Your point is absolutely correct...so you can imagine it’s quite confusing for a lot of people...what is it that makes a caricature more offensive then direct insults?...cos the latter doesn’t create a fuss...I’ve just mentioned Hitchens in my previous post...his words about Mohammed and the Quran weren’t particularly kind...
-
Contact the PP Team
Protest over image of Prophet Mohammed shown in a UK class 'unacceptable', say education officials
- Thread starter MenInG
- Start date
Your point is absolutely correct...so you can imagine it’s quite confusing for a lot of people...what is it that makes a caricature more offensive then direct insults?...cos the latter doesn’t create a fuss...I’ve just mentioned Hitchens in my previous post...his words about Mohammed and the Quran weren’t particularly kind...
But clearly you can mock Muslims and Islam to an extent...there are plenty of books released which do exactly that...and speakers who do the same...so it’s a bit unfair to say Muslims can’t take criticism of Islam and their Prophet...
I’m just wondering as I’ve said in my previous posts ...what is it about imagery that is so much worse than words?...
A teacher got executed simply for using an image as a point of discussion...he wasn’t even insulting Islam...for whatever reason images hit a certain nerve...
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
I am guessing, but I imagine Hitchen's views are seen as an individual's opinion, whereas imagery is more powerful. Particularly offensive imagery.
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
When did non-violent protests involving changing become extremist?.
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
Images of The Prophet are explicitly forbidden.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
An image represents symbolism which is why an image is more powerful than words.
Fair point...
Which would suggest that the discourse needs reframing...both Muslims and non-Muslims often refer to this as a blasphemy issue as opposed to visual image issue...
Gharib Aadmi
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
- Runs
- 4,199
If someone would post a Holocaust cartoon then a protest would be ok? Or does freedom of speech only apply when offending Muslims?
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
If this were a Holocaust cartoon, then forget the teacher, the school would be shutdown pending investigations.
Gharib Aadmi
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
- Runs
- 4,199
Unfortunately this is the zaban that these two face hypocrites understand. I am not a Holocaust denier, however Iran had the right idea to show them that freedom of speech can go two ways.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Words are symbols too.
Why the ban on depictions of the Prophet? Is is for fear of encouraging idolatry.
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
Words are symbols? Any examples?
Yes fear of encouraging idolatry is why dpecitions are forbidden in Islam, but in this case or CH/OP, media depecitions are being used to generalise, or simply, symbolise Islam.
El Generico
Local Club Star
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Runs
- 1,910
In that case a protest wouldn’t even be needed, the teacher would be fired in a matter of days.
A couple of years ago in the US(which has way more emphasis on freedom of speech than Europe), a principal was fired for saying “not everyone believes the Holocaust happened”. Just that was enough for him to be kicked out.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/31/florida-high-school-principal-holocaust-fired
ahmedzee
First Class Star
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Runs
- 4,020
So what a far right newspaper and writer LORENZO VIDINO know? What is his credential to actually talking about "political Islam". Islam is Islam, one religion. Maybe educate yourself before blindly and sheepishly following Islamophobic writers and newspapers. What is next? Quote me a random far right newspaper citing Prophet Muhammad never exited or Kaaba was never built by Propher Ibrahim (Abraham).
CricketCartoons
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Runs
- 17,584
Why blame the right always? The far left is more likely to say this.
PetroDollars
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Runs
- 4,578
I can imagine the ruckus caused if a teacher or anyone showed holocast images to jewish kids.
At the end of the day, this country is about freedom of expression and liberalism, i dont have a problem with people mocking other religions its there choice to show stupidity but showing a picture not accepted by certain people to its people directly, especially kids isnt freedom of expression its more like hate speech.
At the end of the day, this country is about freedom of expression and liberalism, i dont have a problem with people mocking other religions its there choice to show stupidity but showing a picture not accepted by certain people to its people directly, especially kids isnt freedom of expression its more like hate speech.
Images from the holocaust appear in loads of textbooks that cover that period in time?
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
Those are in empathy for the jewish victims. You do understand the difference right?
I'm only asking as perhaps these nuances aren't as obvious in India.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Any word for something that you can’t put in a box or measure a kilo of e.g. freedom, democracy, love and so on. Abstract nouns basically.
Curiously the Second Commandment would appear to prohibit graven images too but all Christians ignore this for some reason.
