It is by no means clear to me that this teacher was denigrating Islam. I don't think we have enough information to say whether that is the case or not.
Is this one of those intention-based things where only the person being allegedly offensive has the means to judge whether they were actually being offensive because only they know what they were thinking?
I think an important distinction is being lost here. A teacher is an agent of the state giving a (usually) mandatory presentation to a captive audience. That's not the in the same category as individual free speech by private citizens. We're talking about what is, in effect, an official government message. The question of whether government officials should be using their position to denigrate specific religions is a different one than whether or not individual private citizens should be free from legal penalty for doing so.
Personally, the arguments I've put forth here have been intended as applying specifically to situations taking place in a classroom. My regrets if that wasn't made clear.
That said, your concept of "an official government message" is interesting, especially if the pictures were shown as part of what was purporting to be a balanced debate.
If a social-studies class debates "Which candidate for mayor would be the best, Smith or Jones?", and students quote from the campaign literature of both sides, that's not neccessarily a government sponsored message in favour of either candidate.
Though I suppose the overall debate does carry the implicit message that both candidates are respectable enough to be allowed discussion-time in a classroom debate. If there were a third candidate, Brown, who was running on a pro-NAMBLA platform(google at your own risk), we might think he could be legitimately denied a respectable classroom hearing, even if said hearing wouldn't qualify as a government endorsement.
Well, at the very least, anywhere I've been, most teachers wanting to tackle sensitive issues will have discussed it with their head of department and how to best handle it. Most current schools have quite rigid set curricula that don't give a lot of opportunities for the teacher to go off piste, with carefully planned materials to be used. Because it's not that easy to find appropriate suitable materials to teach sensitive topics.
Addenda: the fact the teacher is suspended suggests he wasn't teaching to an approved curriculum with approved materials.
And secondly, religious education in England is not compulsory. Parents can opt their children out.
Mostly, when controversial topics are to be discussed in English schools, usually sex and religious education, the parents are invited in to know more about what will be covered and have the right to opt their children out of the class - link to Gov.uk guidance on compulsory subjects
So most of these posts don't apply where this teacher was teaching.
<snip>But it isn't a racism issue. Islam isn't a race. It's a religion with diversity of views and extent of adherence.<snip>
In the UK at least, Islam is so overwhelmingly represented by one ethnic group that it is next to impossible to disentangle anti-Islamic behaviour from racist behaviour. Indeed the former seems quite commonly to be used as a cover for the latter.
<snip>But it isn't a racism issue. Islam isn't a race. It's a religion with diversity of views and extent of adherence.<snip>
In the UK at least, Islam is so overwhelmingly represented by one ethnic group that it is next to impossible to disentangle anti-Islamic behaviour from racist behaviour. Indeed the former seems quite commonly to be used as a cover for the latter.
In the UK at least, Islam is so overwhelmingly represented by one ethnic group that it is next to impossible to disentangle anti-Islamic behaviour from racist behaviour.
Two ethnic groups: there are a significant number of Muslims of first- or second- generation West African ethnicity. But the point stands.
Well, at the very least, anywhere I've been, most teachers wanting to tackle sensitive issues will have discussed it with their head of department and how to best handle it. Most current schools have quite rigid set curricula that don't give a lot of opportunities for the teacher to go off piste, with carefully planned materials to be used. Because it's not that easy to find appropriate suitable materials to teach sensitive topics.
Addenda: the fact the teacher is suspended suggests he wasn't teaching to an approved curriculum with approved materials.
And secondly, religious education in England is not compulsory. Parents can opt their children out.
Mostly, when controversial topics are to be discussed in English schools, usually sex and religious education, the parents are invited in to know more about what will be covered and have the right to opt their children out of the class - link to Gov.uk guidance on compulsory subjects
So most of these posts don't apply where this teacher was teaching.
Even on the TV, if there's (say) a documentary on the Civil Rights movement in the US there would likely to be a disclaimer at the start "Includes historic statements from opponents to Civil Rights that contain language that you may find offensive" giving you the chance to change channel before the documentary shows some KKK member talking about "uppity n*****s" and other racist language. And, even then those historical statements would only be included where necessary, and not just to cause offense.
In schools, the corresponding protocol would be that if it was necessary to have material that would potential cause offense then pupils who could be offended should be given the option to step out of the class at that time - which needs sufficient forewarning that parents and pupils can make that decision (leaving class is a far bigger step than switching channel on the TV). The teaching value of using that material should be considered sufficient to justify the offense that will be caused even after mitigation by giving people the chance to withdraw themselves; if the same lesson can be taught without that then it should be.
