Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[brogdale]

I think if you find yourself inviting part of the class to step outside, you ought to be wondering if your lesson plan is all that.

This, basically for me.
Sad to say, but If you find yourself discriminating against inclusion at the outset...probably a sign that there was a better way to tackle the topic.

 

[Pickman's model]

All children could be treated equally; all offered the chance to see the material or not, as they prefer.

I'm not a teacher, but, if I was, I imagine I'd be inclined to use images of the Holocaust or nazi propaganda if I was delivering a lesson about those topics (again offering the opportunity for those who don't want to see them to absent themselves from that part of the lesson).

The reason being the pedagogical benefit of better understanding the subject.

The right in question is the right not to be subject to the rules of religion you don't follow.

Ah, you'd not use all the materials the children being taught about

 

[butchersapron]

Which cartoons are you referring to? I find the image of Muhammed with his hat/turban depicted as a terrorist bomb to be offensive.

The one not from CH then?

 

[Spymaster]

I'm referring specifically to the image shown in the classroom. It's been posted here twice now.

If the guy had used the picture of Mohammed with the bomb turban would you say that was unnessecarily provocative?

 

[Athos]

Ah, you'd not use all the materials the children being taught about

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Which cartoons are you referring to? I find the image of Muhammed with his hat/turban depicted as a terrorist bomb to be offensive.

But any depiction of Muhammad is supposedly offensive to some. What if you drew a picture of him but didn't tell anyone who it was? Or pretended it was someone else?

 

[Jay Park]

you must have sobered up by now, you still haven’t made an actual coherent point.

so you either leave me swimming in a sea of incoherence, or you lend me some arm-bands.

 

[Pickman's model]

Read the thread

 

[Jay Park]

But any depiction of Muhammad is supposedly offensive to some. What if you drew a picture of him but didn't tell anyone who it was? Or pretended it was someone else?

why would you do that? You mean like in personal diary?

 

[Athos]

Read the thread

I have. Your post made no sense to me.

 

[butchersapron]

This, basically for me.
Sad to say, but If you find yourself discriminating against inclusion at the outset...probably a sign that there was a better way to tackle the topic.

I wonder, did he say, if you don't like it you can fuck off out of it, or something like, i recognise that there are wider family etc reasons that make viewing this problematic so the choice is yours to opt out. The ultimate danger of course, in them not opting to do so lay on him. Didn't it? Teacher solidarity fucking hell.

 

[danny la rouge]

We're questioning one man's prudence in a very specific situation.

Questioning his prudence.

 

[LDC]

You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust. Equally here there is no reason to introduce material which would offend many people in the class when you haven't actually adduced an actual reason for the cartoons to be there.

That drawing similarities between making children read 'reams of nazi propaganda' and seeing these cartoons really is quite suspect imo.

Fucking hell this thread.

Can't be arsed commenting too much, it's been hashed out a number of times. Broadly agree with danny la rouge and some of the other posters with a similar take.

Plenty of different aspects on the issue all getting mixed up and talked across each other though I think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If the guy had used the picture of Mohammed with the bomb turban would you say that was unnessecarily provocative?

As Butchers points out, that wasn't CH. It was some Danish cartoonist. So he'd have been really wrong to have used it to illustrate a point about Charlie Hebdo.

Kind of telling, though, how that cartoon gets lumped in with CH, whose work is generally more subtle and politically grounded than that, as the actual cartoon that was actually done by them and was actually shown to the class demonstrates.

 

[danny la rouge]

I’m looking forward to all the other victims having their prudence questioned all over the place.

 

[emanymton]

No. If the guy had not been killed it would still have been unnecessary for him to show the cartoons and tell the muslim kids they could leave.

This, my opinion on the showing of the cartoons is completely independent of the murder.

I thought you made it clear in the op that it is obvious the murder should be condemned, but you wanted to talk about the act showing of the cartoons.

 

[butchersapron]

As Butchers points out, that wasn't CH. It was some Danish cartoonist. So he'd have been really wrong to have used it to illustrate a point about Charlie Hebdo.

Kind of telling, though, how that cartoon gets lumped in with CH, whose work is generally more subtle and politically grounded than that, as the actual cartoon that was actually done by them and was actually shown to the class demonstrates.

They don't need no steenkin' facts mate. Jobs already finished. Just like 8 years ago.

 

[xenon]

so you either leave me swimming in a sea of incoherence, or you lend me some arm-bands.

