Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Spymaster]

OK, so this happened in my class just the other day. It was, nominally, a maths lesson. But it started with a pupil saying this.

"Syrians are all Pakis who should just go home."

I didn't feel this could go unchallenged. Many, many other teachers I've met would have just said "you can't say that" and left it there. And the pupil would have felt censored, affronted and carried on as before.

Instead we had a 90 minute discussion on the historical and political context of 'Paki'. Why it's a racist term, why racism is wrong, and why people who feel they should be allowed to use such terms mostly have belief systems that are based on shit, and why and how that shit comes from fear. In other words, we had a long discussion about 'Paki' that challenged in full the original use.

Nobody stood at the front of the class going "Paki, Paki, Paki, Nigger, Nigger, Nigger". But neither did it get ignored.

The result? For the first time in ages I felt I had a valid discussion with someone that actually changed their mind. There were many tangents, particularly over refugees, whereby some pupils actually came round to seeing a different view they could buy into, one that challenged the narrow view they seemingly get from home and probably racist parents. Another tangent was the use by rappers of the term 'nigger' and why context was important here.

None of this would have been possible by censoring the words used. By using the words, explaining their political and cultural context, the power to offend with them was removed. And no kid went away thinking they had been affronted and so with an excuse to carry on as before.

I doubt very much the French teacher stood at the front of the class with his Mohammed cartoon gratuitously taking the piss. I suspect he tried to open up a class discussion, using one of the less offensive cartoons (and yet still got reported for using a naked picture which didn't happen) to illustrate the debate. And I see nothing wrong, or gratuitous, with that.

There were no BAME kids in my class, this is West Wales. But I don't think I'd have acted any differently, particularly, if there were.

That's different. You were reacting to a situation instigated by someone else. Would you take it upon yourself to announce to a class, half full of black lads, that you were going to discuss the term nigger and invite them to leave if they didn't like it?

 

[Pickman's model]

you see. Puerile usage of language.

Tbh it's the puerile thought he clothes in profundity and gravitas that really offends

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's different. You were reacting to a situation instigated by someone else. Would you take it upon yourself to announce to a class, half full of black lads, that you were going to discuss the term nigger and invite them to leave if they didn't like it?

One difference, of course, is that using the word Paki is racist. The CH cartoons are not racist in that way, which is one of the avenues a discussion could go down - how does a group of committed anti-racists, which is what CH are, come to be understood to be being racist?

 

[Pickman's model]

That's different. You were reacting to a situation instigated by someone else. Would you take it upon yourself to announce to a class, half full of black lads, that you were going to discuss the term nigger and invite them to leave if they didn't like it?

I'd expect most teachers to have a plan which could be discussed with the entire class. Perhaps to go into why the n word offensive for people who hadn't given it thought. There's no actual need to introduce cartoons into a class about ch, the cartoons and the trial, anyone can find them online. It'd be enough to say that many varieties of Islam refuse to produce or countenance images of muhammed, is it ethical, right or proper to produce not only images but satirical ones to have a pop at muslims on a freedom of expression platform? Would anti-semitic images be acceptable on the same basis? Where should the line be drawn?

 

[Spymaster]

One difference, of course, is that using the word Paki is racist. The CH cartoons are not racist in that way, which is one of the avenues a discussion could go down - how does a group of committed anti-racists, which is what CH are, come to be understood to be being racist?

Again this misses the point. Whether or not the cartoons are racist is immaterial. We know for sure that some muslims are grossly offended by them. To then wave them under the noses of a load of muslims and tell them to leave if they don't like it serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by other means without causing the offence.

 

[planetgeli]

That's different. You were reacting to a situation instigated by someone else. Would you take it upon yourself to announce to a class, half full of black lads, that you were going to discuss the term nigger and invite them to leave if they didn't like it?

I think there should be more classes like this, timetabled, instead of pushing kids into a national curriculum that means nothing to some of them.

And I'd also like to think that if half of the class were 'black lads' some of them might actually be black girls.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again this misses the point. Whether or not the cartoons are racist is immaterial. We know for sure that some muslims are grossly offended by them. To then wave them under the noses of a load of muslims and tell them to leave if they don't like it serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by other means without causing the offence.

