Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

Maybe, but offence is not an objective or static thing. It's also a choice to take offence and that has developped within muslim communities while growing more numerous in the West and stretching islamic religious rules out over the public sphere. Claiming offence has also become an instrument of power because 'my feelings are hurt' is not answered with 'so what?' anymore. Imagine muslims claiming you can't draw any cartoon you want in the seventies shortly after the first wave of muslim immigration into continental Europe. The West and Western values are in a process of giving in to religious fanatics.

Also there's the question in what religious feeling they are hurt or offended exactly. This is not about people disturbing religious practices or sneakily feeding porc to muslims. It seems to me the fact they don't want Mohammed cartoons to be shown or exist and made at all is because they're hurt in their religious feeling that islam should rule supreme over the public sphere. And that's not a religious feeling we should respect. The feelings might be real after decades of development, but that doesn't necessarily make it about anything else than power.
I dont feel thats the reason at all so maybe thats were we differ. (The bold)

Also, i agree that we should be allowed to offend someone if its further us as a people. And i feel like in most cases someone saying my feelings are hurt the respons is often "so what". As it should be in some cases.
Its just my impression that after Jordan Peterson and his likes came to popularity, the point is lost. Now its about offending just for offending´s sake.
Offending someone offers nothing good at all, if thats all it does. We can clearly discuss this theme without showing the drawing, so presenting them seems only too offend.
 
Yes but part of being a teacher is to challenge and grow minds. If he is exposing them to discussion on it and doing it in a way where he was being neutral, not taking sides or taking the piss - as a civilised society we should enable that rather than a blanket ban.

How old were these kids? He can discuss these things without showing the actual picture, its a dumb ass thing to do considering the wide spread anger it caused surely?
 
How old were these kids? He can discuss these things without showing the actual picture, its a dumb ass thing to do considering the wide spread anger it caused surely?

Again we don't know the full story, if it is high school or primary etc - younger the children, I agree - seems unnecessary. Yes of course it is going to cause anger but these are pictures we have all seen via social media anyway and can access them via google etc. Hence why for me, the purpose why these were shown matters more to me before we destroy this guys career. I would like to know more about the context.
 
Where have you read this?

All reports I have read don't show context

I posted a video earlier about it where the person making charges against the teacher mentioned it. In general when these things makes it into class that's what the subject is about.
 
So was this teacher deliberately trying to offend or...? What's the context?
 
There's a lot of " if the teacher hadn't worn such a revealing outfit this never would have happened" in this thread.
 
Without context it's difficult to know.

I can imagine though that if I used the muriel that showed bankers with big noses etc in an RE lesson on Judaism questions would be asked.

Same picture in a class discussing stereotypes and discrimination maybe not as much

If he just showed the cartoons and laughed about it and making fun of Muslims then by all means fire him. He had no right whatsoever to teach and is a disgusting human being. I think no one in his right mind would argue with that.

It looks like it was a class about freedom of speech and it’s place in society and how it relates to religion in which it’s about the best example you can give. This discussion is testament to that really.
 
I'm not missing the point, if he didn't know that's exactly not what a teacher should say, or if he cant teach an inclusive class then he should find a different profession. My point was, if he didn't realise there would be kick back from this, he is a dullard.

I was agreeing with
 
Seems a rather limited discussion without being able to see the actual reason for the discussion. I get the discussion for perhaps not discussing the actuality of the cartoons until after secondary / high school, but I view the church’s request to never show the cartoons as a bullying tactic that shouldn’t have merit simply because the cartoons are satirically defamatory of the religion & the religion wants to control the narrative as much as possible.
Seems to me its not limited at all, since we can mention the reason for the discussion as much as we want. Why do you need to see the drawing to have the discussion?
I dont think a church should dictate anything i do either, but i have no problem not going out of my way to displease them, or anyone else for that matter, if i dont think it would bring anything good with it.
 
Again we don't know the full story, if it is high school or primary etc - younger the children, I agree - seems unnecessary. Yes of course it is going to cause anger but these are pictures we have all seen via social media anyway and can access them via google etc. Hence why for me, the purpose why these were shown matters more to me before we destroy this guys career. I would like to know more about the context.

One of the parents is 30 so I think it was a young class.

Look I am not saying its right in any way that people loose their shit over these cartoons, but I also don't think its right that people use the "freedom of speech" argument to come across as ignorant assholes.
 