Why should anyone be protected from taking offence?
I don't think there's an inalienable right not to be offended, at least not one that the state is obligated to enforce against private citizens and groups. But things change when you're talking about the state's duty to regulate its own actions to avoid giving offense.
If I wanna walk around town wearing a button that says UP YOURS BORIS JOHNSON, the state shouldn't lift a finger to stop me. They have every right, however, to stop a teacher from wearing that in the classroom.
Why should anyone be protected from taking offence?
Why does the Ship have Commandments 1, 3, 5, and 6? For that matter why does Purgatory require courtesy and forbid personal attacks? (Maybe you should take it up with the guy who posted those rules.) Some limited forums have different rules than the legal limits on free speech in society as a whole. It seems like a double standard for an institution like a school, which typically has fairly strict rules about how students can address teachers or when they're allowed to speak in class, to claim to be some kind of free speech absolutist open forum. Or more accurately for others to claim this on the school's behalf.
How would you feel Boogie if I as a parent, spent my life deliberately winding you up as a Teacher to undermine all that you were and all that you were trying to achieve?
The issue of accommodating to a religion of world view - how far can it go to imposing on others? The cartoon or picture issue doesn't impose on others if they're not shown like the washing of feet in sinks meant for hands (wudu ritual) in washrooms does.
How does a "sink meant for hands" differ from a sink? 'cause I've never met a sink that said that it was only intended for hands. I have, on the other hand, seen several people having a wipe-down with a flannel at a sink, after they've been for a run, cycled in to work, or similar. It never occurred to me that I should think that they were doing something wrong by washing a non-hand part of themselves.
I suppose the large number of people who wash their faces in the sink in a public bathroom are doing something wrong as well, if you assert that those devices are intended for hands alone?
Not sure what is meant by a "flannel" perhaps face cloth or wash cloth. The putting of feet into a sink is different than washing one's face, hands, brushing your teeth. Feet are not hands. There's a hygiene issue. The imposition on others is probably my first response. Omitting doing something imposes on yourself.
I'm with Leorning Cniht on this one - I have no compunction about washing my feet in a sink. I don't agree there's a "hygiene issue"; I'd sooner touch another person's foot than their tongue or teeth, but I don't have any problem using a sink where someone's been brushing.
It is by no means clear to me that this teacher was denigrating Islam. I don't think we have enough information to say whether that is the case or not.
Is this one of those intention-based things where only the person being allegedly offensive has the means to judge whether they were actually being offensive because only they know what they were thinking?
Not really, no. We don't even know what the teacher said or exactly what images were shown or what the context was (at least I don't). I want to know at least what the actions were before making a judgement!
It's a sink. Everything that gets put in it is dirty - that's why people wash them. We don't usually wash clean things.
And given that it's a sink in a restroom, some of the things that are washed in it are likely to be, quite literally, shitty hands. So why do feet bother you?
Feet don't bother me. The experience of someone using a sink at higher than waist level with foot in sink and then the other in a small washrooms does. The knee is out to the side making the adjacent sink part of the ablution. The state of the washrooms is also an issue after such usage. Installation of foot sinks might help. However this is a new practice. I get the increase in devotion, which has also affected other religious groups. I don't support such devotion when it affects others. I do not enjoy behaviour which bothers others. It's parallel to people playing their car stereo in a camp group. Or standing on toilet seats.
I am beginning to feel the same about major religions, especially in the light of this story - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56524850. “A teacher who showed pupils an "inappropriate" cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad - sparking protests outside a school - has been suspended. The image depicting the founder of Islam was used in a lesson at Batley Grammar School on Monday. Videos posted online show dozens of people standing outside the school on Thursday, with some demanding the teacher be sacked.”
My questions -
If your God is so strong why do you need to defend him?
Why are blasphemy laws needed at all?
My question is why did the relevant authority employ a teacher who could be so stupid? Surely anyone who's read newspapers/seen tv news programmes/listened to the radio over the last 10 years would know how sensitive Muslims are to such matters.
