Devout Muslims are not known for their sense of humour when it comes to their faith. I’m not getting into a free speech debate because of course I’m for it. But drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in 2021 is such an obvious attempt to try to bait Muslims. The majority probably won’t care, but there are going to ones that do, a lot, so what’s the point? Just leave it. Why even run the risk? People have been beheaded for this shit.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Should we not attempt to make people become less extreme? Should we just "leave it"?
Devout Muslims could very well be offended by it. So?
It’s not entirely just a free speech debate (that wouldn’t necessarily apply in many parts of the world). The much more important issue many are discussing here is why such influence by religion (regardless the size of religion or the size of a subset of religion) cannot amend curriculum in a secular educational environment.
You can’t be using the beheading as a reason not to show the cartoons, can you? Beheadings don’t occur every time the cartoons are shown in classrooms.
That’s not what happened, is it?
There's literally identical incidents quoted in the very same school happening previously where no such reaction was noted from students or their families. Either there's far more to this case and possibly a series of discriminatory events cumulating into such a reaction (hardly difficult to believe), or it's simply an overreaction and a mountain being made out of a mole by these protesters. There's no truth or evidence in a cartoon depicting mohammed (and nothing else apart from that) "always" offending every single muslim out there when it seems to be a pretty standard part of the curriculum. No point in trying to hype up such a false narrative.
In the public sphere, that is (or should be) true.
I do feel like there is a bit of nuance missing from this free speech vs freedom of religion debate, though. Just because one is allowed (in the sense that there are no legal impediments) to exercise one's right to free speech and depict anyone you want in cartoon form, does not mean that you should do that, or that doing it is "right" or desirable. Indeed, drawing (or publishing/displaying) cartoons of the prophet Muhammad may very well mark you out as a complete arsehole in many/most circumstances. Of course you have a right to be an arsehole, but everyone else has a right to direct commensurate levels of criticism your way as a result. This, in my view, should also be true of Holocaust denial (ie you should be perfectly free to deny the Holocaust, and everyone else should in turn be free to publicly admonish you and boycott your business).
All of the above is only relevant with regards to the public sphere, though. In schools or places of work, there are additional rules that we must follow and standards by which we must abide. What might be allowable in public is not necessarily appropriate for a school setting. @Carolina Red has made a case for using satirical materials such as the ones alleged to have been displayed in Batley, in an educational setting, and I think it is possible to conceive of a context in which these cartoons could perhaps be used in an appropriate manner. In the specific case of Batley, however, we still have vanishingly little information to go on regarding context and therefore it's surely sensible to reserve judgement.
Last edited:
Quite right. As I’ve said previously, if the teacher was unprofessional in how he presented them, then he gets what he deserves.
1) It is tied to certain ethnic groups and ignoring this is purposefully ignoring context.
2) It can -- context matters. I can't go around saying the N word to show an example of how bad the N word is.
3) "No you" is not really a solid way to argue.
You're clinging on to the "facts" without context. Much like the "All lives matter" movement.
What are you on about? Which ethnic group is tied to Islam?
There's no angle related to ethnicity in any of this.
And Charlie Hebdo cartoons are an integral part of the study of blasphemy in highschool? Also just because you do something doesn't make it right?
In UK it is mainly south asian communities. It is a faith practices by the majority of certain ethnicities. Whether Islam itself is an ethnic group (its not) is not the point here. Kids grow up in Muslim households and it's an integral part of their lives.
To disregard it as just your choice of religion is very simplistic thinking. Even your average atheist in the west is shaped a lot by christian values but I won't go into that debate.
As a south asian person myself I'd advise you to keep such absolute bollocks statements to yourself.
Teachers know for sure and this was/is done to prove a point, not "educate". There are many ways to educate without doing this.
Oh wow you quoted a portion of my post to find a hole and "win" an argument. Quit being petty, I'm not writing a research paper and if you have an iota of sense to you you'd know I'm referring to Pakistani south asians.
You've done nothing there but post another embarrassing stereotype.
I'm not winning anything, simply telling you to not stereotype an ethnicity, in this case my ethnicity, with your imaginary bullshit narratives. For someone who's so keen on entire communities not getting offended that's a fecking shocking series of posts. Just fecking stop.
Sorry, but out of interest, are you from the UK?
All fair points
In the public sphere, at least. one has the right to express themselves but may face consequences of any applicable laws within their jurisdiction. They should not be subject to extra-judicial acts carried out by the offended. Nor should any extra-judicial acts by the offended be carried out for instances of offence in a less public sphere.
Nope, but I have lived there in the past (and taught in schools to the age group in question here over there), though not sure how that's relevant.