Adil_94
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Runs
- 12,557
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] because Catholicism took parts of Paganism esp Roman Paganism to appeal to the masses and get converts by allowing statues and idola of christ. Lot of Christians pick n mix the OT stuff like the 10 commandments.
hitthestump
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2013
- Runs
- 5,353
Shrug. It's like following a football team sometimes.
I'm sure at least some the Muslim protestors outside the gates are no stranger to other prohibitions within Islam such as drinking, sex, gambling...
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
But schools do discuss the Holocaust. It’s historical fact and so is studied in the History syllabus.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Well there is an important distinction - Christianity is part of culture and moves with the times. Whereas Islam stays the same and is viewed as somehow outside and above culture.
And therein is the issue - everyone is precious about their faith which is fine but an abject refusal to evolve only results in one thing - being left behind.
On the subject about the image - the image may be interpreted as offensive given the nature of the depiction - but would the reaction have been any different if the image was non offensive? Highly unlikely.
From my understanding the whole point against any visual depiction is to prevent idol worship - and this is what’s the nature of the prohibition. This makes sense in mosque’s where there might be a risk, but in a school? Who is going to worship a picture in a school?
Last edited:
The Holocaust example is a bit of a moot one really ...reason being as some have said imagery whether positive or negative would create a negative reaction...
If in class a teacher was to show a caricature of Jews by the Nazis when teaching the Holocaust I doubt it would be a problem...that is contextual ...the intention isn’t to mock Jews...
If during a freedom of expression class a group which included Jews were shown the Iranian Holocaust caricatures then again that’s contextual ...would there be complaints? ...same as the first...
The beheaded French teacher operated in the same vein...the image was used for students to discuss why they were or weren’t offended and whether there should be limits on free expression...
The teacher who was sacked in the US...he said he didn’t believe the Holocaust was real...it’s imposition of an opinion that could offend...if a teacher in the UK during an R.E class said Mohammed didn’t exist or offered his personal opinion on Mohammed’s behaviour then there would be anger ...and rightly so...
Adil_94
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2014
- Runs
- 12,557
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] thats an ahistorical view from someone who isnt well versed on Islamic history here are a lot of cultural adaptations n versions of Islam. The type of Islam u see practiced does vary from region to region. South Asia u have the Pir Qawwali culture. The culture of Saints in Punjab The Sufis.
Certain core things like no idol worship etc remain but Islam has manifested in different ways across the world. Depending on which societies u go to . If you go to Bosnia to Mali to Pakistan to Saudi it wont be the same.
Its the Wahhabi/Salafi reform movement that is trying to return to this imagined version of the early days of the uncorrupted Islam in their minds free of cultural innovations as they see it.
Thanks to Saudi petrodollars they are trying to export this form of Islam across the world and make it the uniform standard for most Muslims.
Certain core things like no idol worship etc remain but Islam has manifested in different ways across the world. Depending on which societies u go to . If you go to Bosnia to Mali to Pakistan to Saudi it wont be the same.
Its the Wahhabi/Salafi reform movement that is trying to return to this imagined version of the early days of the uncorrupted Islam in their minds free of cultural innovations as they see it.
Thanks to Saudi petrodollars they are trying to export this form of Islam across the world and make it the uniform standard for most Muslims.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
That's all far too complex for many people. When a student sees an offensive picture of the Prophet PBUH being held up in a class of Muslims, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some might not get the context you are referring to and still be offended. Or perhaps the context was just lost in translation down the chain of narration by the time it reached the Chechen who killed the teacher. What lessons do we learn from this?
Well I just wish more people actually read...and actually did focus on context ...you say it’s complex but that’s the problem no?...it shouldn’t be...
Even now many just call the French teacher an Islamaphobe who took out a picture to provoke Muslims and Islam...we don’t even know what this teacher in the UK has done yet some already seemed to have made up their mind...
The French case involved a civics teacher giving a class on freedom of expression...he used the CH pictures as mentioned...and also has done before...he gave students the options of closing their eyes or leaving the class temporarily while the pictures were being shown...the complaints didn’t emanate from the students in that class...
The complaints emanated from a girls father whose child hadn’t even been in class that week...and as per usual with the fundamental brigade...things escalate...and eventually ended with a beheaded teacher ...
A guy on this forum posted that France had banned halal meat...which isn’t true ...
