I was more thinking causing unnecessary offense and distress, and bringing the school into disrepute.
The only reason I can think he did it was to provoke a reaction.
Going batty in Batley (or comic strip strikes again).
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
I was more thinking causing unnecessary offense and distress, and bringing the school into disrepute.
The only reason I can think he did it was to provoke a reaction.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Absolutely Islam should be above everyone and everything in the UK.
If you mishandle a koran or dare to challenge any preconceptions about the prophet (pbuh) you should definitely be for the chop.
I'm not seeing that connection if I'm honest.
Teachers have statutory responsibilities around protected characteristics, there was zero need to show the cartoon.
It isn't about putting one religion or another above the law in the slightest, it's actually about not doing unnecessary things that are offensive and expecting it to be consequence free.
As I said, I liken it to teaching about racial equality by repeatedly using racial slurs. It's unnecessary and therefore a stupid thing to do.
Both race and religion are protected characteristics under equality legislation (along with gender, sexual orientation, disability and a few other things), so the comparison is entirely valid.
Racial slurs are about something real. Skin colour or the looks of someone of a certain ethnicity. You can hardly compare a cartoon of an imaginery deity to that, not to mention the teacher wasn't disrespecting anything, he was just showing (teaching) an example of something that is regarded as blasphemy. Though I do agree that it would have been better not to show any images just because we know how upset some of these brainwashed people get.
What has an racial slur got to do with racial inequality?
A racial slur is a crime, I might be wrong but I don't think blasphemy is in this country.
Last edited:
And if they catch him one of them will try to cut his head off, which is in no way an acceptable state of affairs in the 21st century UK.
The law already disagrees with you around whether religion is a protected characteristic, so this point is largely moot, especially when you factor in the application of the McPherson principle around offense that is the accepted starting point in UK law.
You could teach exactly the same lessons around blasphemy using Monty python's life of brian as the example, and also would nicely cover the change in attitudes over the years, while not being anywhere near as risky in terms of offence.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20190822-life-of-brian-the-most-blasphemous-film-ever
Thats what the teacher should be punished for, by the way, not showing the cartoon, but thinking showing the cartoon was both appropriate and a good idea.
And that I thoroughly disagree with, as already alluded to.
Ideally, he should lose his job for being stupid, and all those who threatened him should lose their liberty for being violently stupid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
We're seeing this played out in front of our eyes all across Europe.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slavery-Te...&keywords=peter+hammond&qid=1616781441&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slavery-Te...&keywords=peter+hammond&qid=1616781441&sr=8-2
The life of brian isn't generally considered offensive any more (and the offense it caused at the time was probably overstated).
So it's not really the same thing as doing something that you know will offend people in the here and now.
With regards to stupidity, it doesn't have to be a crime to warrant termination of employment (or at least a severe reprimand). Violence is a crime, as is threatening behaviour, and they are both also generally pretty stupid regardless of motivation.
Just because the law supports protection of religion doesn't actually mean it's anything like as bad as racial slurs and racism in general, and there's no way in my opinion that the teacher should be punished any further. He was teaching something, he made a mistake admittedly by showing the image, but the protestors automatically assume he was insulting mohammed when he wasn't. Typical knee jerk reaction by the so called religion of peace. What other religion would make someone hide in fear of having their head chopped off for something like this or even ask for their sacking for something so petty? We're not living in the stone ages, this is the 21st century.
I’m reminded of Mr. Garrison’s song “Merry ****ing Christmas”.... which surprisingly is on Apple Music on the Mr. Hanky’s Christmas Classics album
And showing a cartoon of Muhammad is not offensive to the vast Majority of people in this Country.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,983
I don't see why religion being a protected characteristic should prevent you teaching blasphemy (and peoples reactions to it) with potentially offensive material. I seem to remember in the Samuel Paty case he told the class he was going to show it to the class, he gave permission for anyone who wanted to leave to do so before he showed them. He didn't discriminate quite the contrary he took the opportunity to allow the individuals to chose. Protection from discrimination should not be a protection from offence. Quite the contrary. We repeatedly hear of student bodies and education establishments no platforming views they dislike, not are illegal just don't fit their worldview. We shy from teaching the young to pander their existing prejudices or those of vocal groups. We wander aimlessly into a divided future because we lack the will to stand up for our ideals.