Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[bimble]

If the teacher had not shown the cartoon, had done the lesson without (and not invited anyone to leave if they wanted) instead just describing the cartoons, talking about blasphemy in the abstract and encouraging his pupils to discuss presumably the atrocity committed at the offices of charlie hebdo and french secular society's 'je suis charlie' response, would he have kept his head? Would kids from families where blasphemy is regarded as a terrible sin have felt totally conformable and included? I don't think the answer to either is clear at all. Going on about the showing of the cartoon as the main thing is sort of avoiding the bigger issue i think.

 

[8ball]

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.

Well, I’d hope there’s some sincerity there and a reason for filling in a lot of gaps in terms of what actually transpired..

 

[Saul Goodman]

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.

The teacher wouldn't be intentionally dividing the class. Religious beliefs would have already divided the class. The teacher would merely be accommodating those who don't wish to be offended by the content of the lesson, because of their religious beliefs.

 

[JimW]

If the teacher had not shown the cartoon, had done the lesson without (and not invited anyone to leave if they wanted) instead just describing the cartoons, talking about blasphemy in the abstract and encouraging his pupils to discuss presumably the atrocity committed at the offices of charlie hebdo and french secular society's 'je suis charlie' response, would he have kept his head? Would kids from families where blasphemy is regarded as a terrible sin have felt totally conformable and included? I don't think the answer to either is clear at all. Going on about the showing of the cartoon as the main thing is sort of avoiding the bigger issue i think.

It's just the point under discussion - have no doubt the fuck who murdered him didn't need much excuse. The bigger issues I took to be not being discussed because we're all on the same page or if you don't think I am, happy to hear where not.

 

[brogdale]

The teacher wouldn't be intentionally dividing the class. Religious beliefs would have already divided the class. The teacher would merely be accommodating those who don't wish to be offended by the content of the lesson, because of their religious beliefs.

The teacher can't do what you suggest; you're wasting your time on this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If the teacher had not shown the cartoon, had done the lesson without (and not invited anyone to leave if they wanted) instead just describing the cartoons, talking about blasphemy in the abstract and encouraging his pupils to discuss presumably the atrocity committed at the offices of charlie hebdo and french secular society's 'je suis charlie' response, would he have kept his head? Would kids from families where blasphemy is regarded as a terrible sin have felt totally conformable and included? I don't think the answer to either is clear at all.

We also have to remember cultural differences between the UK and France, something that has been touched on by others.

Here in the UK we have a muddled system with a nominally theocratic monarchy and compulsory religious education in schools. We know from living here that the reality isn't quite what the form suggests it should be. British hypocrisy and fudge ensure that.

France is a republic in which the ideals of the republic are taught with some force in schools. There is much more of a coincidence between the reality and the form. That does mean that this kind of discussion probably won't take quite the form it would take here. It is going to involve more direction to the teacher to teach the values of the republic, for starters, so he probably won't have had all that much leeway. It would probably come across as heavy-handed to many of us, as much of what happens in US schools does. But at the same time, it also explains the strength of the Je Suis Charlie response. And they are quite right that the values of the republic, whatever they might be, are incompatible with Islamism.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The teacher can't do what you suggest; you're wasting your time on this.

I'm talking about the morality of it, not the legality in a particular country.

 

[Raheem]

If the teacher had not shown the cartoon, had done the lesson without (and not invited anyone to leave if they wanted) instead just describing the cartoons, talking about blasphemy in the abstract and encouraging his pupils to discuss presumably the atrocity committed at the offices of charlie hebdo and french secular society's 'je suis charlie' response, would he have kept his head? Would kids from families where blasphemy is regarded as a terrible sin have felt totally conformable and included? I don't think the answer to either is clear at all.

Well you might not think so, but I bet you the rest of my Quavers the reality is different. Might be tricky to evidence, though, so I'll just finish the bag if it's all the same.

It's not as if we're talking about a seldom-trod area of teaching. Everyone in France born after a certain date will have been involved in class discussions, assemblies and so on about or touching on the CH cartoons. It's never going to have been straightforward, but there are bound to be many successful examples which did the job without needing to marginalise anyone.

 

[emanymton]

Well, I’d hope there’s some sincerity there and a reason for filling in a lot of gaps in terms of what actually transpired..

Just getting pissed off, and I'm tired and ill.

 

[brogdale]

I'm talking about the morality of it, not the legality in a particular country.

Curriculums, specifications and laws regarding school attendance are specific to particular administrations, so it's an extremely hypothetical suggestion.