Feet don't bother me. The experience of someone using a sink at higher than waist level with foot in sink and then the other in a small washrooms does. The knee is out to the side making the adjacent sink part of the ablution. The state of the washrooms is also an issue after such usage. Installation of foot sinks might help. However this is a new practice. I get the increase in devotion, which has also affected other religious groups. I don't support such devotion when it affects others. I do not enjoy behaviour which bothers others. It's parallel to people playing their car stereo in a camp group. Or standing on toilet seats.
As noted in an earlier post on the thread, this washing of feet is part of the Islamic ablutions prior to prayer, thus face, arms, head and finally feet. Hence the need for the separate sink arrangement referred to, which is placed at a lower level to facilitate foot-washing.
Interesting perspective on Batley. Where were the Police with Riot Shields, Dogs and Horses dispersing the crowds and issuing fines and prosecution notices for an illegal gathering under Covid Regulations? All rather different from Bristol.
I wonder if this teacher would present anti-semitic caricatures to Jewish kids? Maybe people's reactions would be different?
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
As I said upthread it is not commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures as part of asking whether the Jews had a right to take offence or whether that was rather an attack by religious bigots on the Nazis' right of free speech. The framing of the images matters a lot.
Interesting perspective on Batley. Where were the Police with Riot Shields, Dogs and Horses dispersing the crowds and issuing fines and prosecution notices for an illegal gathering under Covid Regulations? All rather different from Bristol.
The police reaction in Bristol seems, from all accounts, inappropriate. If they did the same in Batley it would be equally inappropriate and OTT.
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
As I said upthread it is not commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures as part of asking whether the Jews had a right to take offence or whether that was rather an attack by religious bigots on the Nazis' right of free speech. The framing of the images matters a lot.
Yes, the framing matters a great deal. But I can certainly imagine a lesson where modern-day cartoons that might be considered anti-semitic were shown - perhaps in the context of modern-day Middle Eastern politics - question: "Is this cartoon anti-semitic or merely anti-Israel? Is it right for such a cartoon to be permitted? Are Jews entitled to take offence at this cartoon?"
And I don't know what the framing of the images in the Batley case was. So I don't know how to judge whether what the teacher did was blameworthy or not.
They're offensive but there's nothing blasphemous about anti-semitic caricatures, so this really doesn't seem equivalent. Maybe if the teacher had decided to illustrate the lesson by defiling a torah?
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
As I said upthread it is not commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures as part of asking whether the Jews had a right to take offence or whether that was rather an attack by religious bigots on the Nazis' right of free speech. The framing of the images matters a lot.
Yes, the framing matters a great deal. But I can certainly imagine a lesson where modern-day cartoons that might be considered anti-semitic were shown - perhaps in the context of modern-day Middle Eastern politics - question: "Is this cartoon anti-semitic or merely anti-Israel? Is it right for such a cartoon to be permitted? Are Jews entitled to take offence at this cartoon?"
And we can make the comparison even more parallel by positing that far-right Kahanists are going around beating, bombing, killing, and otherwise terrorizing the cartoonists and their publishers. And further, that a hefty section of moderate Jewish opinion is demanding that the cartoons be banned.
IOW the cartoons were already a major news item by the time the teacher got around to showing them in class. And they became a news item at least partly because of actions by people claiming to be offended.
CAVEAT:
I'm assuming the cartoons shown by the teacher in England were either the Danish cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo ones.
Interesting perspective on Batley. Where were the Police with Riot Shields, Dogs and Horses dispersing the crowds and issuing fines and prosecution notices for an illegal gathering under Covid Regulations? All rather different from Bristol.
The police reaction in Bristol seems, from all accounts, inappropriate. If they did the same in Batley it would be equally inappropriate and OTT.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
No they don't but in the Police's inaction in Batley doesn't that say something about their view of the protestors and the rights and wrongs of the protest?
I wonder if this teacher would present anti-semitic caricatures to Jewish kids? Maybe people's reactions would be different?
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
So the historical context makes anti-semitic stuff OK? Presumably, then any racist material could be shown to kids, along the lines that this is part of the historical development of racism? You could sub-divide into anti-black imagery, anti-Asian, anti-traveller, and so on.
I wonder if this teacher would present anti-semitic caricatures to Jewish kids? Maybe people's reactions would be different?
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
So the historical context makes anti-semitic stuff OK? Presumably, then any racist material could be shown to kids, along the lines that this is part of the historical development of racism?
Well, "yes" to both of your questions, but I think there's also the issue of how it's handled by the teacher. He or she shouldn't just walk into class one day and, without warning, put a bunch of racist images on the screen, ask the class "So whaddya think?", and then switch to the lesson on municipal taxation.
