|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 27, 2021 8:54:37 GMT
I have to say tha Brendan is almost entirely wrong there.
The teacher was a f**k**g idiot to deliberately cause offence. It was completely unnecessary to do that and if he gets topped, then he will be as responsible as some extreme sports tosser.
The HT had no alternative but to remove the idiot for his safety and for the safety of the school. He should have sacked the cunt on the spot.
The HT was right to apologise. It was a disgraceful thing to do.
Brendan is further incorrect when he takes issue with the concept of Islamaphobia. It is very real and justifiably so. Our community of muslims can, collectively, be an unappealing bunch of whiney, savage, rapey arsehole and I would venture to say the overwhelming majority of the population would prefer it if they chilled the f**k out or f**k off out of it. I know plenty of decent muslims, but I dislike Islam and I understand why it's very unpopular.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 27, 2021 10:03:14 GMT
Brendan O’Neill - wrong who would have thought. His entire piece confuses the freedom to do something with a requirement to do it. The school is perfectly within its rights to decide what may be depicted in lessons and suspend a teacher for breaking those rules. |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,990
|
Post by mids on Mar 27, 2021 10:06:53 GMT
Brendan O’Neill - wrong who would have though. it’s . Oh my days... |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,990
|
Post by mids on Mar 27, 2021 10:12:49 GMT
I kind of agree with Bren "Gun" O'Neill. You shouldn't offend children just for the hell of it but we've ended up with de facto blasphemy laws but only for Islam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 27, 2021 10:14:08 GMT
Unless he’s been arrested and faced charges then he hasn’t been subjected to “de facto” blasphemy laws.
It’s a school.
|
|
|
|
Post by unclejunior on Mar 27, 2021 14:02:28 GMT
This isn’t a “Muslim “school & is a high achieving academic place.
The class was RE & they were discussing blasphemy...
If he referred to Charlie Hebdo & the murders that followed then I assume that if he didn’t show them the cartoons then they would all have Googled them in a heartbeat to see why a poor guy was decapitated in the street etc
Context is everything here ....& we don’t know all the details .
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Mar 27, 2021 14:23:30 GMT
O'Neill's right. This is yet another sign of the future we'll have to face if this isn't nipped in the bud. It won't get better. Muslims will not relax their views. In fact many of the kids are growing up worse than their parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 27, 2021 15:31:14 GMT
This isn’t a “Muslim “school & is a high achieving academic place. The class was RE & they were discussing blasphemy... If he referred to Charlie Hebdo & the murders that followed then I assume that if he didn’t show them the cartoons then they would all have Googled them in a heartbeat to see why a poor guy was decapitated in the street etc Context is everything here ....& we don’t know all the details . But it’s still not worthy of O’Neill’s hysteria. I don’t think they would be discussing Charlie Hebdo in an RE class. Look I am on the fence on this. He is right that the UK is supposed to be a secular country and so if a teacher in class wants to show an image of Muhammed she / he should be within their rights to do so. But I also don’t agree with being needlessly offensive. I cannot imagine the image was integral to the lesson. That said the broader apologies are arse clenching. Actually while I support their right to do it I disagree with the school’s decision to suspend the teacher (unless he was deliberately trying to be crappy.) It’s ridiculous he is under police protection and maybe if the school told parents to f**k off (as they when adding LGBT related classes to the curriculum then they would slowly learn to deal with it. But O’Neill is still a c.unt. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Mar 27, 2021 15:47:46 GMT
But consider how this came to light. Pupils must have reported back on it knowing that it would cause uproar.
Be interesting to know which cartoon was used. If it was the male genitals one, then OK, the teacher should be reviewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Mar 27, 2021 19:33:51 GMT
I kind of agree with Bren "Gun" O'Neill. You shouldn't offend children just for the hell of it but we've ended up with de facto blasphemy laws but only for Islam. Well, that is true. I don't give a flying f**k about poking fun at Allah. If you don't like it, don't look. Better still, f**k off. |
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Mar 28, 2021 7:37:29 GMT
That's about the strength of it. It's an attempt to infiltrate and change our culture by force. It's the way it works.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,990
|
Post by mids on Mar 28, 2021 8:23:54 GMT
They're whiney children. I mean obviously the children are but so are the parents.
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
Post by ootlg on Mar 28, 2021 8:46:13 GMT
Whiney children who decapitate people.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,990
|
Post by mids on Mar 28, 2021 9:10:29 GMT
That's true. Whiney and decapitatey children.
|
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Mar 28, 2021 9:57:30 GMT
I kind of agree with Bren "Gun" O'Neill. You shouldn't offend children just for the hell of it but we've ended up with de facto blasphemy laws but only for Islam. Well, that is true. I don't give a flying f**k about poking fun at Allah. If you don't like it, don't look. Better still, f**k off. Mohammed isn't allah but what he was was a warlord who spread his ideology through violence and destruction, now I'm not going to claim he was a pioneer in that because that's how the world did business back then, but historically he was a warlord and it should be perfectly acceptable to depict him as that, just taking the piss to cause offence is ridiculous however. In this case the lesson was about blaspheme, a religious law that is entirely designed to protect the ideology of those claiming it, which is why blaspheme should in no way be acceptable as a means of silencing anyone! Has anyone considered why it was verboten to depict an image of Mohammed? it's quite simple, it's hard to assasinate someone when you don't know who he is! Just like blaspheme , it's all about self protection! Freedom of speech, no matter how much you disagree should always take precidence in a democratic country! |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 28, 2021 10:06:54 GMT
“ Has anyone considered why it was verboten to depict an image of Mohammed? it's quite simple, it's hard to assasinate someone when you don't know who he is!
Just like blaspheme , it's all about self protection!”
What is this nonsense?
|
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Mar 28, 2021 10:07:54 GMT
try thinking for a change!
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 28, 2021 10:37:34 GMT
I am that’s why I called it nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by reverend on Mar 28, 2021 10:39:43 GMT
come on then van, give us a sound reason why the architect of a violent ideology would not want his image available in a time when there were no cameras or video?
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Mar 28, 2021 10:42:28 GMT
I know you take pleasure in being ignorant but a simple bit of research will show you that there is no prohibition within Islamic texts of depicting Muhammed and in the past it was not uncommon. Here you go. I will get you started: www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/16/how-images-of-the-prophet-muhammad-became-forbidden/%3foutputType=amp“ But the reality is substantially more complicated. The Koran, in fact, does not directly forbid the portrayal of Muhammad. And the second most important Islamic text, the Hadith, “presents us with an ambiguous picture at best,” wrote Christine Gruber of the University of Michigan. “At turns we read of artists who dared to breathe life into their figures and, at others, of pillows ornamented with figural imagery.” The most explicit fatwa banning the portrayal of Muhammad, she notes, isn’t tucked into some ancient text. It arrived in 2001. And its creator was the Taliban. The ban is a very modern construct.” “ To answer that question, one must travel back hundreds of years when the depiction of Muhammad in artwork was not all that uncommon. In non-Arab regions, researchers have unearthed a panoply of remarkable and detailed portraits of Muhammad that date before the 16th century. In one, a Persian image of Muhammad, clad in a white turban and bearded, preaches his final sermon. In another, a young Muhammad, hair parted into two ponytails, stands amid a throng of monks. One more shows Muhammad settling a dispute by placing a black stone into the center of a rug.” Also forbidding images of prophets to prevent idolatry isn’t even that unusual for various sects of the Abrahamic faiths. |
|
