Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
From the perspective of a religious zealot, freedom of expression in and of itself is problematic and would be opposed. Do you just not teach it if there is opposition or do you allow some kids to be excluded from those lessons?
There is no position that allows for full inclusivity is there?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It is a mainstream belief in Islam. However it isn't universal. And there are different degrees of "offence". Just believing something is blasphemous does not in itself mean everyone will always refuse to look at it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Quite, but we know that significant numbers - very probably a majority - will, or will feel that they should. If it adds to feelings of exclusion and pushes them closer to the far right, how does that help the cause of freedom of expression.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
anyway you don't give a flying fuck about french muslims thinking for themselves being as you've spent much of the thread insisting you be allowed to take the piss out of and offend people with religious beliefs. strange now to want to empower them. only as long as they act as you wish i supposeThis is absurd woolly relativism. How dare you insist that I should be allowed to think for myself.
Doesn't work, does it?
Athos
Well-Known Member
We can start by all taking every opportunity to reject the rules of religion, rather than bending over backwards to accommodate them.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's where context comes in. in this case, the context isn't going to be 'Hey, kids, look at these funny cartoons. Whaddayareckon?'. It is going to be 'Look at these images. Some people were murdered because they made these images. What do you think about it? What do you think their intention was? Should they have refrained from making the images because they were going to cause offence? Or do you think they wanted to cause offence? If so, who was the target? Were others caught in the crossfire and offended needlessly? Should we always have a right not to be offended?' Bingo, a discussion about freedom of expression, one that at no point says these cartoons are fine and dandy. You can open up a discussion without ever really saying anything other than 'these people should not have been killed for making these cartoons'. And given how live an issue that is in France, how does not dealing with it help the feelings of exclusion?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I'm sorry if you feel singled out, or if I've contributed to your feeling you can't take part in this thread. I don't want to finger point at particular people.
However, I am compelled to give my opinion. And that does include my disappointment at what looks like relativism to me.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Once again your making assumptions about the content of the lesson. But that notwithstanding, you can still have all those discussions without showing the cartoons and thereby excluding people.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Censoring satirical cartoons in the name of cultural harmony.
You’ve certainly moved on since the Shamima Begum thread.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh so as i suspected you had no notion of showing the chechen boxers anything
and your doing this will empower schoolchildren in france how?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's a racist stereotype. Is it, how? Cos of how it's drawn. Ah, well I can't comment on that without seeing.
I might be wrong about the context above, so let's keep this general - that is a possible context. You cannot assume that showing the cartoons was gratuitous, as has been claimed.
Last edited:
Since we're beyond speculating about the particulars of this lesson or series of lessons. Now apparently. Although for the last 2 days it's been derigueux to assume the unfortunate teacher told the muslim kids to fuck off out of it, waving the cartoons around and other spurious rubbish. (not by you, TBF.)
What if the mere raising of this topic, instigating a discussion around the cartoons without showing them, lead to some pupils wishing to exclude themselves or take offence?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
to be fair he didn't instigate the lesson, it's something according to reports which is mandated by the french national curriculum
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
I think, just to be on the safe side, we should restrict any such discussion on religion to boys only, cos we wouldn't want to upset those Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus etc who think that only males are important in this matter.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
but the objection isn’t about it being a racist stereotype or not it’s about depicting him at all. Whether it is a racist stereotype is secondary at best.
I don’t think I’ve used that word and fully understand the rationale, what I don’t think it is is necessary.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
We wouldn't want to drive them into the arms of the far right, would we?
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Think it is likely that the broad lesson objectives are mandated, but not the lesson itself or the materials.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I know of no reason why anyone should choose to exclude themselves in that circumstance, discussions about why such images are not allowed are found within Islam (albeit rather brief discussions)
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It isn’t relativism, Danny, it’s about effective communication.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Gratuitous means unnecessary and it's been demonstrated amply on here that the lesson could have been provided without their use.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if it is a mandatory lesson it isn't something which he really had a choice in, it had to be done. so he didn't instigate the lesson. obvs the lesson itself will vary from school to school, from teacher to teacher and indeed from year to year
Raheem
Well-Known Member
OK, yes. Although I don't think anyone was questioning why he felt the need to teach freedom of expression as a topic.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Attempts to blame the teacher (or his lesson planning) is sympathy for far right Muslims because it is a form of apologism for far right actions. You are right in that not all Muslims who object to depictions of Mohammed are far right (just that not everyone who is against immigration is a paid up fash), but are often be under the influence of a far right ideology.
My sympathy is with those "Muslims" (noting that some choose not to define themselves as such) who struggle against such oppressive and reactionary ideology.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
And those who would like to become ex-Muslims.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Yes. This is important. This poor fucker didn’t decide off his own bat to run this topic. It’s a requirement of the curriculum. The lack of solidarity in some quarters is revealing
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Indeed.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Thankfully no one is blaming the teacher.
my sympathies are with everyone who fights against oppression of all kinds, and with everyone who suffers under oppression.
Athos
Well-Known Member
The Chechen boxers are a figment of another poster's imagination. But, we can all do our bit in preventing religious oppression by pushing back against it. By creating a culture and society that rejects and resists it. You could at least not seek to accommodate religious orthodoxy.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Oh, has the OP changed?
Similar threads