Not really, no. We don't even know what the teacher said or exactly what images were shown or what the context was (at least I don't). I want to know at least what the actions were before making a judgement!
According to the Guardian the images used were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. My understanding is that those images were deliberately intended to be offensive/blasphemous.
It's the use/mention distinction referred to earlier. It's very hard to have actual images of Mohammed without moving from mention to use. It's a bit like having an actual handgun in the classroom to talk about UK handgun possession laws.
I wonder if this teacher would present anti-semitic caricatures to Jewish kids? Maybe people's reactions would be different?
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
So the historical context makes anti-semitic stuff OK? Presumably, then any racist material could be shown to kids, along the lines that this is part of the historical development of racism?
Well, "yes" to both of your questions, but I think there's also the issue of how it's handled by the teacher. He or she shouldn't just walk into class one day and, without warning, put a bunch of racist images on the screen, ask the class "So whaddya think?", and then switch to the lesson on municipal taxation.
Yes. I notice Williamson rather ingenuously has said images of Mohammed can be shown in class, which neatly avoids the issue of anti-Muslim images. Well, I don't know which images were shown, although some media are referring to Charlie Hebdo.
It's the use/mention distinction referred to earlier. It's very hard to have actual images of Mohammed without moving from mention to use. It's a bit like having an actual handgun in the classroom to talk about UK handgun possession laws.
Or a sex education class with live models going at it.
Feet don't bother me. The experience of someone using a sink at higher than waist level with foot in sink and then the other in a small washrooms does. The knee is out to the side making the adjacent sink part of the ablution. The state of the washrooms is also an issue after such usage.
I'm still not really getting this. I wash my feet in my personal sink in my personal house from time to time - not because of any religious ritual, but because my feet are muddy / grassy / whatever.
If I was to leave the room in a mess after I'd done this, it would be because I'm a selfish arse who doesn't clean up after himself. Because I am not such a person, I don't leave the room in a mess.
If you have a problem with people leaving the restroom in a mess after washing their feet, it's because you've got selfish messy people - not because you've got Muslims.
It's the use/mention distinction referred to earlier. It's very hard to have actual images of Mohammed without moving from mention to use. It's a bit like having an actual handgun in the classroom to talk about UK handgun possession laws.
Except that the effects of a gun can be pretty easily understood via description ie. if you point it at someone and shoot they will be either severely injured or killed. You don't really need to bring a gun into class to further that particular discussion.
A better example might be if there were a campaign afoot to ban Bugs Bunny cartoons because they're too violent, and you brought some into the class in order to facilitate a debate over whether the particular type of violence shown in those films is harmful.
Or showing some porn films, to encourage discussion of censorship.
Again, sex, as any anthropologist can tell you, is subject to a whole rigamarole of restrictions that aren't applied to anything else.
Just for starters, under-18s are legally prohibited from viewing pornography, so the teacher would face arrest for doing that anyway. But if we were talking about something that was sexual, and maybe sexist, but still legal for kids to see(eg. Sports Illustrated swimsuit covers), I could see that being used for an effective discussion on media representation of gender issues.
(My high-school religion class watched the documentary Killing Us Softly, about sexism in advertising, with many examples that were intended by their creators to be titillating.)
But in England, you would almost certainly be writing to the parents to advise them that sex education lessons were going to be happening, and what would be covered. Quite often, the parents are invited in to see the materials going to be used. And parents have the right to withdraw their children from some sex education lessons.
Parents also have the right to withdraw their children from religious education lessons and religious assemblies, all or part. I've been the go to person for a child with a Plymouth Brethren background withdrawn from all religious education in her school. So, no, in that situation, there would be a lot of care as to what was presented, particularly in an area with a high Asian population, like Batley.
The RE curriculum is not set nationally, but locally, depending on the type of school. Batley Grammar School is part of a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) that can set their own curriculum. But teachers cannot just choose to teach anything they want, there will be a set curriculum with suggested materials that they are working to. That curriculum and the RE policies have to be agreed by the Governing Body, where the buck stops for all this. And OFSTED will check the teaching against the published curriculum when they review the school on the regular programme of checks.
The fact that this teacher is suspended suggests that he was not teaching an agreed curriculum with the agreed materials. If he had been the Governing Body would be having to field all the flak for agreeing something that blew up in their faces.