A guy posted that Holocaust denial is a crime here...it isn’t ...
One poster told everyone they don’t know what happened in the classroom and confidently said this is what happened because of something he heard ...which is the teacher said ‘look what you people have done in Iraq.’
On the other side you have a poster who decided from the get go that the teacher did nothing wrong...this when we still don’t actually know what he’s done...
People make up their mind with literally no information...and sometimes even when presented with information they choose to ignore it ...
This wasn’t on this forum but I saw a FB post about how the French were forcing a halal supermarket to sell alcohol and pork...
Again you have a misrepresented situation ...as with anywhere to open a shop you need a licence...
A halal meat place isn’t applied for on a supermarket licence which is what the person who applied for the licence did...it comes under a specialty shop licence...now maybe he applied for the wrong licence by mistake or there were too many specialty shops already so he applied for a supermarket licence...
Now if you have a supermarket licence you are required to sell alcohol and pork...
To put this another way if someone only wanted to sell vegan food they have to apply for a specialty licence not a supermarket licence...
I actually responded with this...the post was glossed over and the other posters preferred to simply discuss how Islamaphobic the action was...
Contexts and actual information don’t interest most people...and that’s the problem ...and that’s not just me saying it’s an issue with some Muslims but people in general...they lack nuance, are generally uninformed yet are so confident with the truth they concoct...
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
A simple Google search reveals is it illegal to question/deny the Holocaust in France.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
Here's a guy recently jailed for denying the holocaust in France:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/qz.c...-alain-soral-sentenced-to-a-year-in-jail/amp/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
Here's a guy recently jailed for denying the holocaust in France:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/qz.c...-alain-soral-sentenced-to-a-year-in-jail/amp/
You didn’t refer to France...you said it was illegal in the UK...
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
No I didn't say it was illegal in the UK.
Quote me or quit putting words in my mouth. I was refering to France given the teacher who was killed in France.
These are your words:
“You have a teacher here on PP living in a country where it is illegal to question/deny the holocaust yet is giving us a lecture on free speech.”
Do you think I live in France?...
Technics 1210
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
- Runs
- 14,991
I never mentioned UK, I know the laws of the UK pretty well.
Yes I thought you lived in France; didn't you mention you left the UK?
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
We are talking about cultural adaptations to Western European liberalism though, and specifically that of the UK.
Fair enough then it’s a misunderstanding...the UK isn’t home but I’m currently back here until COVID is done...lived in a few places but have yet to live in France...
Personally I feel that Holocaust denial should come under free speech...but what is noticeable is that the countries that have made Holocaust denial a crime are countries that were under Nazi rule...and generally part of the idea is that Holocaust denial is viewed as rehabilitation of the Nazi’s...this is why Germany for instance has the strictest rules and longest sentences...
France for the most part just fines people with the odd conviction with a year max...in France’s case 75,000/340,000 Jews were sent to death camps...and it had its own peculiarities which I haven’t really looked at in depth...but the little I do know is that when the law on Holocaust denial came in, Le Pen was at his most popular on the fringes...and Robert Faurrison (a major Holocaust denial figure) was a public figure ...
Soral btw who is likely the one you found on google got fines for blaming Jews for the fires at Notre-Dame...
Last edited:
shaz619
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Runs
- 38,321
- Post of the Week
- 7
And how does that counter his points? Robert I think you are highly narrow with your take on Islam
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
In Judaism there is orthodox and reform. Similarly, most Muslims follow orthodox teachings and Hebdo was inflammatory to begin with ; it's a provocative piece for adults that has no place in school.
You're now trying to conflate an act of provocation to that with core beliefs. The lunatics that go around with machetes are a fringe group that manifests itself through Saudi culture-washing, that the UK and Western world at large is complicit in.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Yes, my take relates to the highly narrow example of Islam in the UK, specifically with regard to idolatry. Whereas he made generalised points about other nations, not this specific issue. So I don’t have to counter them. It’s a distraction tactic - basically a strawman.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Another straw man as I never mentioned machetes. This was not, I think, deliberate provocation but a lack of cultural awareness (especially in Bradford) in trying to explore whether Hebdo or the gunmen were to blame for the Hebdo shooting.
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
It isn't Bradford but Batley! A town near Wakefield
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
You know, the guys rampaging in London ?.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
A group of Batley Grammar School parents have called for calm after a teacher showed students a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed.
