Protests outside a Batley School

[Newman Noggs]

Clearly if you are "unbelievably stupid and provocative" by showing a picture of someone and I don't like it, you deserve what you get.

In fact, I'd go further and say you deserve beheading like that Samuel Paty. As for a magazine like Charlie Hebdo, got what they deserved if you ask me and I'm as liberal and in favour of free speech as they come.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Clearly if you are "unbelievably stupid and provocative" by showing a picture of someone and I don't like it, you deserve what you get.

In fact, I'd go further and say you deserve beheading like that Samuel Paty. As for a magazine like Charlie Hebdo, got what they deserved if you ask me and I'm as liberal and in favour of free speech as they come.

I don’t think you’ll catch anyone with that bait, good try though.

 

[BigOscar]

I never knew that you can’t show an image of this prophet. Didn’t have a clue.

I know that French newspaper showed a cartoon depiction of a naked Muhammad so can see why there was an issue what that (but not worth being fucking murdered over!), but what was shown in this case?

It could just be lack of knowledge rather than being provocative. It could just be that the image was completely innocently used as an example to corroborate what was being talked about. What’s wrong with that?

And who’s to say who can and can’t show images of certain people anyway? Is it the law?

Given that there are no images of Muhammed, it seems like something you wouldn't accidentally come across and use tbh. Plus I kind of have to assume this was in an RE lesson, otherwise it's even odder that they've randomly brought him up at all. (and if an RE teacher doesn't know not to use pictures of Muhammed then we might have a bigger problem)

As for the law, that's pretty irrelevant in this situation as it's not about being arrested it's about provoking people. Should it provoke people to violence? Of course not. But the fact is that you absolutely know it has a pretty strong chance of doing so, so it's pretty stupid to do it.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

Do we want schools to encourage critical thinkers or brain-wiped droids ?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

the significant thing for me with the protest.....no women

Which is ridiculous in itself. It’s like giving Star Wars fans protection for believing Jedis are real.

Obviously the various brands of sky fairy are responsible for much trouble in the world,but until it's illegal it isn't. The teacher in this case has shown spectacular ignorance and should have educated himself before taking his half formed ideas into the classroom.

 

[Man-chester copperpot]

the significant thing for me with the protest.....no

I never knew that you can’t show an image of this prophet. Didn’t have a clue.

I know that French newspaper showed a cartoon depiction of a naked Muhammad so can see why there was an issue what that (but not worth being fucking murdered over!), but what was shown in this case?

It could just be lack of knowledge rather than being provocative. It could just be that the image was completely innocently used as an example to corroborate what was being talked about. What’s wrong with that?

And who’s to say who can and can’t show images of certain people anyway? Is it the law?

I’ve read this happened in a Religious Studies lesson, so my guess is the teacher must be qualified enough to know that your not allowed to show a picture of the Prophet in the muslim religion.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I think unless they do something illegal you'd be on dodgy ground - religion is a protected characteristic under the equality act (I think).

But they’re protesting and threatening violence against something that’s legal. Freedom of thought and expression.

If they can have someone removed for not doing something illegal, why can’t I?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Given that he died 1500 years ago how does anyone know what he looks like?

 

[Cheesy]

Backwards fuckers.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Given that there are no images of Muhammed, it seems like something you wouldn't accidentally come across and use tbh. Plus I kind of have to assume this was in an RE lesson, otherwise it's even odder that they've randomly brought him up at all. (and if an RE teacher doesn't know not to use pictures of Muhammed then we might have a bigger problem)

As for the law, that's pretty irrelevant in this situation as it's not about being arrested it's about provoking people. Should it provoke people to violence? Of course not. But the fact is that you absolutely know it has a pretty strong chance of doing so, so it's pretty stupid to do it.

Again, I didn’t know there weren’t any images of Muhammed. I knew they don’t worship idols, but it also says that you shouldn’t do that in the Bible and Christians have loads of images of Jesus. For all I know there’s an Islam denomination that do have images of Muhammed, I wouldn’t know.

It could have been a PSHE lesson where they were talking about the Charlie Hebdo incident and just showing the image that was used as an exemplar; “and this is the ridiculous cartoon that was used in the French newspaper, what a stupid thing to do that was from Charlie Hebdo”.