Possible unauthorized departure from the curriculum is indeed an issue in this case.
That said, I did once have a right-leaning high-school psychology teacher who, on days when he probably didn't feel much like teaching, would pull some of his favorite conservative books out(I remember Robert A. Heinlein and Ayn Rand), and read a few passages in order to prompt debate with the class(well, mostly me).
And I think I've mentioned before the old liberal priest who taught English, and would occassionally put aside the expurgated versions of Shakespeare in order to read the bowdlerized passages to us.
Admittedly, I'm not sure what I think about that sort of thing. An hour of Ayn Rand vs. Socialism is harmless enough, but with another teacher wants to haul out The Bell Curve? And while I think censoring Shakespeare is idiotic in the extreme, a teacher arguably has a duty to stick to the assigned text.
I don't know, man. I read Atlas Shrugged - an involuntary hour of readings from Ayn Rand would be pretty punishing. That's an awful lot of striving and thrusting and owning the libs via bad writing.
I don't know, man. I read Atlas Shrugged - an involuntary hour of readings from Ayn Rand would be pretty punishing. That's an awful lot of striving and thrusting and owning the libs via bad writing.
Well, he only read a few minutes worth of passages, and the discussion went from there.
As I recall, the Heinlein seemed more thought-provoking, something about how can ecologists define nature so as to include certain man-made items but not others. My guess would be that most sci-fi fans(of which I am not one) would rate Heinlein higher than Rand.
I am, or at least have been, a sci-fi fan, and I'm pretty sure you're right. Heinlein at least didn't have 50-page stretches of nothing but his protagonist ranting on the radio.
The only fiction I've read by Ayn Rand was her novella Anthem. When I mentioned that to my libertarian psych teacher, he said "Well, I think to really enjoy that book, you have to be a fan of ballet."
I never cared about either Ayn Rand or ballet enough to put in the neccessary research on that one.
The fact that this teacher is suspended suggests that he was not teaching an agreed curriculum with the agreed materials. If he had been the Governing Body would be having to field all the flak for agreeing something that blew up in their faces.
It doesn't really. Schools (at least claim to) consider suspension to be a neutral act. Suspension can mean anything from "this person is out the door and on gardening leave until we complete the paperwork" to "our policy mandates suspension for this type of allegation even though we can see it's baseless".
But in England, you would almost certainly be writing to the parents to advise them that sex education lessons were going to be happening, and what would be covered. Quite often, the parents are invited in to see the materials going to be used. And parents have the right to withdraw their children from some sex education lessons.
Parents also have the right to withdraw their children from religious education lessons and religious assemblies, all or part. I've been the go to person for a child with a Plymouth Brethren background withdrawn from all religious education in her school. So, no, in that situation, there would be a lot of care as to what was presented, particularly in an area with a high Asian population, like Batley.
The RE curriculum is not set nationally, but locally, depending on the type of school. Batley Grammar School is part of a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) that can set their own curriculum. But teachers cannot just choose to teach anything they want, there will be a set curriculum with suggested materials that they are working to. That curriculum and the RE policies have to be agreed by the Governing Body, where the buck stops for all this. And OFSTED will check the teaching against the published curriculum when they review the school on the regular programme of checks.
The fact that this teacher is suspended suggests that he was not teaching an agreed curriculum with the agreed materials. If he had been the Governing Body would be having to field all the flak for agreeing something that blew up in their faces.
I was looking for this information, as I wasn't sure if he had stepped outside the curriculum or not. The thing about Charlie Hebdo, is that some of those cartoons equated Islam with terrorism. I think there was a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, so this is an added complication. H
Sorry, so not just about blasphemy, but a political attack on Islam. Or really saying Islam is Islamism. Did he mean to discuss this? However, I haven't seen the images he used.
Comments
Is this one of those intention-based things where only the person being allegedly offensive has the means to judge whether they were actually being offensive because only they know what they were thinking?
Personally, the arguments I've put forth here have been intended as applying specifically to situations taking place in a classroom. My regrets if that wasn't made clear.
That said, your concept of "an official government message" is interesting, especially if the pictures were shown as part of what was purporting to be a balanced debate.
If a social-studies class debates "Which candidate for mayor would be the best, Smith or Jones?", and students quote from the campaign literature of both sides, that's not neccessarily a government sponsored message in favour of either candidate.