The image was shown to children by a teacher in a religious studies class as part of a discussion about blasphemy on 22 March.
It prompted protests outside the school in West Yorkshire, an apology from the school, and the suspension of the teacher involved.
Depictions of Mohammed are considered offensive to Muslims.
On Sunday evening, Yunus Lunat, spokesperson for the Batley Parents And Community Partnership, said the teacher had failed to realise the image was "loaded with Islamophobic tropes".
He added: "We believe that in a democratic society everyone holds a right to opinion and expression, however, we as parents and citizens also believe that with these rights come responsibility.
"We as parents and citizens stand resolute that our children should be able to attend school without having their faith - which is protected in law - or their culture ridiculed, insulted or vilified."
Police had been called to the school on Thursday and Friday, as protesters called for the teacher involved to be sacked. There have been no arrests.
Mr Lunat had expressed fears last week that the incident would be "hijacked" by those who are anti-Muslim, a concern echoed by Labour MP for Batley and Spen Tracy Brabin, who had accused people of "fanning the flames" in a way that would "only provoke hate and division".
On Sunday evening, Mr Lunat said: "Unfortunately, unhelpful comments and biased media reporting that seek to hijack the issue have undermined the essential relationship between local communities and local public institutions.
"We are fully invested in dialogue and legitimate engagement.
"Any and all such threats against the school and staff involved undermine our efforts and are completely contrary to our values as concerned parents, citizens and Muslims.
"We therefore call for calm in order to allow for fruitful dialogue and space for a transparent investigation to be undertaken."
He said children should be allowed to "engage with challenging ideas such as blasphemy without their teachers having to resort to using Islamophobic material" which "only serves to marginalise Muslim communities and spread Islamophobic sentiment".
Parents were grateful for the school's cooperation so far, he said, adding that "initial progress" had been made, with the school removing the caricature of Mohammed from its material and also announcing a review of the religious studies curriculum.
The school's head teacher, Gary Kibble, had said on Thursday: "The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a recent religious studies lesson. It should not have been used.
"A member of staff has also relayed their most sincere apologies. We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course and we are reviewing how we go forward with the support of all our communities represented in our school.
"It is important for children to learn about faiths and beliefs, but this must be done in a respectful, sensitive way."
A spokesperson for the Department for Education had said: "Schools are free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum, including where they are challenging or controversial, subject to their obligations to ensure political balance.
"They must balance this with the need to promote respect and tolerance between people of different faiths and beliefs, including in deciding which materials to use in the classroom."
SKY
The image was shown to children by a teacher in a religious studies class as part of a discussion about blasphemy on 22 March.
It prompted protests outside the school in West Yorkshire, an apology from the school, and the suspension of the teacher involved.
Depictions of Mohammed are considered offensive to Muslims.
On Sunday evening, Yunus Lunat, spokesperson for the Batley Parents And Community Partnership, said the teacher had failed to realise the image was "loaded with Islamophobic tropes".
He added: "We believe that in a democratic society everyone holds a right to opinion and expression, however, we as parents and citizens also believe that with these rights come responsibility.
"We as parents and citizens stand resolute that our children should be able to attend school without having their faith - which is protected in law - or their culture ridiculed, insulted or vilified."
Police had been called to the school on Thursday and Friday, as protesters called for the teacher involved to be sacked. There have been no arrests.
Mr Lunat had expressed fears last week that the incident would be "hijacked" by those who are anti-Muslim, a concern echoed by Labour MP for Batley and Spen Tracy Brabin, who had accused people of "fanning the flames" in a way that would "only provoke hate and division".
On Sunday evening, Mr Lunat said: "Unfortunately, unhelpful comments and biased media reporting that seek to hijack the issue have undermined the essential relationship between local communities and local public institutions.
"We are fully invested in dialogue and legitimate engagement.
"Any and all such threats against the school and staff involved undermine our efforts and are completely contrary to our values as concerned parents, citizens and Muslims.
"We therefore call for calm in order to allow for fruitful dialogue and space for a transparent investigation to be undertaken."
He said children should be allowed to "engage with challenging ideas such as blasphemy without their teachers having to resort to using Islamophobic material" which "only serves to marginalise Muslim communities and spread Islamophobic sentiment".
