Batley Grammar School: Prophet Muhammad cartoon row 'hijacked'

[Nearly Sane]

This could get very messy


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56523179

[Gordon]

While a degree of diplomacy is always useful, that a 'something' offends some doesn't necessarily mean that this 'something' must be disallowed - people don't have an automatic right not to be offended, or to presume that in them taking offense there is a requirement for others to modify their behaviour (provided their behaviour is legal).

That said, most reasonable people aren't provocative for the hell of it - although there are times when that approach would be justified - and I'm not clear of the context here as regards the intentions of the teacher, and without that context I think the school have been too quick to apologise.

[Roses]

Whilst the teacher might have been a little unwise to show the cartoon to the class, it is crazy to suspend him.

[Nearly Sane]

Whilst the teacher might have been a little unwise to show the cartoon to the class, it is crazy to suspend him.

Why were they unwise?

[ad_orientem]

Why was the teacher even suspended? Got nothing to answer for.

[jeremyp]

Why were they unwise?

He's been suspended. His career may be over. Muslims get wound up and cause trouble. Yes it was unwise, regardless of the fact that it shouldn't have caused any trouble.

[Nearly Sane]

He's been suspended. His career may be over. Muslims get wound up and cause trouble. Yes it was unwise, regardless of the fact that it shouldn't have caused any trouble.

So wisdom is shutting up and supporting censorship?

[jeremyp]

So wisdom is shutting up and supporting censorship?

Sadly, in this case yes. I don't like it, but it is the world we live in.

[Nearly Sane]

Sadly, in this case yes. I don't like it, but it is the world we live in.

I think that's a very narrow definition of wisdom then. It seems more like self interest?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.

If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?

If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?

[Gordon]

From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.

If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?

If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?

I'm not sure it isn't ok provided that these items were being used in the context of education about changing social attitudes.

There are, for example, numerous Nazi-era posts that stereotype Jewish people that could be reasonably discussed in a social and historical context. I'm not sure about the specific example of racism you give, since I haven't seen any examples of that type, but there are other examples of racism that could be discussed in context, such as the 'Jim Crow' era, the Ku Klux Klan or the song 'Strange Fruit' in American cultural history. Your last example seems to be conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, which seems like a stretch too far to me.

As I said further up-thread, while tact and diplomacy have their place, the context of what this teacher did, and why he did it, is unknown at present. It is not the case that people have the automatic right to not feel offended, whereby their expectation would be that others should modify their behaviour in response to their taking offense. It maybe the case that avoiding giving offense just for the sake is something that most of us would do most of the time, but there does seem to be an assumption in this case that because some Muslims have traditional sensitivities about depictions of their prophet that such depictions should be proscribed for us non-Muslims: to me, that approach seems censorious.

Of late we've seen the UK government trying to promote the Union flag (the Union Jack), and while I wouldn't go out of my way to vandalise said flag I would certainly refuse to display, wave or in any sense endorse this symbol - and if that offends others then tough: but their taking offense at my position does not require me to adjust my views or behaviour accordingly so as to conform to their expectations regarding this flag. I was offended at the prejudice displayed by the likes of the CofE over same-sex marriage, and the ring-fencing of that particular organisation by the government, but they are free to maintain their prejudices even though I find them offensive.   

While I don't usually actively seek to ridicule Christianity at every opportunity, I am free to do so whether or not some Christians are offended, and nor am I required to treat their particular religious traditions and superstitions seriously. I might personally choose to avoid being overtly confrontational or controversial in relation to the sensitivities of others, such as Christians, but I'm not required to modify my behaviour simply to fit with their sensitivities.

Why am I not free to adopt the same stance in relation to Islam? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not sure it isn't ok provided that these items were being used in the context of education about changing social attitudes.

There are, for example, numerous Nazi-era posts that stereotype Jewish people that could be reasonably discussed in a social and historical context. I'm not sure about the specific example of racism you give, since I haven't seen any examples of that type, but if there are other examples of racism that could be discussed in context, such as the 'Jim Crow' era, the Ku Klux Klan or the song 'Strange Fruit' in American cultural history. Your last example seems to be conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, which seems like a stretch too far to me.

Yes the examples I gave were the kind of negative stereotypes that people used to ridicule or dehumanise other groups. The stereotype of Prophet Mohamed as a bomber - if indeed that Hebdo cartoon is supposed to be a depiction of Prophet Mohamed and not a depiction of a random Muslim suicide bomber - would be a way of dehumanising those who love and respect him.   

