The teacher from Batley is still in hiding

[Nicetrynigel]

Teacher Batley
His life ruined because a bunch of thugs decided they didn't like what he was teaching in his RE lesson.
This and the Labour MP's request for bhalsphey laws against those of the Abrahamic faith have made me concerned.

People should be free to offer an view against another's religion. It's scary that we are being a country where people thing being offended gives them a right to made death threats.

You are completely missing the entire point of the lesson.
He was showing blasphemous images to demonstrate what blasphemy was about
He didn’t chose one religion alone.
Yet only one religious community seems incapable of understanding the benefits of education.
It would be entirely discriminatory to only address one religion in this.
No religion demands more respect than another in this country.

Remember what happened in WW2 with Germany and Chamberlain

Why should they be appeased

Pandor - says it all, unfortunate surname in this scenario

Really? You have no boundaries at all?

If a student with particular religious/ethical/ filosofical beliefs would be offended by you ( or general female teacher) :
Not cover your hair
Being a woman and giving him instructions
Eat meat
Being a woman and offering a handshake
Eat pizza with pineapple
Talk about Halloween
Talk about Harry Potter books
Kill a mosquito

Would you be horrified and never do it again?

I am horrified that you are a teacher.

I’m horrified that you can start teaching as a teenager tbh 🤯

The teacher should have known better. No matter what anyone thinks.

The teacher should have known better than to show images of Muhammed?
Why?

Should the prostestors have known better than to issue death threats? No matter what anyone thinks?

Sounds like you are patronising them as being incapable of understanding that making death threats is unjustifiable and illegal. Why?

But yes, of course, a non-muslim teacher in a secular school should have to adjust his lessons to accommodate the feelings of some Muslim students because he should have known that Muslims who feel offended automatically have the right to threaten death.

Just so absurd. Why are you still apologising for criminal behaviour?

"I can find nothing online supporting it being a sixth form lesson on freedom of speech."

Other reports state it was a year 9 lesson.

In the Baroness Khan report it quite clearly states it was a Yr9 RE lesson on blasphemy. I imagine she knows the facts as she led the investigation.

The material was used twice before by other teachers at the same school.

@Askingforadvice78 To my knowledge Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists don’t threaten violence or behead people if their religion is insulted in the UK. The issue we should be focusing on is not being fearful of offending Muslims but why they think their religion is so important that they shouldn’t be offended. Religion is a set of beliefs, it has no basis in fact.

Bit of an understatement saying how Samuel Paty met his end was ‘not right’. It was a horrific atrocity in the name of religion. Bit like saying how Lee Rigby met his end ‘wasn't right’. A massive clampdown on religious fundamentalism should have taken place then. Both of those poor men died shocking agonising deaths in vain.

We still have Islamic preachers calling for Jihad in the UK and 75% of MI5’s counter terrorism workload is Islamic extremism which is pretty mind blowing since Muslims only make up 6% of the population.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-ken-mccallum-gives-latest-threat-update

Yes ☝️

The image may well have been used before by another teacher. That doesn't mean either teacher were correct in using it. Could the lesson have taken place without an image with a history of offence. I'd suspect it could have, I'd also categorically state that any educator of religion should know the significance of showing that image to muslim pupils.

Lets also look at the numbers being quoted as possible terrorists. MI5 may well have a large number of muslims as persons of concern. But remember that worldwide, muslims make up not far off the same number of humans as christians do. So the 6% you quote isn't really relevant.

Let's have a game of spot the red herrings.

Sorry I don’t get you. MI5 don’t seem to have extremist Christian terrorist threats as part of their work load according to the article I linked. We’re also talking about the threats to the UK not worldwide.

Not all Muslims made threats yes, but far too many condone it and that’s the problem. Anyone who adds a “but” - “Death threats are unjustified but ..” is a problem.

Too few Muslims speak up FOR the freedoms that make this country what it is, and why they wanted to come here in the first place.

Every religion has its phases of growth and decline. Islam being one of the youngest religions in the world is experiencing growth, yes, but it’s decline will come too, the same as what happened with other religions.

Under-30s in the Arab world are increasingly becoming non-religious, same as everywhere else in the world.

This.

Followers of no other religion reacts in the same way. Blasphemy images of all religion but only some followers of Islam thought it was ok to threaten. Some just don't want to follow the rules of thus country but change based on religious ideology.

Yes I agree.

The 'but' is a problem. Many cannot see that

And it’s ok to offend people’s religious sensitivities. Your religion bans something? Don’t do it. People who don’t belong to your religion do it? Ignore them. End of story.

Why is it so hard to understand this? This needs to be taught in schools.

Exactly this

We need to define what 'to justify' means for this:

To have a good reason for something.

So for something to be unjustified means the opposite:

To have no good reason for something

If death threats are unjustified there can be no reason for them. No 'but'

There are several posters who have repeatedly said something along the lines of 'read my posts, I've said it's unjustifiable to make death threats, but...' who can't grasp how this is faulty thinking.

This is the basic first step in reasoning. If your argument defies reason it can't be valid.

The prostestors in their argument were unreasonable as there is no justification for death threats. They have not used reason to conclude that offence justifies death threats ( that isn't possible). They have used faith.

Faith by definition is:

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Believe in and practice your particular faith. That's your right in this country. You have no right to expect anyone else to believe in or practice your religion.

If you break the law in the name of your religion you have still broken the law.

The prostestors issuing or supporting the issuing of death threats should have faced due process for what they did. They are the unreasonable, unlawful party in this. There is nothing unreasonable or unlawful in the actions of the teacher. There is no 'but the teacher shouldn't have'.

Anyone who continues to say a variation of 'the teacher was wrong in some way' is by definition justifying the death threats because they have used that 'but' You cannot reasonably say, 'I don't support the death threats against the teacher but the teacher should have known better.' It is not a valid statement.

I totally agree with you.

Totally agree. As a Hindu I wasn't offended by the Downing Street Diwali gig with meat and alcohol. If I was there, I would just not eat the meat. ( Some Hindus do eat meat at Diwali)

I find it very patronising when someone assumes that people of religions other than Christianity should be less liberal. There are many schools of Hinduism that are liberal.

That's heartening to hear.

This thread has made me fearful that critical thinking is in decline.

Which is all the more reason we need classes like the one at the heart of the case in Bately.

Mobs of people who cannot reason are, as is all too evident in this case, a threat to liberty.

Teachers whilst being kind also have to stand up for what is right eg if they think girls should not be second class to boys but every boy in the class disagrees the teacher is still free to annoy and upset the boys even if the boys might get violence. If the boys are violent and commit crimes because they were so enraged that men and women are equal then they need to be punished for the crimes etc.

(Just to correct a statement that Christians on the planet are about the same number as Muslims, Christians are about 2.8 billions and Muslims are only about 1.8 billion. Also the UK authorities are dealing with threats mostly in the UK of which there are very few muslims proportionately to population, but a lot of threats are from them, sadly, with something like 65% of resources spent on them. They are not having to concentrate on buddhist or hindu or jewish threats to the UK or indeed atheist threats).

ItoldyouIwassick · Yesterday 20:05

Thanks, that's an excellent summation of the situation.

It’s crazy, isn’t it? Basically like saying “you better get used to it.”
Yet on other threads where people express concerns about certain aspects of Islam and it becoming a majority religion in the UK in near future they are branded as paranoid islamophobes.