Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Athos]

They weren't only being asked to self-identify by the faith background of their family, they were (reportedly) being required to decide (in front of their peers) whether or not their family faith precluded a specific observation about viewing images of Muhammad.
Therein lies the danger and pressure from peers, peer families and the wider community. What happens to the child that, according to the Chechen 'boxing club' makes the wrong decision? The state does not need to place school kids in that jeopardy.

I understand what you're saying. But submitting to the bullying of the Chechen Boxing Club isn't the way forward. That just bolsters right-wing authoritarian ideology. We should be doing all we can to empower all children to reject religious dogma. Including by asserting freedom of expression.

 

[brogdale]

Do you think the ‘Chechen boxing club’ lot would have welcomed the discussion about freedom of expression if the teacher had used a different discussion tool?

Literally no idea, but I suspect most folk could have guessed that some extremists might react violently to cartoon images of Muhammad.

 

[8ball]

Maybe if the murderer had given the teacher the chance to decline being murdered we wouldn't be having this round-and-round discussion.

What? And single himself out as being a non-compliant ingrate?

 

[Pickman's model]

Now who's getting desperate?

Anyway, I really am going to do some work now so I'll leave you with Brogdale and Chilango for now who are arguing the same thing.

boss on your back, eh?

 

[Athos]

It's not like the kids are being taught "how to draw Mohammed" is it? This insitence that they have to see the image, and that this has to happen in class or else you can't have a meaningful lesson is just plain daft

I've not argued that. I've explicitly said the opposite; that those who want to can avoid seeing it, and still participate in the discussion.

 

[ignatious]

Literally no idea

I think you have a very good idea, hence your use of the label ‘Chechen boxing club’. They’re the enforcers, aren’t they?

 

[chilango]

I've not argued that. I've explicitly said the opposite; that those who want to can avoid seeing it, and still participate in the discussion.

So seeing the image isn't necessary?

 

[brogdale]

I think you have a very good idea, hence your use of the label ‘Chechen boxing club’. They’re the enforcers, aren’t they?

I meant depending on the material that was being used to exemplify 'freedom of expression'.

 

[xenon]

I mean literally arguing the school system shouldn't identify members of a faith group by offering them the chance to withdraw from the lesson if they feel it offends their sensibilities and
at the same time saying parents should be afforded this right.

Otherwise all that's left is to argue nothing should be taught that leads to causing possible offence to the religious.

 

[Athos]

So seeing the image isn't necessary?

It's nt a precondition to participate in the discussion, albeit those who haven't seen it will be doing so from a position of relative, self-imposed ignorance.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's nt a precondition to participate in the discussion, albeit those who haven't seen it will be doing so from a position of relative self-imposed ignorance.

when most things are discussed at school pupils will be doing so from a position of relative ignorance. it's why there are schools.

 

[chilango]

It's nt a precondition to participate in the discussion, albeit those who haven't seen it will be doing so from a position of relative self-imposed ignorance.

So why not use content that doesn't result in members of the class being in "a position of relative self-imposed ignorance"?

(and again I should stress that I'm talking from my experience of a British classroom, not a French one)

 

[likesfish]

Murder over a cartoon is horrific and stupid.
If your faith does anything but condem the killers and his little friends it can fuck off and when it gets there it can fuck off some more.

Don't give a fuck about your faith you kill people over cartoons.

 

[Athos]

So why not use content that doesn't result in members of the class being in "a position of relative self-imposed ignorance"?

(and again I should stress that I'm talking from my experience of a British classroom, not a French one)

Becuase the teacher decided this content was the most appropriate (not unreasonably, given how topical and relevant is is), so any decision not to use it woud be affording undue influence to religion (which is the real casue of that self-imposed ignorance), to the detriment of those who don't subscribe to that religion. We should be pushing back against religious authoritarianism, not embracing it.

 

[ignatious]

I meant depending on the material that was being used to exemplify 'freedom of expression'.

I know, I find it strange that you can envisage a place in someone’s head where they think it’s acceptable to talk about an issue but if a publically available and widely seen exhibit relating to that same issue is shown, the person who showed it deserves to have their head cut off.

It’s a huge leap of logic isn’t it?

 

[brogdale]

I know, I find it strange that you can envisage a place in someone’s head where they think it’s acceptable to talk about an issue but if a publically available and widely seen exhibit relating to that same issue is shown, the person who showed it deserves to have their head cut off.

It’s a huge leap of logic isn’t it?

Think you have the wrong poster, there.

 

[Spymaster]

Think you have the wrong poster, there.

Wrong thread more like.

 

[Raheem]

It seems that the use of the CH cartoons is also practiced by other teachers. So, my comments regarding the "appropriateness" of using them in a classroom need to be re-visited in this light. Whilst, my own experience of other places remains that I cannot envisage using in this way being "ok" this does not seem to apply in France.