I pretty much agree with Danny. on the actualities of any such lesson approach in this subject, I also think though going out of your way to be unnecessarily provocative is crass and foolish. Not because it risks being beheaded but for practical reasons. You don’t engage people in your ideas, open up discussion by offending them and everything they believe in.
Of course there is a big discussion and one I think that has been unfolding as to where this line is drawn. For some, the mere raising of certain issues may be deemed offensive. They cannot be afforded the moral wait to deny these subjects are discussed.

 

[emanymton]

I suggested myself that you could do this lesson without showing the pictures. However, it wasn’t a student who did the killing. Also what if some of the students were offended by the main topic being discussed. And this information made its way outside the school and inflamed some nut job. Should he have not even broached this as a subject.
There’s also a lot of speculation on here, that this teacher deliver the lesson in a clumsy, offensive manner. Where has it sent this?
Not deliberately winding people up and offending them is one thing. Avoiding subjects because of fear of violence. Fuck that.

Who has said the subject should be avoided? All I see is people saying the opposite.

 

[Spymaster]

As Butchers points out, that wasn't CH. It was some Danish cartoonist. So he'd have been really wrong to have used it to illustrate a point about Charlie Hebdo.

Kind of telling, though, how that cartoon gets lumped in with CH, whose work is actually more subtle and politically grounded than that, as the actual cartoon that was actually done by them and was actually shown to the class demonstrates.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't a CH cartoon, nor is it explicit that he was specifically discussing Charlie Hebdo rather than the broader point of freedom of expression. We actually don't know what was shown at the moment beyond that the image posted here seems to be one of several (the media are referring to cartoons; plural. IF he showed that cartoon, would you think it inflammatory.

 

[danny la rouge]

Stand and Be Counted

Marieme Helie Lucas on Samuel Paty's murder as rooted in a longer history #SamuelPaty

feministdissent.org

 

[Athos]

It doesn't matter that it wasn't a CH cartoon, nor is it explicit that he was specifically discussing Charlie Hebdo rather than the broader point of freedom of expression. We actually don't know what was shown at the moment beyond that the image posted here seems to be one of several (the media are referring to cartoons; plural. IF he showed that cartoon, would you think it inflammatory.

What do you mean by inflammatory?

 

[LDC]

AFAIK it was a social media campaign started by one parent that falsely claimed the class had been shown naked pictures by the teacher claiming the pictures were of Mohammed, and this then provoked the murderer (who as neither a student nor a parent, and whose sister had gone off to join IS previously), to track down the teacher and kill him.

 

[butchersapron]

Very odd thread - we get the lone wolf stuff from the incredible exploding vicar, a postion that's laughed out of court when used by the right - the embedded nature of the actor and their contexts highlighted - and a panto dame of crude black and white right/wrong demanding subtlety in this particular case.

 

[Spymaster]

What do you mean by inflammatory?

Likely to piss people off unnecessarily.

 

[emanymton]

Those of us disagreeing with you aren't doing this though. You're suggesting that we are because it gives your argument an element of validity but nobody has suggested that all muslims are reactionary. Again, not even close. Pickman's model made the very valid point that many were offended by the cartoons and I missed out a "some" at one point iirc, but you're arguing against points that haven't been made.

A lot of that on this thread.

 

[Athos]

Likely to piss people off unnecessarily.

It would undoubtedly piss people off. Whether or not it was necessary would depend on what he was trying to achieve by showing it.

 

[butchersapron]

I've done training with the Hocaust Educational Trust about the use of images etc. in teaching. It's not a simple or straightforward yes/no decision.

I don't recognise you in this thread either. You're posting on one hand an ideal type educationalist role and on the other a hard headed reaslism (rights etc). And the two don't match up. Have all them posh kids rotted your brain?

 

[chilango]

I don't recognise you in this thread either. You're posting on one hand an ideal type educationalist role and on the other a hard headed reaslism (rights etc). And the two don't match up. Have all them posh kids rotted your brain?

Haven't taught posh kids in almost a decade tbf.

But yeah, your point is valid. There is a dissonance between "should", "could" and "would" here. In the end that was one of the reasons I've left teaching. I couldn't square the circle and trying to do so was fucking me up.

 

[butchersapron]

A fellow worker murdered for their work. I get some people's response but those supposed to be on the left? It's breaking my fucking brain this. No amount of, i don't support the murder, of course, but is removing that.