Parents were grateful for the school's cooperation so far, he said, adding that "initial progress" had been made, with the school removing the caricature of Mohammed from its material and also announcing a review of the religious studies curriculum.
The school's head teacher, Gary Kibble, had said on Thursday: "The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a recent religious studies lesson. It should not have been used.
"A member of staff has also relayed their most sincere apologies. We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course and we are reviewing how we go forward with the support of all our communities represented in our school.
"It is important for children to learn about faiths and beliefs, but this must be done in a respectful, sensitive way."
A spokesperson for the Department for Education had said: "Schools are free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum, including where they are challenging or controversial, subject to their obligations to ensure political balance.
"They must balance this with the need to promote respect and tolerance between people of different faiths and beliefs, including in deciding which materials to use in the classroom."
SKY
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
BBC side said Bradford. It’s near that whole West Yorks conurbation.
I guess my question is that - given that the teacher was not actually attempting to promote idolatry - why the furious reaction?
Guess I am trying to apply logic to an emotional argument.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,980
- Post of the Week
- 1
I am confused. Whats your point?
So if this is correct ie the class was about blasphemy...and the teacher used the image then there’s a context ...
Showing the image is neither ridiculing, insulting or vilifying ...cos just cos one feels insulted has nothing to do with objective truth ..,
I wouldn’t have used the image myself ...but if it’s like the French situation which the article alludes to then there is no way the teacher should be sacked...especially as it adds that the school said it will be removing the Mohammed image from its curriculum ...cos if that’s true then the teacher was simply observing the curriculum ...
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
Then they're ignorant morons
Because it avoids any issue of defamation, harassment, personal attacks, etc. That being said, I'm not against caricatures of living people, either. I'm also not against the protests, you're allowed to do so, but I'll be against the teacher losing his job over this in most cases (though there can be cases where firing could be justified for this, such as if he simply showed the cartoons to purposely upset students, which could be conduct unbecoming of a teacher at the very least).
SpiritOf1903
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Runs
- 9,833
Would you show an adult magazine to children?
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
It would be much more effective way of avoiding all those issues by not showing the cartoons. Especially as you yourself have described the caricature as of someone who is long dead and gone.
No it will not and that is the point - Muslims have no superiority or right over what is permissible or not for others outside of their faith because they feel precious about something. The very reason this is likely to be done again and again is because of the reaction.
The tragic irony in all of this is that Muslims who react with threats of violence or violence themselves are arguably doing more disservice to tarnish the image of Islam and their prophet.
Ask yourself this -if the prophet were alive today - what would he have done. Would he have threatened? Or been violent/incite other into violence? More likely the prophet would have approached with compassion and reason. The polar opposite of his ‘defenders’ are doing time and time again.
Terrible point. Rape of women would go down a lot more if they didn't go out. Anti-Muslim hate crime would go down a lot if women stopped wearing hijab and Muslims pretended not to be Muslim. Racism against minorities would go down by a lot of they moved 'back' to their country of heritage. You would agree that the aggressors here are to be punished, and education about why such behaviour is bad would be a way to combat it.
You don't punish the person(s) who created and/or showed a cartoon that someone deemed offensive, you punish those who resort to death threats and murder in retaliation.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
No one has threatened or been violent, there were no arrests during the protests. What happened was that an offensive caricature was shown by the teacher to a class of Muslim students who went to school to learn and didn't provoke the teacher in any way.
If you are saying it is important for non Muslims to be able to show Muslims offensive cartoons to Muslim students, then okay, that is your view, but let's not try to blame the students for being offended.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
Awful point. Let's stick to what is actually happening here, no one is being raped, there is a teacher who is showing an offensive picture of the Prophet of Islam PBUH to Muslim students for no good reason. Just because you are a non-Muslim doesn't mean you have to support this provocative and totally offensive behaviour.
I wasn't equivocating the actions, I was saying that you don't ban things because some idiots react badly to it.
You, and others, find the prophet holy. So what? You have the right to practice your religion in this country, but others have the right to show a cartoon which you may find offensive. I'm unclear in what context it was shown, all I know that it was an RE lesson. Perhaps it was shown to mention how Muslims don't generally like depictions of the prophet and how Charlie Hebdo did it, I don't know. Regardless, it was a secular RE lesson, not one of those faith schools spewing hatred, which was highlighted in Birmingham a few years back.
