Going batty in Batley (or comic strip strikes again).

[omnomnom]

He could have gone about it a bit better. Its like trying to show the Life of Brian to strict christiians.

How did he go about it?

This isn't a Muslim school though so that argument doesn't hold up.

 

[Dolph]

There are numerous countries in Europe that have banned the production of halal food.

If there are animal welfare concerns, this makes total sense. It is possible to address the concerns (such as requiring stunning first), then this is a better alternative (and something we should do in the UK)

Religious courts that typically discriminate on sex, a protected attribute, should be outlawed on that basis.

Religious courts don't have legal standing in the UK apart from as an arbitration body if both parties agree. Are you proposing banning arbitration?

Freedom of expression is protected but it needs to be enforced otherwise it is defacto not a freedom at all.

Freedom of expression is not freedom from or prohibition of consequence, especially not in an employment scenario where you are representing your employer, not yourself. You also have to reconcile the freedom of expression of all parties. Standing outside the school protesting is also freedom of expression.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Well obviously not but that comparison is frankly ridiculous.

What was so outrageous about this picture to cause these protests?

Have you not seen the images? They are pretty offensive to muslims even without the not portraying any images of the prophet bit.

Google Charlie Hebdo muslim images.

 

[Dolph]

Well obviously not but that comparison is frankly ridiculous.

What was so outrageous about this picture to cause these protests?

It's ridiculous in your eyes, but not in the wider context. Its a comparison of protected characteristics and unnecessarily offensive content.

It was the Charlie hebdo cartoons, the content and reaction to which were well known, well understood and expected.

 

[PlacidCasual]

We're reinforcing the position that everyone must be protected from offence, which is ridiculous. In this case the teacher told them what they would see and gave children the opportunity to leave. Which seems more than fair enough. The idea that only un-offensive ideas may be shared and the group think that agrees what is and isn't an acceptable topic of discussion is destroying our open and tolerant culture and is a blight. We need to be robust in defending these ideals and if that means offending a few people such that they get used to the idea of being offended now and then so be it.

 

[Tony Edwards]

We're reinforcing the position that everyone must be protected from offence, which is ridiculous. In this case the teacher told them what they would see and gave children the opportunity to leave. Which seems more than fair enough. The idea that only un-offensive ideas may be shared and the group think that agrees what is and isn't an acceptable topic ofdiscussion is destroying our open and tolerant culture and is a blight. We need to be robust in defending these ideals and if that means offending a few people such that they get used to the idea of being offended now and then so be it.

Im sorry but I just find this post so funny after all the posts against woke things.

STOP TAKING OFFENCE OVER STUPID STUFF. Apart from the Coca cola thing because that was serious. Oh and the statues thing.

 

[Dolph]

We're reinforcing the position that everyone must be protected from offence, which is ridiculous. In this case the teacher told them what they would see and gave children the opportunity to leave. Which seems more than fair enough. The idea that only un-offensive ideas may be shared and the group think that agrees what is and isn't an acceptable topic ofdiscussion is destroying our open and tolerant culture and is a blight. We need to be robust in defending these ideals and if that means offending a few people such that they get used to the idea of being offended now and then so be it.

Bring back the racial slurs eh, no issue, it's their fault of they are offended, they just have to get used to it.

 

[PlacidCasual]

@Tony Edwards I'm not sure what the coca cola thing was. But opposing a self selcting minority claiming ownership of the public space and allowing them freedom to commit criminal damage is not the same thing. If people want statues down there are democratic ways of doing it. We should oppose people claiming the right to define what is wrong and right or unacceptably offensive for all of us. So I'm not sure the point you're making.

 

[Tony Edwards]

I would like to point out I think someone being offended over a what is really just blasphamy is ******* stupid. But I dont think they should be shown in schools to kids.

@Tony Edwards I'm not sure what the coca cola thing was. But opposing a self selcting minority claiming ownership of the public space and allowing them freedom to commit criminal damage is not the same thing. If people want statues down there are democratic ways of doing it. We should oppose people claiming the right to define what is wrong and right or unacceptably offensive for all of us. So I'm not sure the point you're making.

Because people pick their own battles.

Wait what? You dont know about the coke 'be less white' incident recently?

So you are protesting about their protest. Is that what you are saying and both protests have their own merit?

 

[PlacidCasual]

Bring back the racial slurs eh, no issue, it's their fault of they are offended, they just have to get used to it.

Except you're now conflating the illegal with the not illegal. In most cases I assume racist slurs will run foul of racist discrimination laws. It seems like you're defending a position where all criticism of religion is discrimination under the umbrella of protected designations, I would oppose that position.

So you're trying to teach people about blasphemy and more importantly peoples response to but apparently you do it without giving them any first hand examples to judge the rightness or wrongness of it on. "I'm going to show you some blasphemous images, what do you think of them? Those who don't want to see the images may leave" That sounds like an entirely reasonable way to teach a topic.