Though I suppose the overall debate does carry the implicit message that both candidates are respectable enough to be allowed discussion-time in a classroom debate. If there were a third candidate, Brown, who was running on a pro-NAMBLA platform(google at your own risk), we might think he could be legitimately denied a respectable classroom hearing, even if said hearing wouldn't qualify as a government endorsement.
And secondly, religious education in England is not compulsory. Parents can opt their children out.
So most of these posts don't apply where this teacher was teaching.
As in "all the bloody time"
In schools, the corresponding protocol would be that if it was necessary to have material that would potential cause offense then pupils who could be offended should be given the option to step out of the class at that time - which needs sufficient forewarning that parents and pupils can make that decision (leaving class is a far bigger step than switching channel on the TV). The teaching value of using that material should be considered sufficient to justify the offense that will be caused even after mitigation by giving people the chance to withdraw themselves; if the same lesson can be taught without that then it should be.
I don't think there's an inalienable right not to be offended, at least not one that the state is obligated to enforce against private citizens and groups. But things change when you're talking about the state's duty to regulate its own actions to avoid giving offense.
If I wanna walk around town wearing a button that says UP YOURS BORIS JOHNSON, the state shouldn't lift a finger to stop me. They have every right, however, to stop a teacher from wearing that in the classroom.
Why does the Ship have Commandments 1, 3, 5, and 6? For that matter why does Purgatory require courtesy and forbid personal attacks? (Maybe you should take it up with the guy who posted those rules.) Some limited forums have different rules than the legal limits on free speech in society as a whole. It seems like a double standard for an institution like a school, which typically has fairly strict rules about how students can address teachers or when they're allowed to speak in class, to claim to be some kind of free speech absolutist open forum. Or more accurately for others to claim this on the school's behalf.
How does a "sink meant for hands" differ from a sink? 'cause I've never met a sink that said that it was only intended for hands. I have, on the other hand, seen several people having a wipe-down with a flannel at a sink, after they've been for a run, cycled in to work, or similar. It never occurred to me that I should think that they were doing something wrong by washing a non-hand part of themselves.
I suppose the large number of people who wash their faces in the sink in a public bathroom are doing something wrong as well, if you assert that those devices are intended for hands alone?
Why should anyone be immune from the consequences of knowingly giving offence?
Not really, no. We don't even know what the teacher said or exactly what images were shown or what the context was (at least I don't). I want to know at least what the actions were before making a judgement!
It's a sink. Everything that gets put in it is dirty - that's why people wash them. We don't usually wash clean things.
And given that it's a sink in a restroom, some of the things that are washed in it are likely to be, quite literally, shitty hands. So why do feet bother you?
My question is why did the relevant authority employ a teacher who could be so stupid? Surely anyone who's read newspapers/seen tv news programmes/listened to the radio over the last 10 years would know how sensitive Muslims are to such matters.
As noted in an earlier post on the thread, this washing of feet is part of the Islamic ablutions prior to prayer, thus face, arms, head and finally feet. Hence the need for the separate sink arrangement referred to, which is placed at a lower level to facilitate foot-washing.
As I think has been mentioned upthread it is commonplace to show anti-semitic caricatures in a number of contexts, most obviously when looking at the history of anti-semitism in Europe.
The police reaction in Bristol seems, from all accounts, inappropriate. If they did the same in Batley it would be equally inappropriate and OTT.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Yes, the framing matters a great deal. But I can certainly imagine a lesson where modern-day cartoons that might be considered anti-semitic were shown - perhaps in the context of modern-day Middle Eastern politics - question: "Is this cartoon anti-semitic or merely anti-Israel? Is it right for such a cartoon to be permitted? Are Jews entitled to take offence at this cartoon?"
And I don't know what the framing of the images in the Batley case was. So I don't know how to judge whether what the teacher did was blameworthy or not.
And we can make the comparison even more parallel by positing that far-right Kahanists are going around beating, bombing, killing, and otherwise terrorizing the cartoonists and their publishers. And further, that a hefty section of moderate Jewish opinion is demanding that the cartoons be banned.
IOW the cartoons were already a major news item by the time the teacher got around to showing them in class. And they became a news item at least partly because of actions by people claiming to be offended.
CAVEAT:
No they don't but in the Police's inaction in Batley doesn't that say something about their view of the protestors and the rights and wrongs of the protest?
So the historical context makes anti-semitic stuff OK? Presumably, then any racist material could be shown to kids, along the lines that this is part of the historical development of racism? You could sub-divide into anti-black imagery, anti-Asian, anti-traveller, and so on.
