Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,671
Hey it's not like Christianity/Catholicism have flattering images of Christ when one of the most popular images is him literally impaled on the cross looking pretty much dead
Going batty in Batley (or comic strip strikes again).
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
Hey it's not like Christianity/Catholicism have flattering images of Christ when one of the most popular images is him literally impaled on the cross looking pretty much dead
Police are doing no favours with allowing all this whilst clamping down on the other protests etc, it's making people even more outraged and believing we are pandering to them etc.
One rule for one group, another rule for another, police are losing the public's trust whilst causing divides in society with this picking and choosing who gets a baton around the head.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Many schools have given monopoly to muslim food producers by enforcing halal on all pupils even when Muslims are a minority at the establishment.
How is that a thing?
We are.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
I take it that was some sort of blasphemus joke you heathen.
But the authorities are pandering, out of a ridiculous fear that they will be seen to be racist despite applying the law of this nation equally.
It's this ridiculous fear that allowed thousands of young, vunerable kids to be systematically raped across the country. (Something I truly believe we haven't uncovered more than the tip of the iceberg)
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Nope, the queen is head of the church and state, I wish it was secular believe me.
Ofc you would because your moral compass is broken, at this point I wonder if you're trolling or trying to be contrarian because the majority of people here realize how insane it is to act like a belligerent child over a cartoon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
They know they're protected, and they know Islam's reputation for extreme violence gets them concessions.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 2,188
Sounds bang out of order.
It's like nandos. They can guarantee you get halal meat in their halal restaurants but they can't guarantee you will not be eating halal in their other restaurants.
A person or group cannot be discriminated against because they hold certain beliefs or a religion. My contention is that this was not discrimination. The act of showing an article to a class did not discriminate against any person particularly if the topic of blasphemy covered all religions.
The right not to be offended is different. It is not difficult to offend using satire, Rowan Atkinson, Dave Allen and many more comedians and comics have used satire against religion. Whole books and weekly or monthly magazines exist to satirise all human life. Private Eye and Charlie Hebdo are but two. When has the law been used to act on individuals or groups in this way. Hardly ever, Jerry Springer, Monty Python both unsuccessfully.
Therefore yes religion is protected but not in the way being described by @Dolph. It would be outrageous to exclude a pupil based on their religion alone. It is not outrageous to teach that pupil using material that may offend some as long as it is done appropriately. Personally I would have chosen differently and shown a clip from Life of Brian to start a discussion on whether it is blasphemous or not. However I can see what the educator was trying to do and that was not to be racist in any way. The cartoons have not been declared illegal or proscribed in any way in this country.
The right not to be offended is different. It is not difficult to offend using satire, Rowan Atkinson, Dave Allen and many more comedians and comics have used satire against religion. Whole books and weekly or monthly magazines exist to satirise all human life. Private Eye and Charlie Hebdo are but two. When has the law been used to act on individuals or groups in this way. Hardly ever, Jerry Springer, Monty Python both unsuccessfully.
Therefore yes religion is protected but not in the way being described by @Dolph. It would be outrageous to exclude a pupil based on their religion alone. It is not outrageous to teach that pupil using material that may offend some as long as it is done appropriately. Personally I would have chosen differently and shown a clip from Life of Brian to start a discussion on whether it is blasphemous or not. However I can see what the educator was trying to do and that was not to be racist in any way. The cartoons have not been declared illegal or proscribed in any way in this country.
This is a bit of a straw man, because I've used exactly the same example you just did, and haven't suggested that the the action should be taken against the individual (if they were responsible for the choice of material) because it was racist, but because it was unnecessarily provocative and offensive and hence likely to bring unwanted attention and reputational damage to the school in question.
That's the key point for me, regardless of whether I find the material offensive personally (I don't) or whether it's explicitly illegal (it isn't). It's just unnecessary in the context of the discussion to actually show that content.
The protected characteristic aspect does place some responsibilities on schools, and is useful to understand why offence has to be considered (especially given the almost religious fervour in which some posters here express their anti-religious positions), but yes, I'm not suggesting the school or the teacher has done anything to directly breach equality legislation with their actions, but then you don't have to.
Standing in the middle of an office with a megaphone and shouting about the joy of specific body parts doesn't directly breach equality legislation either, but I'd still expect the employee to be managed for it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
So what's the actual reason you can't show a picture anyways? Who was it that made the rule?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
I suppose if you can picture 30 kids in the classroom and only 2 or 3 of them were of that certain faith while the others were all Christian then maybe it wouldn't be a nice thing to do?
On the flip side The Uk is a Christian country and why shouldn't we be allowed to discuss what other faiths believe and why we think it's wrong? who knows?
On the flip side The Uk is a Christian country and why shouldn't we be allowed to discuss what other faiths believe and why we think it's wrong? who knows?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,391
- Location
- ST4
Dunno, the Persians/Iranians have no qualms about showing images of the fella, there are loads of ancient murals from Persia that depict him. Perhaps schools should start showing those in classes, that would confuse the **** out of the angry beard brigade.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
It's your round Mal i'll stick our names down for pool ok?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
Not one article I've read, and I've read a few even stated what the images were. I've since googled hebdo and Batley and had indeed confirmed what you've said so apologies.
My argument was based on the fact that no one knows what was shown but clearly we do. My opinion is now that the teachers a bit of an idiot but should he be fired if it's on the school curriculum?
If the teacher introduced that content to the curriculum, they deserve punishing.
If they didn't ( and I still haven't seen corroboration of the mail story that claimed that), then the blame and responsibility lies with the school to be managed there.