Evo1883
Well-Known Member
I know mate .. just can't stick either outlet me
it's a major news story, getting both sides of the story is how journalism is supposed to work though increasingly it doesn't in this country.
It's shone a light on some pretty silly opinions as well so win win.
But (I assume) you’re not a Muslim.Yea I don't think a teacher showing a cartoon picture of mohammed is a hate crime mate
Very dangerous slope you think we should go down that Tony.But (I assume) you’re not a Muslim.
Makes you feel better , I don't trust any of themOnly media outlet I trust is the Daily Mail
Me neither mate was just having a play about haha. I tend to have a look at the sport in the Daily Mail that’s about it. The front pages are usually a horror storyMakes you feel better , I don't trust any of them
I can't ever recall a time where I've read the daily mail ..only articles people share
So does that mean I should stop eating pork and drinking in case a Muslim doesn't like it?But (I assume) you’re not a Muslim.
But (I assume) you’re not a Muslim.
But (I assume) you’re not a Muslim.
Call it a protest and we can get 20k for a city game tooHow about I establish my own religion and call it a hate crime every time I see the Wasps logo?
As a retired RE teacher of 35 years experience, AT LAST, a thread I can claim expertise on.
I will say this:
Discretion is the better part of valour.
Just like when teaching about pornography in PHSE you don't show actual porn images, in RE when teaching about blasphemy you don't show images of Muhammad.
It is sad but inevitable that it be turned into another free speech culture war BUT the parent mob must be faced down and the school be supported in dealing with it. Definitely no sacking.
I haven’t actually chosen a side so please don’t choose one for me. All I’ve pointed out is some holes in your knowledge. You don’t think it’s a hate crime but you’ve also used an example of other religions using religious imagery to explain why it should be OK. It comes down to respect really for me.Very dangerous slope you think we should go down that Tony.
Of course I'm shocked that you seem to be choosing the side of the protesters ..not
I'm understanding the suspension, personally, as much because it shows it was a stupid thing to do (for an RE teacher!), and shows that the school hears cries of protest, too. Must be noted, a suspension doesn't = guilt.I agree with much in your post but now this has happened I feel that unfortunately as society we have to pick a side.
Perhaps the only compromise is to suspend the teacher if its proved he went off curriculum.
But if we go down the protection route then that really is a slippery slope.
And it wont stop there.
I haven’t actually chosen a side so please don’t choose one for me. All I’ve pointed out is some holes in your knowledge. You don’t think it’s a hate crime but you’ve also used an example of other religions using religious imagery to explain why it should be OK. It comes down to respect really for me.
Sign me up, brother!How about I establish my own religion and call it a hate crime every time I see the Wasps logo?
Unlikely but it does raise the question of halal meat. Many non Muslims refuse to eat it or get angry about the prospect of eating it. Just to prove irrationality exists on both sides of the argument.So does that mean I should stop eating pork and drinking in case a Muslim doesn't like it?
Like I said, be interesting to see how many of those protesting are 100% pure.Unlikely but it does raise the question of halal meat. Many non Muslims refuse to eat it or get angry about the prospect of eating it. Just to prove irrationality exists on both sides of the argument.
I believe that angles are sacred and should never be measured or calculated. The entire congregation of our church will now protest against the teaching of geometry and trigonometry outside Batley Grammar until they issue a full apology, remove maths and physics from the curriculum and sack all the teachers.
Freedom of religion is good. Everyone should be free to believe what they wish and worship accordingly, so long as it does not break any law (I have no issue with Satanism per se but don't agree with the child sacrifice bit) .
However, religion and state is segregated in all developed nations for a reason. No religion should be able to dictate what everyone else does and says.
Had this teacher taught the kids that Mohammed was a wanker that would have been wrong: because he's being paid to teach in a non-biased and constructive manner. However, from my understanding, this incident was in the context of a lesson on blasphemy - and the cartoon is very much in context.
The natural consequence of freedom to believe anything is the freedom to offend. Nobody has the right not to be offended, because that means that nobody is allowed to talk about whatever it is they believe... such as the Sacred Right Angle, The Holy Perpendicular. And that's especially true when some (a minority, not the people outside Batley Grammar) enforce their diktat with extreme violence.
