Free Speech - what do you think

[said]

A Batley Grammar schoolteacher who was suspended for showing his pupils an image of Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Alarmingly, that teacher is still in hiding, fearing for his life. He has received death threats simply for doing what all good teachers should do: challenge their students to consider difficult moral questions.
Batley Grammar itself, in the face of angry protests outside the school gates, suspended him.
The teaching unions stayed almost entirely schtum about the case for ages
Not everyone has turned their backs on this persecuted teacher. Enter the binmen of Bury. Shaming the intellectual elites, these workers have taken a principled stand on behalf of the teacher and his right to free speech in the classroom. These binmen have shown us what true solidarity looks like.
The motion points out that England’s blasphemy laws were formally abolished more than a decade ago and insists there should be no ‘dogmatic restraints’ on our right to discuss religious matters, including Islamic matters.
They have also shown up what passes for the liberal establishment these days. Too many people in positions of power treat freedom of speech as a negotiable commodity rather than as a core principle of democratic life. Too many turn away — or nod along — as people are shunted out of polite society merely for criticising Islam, or asking questions about transgenderism, or making an un-PC joke.
The union Unite have now called for all Unions to back the teacher and ask for reinstatement.

Do you think this is right?

[local]

The Teacher is probably too frightened to return.

The problem is our weak government hasn't spoken out and supported him and condemned his critics.

Our own Prime Minister was widely criticised by weak wokes for making the entirely reasonable observation that burkas looked like letterboxes.

In the same way that some other religious garb is ridiculous.

A garment that represents a visible symbol of the subjugation of women should be condemned and banned never mind having a few jibes made about it.

Freedom of speech is far more important than religious bullies.

[said]

The Teacher is probably too frightened to return.

The problem is our weak government hasn't spoken out and supported him and condemned his critics.

Our own Prime Minister was widely criticised by weak wokes for making the entirely reasonable observation that burkas looked like letterboxes.

In the same way that some other religious garb is ridiculous.

A garment that represents a visible symbol of the subjugation of women should be condemned and banned never mind having a few jibes made about it.

Freedom of speech is far more important than religious bullies.

I totally agree with you. The British people are as the British will always be - and if some people are offended by how the the majority act/speak then the Government should stand behind the majority and tell those people 'Tough'

[Polly Trott]

Didn't he know that images of Mohammed are incredibly offensive to Muslims? He must be a pretty crap RE teacher.

[Polly Trott]

Has Brendan O'Neill ever written for the Sun? He does a fairly good job at pandering to the outraged in that article you have quoted from Said.

Brian Bamford, the guy submitting the motion, is not a bin man, he is a retired electrician. Unite represents many local government employees - refuse operatives will be a relative small sector. It also has a big presence in the nhs and many other sectors. Anyway I wanted to chat to Brian about his motion and looked him up on Facebook. For someone so keen on free speech he has very high privacy levels - each to their own, c'est la vie etc. What I do note is he states on his profile he is

White, English, Straight, PROUD.

[silver fox]

Didn't he know that images of Mohammed are incredibly offensive to Muslims? He must be a pretty crap RE teacher.

There is your problem, religion is one thing, but the baggage of culture, custom, stupidity and superstition is another.

Non Muslims don’t see the problem and in many cases don’t understand nor wish to understand, I fully support freedom of religion for those who wish, BUT freedom of religion is a two way street, not one religion claiming any control over others.

[local]

Didn't he know that images of Mohammed are incredibly offensive to Muslims? He must be a pretty crap RE teacher.

Or more likely a good one who is prepared to discuss all aspects of religion so children, when they become adults, can make up their own minds as to which if any religion they wish to follow.

A religion that finds its god's picture offensive surely needs to have a rethink.

[MICK/GILLY]

Religion and children don’t mix, if you are not careful they will start believing it. Fresh young minds being taught that a particular religion is the answer to life the universe and everything and indoctrinated before they learn the 12 times table. I thought that schools stopped kids wearing religious symbols a long time ago, it’s as off as teaching 5 yr olds sex education.

[Hamble]

The media is reporting the teacher has returned to the school and I hope his home and life.

I am curious is the image allowed on social media /dark web etc etc?
How did the teacher get it?

Please do not Google me an image in reply.
I would never ask someone to do something I would not do myself
support Islam in that if it believes it offensive do not do it

I am just curious on the rules on this as freedom of speech.

[seivad]

The Teacher is probably too frightened to return.

The problem is our weak government hasn't spoken out and supported him and condemned his critics.

Our own Prime Minister was widely criticised by weak wokes for making the entirely reasonable observation that burkas looked like letterboxes.

In the same way that some other religious garb is ridiculous.

A garment that represents a visible symbol of the subjugation of women should be condemned and banned never mind having a few jibes made about it.

Freedom of speech is far more important than religious bullies.

There's a valid argument to be made in regard to women being forced to wear a burqa against their will. However it's not helpful to start the debate with a statement mocking women's appearance by comparing them to a letterbox.