Instead of getting upset over cartoons, why don't you get upset about those who were threatening violence at the protest outside of the school?
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
I'm not getting upset over the cartoons, just pointing out that offending students by showing them cartoons mocking their prophet is provocation and poor form for someone who is responsible for said students. The point about blasphemy or free speech could just as easily have been made without whipping out the cartoon and triumphantly waving it in their faces.
'Triumphantly waving it in their faces'. You're being unnecessarily hyperbolic to try and manufacture a point. I'm just stating a situation where it could have had a purpose in the classroom. If there are some Muslims in the UK that can't stand the fact that a caricature was used in a lesson, so much so that they resort to threats of violence, that is an issue.
Imagine the outrage if a mob of gays, atheists, apostates, etc started protesting outside a school about (Abrahamic) religion being taught, because of the negative passages in the books. What if parents protested about teaching the concept of hell in RE because they consider it child abuse? What if parents protest the teaching of evolution? A round Earth? How far will you go to make sure people won't get offended? And don't get me wrong, you're in your right to be offended, but sending threats and going after a person's livelihood (in a pandemic, no less) because they showed something you deem to be offensive in class? That is childish, cultish, and perhaps extremist, behaviour.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
Its Prophet Mohammad for those wishing to use his name.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
So you have licence to be hyperbolic by making the protests out to be violent, but you don't like it when I give my version, which was at least placing the blame where it belongs. No one forced this teacher to wave this crude picture in the faces of his students, he did it willingly and knowing it would cause offence. He was aggressively laying down a marker to his students, letting them know their place. That was why he was suspended.
Bigboii
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2020
- Runs
- 3,813
- Post of the Week
- 1
Why are they teaching religion in schools, it's people private issues
Separation of church and state
But why is religion being taught in schools funded by gov in the first place
Also evolution bunch of Cristian dominated districts ban this from being taught (and yes they're in the minority but it doesn't stop the big gov from stopping it because this is true true freedom and democracy at work at the local levels)
So why expect a Muslim dominated district to accept the things they don't like
Cause after all a precedent is there even in the greater minority but district majority your democratically elected leaders have to listen to your concerns and act accordingly
It says in the article that there were threats of violence- I don't need hyperbole to make a point.
Again, 'waving in the face'. We don't know the full context. [I have just googled it, and a new article says it was in regards to blasphemy and racism- though I don't see how racism really comes into it] You're attributing malice and aggression because you're offended.
A new article has come up with many students defending him, saying he's not racist and always said to be tolerant of religions. They were also told the cartoon was coming. If a teacher can't even use a topical image as a pedagogical tool, without people calling for his dismissal and threatening violence, then there is a huge problem.
Well, none of those protesting are elected. Being offended by a cartoon of a long-dead historical figure is not the same as a personal attack.
It is not freedom and democracy to intentionally censor the scientific consensus from children.
Religion is taught in a secular sense in the UK, from a more academic perspective. It isn't proselytised in normal state schools RE lessons(but is in faith schools, which I think should be abolished).
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,334
The teacher will be moving school, I think this is fair and people should move on now.
Muslims only want to be treated fairly. The Prophet(pbuh) is a figure loved by nearly 2 billion.
Tom Moore was only known for less than a year by the UK public.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/captain-tom-moore-tweet-man-charged-b1799310.html
Muslims only want to be treated fairly. The Prophet(pbuh) is a figure loved by nearly 2 billion.
Tom Moore was only known for less than a year by the UK public.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/captain-tom-moore-tweet-man-charged-b1799310.html
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
I read on Twitter that a counter protest is planned also.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
Telling them it was coming doesn't justify showing a picture which is known to offend Muslims. I am not judging his character so no need to tell me what a nice man he was. I am purely judging the action, and I don't understand why it was necessary to deliberately show an offensive cartoon to his own students. Was it important to offend them in order to make a point about free speech?
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
My point is raised in the question I posed - given that the teacher attempted to explore who was at fault - the Hebdo cartoonist or the gunman - and was *not* trying to promote idolatry - why the furious reaction in Batley?
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,980
- Post of the Week
- 1
The reaction was to the portrayal of the prophet(pbuh). Portrayal of him in any way for any purpose is deemed offensive.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,980
- Post of the Week
- 1
Ye to hona hi tha...
