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...

I have been a pupil in school lessons where this kind of imagery was presented in class. During history lessons on USA civil rights. This was in West Yorkshire decades ago. In a class full of children from all backgrounds and heritage, including Jamaican and Pakistani. No one took offence because we all understood that it was a lesson. A deeply interesting and informative history lesson by a great teacher
But presumably in your example there was no debate as it was accepted that the picture was offensive (hopefully to everyone present and not only the black children)? It would still take very careful handling to stop any issues arising.
Plus this situation is slightly different as cartoons of Mohamed are intrinsically offensive to Muslims whereas a picture of a chimp in isolation is not inherently an issue for black people. It's difficult to draw a comparison.

I would like to know if in fact any of the teenage schoolchildren were actually offended.

I bet they weren't.

SnackSizeRaison

But it was you who originally made the comparison

I don't think anyone is is saying the Hebdo cartoons aren't offensive but rather we should be allowed to see them and discuss them and even teenagers should in a lesson

I have 100s of history books in a bookcase in my living room, at one time I had Mein Kampf in there. Is it offensive, yes it is and apart from that badly written drivel. Some people might take offence that it was there or on a library shelf, thats up to them. If a friend had called and said "shit that's an offensive book let's burn it in the garden", I'd have probably said yes lets. Another friend might have said "what's it like"? And we would have discussed it.

The teacher presented a controversial but well known cartoon to a class of teenagers as part of a discussion on religious extremism, terrorism and the media. I dont understand why the school has been shut down and a man is receiving death threats and in hiding for it. I especially don't like that the teacher hasn't been backed by his union, his headteacher or his MP. But this is the crazy world of West Yorkshire now, once a tolerant and progressive place, times are changing and not for the better

I completely agree

I am from (super super) close to where the whole debacle took place and I am a teacher and I just think why. Why show the cartoon. Why. Just don't show it. I wouldnt have done. I would potentially have referenced it. But showing it in my class? No.

[quote MsScoot]@BenoneBeauty I believe in free speech. And I’m using my free speech to say that I dislike Charlie Hebdo and the way they insult the Muslim religion. I don’t think they should be banned. But I think the teacher made the wrong choice in showing the cartoon to his class[/quote]
Very well said and sums up the whole "argument".

I would potentially have referenced it. But showing it in my class? No.

I'd be interested to know why you wouldn't conduct a similar lesson. Is it because you know the uproar it would cause? Because you also have a weak SLT who you know wouldn't defend your decision? Or do you just think it's inappropriate?

Serious question, I'm interested as you've got a better vantage point than many, with having links to this area of the country.

Ni l'un ni l'autre

As a French person who ironically has a picture of her in the DailyFail post that specific terrorist attack with a “Je suis Charlie” sign, I can now officially say almost 6 years later that I am absolutely NOT Charlie Hebdo.

I feel for the rise in racism and violence in my country but I despise a lot of the content that Charlie Hebdo publish. I don’t think they deserved what happened to them nor Samuel but I definitely don’t think what they post is okay and falls within the acceptable notion of freedom of speech in France and I definitely don’t stand behind their message.

For having been a student in France 90%, freedom of speech isn’t something that is actually a thing in French schools. Yes , we are made to comment and criticize all type of topics and content including satire but I cannot think that in my school years (only just a few years before Charlie Hebdo) that the Charlie hebdo content would have been allowed.

Religions can only be talked about factually in French schools, it can absolutely not be criticized or praised and studying mocking content about prophetes of any religion would have been gauged MASSIVELY offensive and would have definitely caused uproar and anger in the classroom already pre- Charlie Hebdo.

And if I was at school now I would also be very opposed to us studying Charlie hebdo content related to religion, or even in General because a lot of it is vile and absolutely not okay.

And unless schools were willing to be critiquing Charlie Hebdo’s content and stances, which I doubt they are, then studying Charlie Hebdo’s content does not seem appropriate and just seem to fulfill this weird tribute to the artists, that while nice for them is not the point nor goal of school and is not what freedom of speech is about or how it was ever applied before in schools.

Well said flax.
I don't think we will ever all agree on these issues of what teenagers should or should not be shown but we must not bow to the pressure of the mob of any kind whether that is religious fundamentalists or very modern woke mobs. A teacher at Eton lost his job because the school did not like his discussion about issues of sexism. They just don't seem to like contrary views put forward today in certain areas - yet those boys at Eton I am sure can cope with hearing feminism might have gone too far and those teenage muslims in Yorkshire having had a warning the material was coming up (so they could leave if they want just as jehovah's witnesses leave class for certain things against their religion) would have coped fine.

And I always thought Charlie Hebo was a disgusting magazine after they made a "funny" caricature of the Russian airplane explosion that happened (the airplane full of holiday makers in Egypt) - totally hilarious to depict children coming back from a holiday being blown to pieces.
But it wasn't a caricature about the children being blown to pieces. The caricatured concept was quite different. In the same way as their depiction of the poor boy's body on the beach did not ridicule children's deaths or refugee suffering.

