Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
JimW
支那暗杀团
We of course don't know, but reckon there's a fair chance he was some ball-aching liberal using his state sanctioned bully pulpit to lecture kids in a self--righteous fashion and was enjoying being provocative. If all that speculation is true still pales into nothing beside the fuck who killed him and why, and also it would still doubtless not come close to being the worst or most offensive lesson delivered in the French school system that day.
that would only work if there were some muslims on the thread wouldn't it?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
White liberal is now the swp-labour term for here? Who? Who needs protecting by your loving arms? Can't be the state. So the real victim, here is Muslims. Again. Just like 8 years ago.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or if anyone had talked about Islamic theology.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I am making certain assumptions about Raheem, it’s true.
I was with you right up to the last sentence.
"The price of admission to the modern world is not having your faith dictate how anyone else lives"
Ftfy
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's not. If a teacher would have shown something but decided not to ultimately becuase that image is against the rules of Islam (mediated through the idea of offending muslims), then that's a de facto imposition of the rules of Islam on those children who miss out on seeing it.
Last edited:
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Freedom of expression definitely shouldn't be exercised in a freedom of expression class.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep. There's really no way around that. It's the same with the kids' books that have evolution taken out of them - the fundamentalist group gets to dictate what every child sees or learns about.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
There's loads of images that could be used to discuss freedom of expression.
A teacher can't use them all. Some will always be excluded.
If they chose to use ones that wouldn't offend members of the class that's not exactly the end of the world. What is perhaps more important is how "free" that choice was.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
The liberal bit is fairly explicit, encapsulated by the quotes from Malik calling for a defense of liberalism.
I was thinking ‘what would I think if it had been about someone reading out ‘The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name’ to a fourth year class?’ - a poem known to be highly offensive to many Christians. It’s not quite the same, seeing as Christianity is the state religion and Islam isn’t, but it’s close enough.
I concluded that of course we’d defend such a teacher from any disciplinary, let alone a brutal and vile murder, but there’d also be an element of ‘fuck me, what a prat’
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
With Charlie Hebdo all over the news at that moment and the very reason why the class was being given in the first place? Loads of images? Like what?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Perhaps that they were offended was the lesson!
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
The whole fucking history of censorship of course? There's tonnes that could used...and you could still draw links to the CH situation.
But this is a "could" and "would" (on my part) not a "should".
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
other books are available eg Charles Darwin / Evolution for Kids -- Best Children's Books for K-Gr. 8
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Maybe, during the murdering and blood and that, the friends we made on the way...we didn't know it at the time but fuck me they were easy
The Love That Dares to Speak It's Name is a pretty filthy poem as well as being blasphemous, which would be the (only) reason I'd hesitate to read it out to a class of fourth years. You wouldn't be able to get past the giggling.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Malik isn’t in here. I quoted him. But the way I read him was that he was castigating liberals who won’t even defend supposéd liberal values.
He comes from a different stance than me: he appears to support parliamentary democracy and the nation-state. But I don’t feel the need to go into all that every time I quote him, especially when that isn’t the point he’s making.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Plenty of the CH cartoons are pretty crude too. Which is (a minor) part of my point, neither is defended by some claim to great artistic merit.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It’s the two-faced nature of liberalism. Espousing tolerance while being an apologist for murder, for example.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
The kids who would be offended by the CH cartoons* (or feel pressure to be claim to be offended) are precisely the kids who need to remain in the classroom to be encouraged to challenge these ideas**. Therefore (tactically) I'd want to use content that would enable that.
*insert other content in other situations
**though of course the kids who subscribe to freedom of express5 need to be challenged too.
*insert other content in other situations
**though of course the kids who subscribe to freedom of express5 need to be challenged too.
The poem features a description of a centurion felating the still-warm corpse of jesus. The fact that this is considered blasphemous by christians isn't the reason why it isn't wise to be read out to a class of 14 year olds.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Are only great artists allowed to offend?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
To be fair, he was making just that point: artistic merit is not the issue.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Which way have you gone?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
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.
Similar threads