Insulting another member
You're exposing yourself as a complete moron and trying to hard. It's bullshit to sate Islam is tied to the south asian community of UK? Seems like some odd internal hate of your surfacing -- or you simple don't have the mental capacity to understand my post. "stereotype" ffs.
At this point I am left with no other option but to report this nonsense.
Do you not see the reminder? Sure report a post you don't agree with. "At this point" I think you should log out and calm your nerves you've lost it.In the UK and specifically Batley the vast majority (I would guess over 90%) are from the sub continent. Maybe you misunderstood what he was trying to say or he didn't phrase it properly.
In Batley particulary, I would say the Muslim's would be tied to one majority ethnicity (Pakistani) .
I specifically corrected my stance the next post that I meant Pakistani south asians. Ridiculous to say I'm stereotyping. It's an important piece of context given the whole issue especially as different nations practice Islam differently and have varying reactions to the issues.
I think Moby just wanted to lash out at something or someone.
It took at least 3 posts before it changed from 'ethnic group/ethnicity' to 'south asians in UK' and has stayed there. At which point it doesn't even define the entire ethnicity taking the whole angle away from it, and either of those are still offensive and embarrassing stereotypes.
There's no mention of 'People from the sub-continent living in Batley', and even then I fail to understand the reason to bring in an entire ethnicity in this debate which has nothing to do with it? I've replied to what's being written, what you've said is way off what was actually said.
I mean I understood it that way and didn't see it as a stereotype at all. It's factual that majority of Muslims in the UK are from the sub continent mainly due to colonial ties.
Like I said it just looks like a misunderstanding.
What? It took one post. Your average informed person would know what I mean by south asian community of UK having a relationship with Islam.
And ethnicity does not have "nothing to do with it". Maybe that's why I brought up. The protests in this case were very clearly one ethnic group. Like I said before, log off and gather your composure because I have no clue what you're even chasing at this point.
There are plenty of Bangladeshi and Indian Muslims too. In the UK most Muslims happen to be part of that ethnicity, as I've said above due to historical colonial ties.
That's why I first said south asian muslims but to be more specific I did mean Pakistani muslims. Most from Mirpur region as well.
And there are plenty of muslims that aren't of south asian ethnicity either. And there are plenty of south asians who aren't muslim? The debate in question is entirely down to a religious demographic, and there's nothing but stereotyping by bringing in ethnicity to it. You've literally had to narrow it down to a single neighbourhood for it even make anywhere relevant, when the actual posts flat out addressed to the entire south asian ethnicity without distinction. It is literally what defines a stereotype.
Saying Islam is tied to the south asian community of UK is a stereotype now? You do realize there are stats on this? You don't have to narrow it to a neighborhood. You can leave it at the UK level.
I don't believe he meant to say that, and has corrected it in a later post.
Like it or not it's factual that the large majority of Muslims in the UK are from the sub continent. I have no idea why you find that offensive.
If you look at the census in Batley it would show most are Muslims are Pakistani/other South Asian.
Maybe because he is another bigoted person in this thread full of bigots?
quick view of the stats:
Islam is 5.1% of the UK
South Asians are 4.7% (included Pakistan, Bangladesh and India)
Arabs are 0.7% and other predominantly muslim populations are not very significant percentage wise. Now someone explain to me how I am "stereotyping" Islam tied to South Asian communities in U.K ?
Islam is 5.1% of the UK
South Asians are 4.7% (included Pakistan, Bangladesh and India)
Arabs are 0.7% and other predominantly muslim populations are not very significant percentage wise. Now someone explain to me how I am "stereotyping" Islam tied to South Asian communities in U.K ?
Except the initial post insinuated that the ethnicity is being targetted/offended. Even in the UK not even half of south asians are muslims, so how the hell is an issue related to muslims in one neighbourhood an attack on the south asian ethnicity, even if only for the UK, when over half of those people aren't even a part of that religion.
Heck, the initial comments were on the lines of Islam being an ethnicity before that had to be corrected. Again, I'm not going to go on what's not been written.
More than half are. I just posted stats. I never said Islam is an ethnicity either. You didn't read my posts, didn't understand them or just chose to lash out but yeah has nothing to do with what I wrote.
The reason I ask is that Batley and its surrounding locale is a predominantly British - Pakistani area.
You were accusing the other poster of talking bollocks, but it just proves you don't even know the area yourself.
Next time if you want to talk about people residing in a particular area, point that out instead of the ethnicity of those people. It's called not stereotyping 101.
Like south asians in UK being tied to Islam? Maybe you should read posts "next time" before lashing at others and reporting my posts.
That said, what shamans was doing when he posted that bit about “ethnicity” was attempting to go after me, not talking about the actual demographics of Batley.