It's a serious issue. How you present your argument matters. If you want to be perceived as an insensitive attention seeking buffoon, Johnson got it right. If you want to be taken seriously and try to effect change, Johnson's not a great role model. Of course Johnson wasn't trying to change anything. He clearly stated that he was against banning face coverings.

[local]

There's a valid argument to be made in regard to women being forced to wear a burqa against their will. However it's not helpful to start the debate with a statement mocking women's appearance by comparing them to a letterbox.

It's a serious issue. How you present your argument matters. If you want to be perceived as an insensitive attention seeking buffoon, Johnson got it right. If you want to be taken seriously and try to effect change, Johnson's not a great role model. Of course Johnson wasn't trying to change anything. He clearly stated that he was against banning face coverings.

Its an entirely reasonable observation in the same way that "Dog Collar" has entered the vernacular, the Churches and its followers have reacted reasonably to it's comparison.

To give any hint of support to a position backed by death threats is abhorrent to any reasonably-minded person who supports freedom of speech and in particular women's freedoms.

The difference is we don't make death threats to support our religious views.
Johnson was and is entirely right to give his view, a neutered Politician is an affront to our freedom of speech and in this case long-suffering women across the world.

To call him a buffoon when he clearly isn't, does undermine your point.

The likes of Me too needs to take up the defence of women with no voice.

I have no problem whatsoever comparing Bhurkas to letterboxes, maybe the colour is a problem although you can have red bhurkas

[seivad]

Didn't he know that images of Mohammed are incredibly offensive to Muslims? He must be a pretty crap RE teacher.

Of course he knew. In a school where the majority of students are of S. Asian heritage and of the Muslim faith, he should have been a little more sensitive. I don't have a problem with him debating the issue, questioning the whys and wherefores of all religions can be a good thing, but surely that could have been accomplished without presenting the image from Charlie Hebdo? If so, I wonder if there would have been less of a furor?

BTW, I am not one of the 'Je suis Charlie' brigade. I think that Charlie Hebdo is a scurrilous rag. I can't defend the repercussions resulting from their article, but they had to know that it was inevitable. Right or wrong.... poke the bear etc. etc.

[Hamble]

Its an entirely reasonable observation in the same way that "Dog Collar" has entered the vernacular, the Churches and its followers have reacted reasonably to it's comparison.

To give any hint of support to a position backed by death threats is abhorrent to any reasonably-minded person who supports freedom of speech and in particular women's freedoms.

The difference is we don't make death threats to support our religious views.
Johnson was and is entirely right to give his view, a neutered Politician is an affront to our freedom of speech and in this case long-suffering women across the world.

To call him a buffoon when he clearly isn't, does undermine your point.

The likes of Me too needs to take up the defence of women with no voice.

I have no problem whatsoever comparing Bhurkas to letterboxes, maybe the colour is a problem although you can have red bhurkas

Two points.
Some women choose to wear the Burqa as a sign of their religious commitment.
It is insensitive to mock not for the reference to letterbox for the fact
as a Moslem woman in the UK and of a minority religion her liberty (in wearing)is already less than other women.

Christianity teaches 'to turn the other cheek'.
This is not the teaching of other religions.
Past upsets have illustrated this.

[seivad]

Two points.
Some women choose to wear the Burqa as a sign of their religious commitment.
It is insensitive to mock not for the reference to letterbox for the fact
as a Moslem woman in the UK and of a minority religion her liberty (in wearing)is already less than other women.

Christianity teaches 'to turn the other cheek'.
This is not the teaching of other religions.
Past upsets have illustrated this.

Life can be difficult enough for Muslim women living in a Christian majority country without us publicly mocking them.

A very close friend of mine is Muslim. Although she has always worn Western dress and never worn head covering, either here or in her country of origin, she has tried the best she can to ensure that her two daughters don't experience some of the insults she has had to endure. Her name identifies her as a Muslim, so they decided to give their two daughters Christian names. Although neither of her daughters ever expressed a wish to wear a head covering, a couple of their friends decided to wear a hijab as a sign of commitment to their religion. She was terrified that her daughters would get the same idea. If they had, she would have fought them tooth and nail to stop them. It's sad that in order to minimise the chance of being on the receiving end of bigoted insults, you have to hide your religion.

I'm against women being forced to wear religious garb, but what right do we have to stop those who want to wear it? And what right do we have to mock/insult them? It doesn't impinge on our lives at all. Next time people see a woman wearing religious gear, think on. Chances are that it's her choice. We can't possibly know that.

[local]

Two points.
Some women choose to wear the Burqa as a sign of their religious commitment.
It is insensitive to mock not for the reference to letterbox for the fact
as a Moslem woman in the UK and of a minority religion her liberty (in wearing)is already less than other women.

Christianity teaches 'to turn the other cheek'.
This is not the teaching of other religions.
Past upsets have illustrated this.

Commitment to a religion that threatens death?

Subjugates women and children?

To wear a garment that is entirely for marking women as property, no thanks.

Where's the support for women and their freedom.

Why would a Christian ignore the plight of women.