I don't think it misses the point. The fact you've now modified your argument to 'some muslims' only emphasises that. tbh the only really questionable bit of it is giving kids the option to leave. You might warn that the image is coming up, perhaps, say that this is an image that is offensive to some, so you can not look if you like, but inviting kids not to take part in the discussion at all is if anything letting those kids down.

One of Malik's main points, and one I strongly agree with, is that we should not be labelling children, or anyone else, as members of particular groups and then abandoning them to the self-appointed guardians of the morality of those groups. To do that is to let them down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there should be more classes like this, timetabled, instead of pushing kids into a national curriculum that means nothing to some of them.

And I'd also like to think that if half of the class were 'black lads' some of them might actually be black girls.

Most of the lessons from school that I still remember now are the ones that took a sideways turn from the curriculum to discuss other things. We had a maths teacher who liked to talk about the problem of free will, for instance. No doubt he'd have been chastised for doing so if there'd been an inspector there, but I still remember that discussion now, more than 30 years later, cos it introduced me to new ideas.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think it misses the point. The fact you've now modified your argument to 'some muslims' only emphasises that. tbh the only really questionable bit of it is giving kids the option to leave. You might warn that the image is coming up, perhaps, say that this is an image that is offensive to some, so you can not look if you like, but inviting kids not to take part in the discussion at all is if anything letting those kids down.

One of Malik's main points, and one I strongly agree with, is that we should not be labelling children, or anyone else, as members of particular groups and then abandoning them to the self-appointed guardians of the morality of those groups. To do that is to let them down.

This is what happens when you rely on someone else, even someone else as eminent as km, to do your thinking for you - for you surely haven't done much for yourself on this thread. The point isn't that giving kids the option to go abandons them. The message is, we will discuss you behind your back and deny you the right to take part. It isn't abandoning them to reactionaries, it is sending them to them.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Again this misses the point. Whether or not the cartoons are racist is immaterial. We know for sure that some muslims are grossly offended by them. To then wave them under the noses of a load of muslims and tell them to leave if they don't like it serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by other means without causing the offence.

Some Muslims are offended when their male offspring are taught by female teachers, or when female teachers do not cover themselves appropriately, or when you eat a bacon sandwich in their presence, or when gay people (shock horror!) hold hands, or all manner of things. Since when was causing offence a crime on Urban anyway?

 

[Pickman's model]

Some Muslims are offended when their male offspring are taught by female teachers, or when female teachers do not cover themselves appropriately, or when you eat a bacon sandwich in their presence, or when gay people (shock horror!) hold hands, or all manner of things. Since when was causing offence a crime on Urban anyway?

This is a discussion of a real event in the real world where a real person has been murdered

Not a crime on urban but a crime in the real world

 

[Jay Park]

Some Muslims are offended when their male offspring are taught by female teachers, or when female teachers do not cover themselves appropriately, or when you eat a bacon sandwich in their presence, or when gay people (shock horror!) hold hands, or all manner of things. Since when was causing offence a crime on Urban anyway?

some people get offended when you leave the toilet seat up, some people get offended if you stand on the left of a tube escalator.

Bacon sandwiches... are you on the wind up son?

 

[bimble]

A tangent but I am really interested in what’s going to happen with this legal case here (it’s not the first of its kind).
I’ve moved more than once for this same reason , because orthodox Jewish men ‘can’t’ have me sat next to them. The end of the article says that the airline has thousands of complaints from women about this same thing.
My feeling is it’s on the religious people to accommodate themselves to the secular world by buying an extra seat or having a special airline of their own or something, but is that discrimination against a minority idk.

Passenger sues easyJet after crew told her to move seats to satisfy ultra-Orthodox Jews

Melanie Wolfson was asked to move twice because men refused to sit next to a female

www.theguardian.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A tangent but I am really interested in what’s going to happen with this legal case here (it’s not the first of its kind).
I’ve moved more than once for this same reason , because orthodox Jewish men ‘can’t’ have me sat next to them. The end of the article says that the airline has thousands of complaints from women about this same thing.
My feeling is it’s on the religious people to accommodate themselves to the secular world by buying an extra seat or having a special airline of their own or something, but is that discrimination against a minority idk.