Without context it's difficult to know.

I can imagine though that if I used the mural that showed bankers with big noses etc in an RE lesson on Judaism questions would be asked.

Same picture in a class discussing stereotypes and discrimination maybe not as much

And rightfully so. To me the really important issue here is not that “questions were asked” it’s that a mob of parents (and other community members) turned up at the school gates demanding a teacher is fired based on second hand testimony from some fairly young kids. Who every parent should know are often unreliable witnesses. That level of hysteria is the real problem here. Not a teacher making a poor (albeit probably well intentioned) decision.
 
Again we don't know the full story, if it is high school or primary etc - younger the children, I agree - seems unnecessary. Yes of course it is going to cause anger but these are pictures we have all seen via social media anyway and can access them via google etc. Hence why for me, the purpose why these were shown matters more to me before we destroy this guys career. I would like to know more about the context.

It's secondary school.
 
I posted a video earlier about it where the person making charges against the teacher mentioned it. In general when these things makes it into class that's what the subject is about.

I'll have to find and watch your vid.

From what I've read the head has written a letter saying it was inappropriate
 
I'll have to find and watch your vid.

From what I've read the head has written a letter saying it was inappropriate

Could also be because the head fears for his live because let’s be honest that’s a real danger.
 
Everybody who is saying you can talk about the cartoons without showing them is missing the point. Your heart is in the right place but it's misguided.

By making the images themselves taboo, you turn them into a monster. You give them a power that grows and grows into something twisted and perverse.

People are not inherently evil. In history, good people sent their wives and daughters to be burned at stakes. People sent their daughters to the nuns to be abused and have their children taken from them. People allowed their sons to be abused by priests. They did this because of the power of taboo and turning a blind eye for fear of upsetting the religious or societal apple cart.

It was tolerated because people were afraid to ridicule and belittle the stupid ideas of the time. The seeds sewn into them as impressionable children, grew into something twisted and perverse and allowed them to justify the grotesque in the name of perceived good.

These are lessons from the past but they are relevant today. Whether or not we want it, or we all just want a polite and friendly world, someone, somewhere will draw and show these cartoons again and someone, somewhere will die because of them.

When that happens, we will all sit around and say how terrible it is, how a cartoon should never cost someone their life. Some will say it was ill judged to draw and show it, while others will be angry and lash out at Muslims, but very few of us will look at our role and contribution towards a society that allows that to happen.

By confronting a taboo we take it's power. By showing the cartoon we remove the fear of the unknown and the potential for a simple image to grow into something bigger. Being able to ridicule ourselves and the way we perceive the world is a hugely important part of education and self growth.

The man who cuts off the head of the illustrator of a cartoon, or the teacher who shares it, does not think he is an evil man. He went to a school where he was taught the evjl was for anyone to depict the prophet. He grew up in a society that blames the teacher or the artist, who says they are oppressing his religion or that they hate Islam. When the time comes, the idea of the cartoon that he has never seen, the taboo, has grown into something else and the jump from being outraged at a cartoon and believing a human being needs to lose their life is no longer so wide.

You have a Muslim in this thread who has said it is only forbidden for Muslims to depict the prophet. Others have a different idea but because their, more violent interpretation of the text was never challenged, never ridiculed, we are where we are now.

By showing children the cartoons, we allow them to confront the ridiculousness of it. For every one who is upset by it, more will look and think "it's just a fecking cartoon". Sure their parents might be upset because they grew up with the taboo, just like parents were upset when evolution was added to curriculums, or when they thought an intelligent daughter was a witch, or when they though children of different colours shouldn't be educated togwther. We cannot limit the education of children to the same failures of education in their parents or we will never improve.

We cannot ridicule some religions and beliefs but be afraid to do so to others for fear of upsetting them. Not when lives and freedoms are at stake.
 
One of the parents is 30 so I think it was a young class.

Look I am not saying its right in any way that people loose their shit over these cartoons, but I also don't think its right that people use the "freedom of speech" argument to come across as ignorant assholes.
Did the teacher come across as an ignorant asshole?
 
This is punching down at an oppressed minority.

Just as you wouldn't brazenly display racist content that demeans a disenfranchised ethnic group in society, you shouldn't be poking at a similarly underpriveleged religious group.