As I said further up-thread, while tact and diplomacy have their place, the context of what this teacher did, and why he did it, is unknown at present. It is not the case that people have the automatic right to not feel offended, whereby their expectation would be that others should modify their behaviour in response to their taking offense. It maybe that avoiding giving offense just for the sake is something that most of us would do most of the time, but there does seem to be an assumption in this case that because some Muslims have traditional sensitivities about depictions of their prophet that such depictions should be proscribed for us non-Muslims: to me, that approach seems censorious.

Of late we've seen the UK government trying to promote the Union flag (the Union Jack), and while I wouldn't go out of my way to vandalise said flag I would certainly refuse to display, wave or in any sense endorse this symbol - and if that offends others then tough: but their taking offense at my position does not require me to adjust my views or behaviour accordingly so as to conform to their expectations regarding this flag. I was offended at the prejudice displayed by the likes of the CofE over same-sex marriage, and the ring-fencing of that particular organisation by the government, but they are free to maintain their prejudices even though I find them offensive.   

While I don't usually actively seek to ridicule Christianity at every opportunity, I am free to do so whether or not some Christians are offended, and nor am I required to treat their particular religious traditions and superstitions seriously. I might personally choose to avoid being overtly confrontational or controversial in relation to the sensitivities of others, such as Christians, but I'm not required to modify my behaviour simply to fit with their sensitivities.

Why am I not free to adopt the same stance in relation to Islam?

I read that some/ many Shia Muslims in Iran have art that depicts pictures of Prophet Mohamed or it is more tolerated there. I have not seen it myself as I haven't been to Iran or been in people's houses in London who display that kind of art.

It's an interesting question of course - where diplomacy and tact conflicts with freedom of expression conflicts with people's feelings being hurt or their sense of identity being attacked. 

[Gordon]

It's an interesting question of course - where diplomacy and tact conflicts with freedom of expression conflicts with people's feelings being hurt or their sense of identity being attacked.

Why would the sense of identity of a theist (be they Muslim, Christian or whatever) be attacked or diminished if someone like me simply didn't conform to their expectations of reverence regarding certain religious sensitivities and traditions that don't apply to me anyway? Surely their identity is grounded in other factors, and that this identity would be immune to the stance of someone like me unless I said something that caused them to question their sense of identity?

As I said, I think that most people (me included) would avoid giving offence for the sake of it or for trivial reasons so, for example, I can't see any circumstances where I would wave around a depiction of the Islamic prophet for the sheer hell of it: that said though I can see that such depictions could have value in the context of education, as would examples of Nazi-era propaganda targeting Jewish people.

My impression here is that the offence taken by some Muslims about depictions of their prophet should mean that such depictions should be proscribed for everyone else - and that either requires us to become a theocracy or to concede that certain religious sensitivities should act as constraints on everyone in society at large.

[Robbie]

From what I read it was in the context of a discussion about freedom of speech and censorship.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why would the sense of identity of a theist (be they Muslim, Christian or whatever) be attacked or diminished if someone like me simply didn't conform to their expectations of reverence regarding certain religious sensitivities and traditions that don't apply to me anyway? Surely their identity is grounded in other factors, and that this identity would be immune to the stance of someone like me unless I said something that caused them to question their sense of identity?

Not sure.

I don't really understand what appears to be an increased need or drive for acceptance or validation or celebration of someone's identity - not just in relation to theists but every other minority - different cultures, skin colour, LGBT, trans etc. Your identity is all in your head and I am not sure why the rest of us need to treat what is in someone's head with any reverence. But that seems to be the way the culture is heading so not surprised if some/ many theists want their identities to be treated in a similar way as other minority groups..

As I said, I think that most people (me included) would avoid giving offence for the sake of it or for trivial reasons so, for example, I can't see any circumstances where I would wave around a depiction of the Islamic prophet for the sheer hell of it: that said though I can see that such depictions could have value in the context of education, as would examples of Nazi-era propaganda targeting Jewish people.

My impression here is that the offence taken by some Muslims about depictions of their prophet should mean that such depictions should be proscribed for everyone else - and that either requires us to become a theocracy or to concede that certain religious sensitivities should act as constraints on everyone in society at large.

I think it's hard to know as the image chosen in this instance was an offensive Hebdo cartoon rather than a picture of Persian art depicting Prophet Mohamed. The Muslim Council of Britain statement seems to focus on the choice of a teacher to show the Hebdo cartoon to school children and opposing that as appropriate teaching material.