Passenger sues easyJet after crew told her to move seats to satisfy ultra-Orthodox Jews

Melanie Wolfson was asked to move twice because men refused to sit next to a female

www.theguardian.com

Problem is you only really have two options. You discrminate against a minority, or you discriminate at the bidding of that minority. Either way, you'll be discriminating.

Clearly in this case, it should be the men who are inconvenienced, not women who happen to get seated next to them. And it is surely incumbent on those men to try to sort something out before they board the plane. If they haven't done that, surely it's too late and tough shit.

 

[bimble]

Problem is you only really have two options. You discrminate against a minority, or you discriminate at the bidding of that minority. Either way, you'll be discriminating.

Clearly in this case, it should be the men who are inconvenienced, not women who happen to get seated next to them. And it is surely incumbent on those men to try to sort something out before they board the plane. If they haven't done that, surely it's too late and tough shit.

Well you say all that but the reality is the opposite is happening and it’s been that way for years. Hopefully the case might change that.

 

[planetgeli]

A tangent but I am really interested in what’s going to happen with this legal case here (it’s not the first of its kind).
I’ve moved more than once for this same reason , because orthodox Jewish men ‘can’t’ have me sat next to them. The end of the article says that the airline has thousands of complaints from women about this same thing.
My feeling is it’s on the religious people to accommodate themselves to the secular world by buying an extra seat or having a special airline of their own or something, but is that discrimination against a minority idk.

Passenger sues easyJet after crew told her to move seats to satisfy ultra-Orthodox Jews

Melanie Wolfson was asked to move twice because men refused to sit next to a female

www.theguardian.com

At least EasyJet offered a free hot drink. RyanAir would have charged her for moving to a seat she hadn't paid upfront for.

Joking aside, do you know what the Ultra-Orthodox religious justification is for this bimble (or anyone)? Don't they ever sit next to a woman in any circumstance?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well you say all that but the reality is the opposite is happening and it’s been that way for years. Hopefully the case might change that.

A certain kind of fundamentalism, be it Jewish, Muslim or Christian, is characterised by enormous arrogance, it seems to me. My opinion, my sensibility, is more important than yours. It's kind of logical - if you're fundamentalist, then you're right and everyone else is wrong, end of - but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant.

 

[two sheds]

Yes arrogance is the word that comes to mind when you decide you can't sit next to a woman so it's the woman who has to move.

 

[likesfish]

Again this misses the point. Whether or not the cartoons are racist is immaterial. We know for sure that some Muslims are grossly offended by them. To then wave them under the noses of a load of muslims and tell them to leave if they don't like it serves no purpose that couldn't be achieved by other means without causing the offence.

The type of fundie shitbag can never be satisfied they are offended by alcohol, pork, men, without beards women wearing anything but a tent even if they are outside they are offended.
YOUR FAITH your problem now I'm prepared to make allowances if it's of little Trouble to me keep a meal back for someones whose fasting not eat a bacon sandwich in their face etc. Because usually, I'm not a cunt. If you ask me 9 times out of ten I'll Oblige TELL ME I HAVE to and chances are I'll say no because my protected characteristic is as an atheist all religions are Bullshit.

 

[planetgeli]

At least EasyJet offered a free hot drink. RyanAir would have charged her for moving to a seat she hadn't paid upfront for.

Joking aside, do you know what the Ultra-Orthodox religious justification is for this bimble (or anyone)? Don't they ever sit next to a woman in any circumstance?

OK, I googled. Physical contact. Because of sexual temptation.

The logic of which surely leads to men and uncontrollable urges and all sorts of bollocks.

Fuck fundamentalists. No, wait, don't do that...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

OK, I googled. Physical contact. Because of sexual temptation.

The logic of which surely leads to men and uncontrollable urges and all sorts of bollocks.

Fuck fundamentalists. No, wait, don't do that...

It's pretty despicable. Women covering up in Islam is cos of men's urges as well, from what I understand. Why should the rest of us respect vile ideas like these?

 

[Spymaster]

I don't think it misses the point. The fact you've now modified your argument to 'some muslims' only emphasises that. tbh the only really questionable bit of it is giving kids the option to leave. You might warn that the image is coming up, perhaps, say that this is an image that is offensive to some, so you can not look if you like, but inviting kids not to take part in the discussion at all is if anything letting those kids down.

