| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? 08:28 - Mar 29 with 3152 views | GlasgowBlue |
On the one hand we have large groups of mostly men, disrupting the day to day running of the school so that kids are deprived of an education. They stand around basically talking to each other, breaking away every so often to check their phones. Demanding a teacher is sacked in a country that cherishes free speech. The teacher is probably in fear of his life. A teacher in France was beheaded for doing something similar.
On the other hand, everybody knows that it’s offensive to the Muslim community to depict Mohamed as a caricature. Why do it? Why go out of the way to offend? |  |
| |  |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 08:32 - Mar 29 with 2877 views | chrismakin |
Was he showing it whilst explaining the seriousness of it? |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 09:14 - Mar 29 with 2794 views | Guthrum |
I do not know the teacher and was not present at the lesson in question, so difficult to gauge their motivation. The point could easily have been made and discussed without showing the actual images.
However, we live in an era where "free speech" has come to mean "the right to be offensive to others", at least in some quarters. Or they simply didn't think.
Also an era where it is deemed necessary to publicly demonstrate strongly held views more than the next person, in order to prove sincerity. It's also an aspect of the hardline Wahabi and Afghan cultural influences which predominate in the more fundamentalist (and therefore louder) end of Islamic culture at the moment. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 09:22 - Mar 29 with 2769 views | Guthrum |
Edit: It's actually considered wrong to show any image of Muhammed, not just cartoons. The theological reasoning behind that being that having pictures could lead to worhip being diverted from God to a man. Bear in mind that the worship of idols was a large part of the Arab paganism which the early muslims were fighting against.
Indeed, several strands of Sunni Islam do not believe it is right to depict people at all. Which is why much early muslim art was geometric, architectural or calligraphic, not figurative. | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 10:18 - Mar 29 with 2676 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 09:22 - Mar 29 by Guthrum |
Edit: It's actually considered wrong to show any image of Muhammed, not just cartoons. The theological reasoning behind that being that having pictures could lead to worhip being diverted from God to a man. Bear in mind that the worship of idols was a large part of the Arab paganism which the early muslims were fighting against.
Indeed, several strands of Sunni Islam do not believe it is right to depict people at all. Which is why much early muslim art was geometric, architectural or calligraphic, not figurative. |
Your last paragraph reminds me of the scene in Lawrence of Arabia when somebody takes a photograph of an Arab. | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 10:22 - Mar 29 with 2662 views | Keno |
It one of those things which I can see from both sides.
Bearing in mind what had happened in France I would have thought the teach would have been more careful in what he showed the class, and could have expected a reaction
That said having apologised that should be end of it, there is no real need for the mow 'over-reaction' that has taken place, which smacks of lots of people finding a bandwagon to jump on |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 10:32 - Mar 29 with 2638 views | clive_baker |
I mean I find the whole concept of aniconism a bit weird, I've never got my head around adults being offended by a cartoon to be honest. But, clearly it is offensive to some people, and that's their right to take offence, it perhaps says more about me. As an atheist if I sat here typing for long enough I would probably offend a number of people of all religions.
I think these parents have every right to make their point peacefully. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 11:42 - Mar 29 with 2568 views | Pendejo |
As Guthrum points out, we weren't there, so don't know the whole story.
However, as I'm an opinionated barsteward...
Was the cartoon really necessary for the lesson being taught?
Would have thought articles about Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty and the problems post Danish cartoon 2005/6 would have been enough for any discussion point.
Actually showing the cartoon if even one of the class is Muslim is potentially incendiary to a certain element and shows incredible naivety on the part of the teacher. Especially after what happened to Samuel Paty.
Suspend and educate the teacher by all means, but lose his job, no way.
Also... Were those protesters socially distanced? Why weren't the cops doing to them what they did to the folks on Clapham Common recently? |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 12:39 - Mar 29 with 2511 views | GaryCooper |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 11:42 - Mar 29 by Pendejo |
As Guthrum points out, we weren't there, so don't know the whole story.
However, as I'm an opinionated barsteward...
Was the cartoon really necessary for the lesson being taught?
Would have thought articles about Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty and the problems post Danish cartoon 2005/6 would have been enough for any discussion point.
Actually showing the cartoon if even one of the class is Muslim is potentially incendiary to a certain element and shows incredible naivety on the part of the teacher. Especially after what happened to Samuel Paty.
Suspend and educate the teacher by all means, but lose his job, no way.
Also... Were those protesters socially distanced? Why weren't the cops doing to them what they did to the folks on Clapham Common recently? |
Educate the teacher? How about educating the people not to follow controlling cults? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:07 - Mar 29 with 2462 views | Sarge |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 12:39 - Mar 29 by GaryCooper |
Educate the teacher? How about educating the people not to follow controlling cults? |
Probably the path of least resistance. Much easier to educate a teacher of the problems behind this and the horrific results of similar things in France than it is to tell a whole section of society to stop getting pissy over fairytales. [Post edited 29 Mar 2021 13:08]
|  | | |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:22 - Mar 29 with 2411 views | tractordownsouth |
I remember I had a classmate in primary school whose parents were staunch Christians, to the point where they didn’t like any mention of spirits/ghosts/magic etc. When anything like that happened in a lesson, his parents were warned in advance and he was given the option to work in another classroom for that afternoon. Maybe teaching resources don’t allow for that these days but it seemed like a good compromise between parents’ rights and freedom of speech.