A 2015 study on young people’s attitudes towards Muslims revealed that 31% of young children surveyed agreed with the statement that ‘Muslims are taking over England’ to some extent – an Islamophobic conspiracy theory that used to be the preserve of the far-right. Whilst in 2017, for example, Childline reported that it had held over 2,500 counselling sessions for children concerned about race and faith-based bullying, where children as young as nine reported being called terrorists, enduring abuse, and threats of violence.

https://mcb.org.uk/community/mcb-responds-to-developments-at-batley-grammar-school/

Muslim community leaders in Yorkshire have said protesting outside the school is not the way to resolve issues.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/muslim-leaders-join-educating-yorkshire-20268770

[Owlswing]

Why is it that the second the Muslims announce that they are offended about something everyone involved starts to run around doing absolutely everything they can think of to stop the protests without thought of any other aspects of the case?

I am NOT saying that what the teacher did was right, wrong, or just plain stupid, but the speed with which their protest resulted in the teacher's suspension (and possible dismissal) was lightning fast!

Owlswing

)O(

[Gordon]

I think it's hard to know as the image chosen in this instance was an offensive Hebdo cartoon rather than a picture of Persian art depicting Prophet Mohamed. The Muslim Council of Britain statement seems to focus on the choice of a teacher to show the Hebdo cartoon to school children and opposing that as appropriate teaching material.

I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.

1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.

2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.

3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.

My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.   

[Owlswing]

I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.

1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.

2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.

3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.

My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.

We are not, either below or above the Border, a Muslim nation! The sooner the blo Muslims learn that the better - either that or leave!

Owlswing

)O(

[Udayana]

Why is it that the second the Muslims announce that they are offended about something everyone involved starts to run around doing absolutely everything they can think of to stop the protests without thought of any other aspects of the case?

I am NOT saying that what the teacher did was right, wrong, or just plain stupid, but the speed with which their protest resulted in the teacher's suspension (and possible dismissal) was lightning fast!

Owlswing

)O(

What you need is evidence to support your case.

You could hand out cartoons of Jesus buggering children, say at your local school, and time how fast you are carted off? I suspect no-one would have time to organise a protest...
 

[Udayana]

I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.

1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.

2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.

3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.

My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.

Eh? Nazi cartoons of (their fantasy of) Jews are shown to explain how anti-Semitism is nasty and wrong, but the cartoons of (supposedly) Mohammed are shown to explain that the cartoons are fine but the Muslims are always causing trouble.

[Gordon]

Eh? Nazi cartoons of (their fantasy of) Jews are shown to explain how anti-Semitism is nasty and wrong, but the cartoons of (supposedly) Mohammed are shown to explain that the cartoons are fine but the Muslims are always causing trouble.

That isn't what I said: I was suggesting that posters and other stuff (film, literature etc) originally intended to advance islamophobic or anti-semitic tropes could have a justifiable role in education as being examples of propaganda and prejudice at work.   

[Udayana]

That isn't what I said: I was suggesting that posters and other stuff (film, literature etc) originally intended to advance islamophobic or anti-semitic tropes could have a justifiable role in education as being examples of propaganda and prejudice at work.

I'd agree that in principle they could, but we need to look at how they are being used in the current cases.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.

Why would it need to be investigated?

If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?

Yes – it’s “ok” to show all such images. Why? Because they exist as artefacts that illustrate various beliefs and attitudes that have existed. Showing them to pupils isn’t agreeing with them – it’s explaining what people have believed and argued for and how they have portrayed those things.       

If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?

It’s more than ok – it’s necessary. Someone’s right not to be offended (assuming for now there even is such a right) is overwhelmingly less important than the right to free speech. For reasons that should be obvious we should limit freedom of speech only in vanishingly rare cases, and “I’m offended by that” is not one of those cases. Ever.     

[Gordon]

I'd agree that in principle they could, but we need to look at how they are being used in the current cases.

I agree: I think the context of the use, such as the intentions of the teacher, is a relevant aspect.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.

1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.

2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.

3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.

My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.

Difficult to know what happened at the school until there is some kind of facts coming out. In the case of Sam Paty, the teacher beheaded in France, it turns out that the girl who told her parents what Sam Paty said and did and showed in the classroom in relation to pictures of Prophet Mohamed, wasn't actually in the classroom at the time and lied to her father.

Going by the MCB statement, they are focusing on the Hebdo image being offensive.

Other Muslims who get a media voice may be stating for the record that they think all images of Prophet Mohamed are offensive. I can understand why they thought it makes sense to take this opportunity to state how they feel if they have just been given a public platform. Of course it is up to other people whether they choose to respect their feelings or not. A vocal noisy minority stating that all Muslims feel this way is classic tactics to try to bolster their argument - I don't see any evidence that all Muslims think the correct response to this incident is to noisily protest in front of a school rather than through dialogue.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people voicing their feelings about a subject in a respectful constructive way. Presumably we are not advocating that Muslims are not allowed to express their feelings or hurt or displeasure in constructive, law-abiding ways are we? My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.

The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.

For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/old-lady-and-prophet/