Je Suis Charlie

[JeSuisCharlie]

You have the right to be offended. I have the right to believe in what I want. We should learn from the pupils that we can be aware of differing opinions without the cancel culture
Join me if you agree with three small words...

@LaceyBetty

There is no such thing as "free speech" - the right to say and do whatever you want has always been curtailed by the law. That is why, for example, we have hate crime laws. There is no right to be offensive.

@Moondust001

This is so wrong. Freedom of speech is only curtailed by hate speech laws where it expresses hate or invites violence against a protected group. Everyone has the right to offend. And so we should.

I said " for example" not exclusively. There are many examples of restrictions to freedom of speech. But I'm certainly not going to be further engaging in a ridiculous argument with somebody who thinks that it's a right to be offensive and thinks that they should be. You're the teacher, aren't you?

@SharonasCorona
You're under no obligation to speak out. No one is. But if extreme Christians were behaving like this I would publicly distance myself from them.

@AccidentallyOnPurpose
The protestors and all those supporting or excusing them, are making the differences between some interpretations of Islam and some Muslims and Christianity abundantly clear.
Forgiveness seems to have little place in the protester's faith.

I said " for example" not exclusively. There are many examples of restrictions to freedom of speech. But I'm certainly not going to be further engaging in a ridiculous argument with somebody who thinks that it's a right to be offensive and thinks that they should be. You're the teacher, aren't you?

@Moondust001 what on earth are you saying?! Thankfully in this country the only restrictions on freedom of speech are where the speech rises to hate speech or incites violence. There absolutely is and should be right to offend! You're views are terrifying.

First paragraph should have been bolded. It was @Moondust001 's frightening opinion.

Completely agree OP

[quote WireFan]@dontsaveusername a picture also shouldn't lead to death threats and mob protests by followers of a religion either.
Imagine being so secure and confident in your religious convictions that this kind of stuff was water off a duck's back.... Instead we have Islamic fragility. And I am well aware that the protestors don't represent all Muslims and all sections of Islam so it would be great to hear condemnation of their actions by Muslims who do not wish to be categorised with them.[/quote]
If the cartoon/picture (which was offensive if CHs other cartoons were anything to go by) hadn't been printed in the first place it wouldn't have offended anyone's fragile sensibilities. This cartoon was deliberately offensive and designed to upset people. It was not necessary to print it. It served no purpose but to deliberately offend. It did not promote free speech. It was as shitty as the trolls who cause such havoc on social media with outrageous views.

And many many Muslim leaders spoke out against the tiny minority who are violent extremists.

This cartoon was deliberately offensive and designed to upset people

But so what. That's what cartoons do. That's the purpose of them.

I'm no fan of the Hebdo cartoons, or cartoons in general unless they're old ones, but, as long as they stay within the law, I'd defend their right to offend or upset, especially religion and politics.

@dontsaveusername do you support censorship?

Well if Muslims are supposed to distance themselves from the protestors id like to state as a white atheist i do not stand with the teacher. It's not acceptable to use a cartoon which he knows will offend to a group of children he has a duty of care to.

@Flaxmeadow

This cartoon was deliberately offensive and designed to upset people

But so what. That's what cartoons do. That's the purpose of them.

I'm no fan of the Hebdo cartoons, or cartoons in general unless they're old ones, but, as long as they stay within the law, I'd defend their right to offend or upset, especially religion and politics.

I think that is an important point, which is that cartoons and drawings generally have been protected from being considered "hate crime". They not necessarily "punching down" either if you look at the history.

Someone mentioned Life of Brian and that's a good analogy; at the time this was considered to be very offensive to many Christians, and there is a famous interview where Palin and Cleese defend themselves and the film.

These days our society appears to have degenerated where a rent a mob arrives outside a school enraged about drawings. To say we have gone backwards is an understatement - its all about claiming offence.

Its a pretty basic issue, imo, and I would prefer that there a far clearer line about religion generally, in that its mockery should be encouraged and protected as freedom of expression, as Charlie Hebdo is.