They're on record as thinking all religion is controlling and misogynistic and all followers of religions are deluded and exploited, yet when it comes to Islam they seem happy to make an exception of these views and stress the need to be 'sensitive to views'.
I have a similar experience. I once received an invitation to a lecture from one of rationalist / agnostic groups I am a member of on a topic like "Islam and Atheism: are they mutually exclusive?" (not the exact title, its been years, don't remember). Really regret not attending.

@WireFan

Of course I don't support those things. And they're in no way comparable to what is being discussed here

But they are comparable! We have censorship in society. This things I listed are censored, but someone who supported those things, would say it should be allowed. violent pornography is misogynistic and extremely offensive to most women. Are you saying it should be allowed widespread distribution because some men like it and don’t want it censored? Do you think Muslims don’t have the same rights as you or me to to object? Even the airbrushing of celebs in certain adverts has been censored/banned. Censorship is everywhere.

We have a film board devoted to grading films as well as censoring certain images. This is meant to protect society and our sensibilities. Don’t Muslims deserve the same respect? As a parent I would be very unhappy if my 7 year old was shown graphic pictures of the sex act or a discussion on rape. Would you say, just go ahead, as we can’t censor? These images were as offensive to the parents and pupils.

Censorship is there to protect people. Muslims and their religion deserve the same level of protection.

Ps. I don’t in any way condone death threats, but those are in a minority and the teacher knew his actions were provocative

@SnackSizeRaisin

He asked the teenagers during a discussion if they thought they might be offended that they could leave the class for thr time being.

That is pretty unfair if true. Why should a pupil be expected to make some kind of public stand in order to not have their religion mocked in school? If the teacher thought it may be offensive it's up to them not to show the material.
How about "let's all discuss whether this picture of a black man depicted as a chimp is offensive, if you think you may be offended please leave the room" when there is one black pupil in the class.

This in some respects makes matters worse. If he had a realisation this would be controversial did he discuss it with the school management team and why were parents not consulted? Enormous pressure would be placed on Muslim children in this class. Again if a PSE class were to show a pornographic film, how would it be if the teacher said any children that are offended can leave before we start? It simply would not be enough of a safeguard for most parents.

@dontsaveusername

......'and the teacher knew his actions were provocative'

And by that line of argument, any woman who is attacked while walking alone at night in the dark only had themselves to blame.

You are victim blaming the teacher in the same way that women are blamed for attacks on them. Neither is acceptable.

Okay, I really disagree with a lot of posters on this thread. I strongly believe that religion should not have its own special protections in law short of the very serious matter of preaching religious hatred.

Showing a cartoon is not religious hatred. Comparing it to showing pornography to children is absurd. The poster who said that is a frightening person.

Showing pornopraphy to a child can get you life in prison. Because it can corrupt children and encourage them to engage in sexual behaviour with adults.

Showing a cartoon, and by the way, I recall looking at anti semitic cartoons as a teenager when learning about the Nazis, is not an endorsement of the values of the cartoon.

The above principle is so utterly utterly basic to the law of freedom of expression, and the ECHR that posters drawing an analogy between the two are imo exactly the kind of repressive people who would take away the ability to discuss or critique anything. We would be throwing away a huge liberty that is part of our country.

The people drawing analogies between the nature of the immediate harm between pornography and an anti Islamic cartoon are anti free speech. They are anti thought.

This teacher did nothing wrong. If posters want a kind of special non critical education for their children then fine; you are just giving your kids a lesser education on the basis that they can't handle actual reality, which as teenagers is absurd.

Good schools allow critique and proper thought of the difficult aspects of society as children mature. That a bunch of religious morons don't want to acknowledge the benefits of an enlightened society doesn't mean that you stop educating kids to deal with ideas critically.

Good for the teacher.

I agree. I always agree, I agree even more. I think what he was doing is warranted, because it is a clear test of how people are committed to the values of the country they live in. They have to show they are able to put first the right to speech and blaspheme before their own religious leanings. We cannot go back, we cannot give ground.

@LexMitior
@OfaFrenchmind2

Very well said and I absolutely agree.

@LexMitior

Okay, I really disagree with a lot of posters on this thread. I strongly believe that religion should not have its own special protections in law short of the very serious matter of preaching religious hatred.

Showing a cartoon is not religious hatred. Comparing it to showing pornography to children is absurd. The poster who said that is a frightening person.

Showing pornopraphy to a child can get you life in prison. Because it can corrupt children and encourage them to engage in sexual behaviour with adults.

Showing a cartoon, and by the way, I recall looking at anti semitic cartoons as a teenager when learning about the Nazis, is not an endorsement of the values of the cartoon.