Let's be frank here. If there was a holocaust in 2021 Europe, it would primarily target Muslims. This kind of exclusionary action is unnecessary in that climate.
I remember reading the debates back in Nazi Germany on if they should be allowed to show material that was offensive to Jews or not.

In a thread full of hot and often offensive takes this is somehow the most disgusting I seen yet.
 
And rightfully so. To me the really important issue here is not that “questions were asked” it’s that a mob of parents (and other community members) turned up at the school gates demanding a teacher is fired based on second hand testimony from some fairly young kids. Who every parent should know are often unreliable witnesses. That level of hysteria is the real problem here. Not a teacher making a poor (albeit probably well intentioned) decision.

I agree with the whole protest bit shouldn't be happening.

School has suspended the guy and gone on record as saying what he did was inappropriate. Should be left at that and any following investigation.
 
Why is that so wrong? It’s a cartoon that’s subject to discussion in a class room. Nobody is saying everyone should like the cartoon. Personally I don’t think that’s a great cartoon so I would say that in a discussion. Maybe someone else finds it a great cartoon and he can pose his view. Someone might find it offensive and he can say why he finds it offensive.

Hence a reasonable discussion about how religion and free speech relate to each other if that’s good English?

Maybe in the end some people who thought it was a great cartoon will be convinced by those who find it offensive. It’s a free discussion after all. That’s much healthier then to ban cartoons. I had many discussions like this on Christian cartoons in high school with my Christian teachers.
It’s clearly something a section of his pupils would have found offensive. Furthermore it’s a moronic thing to do....if he wanted a discussion on the topic then it would have been more than possible to do it using a different medium. Does he teach all his classes via cartoon? Or just the edgy subjects.
What can’t be disputed is the fact it pissed a load of people off on a sensitive subject and it’s very likely going to cost him his job. Maybe when he’s at the jobcentre he can fill in his applications in cartoon form
 
Probably slightly different as it was with adults, but in this case it was with children.
I can see this point of view, but children do get taught the realities of life in school & how to interpret them / deal with them. This whole saga is an incredible teaching tool, there will always be criticism of it, but to not discuss it responsibly is a worse offense than discussing it. And it needs to be discussed with the cartoons being shown in my opinion.
 
I agree it would be tolerating intolerance. And by shying away from teaching certain subjects because a group may find them offensive we would be tolerating religious blasphemy codes and the idea that religion should have any say in how a secular society runs.

We shouldn't have to pick and choose what religious beliefs we will choose to give in to. In this case the Muslims that complained about LGBT rights should not be appeased but the ones that dislike the cartoons should be? Do we decide on a case by case basis? Its the same religion after all.

It is most definitely to the detriment to our society if we shy away from discussing things for fear of causing offence or worse. People have been killed due to the drawing of cartoons. We don't overcome such dangerous ideology by just not speaking about it.

I was going to avoid this thread now but that's a decent response compared to others with a clear intention.

The decision has to come at the cost of accommodating the measure. In this case there's no cost, no one has a need to draw and publicly display these depictions. The only cost is one imagined in the heads of Daily Mail readers.

As for the blasphemy angle there's a principle there that i agree with. It's vital to be able to push back against religion dictating societal norms and blasphemy laws are a measure used to impose control historically. Imposing that principle onto this though to move it from an act of not being a dick to a freedom of speech stance is too much.

From a purely moral standpoint debating these issues but with an aim to minimise offence shouldn't be a big ask of any of us.
 
And rightfully so. To me the really important issue here is not that “questions were asked” it’s that a mob of parents (and other community members) turned up at the school gates demanding a teacher is fired based on second hand testimony from some fairly young kids. Who every parent should know are often unreliable witnesses. That level of hysteria is the real problem here. Not a teacher making a poor (albeit probably well intentioned) decision.

I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned before. Even the quotes from Abdullah on the BBC link states he doesn't even have kids at the school.
 
That's an OTT reaction in my opinion.

You think that’s OTT after what happened to Charlie Hebdo and Paty and the countless death threats surrounding this subject?

I for certain would fear for my life if I would be in the spotlight concerning a Muhammed cartoon.
 
I agree with the whole protest bit shouldn't be happening.

School has suspended the guy and gone on record as saying what he did was inappropriate. Should be left at that and any following investigation.

