Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

Come on Danny, ‘freedom of expression’ and the defence thereof IS classical liberalism. That doesn’t make it bad, per se, but we need to go beyond that mere liberalism in all specific circumstances.

So I find the idea that he had to show the cartoons, or he’d be rejecting freedom of expression, to be woefully ignorant. There are thousands of potential examples you could choose, so to say you must use those ones is wrong. Especially as the objections to the cartoons was more about the fact that they displayed Mohammed at all, rather than what he was doing in them (though there were plenty of complaints about that too).

one of the problems of using them is that in going so you’ll likely be excluding the very people you think should be involved in those discussions, which seems to defeat the point of the lessons.
I don’t feel the need to go over my arguments again. You’ve clearly read them.

But your first paragraph is disingenuous.
 
It’s the two-faced nature of liberalism. Espousing tolerance while being an apologist for murder, for example.
Yes, the heart of the matter.
I think where I struggled with this earlier was possibly looking at this too much from the perspective of a (former) teacher in this country where educational liberalism takes the form of multiculturalism as opposed to the Laicité of the French republic. Whilst not really relevant to the bigger picture of extremist murder, I just can't imagine a teacher in the UK ever embarking on a lesson that necessitated students of any particular faith background identifying themselves before the content could be covered.
 
Yes, the heart of the matter.
I think where I struggled with this earlier was possibly looking at this too much from the perspective of a (former) teacher in this country where educational liberalism takes the form of multiculturalism as opposed to the Laicité of the French republic. Whilst not really relevant to the bigger picture of extremist murder, I just can't imagine a teacher in the UK ever embarking on a lesson that necessitated students of any particular faith background identifying themselves before the content could be covered.
My daughter taught for a year in a French middle school. She was amazed at what they didn’t know. She ended up teaching them about Malcolm X’s journey to socialism, amongst other things. The class included black kids as well as Muslims.
 
I don’t feel the need to go over my arguments again. You’ve clearly read them.

But your first paragraph is disingenuous.
Well, this is where I think you are talking nonsense - especially as there has undoubtedly been hundreds of teachers discussing the issue


I’m not in the least convinced Samuel Paty’s life would have been spared if all he’d done was just talk about the images.
 
My daughter taught for a year in a French middle school. She was amazed at what they didn’t know. She ended up teaching them about Malcolm X’s journey to socialism, amongst other things. The class included black kids as well as Muslims.
tbf, when I taught, I was constantly amazed at the massive gaps in historical knowledge that our specifications created.
 
one of the problems of using them is that in going so you’ll likely be excluding the very people you think should be involved in those discussions, which seems to defeat the point of the lessons.
He didn't exclude them; they chose to exclude themselves. And maybe that was part of the point of the lesson.
 
Well, this is where I think you are talking nonsense - especially as there has undoubtedly been hundreds of teachers discussing the issue
We don't know how many other teachers also showed the images in class, of course.

We do know from reports that it appears this teacher was murdered as a result of the actions of one parent on social media telling lies about what was shown on the basis of information he had supposedly received from his daughter, who was not there.
 
He didn't exclude them; they chose to exclude themselves. And maybe that was part of the point of the lesson.
He chose a course of action that he knew was likely to lead to a specific outcome. If his point was to drive people out of the lesson, it seems a pretty shitty point.
 
He didn't exclude them; they chose to exclude themselves. And maybe that was part of the point of the lesson.
In France, 4th year students are 13 and 14 year olds. Asking a minority of young teenagers to identify themselves as a minority in front of their classmates and leave the class (if they choose to do so - big deal) is well dodgy and divisive by definition.
 
In France, 4th year students are 13 and 14 year olds. Asking a minority of young teenagers to identify themselves as a minority and leave the class (if they choose to do so - big deal) is well dodgy and divisive by definition.
This isn't why he was killed, though. Remember that while you're criticising the dead teacher's teaching methods.
 
He chose a course of action that he knew was likely to lead to a specific outcome. If his point was to drive people out of the lesson, it seems a pretty shitty point.

Maybe his point was to role model the idea that people don't have a right to impose the rules of their religion on others. That whilst some can choose to remain ignorant of the primary source material of a relevant topic, they have no right to expect others to to do the same. Maybe his point was that being offended isn't the end of the world, and that it's a reasonable price to pay for the others tolerating our opinions. And that I think he demonstrated those admirable principles in a clear, relevant, and relateable way.
 
In France, 4th year students are 13 and 14 year olds. Asking a minority of young teenagers to identify themselves as a minority and leave the class (if they choose to do so - big deal) is well dodgy and divisive by definition.
Actually, from reading the official report, it doesn't seem as if it was optional. He asked Muslim students to identify themselves and leave. Amazing that there's even a few posters here who refuse to acknowledge how deeply wrong that is (whether optional or not).
 
In France, 4th year students are 13 and 14 year olds. Asking a minority of young teenagers to identify themselves as a minority in front of their classmates and leave the class (if they choose to do so - big deal) is well dodgy and divisive by definition.
Let me get this right - the lesson should not have happened because a potential ginger jihadi might kill the teacher? What the fuck is your problem with pupils being able to opt out? It's not a big thing.
 
In France, 4th year students are 13 and 14 year olds. Asking a minority of young teenagers to identify themselves as a minority in front of their classmates and leave the class (if they choose to do so - big deal) is well dodgy and divisive by definition.

He didnt ask Muslims to leave; he offered the chance for anyone who might be offended to do so. That people's religious choices cause division isn't a bad lesson, IMO.
 
Actually, from reading the official report, it doesn't seem as if it was optional. He asked Muslim students to identify themselves and leave. Amazing that there's even a few posters here who refuse to acknowledge how deeply wrong that is (whether optional or not).
If this is the case (link then), then you should be applauding it you hypocrite. Or are you demanding that muslim pupils be forced to view portrayls of mo.? You smug cunt.
 
Actually, from reading the official report, it doesn't seem as if it was optional. He asked Muslim students to identify themselves and leave. Amazing that there's even a few posters here who refuse to acknowledge how deeply wrong that is (whether optional or not).
'if they wished'

Really, how likely do you think it is that he ordered all Muslims out of the room?
 
Back
Top Bottom