However, I think the response has been massively disproportionate- considering what happened to that teacher in France, they should be treading carefully. Plus, I saw a statement from the parents which including some homophobic dog whistles - I lost more respect for their cause after seeing that. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:22 - Mar 29 with 2407 views | lowhouseblue |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 09:14 - Mar 29 by Guthrum |
I do not know the teacher and was not present at the lesson in question, so difficult to gauge their motivation. The point could easily have been made and discussed without showing the actual images.
However, we live in an era where "free speech" has come to mean "the right to be offensive to others", at least in some quarters. Or they simply didn't think.
Also an era where it is deemed necessary to publicly demonstrate strongly held views more than the next person, in order to prove sincerity. It's also an aspect of the hardline Wahabi and Afghan cultural influences which predominate in the more fundamentalist (and therefore louder) end of Islamic culture at the moment. |
'the right to be offensive to others' is an odd way to express it, but there is some truth in it. causing others offence is not, in itself, prohibited in law. and that must be right.
in the UK, blasphemy (which in any case only ever related to Christianity) has not been a criminal offence since 2008. the only criminal offence specifically limiting free speech in the context of religion is that committed when a person “uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred” (section 29b of the racial and religious hatred act 2006). in other words, the material itself has to be threatening in content, and the intention must be to stir up hatred. section 29j makes clear that nothing in the act “shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents…”
so expressing views, or showing images, which 'ridicule' or 'insult' a particular religion is not against the law. and offending people by so doing is equally not against the law. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:34 - Mar 29 with 2382 views | Guthrum |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:22 - Mar 29 by lowhouseblue |
'the right to be offensive to others' is an odd way to express it, but there is some truth in it. causing others offence is not, in itself, prohibited in law. and that must be right.
in the UK, blasphemy (which in any case only ever related to Christianity) has not been a criminal offence since 2008. the only criminal offence specifically limiting free speech in the context of religion is that committed when a person “uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred” (section 29b of the racial and religious hatred act 2006). in other words, the material itself has to be threatening in content, and the intention must be to stir up hatred. section 29j makes clear that nothing in the act “shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents…”
so expressing views, or showing images, which 'ridicule' or 'insult' a particular religion is not against the law. and offending people by so doing is equally not against the law. |
I wasn't talking about the law, but about people's attitudes. The likes of Liam Fox, Katie Hopkins and so on appear to feel aggrieved that being deliberately and gratuitously offensive to others is not considered reasonable behaviour.
In this case, it was well-known that the cartoons are likely to upset a section of the population. The issues can be discussed without actually displaying them. Why did they choose to? | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:36 - Mar 29 with 2380 views | BlueBadger |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 12:39 - Mar 29 by GaryCooper |
Educate the teacher? How about educating the people not to follow controlling cults? |
....said Brexiteer, Gary. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:36 - Mar 29 with 2378 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:22 - Mar 29 by tractordownsouth |
I remember I had a classmate in primary school whose parents were staunch Christians, to the point where they didn’t like any mention of spirits/ghosts/magic etc. When anything like that happened in a lesson, his parents were warned in advance and he was given the option to work in another classroom for that afternoon. Maybe teaching resources don’t allow for that these days but it seemed like a good compromise between parents’ rights and freedom of speech.
However, I think the response has been massively disproportionate- considering what happened to that teacher in France, they should be treading carefully. Plus, I saw a statement from the parents which including some homophobic dog whistles - I lost more respect for their cause after seeing that. |
I don't think parents should have any rights to stop their children being taught what other kids are taught. Where do you draw the line on this stuff? It's embarrassing as a species that we're still pandering to this nonsense in the 21st century. |  | | |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:45 - Mar 29 with 2350 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:22 - Mar 29 by tractordownsouth |
I remember I had a classmate in primary school whose parents were staunch Christians, to the point where they didn’t like any mention of spirits/ghosts/magic etc. When anything like that happened in a lesson, his parents were warned in advance and he was given the option to work in another classroom for that afternoon. Maybe teaching resources don’t allow for that these days but it seemed like a good compromise between parents’ rights and freedom of speech.
However, I think the response has been massively disproportionate- considering what happened to that teacher in France, they should be treading carefully. Plus, I saw a statement from the parents which including some homophobic dog whistles - I lost more respect for their cause after seeing that. |
I read that an Islamic charity has leaked the teacher’s name. | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:50 - Mar 29 with 2335 views | lowhouseblue |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:34 - Mar 29 by Guthrum |
I wasn't talking about the law, but about people's attitudes. The likes of Liam Fox, Katie Hopkins and so on appear to feel aggrieved that being deliberately and gratuitously offensive to others is not considered reasonable behaviour.