You're attributing malice again. Who cares if it's offensive? We now know it was relevant, and he told the students he was going to show it, and now you're just saying 'b-but offensive!!11' What if I find the very notion of the Quran offensive? Should it not be mentioned within ear shot of me?
It also wasn't about free speech, it was about blasphemy. What's one of the hardest hitting cases of someone being punished for 'blasphemy' in recent years? The terrorists that murdered Charlie Hebdo workers. And what is a terrible look for the surrounding Muslim community of that area? Threats of violence towards a teacher for showing something which can be deemed as offensive to Muslims. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the teacher wanted to be malicious- they've proved his points by acting like extremists.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Runs
- 29,261
- Post of the Week
- 2
I don't think you have children. This is a different case to Hedbo entirely. people in positions of power should think twice before displaying images like this to children.
Personally, I wouldn't protest for outside a newspaper for a Hedbo cartoon even though I would be annoyed by it. But if some buffoon teacher showed my child something like this I would be angry and demand an explanation.
I see you mention things like reading the Quran offensive which is not a good analogy in this particular example
A better example would be how would you feel if a teacher deliberately and knowingly quoted bible and Quranic texts condemning gay marriage to kids who have gay parents.
I can guarantee hand on heart that you would be more supportive of protests in that scenario, and despite being a believe I would too as small children should not be exposed to behaviour that can belittle them while they are a captive audience in a classroom.
Of course I would be against that- it would deliberate malice. It would also be attacking a protected class, gay people, directly. Further, the teacher knowingly would be saying it to a child with gay parents. This is not analogous with what happened. If the teacher said that Muslims were x, where x is a negative thing, there would be no need for protest- he would be fired on the spot and I'd support that 100%.
In this context, the topic was blasphemy, and the the caricatures are very relevant. The children weren't belittled, students even came to his defence and said how he's anti-racist and always supported different faiths. This picture was contextual, and was fine. Just because he's revered by some people, that doesn't mean showing this caricature is tantamount to hatred.
This teacher is so incredibly daft. His specialist subject is RE and so he, more than any of the other teachers, knows what terrible things have happened in the recent past as a result of that cartoon. On what planet did he think it was a sensible idea to show this cartoon in his classroom?
You couldn't make this stuff up!
You couldn't make this stuff up!
Come on Robert, you cannot seriously be comparing the teaching of holocaust, where school children learn about the horrors suffered by Jewish people, as the same as displaying a cartoon which portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. A better comparison would be a cartoon which openly ridicules Jewish people - that would very rightly upset Jewish people, in the same way the cartoon showing the Prophet as a terrorist upsets Muslims.
The answer Robert is quite simple. The teacher could have, and indeed should have, debated this topic without displaying the offending image. The debate could have been conducted perfectly well by describing what the cartoon showed.
It is common sense that any cartoon that depicts a prophet of a religion as a terrorist has the capacity to offend the followers of that religion. In the case of this cartoon, the teacher cannot have been under any illusion that the cartoon would offend, given the devastating impact this cartoon has already had. In that context, it was totally unacceptable for the teacher to display the cartoon and his decision to do so, despite being an RE teacher who is supposed to understand the sensitivities, was totally wrong.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
Ok, so while there is the reasoned explanation of idolatry, the more fundamental thing is it’s taboo / profane treatment of a religious icon and will produce a visceral emotional response.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,977
When the name of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is mentioned, it should be done with respect.
Those who have a problem with that will find their posts deleted.
Those who have a problem with that will find their posts deleted.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
No, I was doing the exact opposite, stating how conflation of this issue with somehow offending Jews by discussing historical fact is a false equivalence.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,980
- Post of the Week
- 1
Well tbh the act was unnecessary. The response disproportionate. Somewhere down the line non natives of the western world will have to adjust to the fact that the rules of the society they immigrated from and the society they immigrated to are different.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 43,352
He could have made whatever point he wanted to make without showing the picture. Don't tell me he was unaware that it would be offensive, there has been enough coverage of the Hebdo issues for everyone to know what this is about, particularly an RE teacher.
I am not attributing malice, I don't know what his intentions were. He may well have been following instruction, but unlikely since his own school suspended him. You are switching to hyperbole again talking about death threats. You know as well as I do that you will always get idiots on social media making stupid threats whatever the issue and regardless of religion. The protests in this case were peaceful, whether they should have continued is another matter.
Similar threads