 

[I cant post photos]

Wait what? You dont know about the coke incident recently?

I don't know about it either. What was it?

 

[Dolph]

I would like to point out I think someone being offended over a what is really just blasphamy is ******* stupid. But I dont think they should be shown in schools to kids.Because people pick their own battles.

Wait what? You dont know about the coke incident recently?

Indeed, it's about understanding the potential impact even if you don't agree with it.

I do find myself wondering how many people on this forum keep their jobs if they behave in an employment setting the way they advocate others behave here. The idea that, when you're on the clock, you have absolute freedom to say and do whatever you want to whoever you want without any consequences is abject nonsense.

 

[Dolph]

Except you're now conflating the illegal with the not illegal. In most cases I assume racist slurs will run foul of racist discrimination laws. It seems like you're defending a position where all criticism of religion is discrimination under the umbrella of protected designations, I would oppose that position.

So you're trying to teach people about blasphemy and more importantly peoples response to but apparently you do it without giving them any first hand examples to judge the rightness or wrongness of it on. "I'm going to show you some blasphemous images, what do you think of them? Those who don't want to see the images may leave" That sounds like an entirely reasonable way to teach a topic.

This may come as a shock to you, but religion is protected under the exact same legislation as race in the UK, on the same terms and using the same principles.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

 

[The Running Man]

If there are animal welfare concerns, this makes total sense. It is possible to address the concerns (such as requiring stunning first), then this is a better alternative (and something we should do in the UK)



Religious courts don't have legal standing in the UK apart from as an arbitration body if both parties agree. Are you proposing banning arbitration?



Freedom of expression is not freedom from or prohibition of consequence, especially not in an employment scenario where you are representing your employer, not yourself. You also have to reconcile the freedom of expression of all parties. Standing outside the school protesting is also freedom of expression.

Animal welfare and also monopolising of the food chain as only Muslims can produce halal by definition.

Religious arbitration steeped in sexism probably needs a review!

That is true, threatening someone's life is freedom of expression i guess. How many of these individuals have now been arrested and been suspended from their jobs?

We are in lockdown and protests could be done in other ways than blockading the school i would have thought.

Are they exempt from consequence?

It's ridiculous in your eyes, but not in the wider context. Its a comparison of protected characteristics and unnecessarily offensive content.

No one is stopping them from being a Muslim. Showing a cartoon does not make them any less a Muslim.

Unless you provide the same protection for every religion, and ban anything that could be deemed potentially offensive then you are not protecting a characteristic you are prioritising the protection of one group over all others, due to threats of violence from what I can see
.

 

[omnomnom]

It's ridiculous in your eyes, but not in the wider context. Its a comparison of protected characteristics and unnecessarily offensive content.

It was the Charlie hebdo cartoons, the content and reaction to which were well known, well understood and expected.

What. Was. So. Outrageous. About. This. Picture?

Seriously..stop avoiding the question

 

[Tony Edwards]

What. Was. So. Outrageous. About. This. Picture?

Seriously..stop avoiding the question

They are more outrageous to muslims than Meghan and Harry should be to brits thats for sure.

 

[Tony Edwards]

How did he go about it?

This isn't a Muslim school though so that argument doesn't hold up.

Actually the only equivalence I have is showing insulting pictures of gays in a sex education class, showing only old men with young kids. Technicaly no school is a gay school but it still wouldnt be right.

 

[The Running Man]

Actually the only equivalence I have is showing insulting pictures of gays in a sex education class, showing only old men with young kids. Technicaly no school is a gay school but it still wouldnt be right.

Wait were they showing cartoons of mohammed and his wife again?

 

[Tony Edwards]

Wait were they showing cartoons of mohammed and his wife again?

Or our own royalty and victorians if you want to put it that way.

 

[Dolph]

Animal welfare and also monopolising of the food chain as only Muslims can produce halal by definition.

Religious arbitration steeped in sexism probably needs a review!

That is true, threatening someone's life is freedom of expression i guess. How many of these individuals have now been arrested and been suspended from their jobs?

We are in lockdown and protests could be done in other ways than blockading the school i would have thought.

Are they exempt from consequence?

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but that's a bit of a climb down from where you were before.

No one is stopping them from being a Muslim. Showing a cartoon does not make them any less a Muslim.

Unless you provide the same protection for every religion, and ban anything that could be deemed potentially offensive then you are not protecting a characteristic you are prioritising the protection of one group over all others, due to threats of violence from what I can see
.

Regular use of racial slurs in society doesn't change who minorities are either, but it can influence attitudes towards them.

As for banning, I'm not advocating a general ban on material people find offensive, more a ban (which already largely exists) on unnecessarily introducing offensive material into classrooms as a 'talking point'.