If the problematic thing is the self-exclusion, it should be taken into account that there will be plenty of classrooms in France where the issue isn't going to arise, or else can be resolved without anyone leaving the classroom (if you're teaching 18 year-olds, for example, it might be reasonable to teach the lesson on the basis of consent).

Not that I would say the logic of "If other teachers do, it must be OK", is necessarily sound, mind.

 

[brogdale]

I understand what you're saying. But submitting to the bullying of the Chechen Boxing Club isn't the way forward. That just bolsters right-wing authoritarian ideology. We should be doing all we can to empower all children to reject religious dogma. Including by asserting freedom of expression.

Agree with the sentiment here and I can see how extending a duty of care to students wrt the wider commiunity can be cast as "submitting to the bullying of the Chechen Boxing Club", but to me it seems obvious that the state should do what it can to ensure the safety of staff and pupils in compulsory education.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry but this is more disingenuity. Nobody should be required to identify themselves by religion for different treatment by the system.

You appear to have painted yourself into a corner here. Athos's objection applies if you tailor your classes so that they comply with the proscriptions and prescriptions of particular religions. If you don't do that, you leave space for situations in which people of certain faiths may have problems with certain parts of a class. So either you allow them to opt out, in which case, they have to self-identify ('not our place to tell anyone else what they should believe' is, after all, the principle you're upholding), or you force them to participate in the sections of the class that you know might come into conflict with the prescriptions and proscriptions of their beliefs.

So how do you square that circle? How do you produce a secular education in which freedom of belief and freedom from belief are both protected? And let's not forget that the Islamists whose violence has provoked this debate are very clear about what they think about such secular ideals - they think that the proscriptions and prescriptions of their religion should be applied to everybody.

 

[chilango]

Becuase the teacher decided this content was the most appropriate (not unreasonably, given how topical and relevant is is), so any decision not to use it woud be affording undue influence to religion (which is the real casue of that self-imposed ignorance), to the detriment of those who don't subscribe to that religion. We should be pushing back against religious authoritarianism, not embracing it.

I'm not talking about his decision.

I'm talking about what my decision would be in circumstances that I can imagine.

You're the one being authoritarian here with your insistence on imposing your values on others.

 

[Athos]

I'm not talking about his decision.

I'm talking about what my decision would be in circumstances that I can imagine.

You're the one being authoritarian here with your insistence on imposing your values on others.

Oh God, you're really going full relativist?!

I make no apologies for 'imposing' the value of freedom to follow your religion or no religion, in preference to the 'freedom' of right-wing zealots to impose their religious constraints on everyone, assisted by the useful idiots of well-meaning liberalism.

That people would choose to go down that route on this thread, and (in some cases) by traducing a worker who was brutally murdered by a right-wing fanatic for doing his job, is appalling.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

don't you impose your tolerance on me

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh God, you're really going full relativist?!

I make no apologies for 'imposing' the value of freedom to follow your religion or no religion, in preference to the 'freedom' of right-wing religious zealots to impose their religious constraints on everyone, assisted by the useful idiots of well-meaning liberalism.

This sums up part of the reason for my utter despondency at not just this thread, but the response I’m seeing elsewhere too.

The other part is quibbling over the lesson plan of a murder victim. Sickening.

 

[Pickman's model]

back in the day if you went to the pub you could easily set the world to rights in an hour or two

here now it's like watching the magic roundabout only more like hemel hempstead and without the magic

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not talking about his decision.

I'm talking about what my decision would be in circumstances that I can imagine.

You're the one being authoritarian here with your insistence on imposing your values on others.

tbf by doing that, you are implying criticism. 'I'm not judging, I just can't imagine any situation in which I would do the same.' And that's assuming that this was his decision, which we shouldn't be doing.

 

[chilango]

Oh God, you're really going full relativist?!

I make no apologies for 'imposing' the value of freedom to follow your religion or no religion, in preference to the 'freedom' of right-wing religious zealots to impose their religious constraints on everyone, assisted by the useful idiots of well-meaning liberalism.

That people would choose to go down that route on this thread, and (in some cases) by traducing a worker who was brutally murdered by a right-wing fanatic for doing his job, is appalling.

shakes head

Now's not the time. But you're really off the mark here.

 

[Pickman's model]

shakes head

Now's not the time. But you're really off the mark here.

might be a false start

 

[chilango]

tbf by doing that, you are implying criticism. 'I'm not judging, I just can't imagine any situation in which I would do the same.' And that's assuming that this was his decision, which we shouldn't be doing.

I've been as explicit as I can about this. But people are determined to read this into my posts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

shakes head

Now's not the time. But you're really off the mark here.

You described Athos's position as authoritarian. What other conclusions should he reach?