The above principle is so utterly utterly basic to the law of freedom of expression, and the ECHR that posters drawing an analogy between the two are imo exactly the kind of repressive people who would take away the ability to discuss or critique anything. We would be throwing away a huge liberty that is part of our country.

The people drawing analogies between the nature of the immediate harm between pornography and an anti Islamic cartoon are anti free speech. They are anti thought.

This teacher did nothing wrong. If posters want a kind of special non critical education for their children then fine; you are just giving your kids a lesser education on the basis that they can't handle actual reality, which as teenagers is absurd.

Good schools allow critique and proper thought of the difficult aspects of society as children mature. That a bunch of religious morons don't want to acknowledge the benefits of an enlightened society doesn't mean that you stop educating kids to deal with ideas critically.

Good for the teacher.

Thanks for your comments. I do not usually regard myself as a scary person but there you go. In a pluralistic society we have responsibilities as well as rights. As part of the same PSE lessons I would expect that no one would use the N word when discussing racism and the use of it would drive significant criticism. In showing these cartoons, using inappropriate language marginalise people of different views and religions. Good schools are inclusive and respectful. Your route allows the goading of minority communities, along the lines of look at you backward people with your beliefs, here you go, if you are offended by this then you are weak and feeble". Your open thought is actually quite limited I think.

I agree with Brainwave89

And once again if the discussion is around freedom of speech why use Islam. There are plenty of other examples

And the use of horrible caricatures used for Nazi propaganda are we defending their right to use them no we are being critical of them

And once again if the discussion is around freedom of speech why use Islam. There are plenty of other examples

Because Islam is a deeply authoritarian and conservative religious and political ideology?

Your route allows the goading of minority communities

The teacher is in the minority community in Batley, so in a roundabout way you're right. He is the one being goaded. He is the one receiving death threats and in hiding for his life

Also I want to ask people if you had a friend you knew that was vegan and they came to your house would you knowingly give them meat.

And if you had someone that was Muslim or Jewish who did not eat pork would you knowingly give them pork.

Of course you would not. Similarly with cartoons they are prohibited in Islam of figures like Prophets. So why are you trying to use 'freedom of speech' to offend someone. Does this mean you can never debate someone against religion? Of course everyone can have their own opinion. But if you do something that Muslims in general do not agree with (e.g. pictures of the Prophet) then really what are you hoping to achieve? We cannot kid ourselves and think that Charlie Hebdo care about minorities. They have targeted many and I am sure if The Sun or Daily Mail made headlines like CH this forum would be full of uproar as well asking for them to be removed/fine for the paper.

It is sad especially on this thread, we have posts saying men do not know what women go through. Everyone agrees with that no doubt. Men need to check their own privilege that is a fact. But similarly, the people who say this also need to look at their own privilege. They do not know what it is like to be marginalised in France, USA or even the UK. Men don't get to tell people what is sexist. Similarly, white people should not tell black people what is offensive and is not. If we believed in saying anything, people would still openly use the n word (white people). And as someone said previously, if Tommy Robinson or Nigel Farage was killed by Islamists, the hard left wing or anyone else would everyone else be saying "I am Nigel" or "I am Tommy." Of course they won't. Because you can be AGAINST both. Be against people like Tommy and Nigel. But they do not deserve to be killed for their opinions either. That is exactly the same with Charlie Hebdo.

@Flaxmeadow

Your route allows the goading of minority communities

The teacher is in the minority community in Batley, so in a roundabout way you're right. He is the one being goaded. He is the one receiving death threats and in hiding for his life

The teacher should have been better equipped and understood that showing images in a classroom with Muslim students may cause offense. He was wrong but does not deserve to be sacked. Some of the crowds have been over the top. But you get that with any protests there are always people who go over the top (which is wrong). Teachers need better diversity training that is for sure.

And by your logic Piers Morgan is also innocent. The man knowingly made fun of a woman going through mental health issues and continuously tries to mock her day in day out. He got death threats as well for his reaction of Megan. Was it wrong to get death threats? Of course it was. But Piers is not innocent either it was right for him to leave GMB.

[quote WireFan]@dontsaveusername

......'and the teacher knew his actions were provocative'

And by that line of argument, any woman who is attacked while walking alone at night in the dark only had themselves to blame.

You are victim blaming the teacher in the same way that women are blamed for attacks on them. Neither is acceptable.[/quote]
No it is not and you know that. It's more like a woman or man wearing something that contravenes their work's dress policy. For example an offensive tshirt. They know there would be consequences but they either don't care or feel what they have to say through the tshirt is more important or that their rights should be unencumbered.

Would you be happy with an English teacher deciding studying 50 shades of grey is appropriate ? It's a great learning tool for English (how not to write crappy books) and PHSE(how not to mistake abuse for love and romance).

He knew that what did would offend some of his pupils. He knew there might be objections or complaints.

He didn't know there would be protests, the school shut and threats of violence. Which is understandable, as it's a very extreme and violent reaction and None of it is acceptable or justifiable in any way.