But the magazine isn’t aimed at children

A teacher should be aware that children are impressionable. I am well aware that the cartoon is offensive so would I show it to those who would possibly be offended no. I might talk about it if we are discussing the subject of should religion be open to being mocked

I wouldn’t put on The Life of Brian if I had friends round (or my dad) who are deeply religious. I’m not myself but I am thoughtful of what is to others and I don’t feel the need for them to have to same opinion as I do it r even to debate with them what is and what isn’t offensive

Nobody needs to have the same opinion on religion; but I do think we have take a fairly tough view about the degree to the beliefs of religion affect the education of children.

The "children" were often cited in the past as why censorship or things cannot be said. I think most adults know well enough to know that free speech doesn't have to be censored because children need to be educated - there are filthy cartoons of all sorts of people in our history, and there's nothing wrong with what happened except a rent a mob religious crowd arrived.

I hope the teacher is reinstated. He did nothing wrong, imo.

@LexMitior

Would you say the same if the teacher showed them...

A poster claiming pedophilia is just "love".
Or that the Holocaust didn't exist.
Or a caricature depicting black people as monkeys.
Or the British Empire as pilferers and murderers.
Or Mary getting it on behind Joseph's back with a witty comment.
Or a get back to the kitchen poster.
Or giving Hindu students beef without their knowledge.
Or burning a poppy and the union jack.

[quote AccidentallyOnPurpose]@LexMitior

Would you say the same if the teacher showed them...

A poster claiming pedophilia is just "love".
Or that the Holocaust didn't exist.
Or a caricature depicting black people as monkeys.
Or the British Empire as pilferers and murderers.
Or Mary getting it on behind Joseph's back with a witty comment.
Or a get back to the kitchen poster.
Or giving Hindu students beef without their knowledge.
Or burning a poppy and the union jack.[/quote]
I'll give my answer just as soon as you explain what the connection for these actually is except a teacher is involved.

@AccidentallyOnPurpose, paedophilia is illegal in the UK.....

[quote WireFan]@AccidentallyOnPurpose, paedophilia is illegal in the UK.....[/quote]
Only acting on it is.

Fucking scary how people go nuts simply because somebody showed a characture of their chosen one.

@LexMitior offensive things that could be used as resources to "spark" debate and teach children of course, regardless of who might be offended by it or why. Isn't it obvious?

I am well aware that satire has a long history and it’s not a modern phenomenon that religion has been attacked Georgians were far more evocative than what we are now

But satire is aimed at adults.

The discussion can be had with children without showing a cartoon that for many maybe offensive.

He has decided for others what is and what isn’t offensive. I would be upset if my son was shown a satire drawing of an meek looking Asian man happily licking the shoes of suited and booted white man. He would understand the drawing but would see a message of a brown man being socially beneath a white man

Some areas of our society have been continuously mocked and have had enough

@JellyBabiesFan

Fucking scary how people go nuts simply because somebody showed a characture of their chosen one.

People went nuts because someone dared to sit on the grass or in a bench this time last year. People went nuts over hot cross buns and poppies. People went nuts over Sharia law taking over the UK. People went nuts over Christianity, protestantism,Judaism etc. People went nuts over football teams. People went nuts repeatedly since history began over many ridiculous things.

I wonder what the teacher thought this was adding to the lesson?

Je ne suis pas Charlie.

[quote AccidentallyOnPurpose]@LexMitior offensive things that could be used as resources to "spark" debate and teach children of course, regardless of who might be offended by it or why. Isn't it obvious?

[/quote]
No it isn't obvious. The first example you suggested is likely a criminal offence, not "offensive".

But the remainder might have their place in education, depending on what you were discussing. Remember, we are free to discuss and express. Your assumption is that someone the teacher presenting any of those examples is an endorsement of value (or lack of value) in it.

I would make no such assumption. Human beings can discuss matters without endorsing something, because opinion is not belief.

Unlike religion.

Nice username 🙄
Enjoy the drama

I think Charlie Hebdo is in very poor taste and goes out it’s way to be insulting. I cannot understand why the teacher felt the need to show the cartoons to a class with a significant number of Muslims: it’s as though it was “ok” to insult someone’s religion