But, morally...no; school children shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for decisions regarding their own, selective engagement with the curriculum.

It also amazes me that folk even think that it's possible to let groups of kids just swan off around the school in the middle of lessons.

 

[8ball]

Just getting pissed off, and I'm tired and ill.

Hope it’s not the Dreaded Lurgee.

 

[emanymton]

If the teacher had not shown the cartoon, had done the lesson without (and not invited anyone to leave if they wanted) instead just describing the cartoons, talking about blasphemy in the abstract and encouraging his pupils to discuss presumably the atrocity committed at the offices of charlie hebdo and french secular society's 'je suis charlie' response, would he have kept his head? Would kids from families where blasphemy is regarded as a terrible sin have felt totally conformable and included? I don't think the answer to either is clear at all. Going on about the showing of the cartoon as the main thing is sort of avoiding the bigger issue i think.

It is an interesting question. But I am not sure it is relevant to the discussion here.

If I had to speculate I think he would. But the guy would have killed someone else at some point.

 

[emanymton]

Hope it’s not the Dreaded Lurgee.

Bad cold that was getting better but suddenly got worse.

 

[Spymaster]

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.

It's more than that, tbh. I'm not religious but I've nothing against people who are. If they leave me alone I'll leave them alone to get on with their silliness but I see no value in deliberately offending them or going out of my way to assert my right to do so. That's just intolerance but it's largely practiced by people who consider themselves progressives. I think Charlie Hebdo is shit but obviously no one should die because they print that tripe. By all means be sharply critical of paedo priests, Islamic fundies, zionist Jews ... whatever, but the majority of religious folk have nothing to do with all that and condemn those extremes too. Why go out of your way to piss these people off? Look at those cartoons that Jay posted in post #1429. I mean ... wtf? Just why? Why is it more important for people to be able to print and show that stuff to school children whose parents may well have told them it's outrageous than it is for kids to feel comfortable at school?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's more than that, tbh. I'm not religious but I've nothing against people who are. If they leave me alone I'll leave them alone to get on with their silliness but I see no value in deliberately offending them or going out of my way to assert my right to do so. That's just intolerance but it's largely practiced by people who consider themselves progressives. I think Charlie Hebdo is shit but obviously no one should die because they print that tripe. By all means be sharply critical of paedo priests, Islamic fundies, zionist Jews ... whatever, but the majority of religious folk have nothing to do with all that and condemn those extremes too. Why go out of your way to piss these people off? Look at those cartoons that Jay posted in post #1429. I mean ... wtf? Just why? Why is it more important for people to be able to print and show that stuff to school children whose parents may well have told them it's outrageous than it is for kids to feel comfortable at school?

The teacher specifically denied showing those images, did he not? That was the lie spread online by the parent whose child wasn't even there. The lie that led to his murder. Careful not to repeat it, eh?

 

[tim]

There is literally no more relevant, current, and relateable material on the topic of freedom of expression in France than those cartoons. But, notwithstanding that, you'd have denied access to it for all students, to comply with the religious rules of some of them.

The laws banning the wearing of hijab in schools and other public buildings are both current and relatable as they directly impact on the freedom of self-expression.

 

[Spymaster]

The teacher specifically denied showing those images, did he not? That was the lie spread online by the parent whose child wasn't even there. The lie that led to his murder. Careful not to repeat it, eh?

Not suggesting he showed those particular pictures but making the broader point, as I think is obvious to most. Wind your neck in.

 

[emanymton]

It's more than that, tbh. I'm not religious but I've nothing against people who are. If they leave me alone I'll leave them alone to get on with their silliness but I see no value in deliberately offending them or going out of my way to assert my right to do so. That's just intolerance but it's largely practiced by people who consider themselves progressives. I think Charlie Hebdo is shit but obviously no one should die because they print that tripe. By all means be sharply critical of paedo priests, Islamic fundies, zionist Jews ... whatever, but the majority of religious folk have nothing to do with all that and condemn those extremes too. Why go out of your way to piss these people off? Look at those cartoons that Jay posted in post #1429. I mean ... wtf? Just why? Why is it more important for people to be able to print and show that stuff to school children whose parents may well have told them it's outrageous than it is for kids to feel comfortable at school?

Completely agree.
I don't get the 'we need to be intolerant for the sake of tolerance' line at all. Never have.

It's about showing people respect.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not suggesting he showed those particular pictures but making the broader point. Wind your neck in.

