After what the ***** did to the Charlie Hebdo offices in France most people / organisations would be too scared to show them for fear of attack. I'd be surprised if they were on a schools curriculum tbh.
The world we live in.
Going batty in Batley (or comic strip strikes again).
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
The world we live in.
All the more reason to push back against this nonsense. Death threats and potentially making good on them because of hurty feelings is not acceptable behaviour.
Totally agree.
Agree, with the caveat that the pushback should be in the form of legal punishment for those making threats, not in some form of unregulated desensitisation therapy attempt.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 2,188
I didn't know this happened in France not long ago. Although it ended o lot worse. Sorry if it's already posted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54598546
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54598546
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Good job we are only letting the moderate ones in!
AFAIK the teacher gave advanced warning so that pupils could turn around and avoid looking at the image if it was likely to offend them - I don't really see the issue in that case.
Could treat this like some other areas such as sex education where some pupils might get an exemption from the lessons because they have strict religious parents who kick off etc...
I remember in history classes being shown examples of Nazio propaganda, deeply offensive cartoon images of Jews were given as examples in class and in textbooks... the context matters, no one is presenting those things at face value but rather as an example of what the Nazis did to stir up hatred.
If the teacher wanted to give an example of contemporary blasphemy and picked Charlie Hebbo for it then the reaction to this is perfect, it's reinforced the point quite neatly when a rabble assembles outside the school to listen to some bearded fool give his demands etc..
LOL wat?
I don't think Tony understands what "woke" means - how on earth can this action be described as "woke"?
Could treat this like some other areas such as sex education where some pupils might get an exemption from the lessons because they have strict religious parents who kick off etc...
I remember in history classes being shown examples of Nazio propaganda, deeply offensive cartoon images of Jews were given as examples in class and in textbooks... the context matters, no one is presenting those things at face value but rather as an example of what the Nazis did to stir up hatred.
If the teacher wanted to give an example of contemporary blasphemy and picked Charlie Hebbo for it then the reaction to this is perfect, it's reinforced the point quite neatly when a rabble assembles outside the school to listen to some bearded fool give his demands etc..
LOL wat?
I don't think Tony understands what "woke" means - how on earth can this action be described as "woke"?
I see that there is now a petition for the RE teacher to keep his job. I do not see any grounds for his losing it in the first place. As I do not have sight of a contract, is there a reason a teacher can be sacked for doing something not illegal, not harmful or dangerous to pupils in his temporary care. I'm afraid that upset is not a reason for dismissal and a 'bringing the school into disrepute' would be unlikely to fly. I forsee an unfair dismissal claim unless a large bung is paid to the member of staff in question.
As for the rabble outside, they appear to be casting a spell which clearly is not working.
As for the rabble outside, they appear to be casting a spell which clearly is not working.
There's something written into pretty much every employee contract in UK law.
As I said, all sorts of behaviours that are otherwise legal are punishable when done by an employee in the context of employment (strictly it wouldn't fall under bringing the employer into disrepute as this generally applies to off the clock behaviours, internal issuers should be dealt with via other means).
His actions (assuming it was his choice and not the school agreed curriculum) caused a foreseeable response that did endanger children and staff and interrupted the education of all children at the school, and the situation was entirely avoidable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Well, if the teacher was wearing a short skirt then what do you expect!
We’re having an alien ideology imposed on us with violence and intimidation and Dolph is defending it.
We’re having an alien ideology imposed on us with violence and intimidation and Dolph is defending it.
A scenario that's hypothetical but may well have happened:
USA during its hyper-racist time. A teacher shows some racial equality material in class. White supremacists threaten violence and their threats are believable due to their proven behaviour. Would you blame the teacher for doing something that "caused a foreseeable response that did endanger children and staff and interrupted the education of all children at the school, and the situation was entirely avoidable."
A scenario that's not hypothetical:
Again, USA during its hyper-racist time. President Roosevelt invited a person he knew and liked to dinner at the Whitehouse. The person happened to be "black". White supremacists threatened violence up to and including mass murder and their threat were believable due to their proven behaviour. Look up Senator Tillman's response. Even quoting it is verboten because of the modern belief that context doesn't matter, but you can find it online. Would you blame Roosevelt for that?
I think that we have identified that this case was not racist behaviour. Not illegal, no laws were broken.
Your analogy between a white supremacist group and a group led by Muslim clerics needs a little work other than threats of violence.
Your analogy between a white supremacist group and a group led by Muslim clerics needs a little work other than threats of violence.
It addresses the main point of the argument it was intended to rebut - the idea that if someone does something that a violent group responds violently to, that person is responsible for the violence.
I've already said it's not a dichotomy where one or other party is in the right though.
The teacher/school is in the wrong for being unnecessarily offensive and not thinking about the potential impact of their actions
Those who are advocating violent responses are in the wrong for being violent morons.
For the Roosevelt example to be a relevant comparison, it would have to be about exclusion, not inclusion
So, we're saying the mob outside the school are the violent people here and are the ones threatening violence against the teacher. Your logic says that the teacher is responsible, and therefore at fault, if/when they get attacked. The violent people are excused because someone made them attack the victim? Love a bit of victim blaming. Here's a thought - people shouldn't resort to violence, and if they do then they are very much in the wrong. It is not the victims fault that a bunch of violent thugs attacked them.
I once asked a neighbour to stop leaving their waste all over the street as it blew away and caused a mess. I reminded them where bulk uplift should be. They got very aggressive and threatened to give me a kicking. Under your logic, that's my own fault?
He is in agreement with you. I think you've read it wrong.
Entirely possible after a re-read. I shouldn’t post before the second coffee has been drank.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,279
- Location
- Rainham, Kent
From what I understand, The Qu'ran doesn't forbid pictures of Mohammed, and there are plenty of images of him, more commonly in the Shia tradition.
It seems to be certain groups trying to force their interpretations of Islam on everyone else that are the problem (again).
It seems to be certain groups trying to force their interpretations of Islam on everyone else that are the problem (again).
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,364
It's apparently to prevent messengers being deified. Again nothing in the texts about it much like face/head coverings. Religious zealots trying to impose their ideology on society through intimidation and violence as per usual.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
It's a way of exerting control.
Same with halal food as I'm pretty sure the book says when living in a foreign land confirm to foreign rules.