Well, "yes" to both of your questions, but I think there's also the issue of how it's handled by the teacher. He or she shouldn't just walk into class one day and, without warning, put a bunch of racist images on the screen, ask the class "So whaddya think?", and then switch to the lesson on municipal taxation.
According to the Guardian the images used were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. My understanding is that those images were deliberately intended to be offensive/blasphemous.
Yes. I notice Williamson rather ingenuously has said images of Mohammed can be shown in class, which neatly avoids the issue of anti-Muslim images. Well, I don't know which images were shown, although some media are referring to Charlie Hebdo.
Or a sex education class with live models going at it.
I'm still not really getting this. I wash my feet in my personal sink in my personal house from time to time - not because of any religious ritual, but because my feet are muddy / grassy / whatever.
If I was to leave the room in a mess after I'd done this, it would be because I'm a selfish arse who doesn't clean up after himself. Because I am not such a person, I don't leave the room in a mess.
If you have a problem with people leaving the restroom in a mess after washing their feet, it's because you've got selfish messy people - not because you've got Muslims.
Except that the effects of a gun can be pretty easily understood via description ie. if you point it at someone and shoot they will be either severely injured or killed. You don't really need to bring a gun into class to further that particular discussion.
A better example might be if there were a campaign afoot to ban Bugs Bunny cartoons because they're too violent, and you brought some into the class in order to facilitate a debate over whether the particular type of violence shown in those films is harmful.
Again, sex, as any anthropologist can tell you, is subject to a whole rigamarole of restrictions that aren't applied to anything else.
Just for starters, under-18s are legally prohibited from viewing pornography, so the teacher would face arrest for doing that anyway. But if we were talking about something that was sexual, and maybe sexist, but still legal for kids to see(eg. Sports Illustrated swimsuit covers), I could see that being used for an effective discussion on media representation of gender issues.
(My high-school religion class watched the documentary Killing Us Softly, about sexism in advertising, with many examples that were intended by their creators to be titillating.)
Parents also have the right to withdraw their children from religious education lessons and religious assemblies, all or part. I've been the go to person for a child with a Plymouth Brethren background withdrawn from all religious education in her school. So, no, in that situation, there would be a lot of care as to what was presented, particularly in an area with a high Asian population, like Batley.
The RE curriculum is not set nationally, but locally, depending on the type of school. Batley Grammar School is part of a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) that can set their own curriculum. But teachers cannot just choose to teach anything they want, there will be a set curriculum with suggested materials that they are working to. That curriculum and the RE policies have to be agreed by the Governing Body, where the buck stops for all this. And OFSTED will check the teaching against the published curriculum when they review the school on the regular programme of checks.
The fact that this teacher is suspended suggests that he was not teaching an agreed curriculum with the agreed materials. If he had been the Governing Body would be having to field all the flak for agreeing something that blew up in their faces.
That said, I did once have a right-leaning high-school psychology teacher who, on days when he probably didn't feel much like teaching, would pull some of his favorite conservative books out(I remember Robert A. Heinlein and Ayn Rand), and read a few passages in order to prompt debate with the class(well, mostly me).
And I think I've mentioned before the old liberal priest who taught English, and would occassionally put aside the expurgated versions of Shakespeare in order to read the bowdlerized passages to us.
Admittedly, I'm not sure what I think about that sort of thing. An hour of Ayn Rand vs. Socialism is harmless enough, but with another teacher wants to haul out The Bell Curve? And while I think censoring Shakespeare is idiotic in the extreme, a teacher arguably has a duty to stick to the assigned text.
Well, he only read a few minutes worth of passages, and the discussion went from there.
As I recall, the Heinlein seemed more thought-provoking, something about how can ecologists define nature so as to include certain man-made items but not others. My guess would be that most sci-fi fans(of which I am not one) would rate Heinlein higher than Rand.
I never cared about either Ayn Rand or ballet enough to put in the neccessary research on that one.
It doesn't really. Schools (at least claim to) consider suspension to be a neutral act. Suspension can mean anything from "this person is out the door and on gardening leave until we complete the paperwork" to "our policy mandates suspension for this type of allegation even though we can see it's baseless".
I was looking for this information, as I wasn't sure if he had stepped outside the curriculum or not. The thing about Charlie Hebdo, is that some of those cartoons equated Islam with terrorism. I think there was a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, so this is an added complication. H