No. Sort yourself out here. And fucking get things right. When you get things wrong, stop lashing out like a child and accept you were wrong when it's pointed out to you. Fuck's sake.

 

[Spymaster]

Completely agree.
I don't get the 'we need to be intolerant for the sake of tolerance' line at all. Never have.

It's about showing people respect.

Or at least not being disrespectful for the sake of it because you have a right to be.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[brogdale]

The teacher specifically denied showing those images, did he not? That was the lie spread online by the parent whose child wasn't even there. The lie that led to his murder. Careful not to repeat it, eh?

Multiple press reports suggest that he did. Is there credible evidence to the contrary?

 

[8ball]

It's more than that, tbh. I'm not religious but I've nothing against people who are. If they leave me alone I'll leave them alone to get on with their silliness but I see no value in deliberately offending them or going out of my way to assert my right to do so. That's just intolerance but it's largely practiced by people who consider themselves progressives. I think Charlie Hebdo is shit but obviously no one should die because they print that tripe. By all means be sharply critical of paedo priests, Islamic fundies, zionist Jews ... whatever, but the majority of religious folk have nothing to do with all that and condemn those extremes too. Why go out of your way to piss these people off? Look at those cartoons that Jay posted in post #1429. I mean ... wtf? Just why? Why is it more important for people to be able to print and show that stuff to school children whose parents may well have told them it's outrageous than it is for kids to feel comfortable at school?

I can’t be sure exactly what you’ve seen or read, but you seem to be drawing a picture of deliberate offence-giving, whereas all I’ve seen points to a school rumour-mill having some involvement and sketchy real details.

Leaving the whole beheading atrocity aside for a moment (which isn’t that easy), I don’t think anyone is saying kicking the Muslim kids out of class while the rest of us take the piss out of their Prophet is a good or decent thing.

 

[Spymaster]

No. Sort yourself out here. And fucking get things right. When you get things wrong, stop lashing out like a child and accept you were wrong when it's pointed out to you. Fuck's sake.

Oh do one. You've been a mendacious tit on most of this thread. He may not have shown those very photos but I don't doubt you'd support his right to do so, would you?

 

[xenon]

I haven't seen answers to these questions either.

The only answer I've seen is, the puipils should be allowed to withdraw from lessons that might trigger some religious sensabilities Or the pupil's parents decide so on their behalf.

Which is what happens anyway.

And is what happened here.

And yet, the teacher was murdered.

Oh but they shouldn't have taught it this way. But I'm not saying they're in any way responsible for what happened to them.

But they definitely shouldn't have done it that way.

Don't get me wrong, I like Spymaster and I reckon he has just painted himself into a corner by a defence of a clumsy OP and subsequent stance, which relies on assuming the teacher as presenting these cartoons in as an egrecious manner as possible.

Raheem and a couple of others. I don't know what their actual stance is as they've obfuscated, again relying on this idea the teacher was deliberately imflamatory. Which stinks.

 

[Saul Goodman]

But, morally...no; school children shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for decisions regarding their own, selective engagement with the curriculum.

Do you believe children shouldn't be put in a position where their religious beliefs might cause them to exclude themselves from a lesson (assuming self-exclusion was allowed)?

 

[Spymaster]

I can’t be sure exactly what you’ve seen or read, but you seem to be drawing a picture of deliberate offence-giving, whereas all I’ve seen points to a school rumour-mill having some involvement and sketchy real details.

Leaving the whole beheading atrocity aside for a moment (which isn’t that easy), I don’t think anyone is saying kicking the Muslim kids out of class while the rest of us take the piss out of their Prophet is a good or decent thing.

Showing cartoons to kids was a minor element of my reply to @enymanton. I don't see why anyone has much use for intolerant anti-religionism at all, but that's another thread.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[ignatious]

Look at those cartoons that Jay posted in post #1429. I mean ... wtf? Just why? Why is it more important for people to be able to print and show that stuff to school children whose parents may well have told them it's outrageous than it is for kids to feel comfortable at school?

A perfectly valid response that plenty will agree with. But is it not notable that you have chosen to use the cartoons in support of your argument, but wish to deny the same opportunity to a generation, whichever side of the debate they are on at the start, who will have to negotiate this stuff in a way that our generation won’t? It has helped frame the debate hasn’t it?

 

[xenon]

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.

Presumeably you're against sex education lessons then?

And if not. We've heard a few times that religious parents have removed their children from these. Why's this different if you think it is?