Which is why I find it strange that discussions about these issues so often get stuck in a back and forth about whether it’s ok to offend, what is and isn’t offensive and so on. When by far the most important problem that needs to be fixed is the exaggerated response to offense.

Someone literally went on a rampage with guns over cartoons. And this thread is about an attempt to try and learn from those events resulting in a furious mob turning up at school gates. A school where kids are trying to get their education back on track after months of lockdown. Why are we arguing the toss about whether or not it’s ok to take offence at cartoons? I’ve no problem with anyone getting offended by this. It’s not up to any of us to tell other people what they can and cannot take offense to. But we can tell them that they badly need to have a better fecking sense of perspective!
 
Last edited:
That's an OTT reaction in my opinion.

Considering what has gone before it, I would be afraid of those few people in Britain who would be willing to go through with it or those who might come from outside at determined to do it. Remember 253 people have lost their lives over the cartoon crisis, more injured and their have been repeated murder and terror attempts because of this issue.
 
Religion, Politics and Football... all subjects to be avoided for objective discussions, especially in 'mixed' company, always leads to 'tears before bedtime'!
 
You think that’s OTT after what happened to Charlie Hebdo and Paty and the countless death threats surrounding this subject?

I for certain would fear for my life if I would be in the spotlight concerning a Muhammed cartoon.

I would too if in France and what happened there.

I just don't think, or hope, we have that same mentality here
 
Seems to me its not limited at all, since we can mention the reason for the discussion as much as we want. Why do you need to see the drawing to have the discussion?
I dont think a church should dictate anything i do either, but i have no problem not going out of my way to displease them, or anyone else for that matter, if i dont think it would bring anything good with it.
I get what you are saying, but I view this similar to studying post civil war American history in the South. Should photographs of lynchings be shown in text books at advanced high school levels or not? It certainly depicts the horror of racial animosity in this country, factual events which still have resonance today, but are such photographs going too far? I don’t think so as the actuality is depicted. To take the specific example of Allah wearing a suicide vest, is this cartoon untrue, what it is trying to satire? No, it’s simply not. In fact, it probably creates the possibility for more nuanced discussion than just seeing a picture of a bomb crater or a picture of dismembered corpses.

It seems that tone or delivery vehicle is deemed more important than subject matter, a ‘kill the messenger’ scenario. The subject is far too important to get hung up on such. Satirical cartoons against pedophilic Catholic priests are very impugning to the Catholic church & cause uproar, but it’s not as though they aren’t depicting the reality of the situation.
 
Which is why I find it strange that discussions about these issues so often get stuck in a back and forth about whether it’s ok to offend, what is and isn’t offensive and so on. When by far the most important problem that needs to be fixed is the exaggerated response to offense.

Someone literally went on a rampage with guns over cartoons. And this thread is about an attempt to try and learn from those events resulting in a furious mob turning up at school gates. A school where kids are trying to get their education back on track after months of lockdown. Why are we arguing the toss about whether or not it’s ok to take offence at cartoons? I’ve no problem with anyone getting offended by this. But they badly need to learn to have a better fecking sense of perspective!

Yeah agreed.

The latest headlines suggest the protest has been hijacked by two different extremes. Would agree
 
I would too if in France and what happened there.

I just don't think, or hope, we have that same mentality here

In Holland we also had Theo Van Gogh murdered in cold blood which you could consider as a ‘cartoonist-like’ person. You also had Islamic terror attacks in the UK. I don’t live in the UK but if you were that teacher right now wouldn’t you fear for your life?

And that’s one of the reasons why discussions on this cartoons are so necessary.
 
Which is why I find it strange that discussions about these issues so often get stuck in a back and forth about whether it’s ok to offend, what is and isn’t offensive and so on. When by far the most important problem that needs to be fixed is the exaggerated response to offense.

Someone literally went on a rampage with guns over cartoons. And this thread is about a furious mob turning up at school gates. Where kids are trying to get an education. Why are we arguing the toss about whether or not it’s ok to take offence at cartoons? I’ve no problem with anyone getting offended by this. But they badly need to learn to have some fecking perspective!

That's primarily because there's no debate to be had there. Everyone agrees death threats and murder is not an acceptable response to any offence caused.

I mean we can have that thread and have had it but it just descends into uncomfortable pages bordering on bigotry usually. We could all state right now exactly what points would be discussed.