Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[belboid]

You can have a discussion, but you'll be doing so from a position of relative (self-imposed) ignorance. You can choose that for yourself, but not for others.

Except the objection is to any depiction of Mohammed not the particular depictions CH printed. So viewing the pictures doesn’t really inform you any better as to the nature of the debate.

I’m sure such classes were held prior to the CH murders, to insist on using those images strikes me as counter productive.

 

[Athos]

Except the objection is to any depiction of Mohammed not the particular depictions CH printed. So viewing the pictures doesn’t really inform you any better as to the nature of the debate.

I’m sure such classes were held prior to the CH murders, to insist on using those images strikes me as counter productive.

A lot of people assume the content of the images was offensive over and above a mere depiction of Mohammed. So, showing them is helpful in clarifying that point.

What you're actually proposing is that childen should be denied the option of seeing most relevant and topical primary source material, to comply with the rules of a religion to which they don't subscribe. That's what's counter-productive to a discussion on freedoms!

And the more you do that, the more you tacitly legitimise the right-wing ideology that led to this worker's brutal murder (whether or not you mean to - and I'm sure you don't).

 

[Pickman's model]

as someone who was at school at the time of the satanic verses affair i can't recall any similar lessons in which rushdie was brought up and examined other than informally - did any urbs 'of a certain age' get classes in freedom of expression then?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

All this stuff about the kids choosing, making decisions or their parents making choices on their behalf. It's all so much cack. They don't decide. They 'ask the imam' to find out what's allowed and what isn't. Or they get told by some religious teacher, who has spent years studying the word of God (as dictated by an angel ffs). If the religious authority says one thing, they'll go for it, if they say another they'll go for that. I think that chain of arbitrary command needs to be broken. Quite how is another matter, but let's not pretend that there should be anything 'sacrosanct' about the religious point of view.

 

[chilango]

as someone who was at school at the time of the satanic verses affair i can't recall any similar lessons in which rushdie was brought up and examined other than informally - did any urbs 'of a certain age' get classes in freedom of expression then?

Spycatcher too.

Copies of both were excitedly and surreptitiously passed round hand to hand till we all realised they were dreadfully boring.

 

[xenon]

Yes. As happens here.

Not by the system. No.

There's no contradiction there.

Let's leave aside the cartoons for a moment. If a teacher introduces a topic that let's say, is known to be controversial for some faiths. If they don't offer a trigger warning of some sort,
you'd presumeably think that a bit wreckless. As would I TBH.

However, if the teacher does, , they risk defining students by their faith by offering them the opportunity to step out for a few minutes. Which let's remember, is what sounds like happened here.

AT which point some pupils leave, thus identifying themselves.

Maybe at this point, the teacher could shut their eyes and pretend not to know who left the room....

But also before hand, according to you earlier, they should allow parents to withdraw their kids on faith based objections. Somehow though apparently without identifying them by that faith.


And this all makes sense to you?

I think you've argued yourself into a bit of a corner and you know it.

 

[Pickman's model]

All this stuff about the kids choosing, making decisions or their parents making choices on their behalf. It's all so much cack. They don't decide. They 'ask the imam' to find out what's allowed and what isn't. Or they get told by some religious teacher, who has spent years studying the word of God (as dictated by an angel ffs). If the religious authority says one thing, they'll go for it, if they say another they'll go for that. I think that chain of arbitrary command needs to be broken. Quite how is another matter, but let's not pretend that there should be anything 'sacrosanct' about the religious point of view.

the kids and their parents all taking their cue from the imam? could you disentangle what you mean?

 

[Spymaster]

What you're actually proposing is that childen should be denied the option of seeing most relevant and topical primary source material, to comply with the rules of a relion to which they don't subscribe.

To avoid the need to identify a section of a class by religion when there's a absolutely reasonable way of tackling the subject without doing so.

 

[8ball]

as someone who was at school at the time of the satanic verses affair i can't recall any similar lessons in which rushdie was brought up and examined other than informally - did any urbs 'of a certain age' get classes in freedom of expression then?

Was discussed at our school. Not in great detail at my pre-GCSE age level at the time, but it's the kind of thing that would have been included among General Studies in sixth form.
I don't recall Spycatcher coming up, though.

I think the Rushdie affair was the first time I'd heard the term 'prisoner of conscience', which led to an interest in Amnesty etc.

 

[danny la rouge]

Spycatcher too.

Copies of both were excitedly and surreptitiously passed round hand to hand till we all realised they were dreadfully boring.

Spycatcher was legal in Scotland. I remember buying it because of it being banned in England. It was dull. I wouldn’t have bought it had it not been for the furore.

I had long left school by the time Satanic Verses was published. I have owned several copies. Some I’ve lent out and haven’t been returned. I like Rushdie as a writer. It’s a good novel. (His best is Midnight’s Children). But even if it wasn’t, I’d have bought it anyway. Because of the fatwa.

 

[Pickman's model]

Was discussed at our school. Not in great detail at my pre-GCSE age level at the time, but it's the kind of thing that would have been included among General Studies in sixth form.
I don't recall Spycatcher coming up, though.

read that as spymaster and thought you'd all have been advised to leave if he'd turned up

 

[Pickman's model]

Spycatcher was legal in Scotland. I remember buying it because of it being banned in England. It was dull. I wouldn’t have bought it had it not been for the furore.