Why do I need to choose a side? Am I not allowed to remain bipartisan? I don’t have faith but I believe in respecting faith and people of faith. Regardless of faith.You will choose a side soon Tony, I'm sure. You just need some time to learn what the majority of social justice warriors think.
As I’m sure all the patriotic brits will soon be calling for the freedom to post images of the prophet Mohammed all over the country as they see fit.You will choose a side soon Tony, I'm sure. You just need some time to learn what the majority of social justice warriors think.
As I’m sure all the patriotic brits will soon be calling for the freedom to post images of the prophet Mohammed all over the country as they see fit.
All religion BTW...brainwashing dribble
I understand why you would naturally back the teacher in this scenario, but it seems to me like he’s failed in the most fundamental part of his job, which is ensuring a safe learning environment for his pupils. Not sure I’d want this guy teaching my kids, knowing he’s prepared to gratuitously bait fundamentalist lunatics in the name of a trivial free speech ‘victory’ (or even worse, out of pure ignorance)
As a retired RE teacher of 35 years experience, AT LAST, a thread I can claim expertise on.
I will say this:
Discretion is the better part of valour.
Just like when teaching about pornography in PHSE you don't show actual porn images, in RE when teaching about blasphemy you don't show images of Muhammad.
It is sad but inevitable that it be turned into another free speech culture war BUT the parent mob must be faced down and the school be supported in dealing with it. Definitely no sacking.
I said earlier in the thread there would be some drip calling it a hate crime. Turns out its you Tony, congrats.The common law of blasphemy was abolished, doesn’t mean you can’t be trialled for blasphemy as a hate crime. So what you say is only partially true.
You said drip and directed it towards another human ...hate crime tbhI said earlier in the thread there would be some drip calling it a hate crime. Turns out its you Tony, congrats.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Offensive to people with leaky taps.You said drip and directed it towards another human ...hate crime tbh
Or nasal dripOffensive to people with leaky taps.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
I don’t have faith but I believe in respecting faith and people of faith. Regardless of faith.
I haven’t actually called it anything. I’ve merely pointed out that blasphemy although no longer a crime in itself it is still possible to treat blasphemy as a hate crime.I said earlier in the thread there would be some drip calling it a hate crime. Turns out its you Tony, congrats.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
But would you be OK with it, if the teacher was arrested for a hate crime?I haven’t actually called it anything. I’ve merely pointed out that blasphemy although no longer a crime in itself it is still possible to treat blasphemy as a hate crime.
The old law wasn’t actually scraped that long ago, dated back to medieval times and allowed it actually to be a crime to simply be a non believer. The law is still there to protect faith it just isn’t called a blasphemy law anymore and it doesn’t carry the power of the old laws anymore. That was the point I was making when someone said blasphemy isn’t a crime anymore.
Do you know what. I ain’t bothered. I don’t know why a teacher would want to show one to a classroom though. If for no other reason than it was easier not to. All he had to say was that images of Muhammad is considered blasphemy in Islam. Job done, that’s religious education. Not satisfied with that this teacher actively looked for a cartoon image, must have stumbled across how controversial a subject it is given how the two are linked and at no point thought to themselves I better not do that. I’d question that teachers ability to be a teacher.So you support some Muslims insisting that nobody is permitted to see a cartoon of Mohammed, even if they are not Muslim?
Would you also support Buddhists insisting that nobody was allowed to eat meat? And Hindus protesting because a school had permitted pupils to dissect a cow's eye as part of a Biology lesson? Presumably, this would be extended so that trainee vets were not permitted to work with cows either. And you were also part of the Mary Whitehouse crowds outside cinemas showing 'Life of Brian'? Do you burn copies of 'On the Origin of Species' because it's a hate book that disrespects God's word in Genesis?
Or are you just virtue-signaling as always? "High virtue but Low Cognition" Tony? Shortened to "Right On" Tony by comrades?
As I think I said before, one can respect someone else's right to believe whatever they want without recognising their right to impose their beliefs on others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?