In this case, it was well-known that the cartoons are likely to upset a section of the population. The issues can be discussed without actually displaying them. Why did they choose to? |
it depends upon the age of the students and what is being taught. but if you are teaching 6th formers about blasphemy i suspect it does involve showing some blasphemous material. whether it was right or wrong to use that example i don't know. but restricting what you discuss or teach about because it may offend some group is in general a very bad thing. sometimes offending people is not only legal but also essential. there are people who are deeply offended when we teach evolution or discuss abortion. i don't really see the difference from the current example. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 14:01 - Mar 29 with 2276 views | GaryCooper |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:36 - Mar 29 by BlueBadger |
....said Brexiteer, Gary. |
Are you five years old? | | | |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 14:24 - Mar 29 with 2215 views | GaryCooper |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:45 - Mar 29 by GlasgowBlue |
I read that an Islamic charity has leaked the teacher’s name. |
P | | | |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 14:36 - Mar 29 with 2175 views | Guthrum |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 13:50 - Mar 29 by lowhouseblue |
it depends upon the age of the students and what is being taught. but if you are teaching 6th formers about blasphemy i suspect it does involve showing some blasphemous material. whether it was right or wrong to use that example i don't know. but restricting what you discuss or teach about because it may offend some group is in general a very bad thing. sometimes offending people is not only legal but also essential. there are people who are deeply offended when we teach evolution or discuss abortion. i don't really see the difference from the current example. |
I can't see why it would be necessary to display the actual images. For discussion in class, it would be entirely adequate to describe them, if that much detail was required. Unless the teacher was actively trying to provoke a reaction - in which case they've succeeded. But they ought to have thought first about what that reaction was likely to be.
Do teachers show children graphic pictures of smashed, burnt and decaying bodies when studying the First and Second World Wars, or do they hold off and describe the carnage instead? Sometimes things have to be bowdlerised in order to reduce upset.
Remember the fuss when Pazelle posted on here graphic footage of the murder of a policeman during the Paris attacks. Was that necessary to illustrate his point? No - and it got him banned. | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 16:34 - Mar 29 with 2081 views | lowhouseblue |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 14:36 - Mar 29 by Guthrum |
I can't see why it would be necessary to display the actual images. For discussion in class, it would be entirely adequate to describe them, if that much detail was required. Unless the teacher was actively trying to provoke a reaction - in which case they've succeeded. But they ought to have thought first about what that reaction was likely to be.
Do teachers show children graphic pictures of smashed, burnt and decaying bodies when studying the First and Second World Wars, or do they hold off and describe the carnage instead? Sometimes things have to be bowdlerised in order to reduce upset.
Remember the fuss when Pazelle posted on here graphic footage of the murder of a policeman during the Paris attacks. Was that necessary to illustrate his point? No - and it got him banned. |
as i said - i don't know. do history books contain examples of anti-semitic propaganda from 30s germany? i think many do. i remember seeing film footage of concentration camps in schools - is that also too shocking? the cartoon is satire - understanding the nature of that satire in the context of a discussion of blasphemy may involve seeing the cartoon - i really don't know. but the main issue with the cartoon is that it depicts an image of muhammad. do you think uk schools should never show images of muhammed? if so which other religious practices should they also adopt in order to avoid offence? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 16:41 - Mar 29 with 2059 views | DanTheMan |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 11:42 - Mar 29 by Pendejo |
As Guthrum points out, we weren't there, so don't know the whole story.
However, as I'm an opinionated barsteward...
Was the cartoon really necessary for the lesson being taught?
Would have thought articles about Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty and the problems post Danish cartoon 2005/6 would have been enough for any discussion point.
Actually showing the cartoon if even one of the class is Muslim is potentially incendiary to a certain element and shows incredible naivety on the part of the teacher. Especially after what happened to Samuel Paty.
Suspend and educate the teacher by all means, but lose his job, no way.
Also... Were those protesters socially distanced? Why weren't the cops doing to them what they did to the folks on Clapham Common recently? |
"Was the cartoon really necessary for the lesson being taught?"
Depends what was being taught. I saw plenty of anti-Semitic propaganda at school as part of History lessons, which I imagine would be incredibly offensive to Jewish people.
I must say as well, they idea of not showing he was so he was not worshipped as an idol, which seems to be essentially what's happening now, where any image of a person (who was an historical figure after all) can quite literally end up in death.
It's difficult and perhaps it's easier just not to show the images but it shouldn't end up like this when it does. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 16:45 - Mar 29 with 2047 views | J2BLUE |
It amused me that the parents appealed for calm when they are the ones kicking off.
I feel for the teacher. Hopefully he can apologise and keep his job. |  |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 16:45 - Mar 29 with 2054 views | BlueBadger |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 14:01 - Mar 29 by GaryCooper |
Are you five years old? |
I just enjoyed the self awareness involved in you a) being a Blue Passports and No Foreigners Lad and b) saying people should be educated not to follow massive cults. | |
| |
| Have we discussed the protests at Batley Grammar School? on 19:11 - Mar 29 with 1948 views | Crawfordsboot |
If we start in on this discussion we also need to consider that the state (that's you and me) funds Church Schools that are able to select/exclude student intake on the basis of faith.
As a an atheist and paid up secular humanist I find that just as offensive as any other religion restricting discussion in the classroom. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