I had long left school by the time Satanic Verses was published. I have owned several copies. Some I’ve lent out and haven’t been returned. I like Rushdie as a writer. It’s a good novel. (His best is Midnight’s Children). But even if it wasn’t, I’d have bought it anyway. Because of the fatwa.

the most exciting thing about peter wright turned out to be his hat

 

[Athos]

To avoid the need to identify a section of a class by religion when there's a absolutely reasonable way of tackling the subject without doing so.

This is a complete red-herring. As if kids don't know whether their peers are Muslims or not.

Come on, this is desperate stuff.

 

[Spymaster]

I think you've just agreed with me and you know it.

xenon , your quote got messed up so I couldn't "reply" to it.

 

[chilango]

A lot of people assume the content of the images was offensive over and above a mere depiction of Mohammed. So, showing them is helpful in clarifying that point.

What you're actually proposing is that childen should be denied the option of seeing most relevant and topical primary source material, to comply with the rules of a religion to which they don't subscribe. That's what's counter-productive to a discussion on freedoms!

And the more you do that, the more you tacitly legitimise the right-wing ideology that led to this worker's brutal murder (whether or not you mean to - and I'm sure you don't).

You're not denying the children the opportunity "of seeing most relevant and topical primary source material" though. It was (iirc) the front page of widely sold magazine and is no doubt easy to find on the internet.

In some ways this bit of argument reminds me of those r/w types who use their newspaper columns to complain about being "cancelled".

The removal of one platform for a widely available piece of content is not censorship.

Now, OTOH, there might be an argument that those children might be prevented from seeing it elsewhere so it's the schools duty to give them access, but I think - in this case that's both a bit of a stretch and a different argument.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

the kids and their parents all taking their cue from the imam? could you disentangle what you mean?

I was using 'ask the imam' as an example. There's a number of such websites around, where the faithful, scared of thinking for themselves, go for instruction as to how to behave in various situation. The underlying point being that they only take offence when told to by a higher power.

 

[danny la rouge]

the most exciting thing about peter wright turned out to be his hat

His son, Simon.

 

[8ball]

I was using 'ask the imam' as an example. There's a number of such websites around, where the faithful, scared of thinking for themselves, go for instruction as to how to behave in various situation. The underlying point being that they only take offence when told to by a higher power.

They should use Twitter for that purpose like everyone else.

 

[Athos]

You're not denying the children the opportunity "of seeing most relevant and topical primary source material" though. It was (iirc) the front page of widely sold magazine and is no doubt easy to find on the internet.

Yes, some of them might be able to see it later, through independent research. But, they'd have been denied the opportunity to see it before the relevant discussion.

 

[Pickman's model]

I was using 'ask the imam' as an example. There's a number of such websites around, where the faithful, scared of thinking for themselves, go for instruction as to how to behave in various situation. The underlying point being that they only take offence when told to by a higher power.

and these are used by children and their parents of all faiths and none. that i did not know.

 

[Spymaster]

This is a complete red-herring. As if kids don't know whether their peers are Muslims or not.

No, yours is the red herring. Whether or not the other kids know who's muslim is immaterial. A minority group is being told they can opt out.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, yours is the red herring. Whether or not the other kids know who's muslim is immaterial. A minority group is being told they can opt out.

i'm not persuaded there is only one red herring

 

[chilango]

Yes, some of them might be able to see it later, through independent research. But, they'd have been denied the opportunity to see it before the relevant discussion.

You don't need to see it to discuss it. The actual style of depiction probably doesn't make much difference to the points that will be raised.

 

[bimble]

No, yours is the red herring. Whether or not the other kids know who's muslim is immaterial. A minority group is being told they can opt out.

So? Again, what is the problem with that? Spell it out. Was it racism for me to sit outside whilst everyone else sang songs about Jesus? I dont think so.

 

[Athos]

You don't need to see it to discuss it. The actual style of depiction probably doesn't make much difference to the points that will be raised.

Let the teacher and the kids decide that, rather than imposing religious rules on them.

 

[Serge Forward]

Why? What is the problem with it? Its like putting a spoiler on a post so people can choose whether they want to see a thing or not. I really don't get what the problem is. You think the teacher was A BIG RACIST for giving kids the choice ? Just weird.

Surely, in current parlance, it'd be a 'trigger warning' no?

 

[Pickman's model]

So? Again, what is the problem with that? Spell it out. Was it racism for me to sit outside whilst everyone else sang songs about Jesus? I dont think so.

how would you have felt if you'd been sitting outside while they'd been singing songs about judaism, which seems to me more apt being as you were being excluded from their religious practice

 

[Athos]

No, yours is the red herring. Whether or not the other kids know who's muslim is immaterial. A minority group is being told they can opt out.

You're moving the goalposts (again); not long ago, your objection was on the fact that they were being 'outed'.

Yes, they are afforded a freedom to opt out, borne of respect for their religious beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's a right you've called for (on the part of parents)!

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

and these are used by children and their parents of all faiths and none. that i did not know.

It's well worth looking at some of these sites. You wouldn't believe the insecurity it reveals among some. Allah is bothered about the tiniest detail of certain aspects of their lives. Worrying that so many are so unsure of themselves. If they unquestioningly accept the answer, and who knows, even more worrying.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's well worth looking at some of these sites. You wouldn't believe the insecurity it reveals among some. Allah is bothered about the tiniest detail of certain aspects of their lives. Worrying that so many are so unsure of themselves. If they unquestioningly accept the answer, and who knows, even more worrying.

what happened to god sending signs or where necessary angels? back in the good auld days the faithful always knew when they'd been contacted by burning bush or whatnot.