I'm not a Muslim, so asking me is largely pointless. My own personal view on how outrageous or not the cartoons are is largely irrelevant, and the content of the cartoons themselves is not the crux of the argument I'm making, which is specifically that the teacher (if they were the decision maker) should have been fully aware of the controversy surrounding the pictures and the likely reaction to showing them unnecessarily to a class of children.
Going batty in Batley (or comic strip strikes again).
- Thread starter Hagar
- Start date
I'm not a Muslim, so asking me is largely pointless. My own personal view on how outrageous or not the cartoons are is largely irrelevant, and the content of the cartoons themselves is not the crux of the argument I'm making, which is specifically that the teacher (if they were the decision maker) should have been fully aware of the controversy surrounding the pictures and the likely reaction to showing them unnecessarily to a class of children.
It's largely pointless because you havent seen the image in question.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I dont think anyone is offended or threatening to kill people about that, that is the distinction here!
There are regularly cartoons about the Royal family, not all positive and I dont think that anyone has been beheaded over it in the last few years.
It was the Charlie hedbo images, and yes I have, if you want to, you have Google.
It's still irrelevant to my point what my opinion on them is though, much as my (or your) opinion whether something constitutes an offensive racial slur is largely irrelevant if I'm not the target.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
When are the moderates going to step in and sort this out anyway?
Maybe I'm missing something but isn't it OK to poke fun at religion because that's a person's choice. Race is another matter as that's isn't someone's choice.
Also on the parallels being drawn to Life of Brian - pretty sure I saw Michael Palin point out recently that at no point do they actually take the **** out of Jesus. He appears in one scene giving a speech in the background and the joke is on the guys trying to hear what he is saying.
Also on the parallels being drawn to Life of Brian - pretty sure I saw Michael Palin point out recently that at no point do they actually take the **** out of Jesus. He appears in one scene giving a speech in the background and the joke is on the guys trying to hear what he is saying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,982
I apologise if it wasn't clear, I acknowledged that they were equally protected. The difference I was making which plainly I didn't get across well was that a racial or even religious slur is not the same as a criticism or even act that causes offence, and I presume this is the case under the law. So calling some a *insert slur of your choice* is not the same as saying *insert your favoured religious dogma here* is backward or makes no sense. Showing someone a picture after first having giving them the chance to leave if it offends them isn't the same as calling them a racial slur. Let's not conflate the two.
Imo the government should include content like the life of Brian and these cartoons in RE- and allow critical ideas of religion in general.
Where else can children get other perspectives - especially in families where reactions like this or worse are shown.
Where else can children get other perspectives - especially in families where reactions like this or worse are shown.
You'd think so, yes. Only some religions though, doing it to others, well, only one that I know of, calls for demands to either lose your job or have your throat cut, or both.
Probably end up dead
Which would (maybe) result in an official complaint, a few strongly worded letters, etc.
Not roving groups of young men rocking up with the express purpose of intimidating the school to confirm with their wishes.
If people think that's the same thing then enjoy Britistan in a few years time. Hell, enjoy Bradford, etc, right now
You are missing something, in that religion is a protected characteristic the same as race, gender etc under the equality act, so as a matter of UK law, both are equally protected.
The idea that religion (or lack thereof) is a choice is also something that is far from clear cut. For some people it is as much about their identity as their race or gender, whether through indoctrination as a child or carefully considered analysis of the world as an adult. It's not necessarily easy to explain why different people believe what they do, but it isn't always a clear and active choice that individual has made in the way the concept is usually applied.
Well, this is where the McPherson principle gets applied. You don't get to decide the level of offense that someone else can take to an action. That you apply a hierarchy of offense doesn't negate the right of others to be offended, and that you don't consider something to be offensive or intend offense doesn't negate another's right to find something offensive and have it investigated as such.
The key issue here for me is still that showing the cartoons was unnecessary. The critical discussion on the nature of blasphemy didn't require it in order to be held or progress, much as you can discuss racism without vocalising racial slurs.
Serving bacon in schools isn't strictly necessary, and... oh wait, that's already a thing. Various schools up and down the country no longer serve bacon because it offends muslim students.
This is a fun game. I wonder where it ends. I wonder what you class as "necessary".
I'd thoroughly oppose measures to ban bacon in schools.
I'd also thoroughly oppose measures to remove alternatives for people who don't eat pork in schools.
I would also support the freedom of schools to decide (for example) that turkey bacon is a valid compromise for them to make.
It's not especially complicated, it's just about not being deliberately disrespectful (and yes, some parts of the Muslim community need to learn that lesson too).
But that isn't a compromise. That's taking bacon off the menu in favour of turkey.
That's islam dictating not only what muslim students will not eat but what everyone else won't eat either, for fear of upsetting them.
Schools routinely make meal menu choices based on likely consumption and practicality of cooking the proposed range of options.
Should they ignore all dietary requirements of their pupils when doing so, or just ones you don't like?