, showing the images?

1. That religion has the tendency to limit other’s people freedom. Could be a position which the students can discuss further.

2. To show the cartoons where the all the commotion came from and let students decide of it’s worth the commotion and have a discussion about it.

1. The same can be said of many other societal constructs. Democracy for example. But religion and it's merits/demerits can be validly debated in a classroom without showing these images.

2. We can have a discussion on the damaging impacts of child pornography without looking at actual images of child porn. I hate that I had to use such an analogy, but if I was a teacher, I want to expose my students to a wider range of thinking without deliberately offending them. I just don't see the value of actually showing these exact images. Free speech can be defended, students can be encouraged to attack long established dogmas on their own. They don't need to be force fed it.

 

[Gehrman]

Suspension of the teacher and a written apology from the school would suggest that something wasn't right, no?

I think context is important and there hasn't really been any information that I've seen as to what the lesson was and why the image was used.

Anyone know?

My guess would be fear of retaliation in order and to cool things down.

 

[Roane]

A teacher isn't imposing his views on his students. He is sharing his views and I think a good teacher should make you critically examine your own views.

That's not how your earlier post came across.

A religion teacher saying all religion is made up is not asking or trying to get an examination of views.

Our RE teacher in high school was a reverand. His bias in teaching religion wasn't good teaching either.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

How the hell do you weight up the pros and cons of this, assess the risks....then still think it’s a good idea? I suggest people that do this are contrary and ‘edgy’ by nature...surely it’s obvious by now it’s going to garner negative attention

This is exactly why it should be discussed. There needs to be more awareness of the increasing power of religious ideology. If the teacher had weighed his options and said "you know what, this might hurt some feelings/ put my life in danger" and so decided against discussing a subject he thought was important incase it garnered negative attention, then he wouldn't be doing his job.

There are no blasphemy laws in the UK as far as I'm aware so the teacher should be able to discuss all aspects of religion including extremist responses to cartoons. We should never shy away from discussing something because there's a chance someone might get offended. Other students shouldn't be shielded from the truth to appease Muslim students who take offence to said truth.

 

[Gehrman]

That's not how your earlier post came across.

A religion teacher saying all religion is made up is not asking or trying to get an examination of views.

Our RE teacher in high school was a reverand. His bias in teaching religion wasn't good teaching either.

Sharing his opinon is not wrong. Him expressing his view that it is all made up should not be controversial for students who are 16-19 years old. And obviously our classes were far more in depth than that simply.

 

[Roane]

My guess would be fear of retaliation in order and to cool things down.

Not sure if this would be the go to since the LGBT issue in Birmingham.

Heads of school generally have HR guide to follow in certain incidences. Suspension of a teacher isn't that uncommon in the first instant, but usually pending an investigation. The apology letter would not be immediate. A letter saying the matter will be looked into is the more likely immediate response.

 

[BootsyCollins]

I never understood why anyone would do this? Like for real, why?
A religious group ask you to not show a picture of their prophet, what does anyone gain on going against that wish? Except causing anger.

It got nothing to with free speech, its basically bullying imo.

 

[The Boy]

There are no blasphemy laws in the UK as far as I'm aware so the teacher should be able to discuss all aspects of religion including extremist responses to cartoons. We should never shy away from discussing something because there's a chance someone might get offended. Other students shouldn't be shielded from the truth to appease Muslim students who take offence to said truth.

No one is saying it should not be discussed or even challenged, that's a healthy sign of freedom of religion and speech within any society.

But you can do all that without showing it. It is the showing it that offends, is against the tenets of Islam and immediately puts peoples backs up. If you open the discussion by offending a key group who should be involved in the discussion, that immediately limits the debate.

 

[adexkola]

It’s only deemed offensive by some people. Other people may find other cartoons offensive. It’s not uncommon for a cartoon to offense people. The subjects where is there is a kind of tension are actually the subjects where satirical cartoons are best used.

The freedom to draw Muhammed is being limited as is the freedom to freely discuss the cartoon in a classroom. Sometimes with death threats or murder as a result.

If you could only draw or show cartoons that no one finds offensive then that’s a huge limitation on the purpose of said cartoons. Surely you agree with that?

Come off it, is this an art class?

No one is saying Charlie Hebdo and co can't draw those images. And nothing is restricting the teacher from saying, "if you're interested in seeing those images, go to www.imagesofmohammed.com on your own spare time". If a student with no religious inclinations chooses to draw an image of Mohammed for their final presentation that shouldn't be banned.

 

[Gehrman]

Not sure if this would be the go to since the LGBT issue in Birmingham.

Heads of school generally have HR guide to follow in certain incidences. Suspension of a teacher isn't that uncommon in the first instant, but usually pending an investigation. The apology letter would not be immediate. A letter saying the matter will be looked into is the more likely immediate response.

Oh come c'mon don't you not think the beheading of Samuel Paty, the murders that followed and everything that went before this isn't playing on their minds? Don't be naive.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Aren't fairy tales supposed to be a part of primary school curriculum?

Maybe when dinosaurs like you went to primary school.

 

[altodevil]

I never understood why anyone would do this? Like for real, why?
A religious group ask you to not show a picture of their prophet, what does anyone gain on going against that wish? Except causing anger.

It got nothing to with free speech, its basically bullying imo.

 

[Gehrman]

I never understood why anyone would do this? Like for real, why?
A religious group ask you to not show a picture of their prophet, what does anyone gain on going against that wish? Except causing anger.

It got nothing to with free speech, its basically bullying imo.

Who's the bullies here? The ones who say don't offend the propet or we'll kill you and then proceed to do so, or the people who offend the prophet?

 

[T00lsh3d]

This is exactly why it should be discussed. There needs to be more awareness of the increasing power of religious ideology. If the teacher had weighed his options and said "you know what, this might hurt some feelings/ put my life in danger" and so decided against discussing a subject he thought was important incase it garnered negative attention, then he wouldn't be doing his job.

There are no blasphemy laws in the UK as far as I'm aware so the teacher should be able to discuss all aspects of religion including extremist responses to cartoons. We should never shy away from discussing something because there's a chance someone might get offended. Other students shouldn't be shielded from the truth to appease Muslim students who take offence to said truth.

There are ways and means of discussing things. I’m sure that when they’re planning a sex ed class they don’t think, “right, let’s stick on a video of Sativa Rose getting drilled by 3 huge blokes”. That would be inappropriate, right? In a similar way I’m sure it’s possible to discuss the prophet without using satirical cartoons which are also clearly inappropriate

 

[adexkola]

I remember having to write a book report on Winston Churchill in elementary school, and we were encouraged to draw an image on the front of the report. Given he's most associated with WW2, I thought it would be appropriate to draw a big feck off swastika on the front page. I did it and I would have turned it in like that, but my father saw it and in sheer horror told me to change the image.

It would have been well within my free speech rights to turn it in as is, but I would also probably be labeled as a dick, and that's at best

 

[reelworld]

So a class about free speech is triggering a free speech action? Mission accomplished I'd say