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that couldn't have been discussed without showing the pictures and telling the muslim kids they could leave. He cou;d have referred to "the Charlie Hebdo cartoons" without showing them. Given that showing them was almost certain to piss someone off, why do it? It's deliberately antagonistic and just making the statement 'I have a right to cause offence so that's what I'm going to do.'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that couldn't have been discussed without showing the pictures and telling the muslim kids they could leave. Given that showing the cartoons was almost certain to piss someone off, why do it? It's deliberately antagonistic and just making the statement 'I have a right to cause offence so that's what I'm going to do.'

That's what Charlie Hebdo do, certainly. It is their intention to offend certain religious sensibilities. I don't agree that it is necessarily true of the teacher, though. Not at all. He is merely presenting something for discussion - eg is this offensive, and if so, why, and what should the rest of us do about it? It's precious to think children need protecting from what is in the end just a drawing of a bloke with some words. And if there has developed an idea that CH are racists, this is actually a chance to examine the truth of that matter. Or do you allow the unexamined prejudice to continue?

 

[Spymaster]

That's what Charlie Hebdo do, certainly. It is their intention to offend certain religious sensibilities. I don't agree that it is necessarily true of the teacher, though. Not at all. He is merely presenting something for discussion - eg is this offensive, and if so, why, and what should the rest of us do about it? It's precious to think children need protecting from what is in the end just a drawing of a bloke with some words. And if there has developed an idea that CH are racists, this is actually a chance to examine the truth of that matter. Or do you allow the unexamined prejudice to continue?

Once again, it's nothing to do with anyone being racist nor about kids needing protection. It's about a teacher grossly offending people intentionally and unnecessarily.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Once again, it's nothing to do with anyone being racist nor about kids needing protection. It's about a teacher grossly offending people intentionally and unnecessarily.

Who was grossly offended here? the kids or the parents? If the parents, which parents, and what reasons do they give? Who else is shitstirring in the background?

If I were a parent at that school, I'd be offended by the idea that the school refuses to deal with certain issues to do with freedom of expression for fear of offending religious fundamentalists. But my atheist opinions don't matter because I'm not going to go out and murder someone over them? That's the bottom line, is it not?

 

[Pickman's model]

Once again, it's nothing to do with anyone being racist nor about kids needing protection. It's about a teacher grossly offending people intentionally and unnecessarily.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

 

[chilango]

what is in the end just a drawing of a bloke with some words.

That's your view (and mine) but very clearly isn't everyone's.

 

[Pickman's model]

A certain kind of fundamentalism, be it Jewish, Muslim or Christian, is characterised by enormous arrogance, it seems to me. My opinion, my sensibility, is more important than yours. It's kind of logical - if you're fundamentalist, then you're right and everyone else is wrong, end of - but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant.

You're saying your pov trumps theirs. You're really rather fundamentalist yourself.

If you really want to diminish religion's influence in society you'll have to persuade a load of people but you don't have the stomach for that. So much easier to just offend them and whine when they don't jump into your camp.

 

[Athos]

It's about a teacher grossly offending people intentionally and unnecessarily.

It is necessary to exercise the 'right' to say things some people find offensive, if it's not be too be eroded further.

 

[andysays]

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing that couldn't have been discussed without showing the pictures and telling the muslim kids they could leave. He cou;d have referred to "the Charlie Hebdo cartoons" without showing them. Given that showing them was almost certain to piss someone off, why do it? It's deliberately antagonistic and just making the statement 'I have a right to cause offence so that's what I'm going to do.'

I think before you can describe it as deliberately antagonistic, or decide whether or not it was a potentially good idea which tragically misfired, you need to have a little more background information, info which I suspect won't be made available in all the hullabaloo.

I'd be interested in knowing a few things:
if this lesson was an approved part of the curriculum or just something the individual teacher thought up;
if the discussion about the cartoon was part of a series of discussions on controversial topics or just a one-off;
how old were the pupils in the class -what's suitable for A level students isn't necessarily so for Year 8 (or whatever the French equivalents are).

I'm also interested in exactly what the teacher said about kids leaving if they didn't want to take part. The way it's been reported/presented, it does sound unhelpful/antagonistic. but depending where that part of the story has come from, that may not be accurate.

And given that the teacher is reported to have received death threats over a number of days, I'd also be interested in knowing whether these were taken seriously, and whether any action was taken to protect him