8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Sadly, I think you could have a point here.
Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
Sadly, I think you could have a point here.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's always a good idea to be careful what you wish for
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep. Lesson here? Violence works. Dear murderous bastards, we have now changed this behaviour because of you. Your tactic works. So you can stop now.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I doubt that delivering the civic education component of the secondary curriculum has ever been the most sought after TT slot.
bimble
floofy
So now the decapitated teacher was criticising people's religion? If so then thats true of any teacher tasked with telling kids that being gay is ok or that dinosaurs were real.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Is it OK to teach that homosexual relationships are perfectly fine?
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Could you explain what you mean by this? What harm do you mean?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Sorry mate but this must have been asked and answered half a dozen times in this thread.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I saw it asked a few times but didn't see an answer. Maybe I missed it.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Whoa..that wasn't me saying that...do read carefully.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
I haven't seen answers to these questions either.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, there is confused thinking here. Charlie Hebdo criticise people's religion. Forcefully. But a teacher using CH's work to illustrate a point is not necessarily endorsing that work, any more than a history teacher showing Nazi propaganda is endorsing Naziism.
Also, there is a difference between 'criticising' and 'not submitting to the ideas of'.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The state defines the curriculum of public schools, so if they want that taught, it gets taught.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the lesson that violence works is something the state has been very careful to teach. i am not surprised there have been some apt pupils.Yep. Lesson here? Violence works. Dear murderous bastards, we have now changed this behaviour because of you. Your tactic works. So you can stop now.
bimble
floofy
Hasn't been answered just sidestepped, but presumably that's because nobody's had their head chopped off for it, there was just weeks of shouty demonstrations and scared kids. If there'd been a proper bit of violence maybe we'd be hearing that perhaps the message should be toned down a bit, so as to say 'some people believe that being gay is ok but we live in a multicultural world so you are free to disagree..'
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
I see. And then we could complain that the teachers were being "gratuitous" by teaching something that offends certain religious types.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
To an extent, parents are able to disagree with some elements of the National Curriculum and have the right to withdraw their children from certain lessons. As it happens the 'relationship education' components are compulsory for all children.
Though I'm not entirely sure what this tells us about the Paty murder.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
'we'?
Well, in this country folk are free to complain about teachers, yes.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
With this list, I think you are confusing what is taught (not the issue) with how it is taught.
If a teacher were to say "In a few moments I'm going to be talking approvingly about same-sex relationships, so anyone who may get uncomfortable about that might want to think about stepping outside for a bit", then she'd be committing an error as a teacher, IMO.
the state also defines when and how it can use violence as a means of control.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing about that 'no outsiders' class is that it was for young kids and entirely age-appropriate. It wasn't sex education. It did fall under the category of 'relationships education' in the broader sense - it was basically just saying that loving relationships and families come in different shapes and sizes. Love, not sex.
I think that in itself is revealing. The protesters weren't objecting to people being taught about gay sexuality, because that isn't what was being done. They were objecting to the idea of same-sex relationships being talked about at all. Plus the teacher was himself gay. That was a big part of it. The thread about that has some of these same confusions floating around in it - conflating hateful bigotry with cultural differences, and so excusing it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
First one says: "Mohammed: A star is born".
Second one says: A film that embraces the world's Muslims, and he's saying "and my arse? Do you like my arse?"
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
What error would the teacher be committing?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Of course it is - same as it is perfectly fine to teach that freedom of expression should be absolute, up to and including blasphemy.
I wouldn’t show the class how to sign up to Grindr tho
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
No pupils are exempt from the Relationships Educational elements of the NC in either Primary or Secondary phases.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
She'd be intentionally dividing her class, broadly along social lines, and providing an unduly differentiated lesson. This would deprive some students of teaching which might fairly be called important (in the UK, it's mandatory, as noted above) and may also risk stigmatising and alienating them. She'd also be undermining her own message of (presumably) inclusion.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
We all know Spy couldn't give a shit about Islamists and could happy see them all hang.
But maybe he does give a shit about a 13 year old Muslim kid in France who after putting up with God knows how much much racist shit in their life is then made to feel that because of their religion they have no place in a discussion of freedom of expression and tolerance. Maybe he does give a shit about them and the message that sends to them.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
JimW
支那暗杀团
I think chilango is right that the cartoons were optional and it's about "skilful means" in the Buddhist sense - you absolutely can teach a class on freedom of expression without asking the students to look at these cartoons (or not) that are taboo for mainstream Muslims. Preempting that discussion by breaking the taboo is to impose a particular brand of secularism. It's one I broadly subscribe to, but not necessarily as implemented by French state lesson plans.
And it's not the same as sex education and so forth - there you might be introducing something that's denigrated by a faith (same-sex partners for example) but is actually the lived reality of other people, so like it or lump it is the right approach. Here, the cartoons have their power because of the religious taboo, that's the whole of it. The abstract right of others to break your taboos in a secular society can be discussed (or people in non-secular societies for that matter). I don't see that as conceding ground to the Islamists either, I see it as courtesy to the more mainstream position, however silly. And then you take away the Islamists' ability to claim that they're the ones who win respect for your beliefs.
I posted earlier trying to say that even if the teacher was a horrible prat in the way he went about the lesson (doubt he was, but even if), it's neither here nor there because obviously the fact of this fascist murder is the despicable event here. With that as a given, I do think the latter discussion about how you go about changing minds is important. Read far too much about the glorious advanced forces of socialism sweeping away feudal superstitions here to think it's simply a case of being right and let the idiots get with the programme.
And it's not the same as sex education and so forth - there you might be introducing something that's denigrated by a faith (same-sex partners for example) but is actually the lived reality of other people, so like it or lump it is the right approach. Here, the cartoons have their power because of the religious taboo, that's the whole of it. The abstract right of others to break your taboos in a secular society can be discussed (or people in non-secular societies for that matter). I don't see that as conceding ground to the Islamists either, I see it as courtesy to the more mainstream position, however silly. And then you take away the Islamists' ability to claim that they're the ones who win respect for your beliefs.
I posted earlier trying to say that even if the teacher was a horrible prat in the way he went about the lesson (doubt he was, but even if), it's neither here nor there because obviously the fact of this fascist murder is the despicable event here. With that as a given, I do think the latter discussion about how you go about changing minds is important. Read far too much about the glorious advanced forces of socialism sweeping away feudal superstitions here to think it's simply a case of being right and let the idiots get with the programme.
Similar threads
