Free Speech - what do you think

[Hamble]

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.

Totally agree.
Stressful for your friend though the worst worry is (our)daughters marrying a controlling partner and he comes in sheep's clothing!

Religiosity is sometimes a badge of honour proudly worn by nuns and other religions.

Religious women are revered in their strictly religious community.

Some spend their time visible some are invisible.
Wearing clothing unique to a religious group is a statement.

[Polly Trott]

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.

What learning outcomes do you think this unjustly persecuted pedagogue achieved by showing his class a picture of Mohammed? Muslims will have learned that their values, beliefs and sensibilities count for nothing while non Muslims will have learned it is acceptable to offend and insult people of other religions.

[local]

What learning outcomes do you think this unjustly persecuted pedagogue achieved by showing his class a picture of Mohammed? Muslims will have learned that their values, beliefs and sensibilities count for nothing while non Muslims will have learned it is acceptable to offend and insult people of other religions.

Why pedantic, giving pupils an understanding of what is going on is surely good?

Supporting the values of a religion that issues fatwahs calling for the death of people who question it sounds a strange thing for you to support,

are you comfortable with these actions?

[Hector]

This is not about free speech. This is about a teacher not doing his job properly.

I know English teachers in the UK who in the days when Maths and Religious Studies were the only subjects required to be taught by law (is it still like that?) had to take RE classes to substitute for absentee colleagues. The policy of the school was to teach comparative religion and the teaching material was designed so that Moslems could learn about Christians, Sikhs about Hindus etc, without anyone being offended. It isn't rocket science.

The case in France was different. That was social studies and showing the cartoons was valid. To object was anti free speech.

[Hamble]

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.

I am saying that any woman of any religion could suffer at the hands of an abusive family or partner.

There are women who feel great in revealing clothing and there are victims forced to wear clothing to attract customers for sex in prostitution.

Women do choose to wear the Burqa and women do not.
The majority in the UK do have a choice.
For those who do not I support the Muslim welfare women looking after their community improving helpline access.

Quote Local
"
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."

Christians' may still be offended by personal remarks on religious clothing or their practices without resorting to death threats.
I put that down to 'turning the other cheek'.

It is also against the Law and breaks The Ten Commandments.

[Polly Trott]

Why pedantic, giving pupils an understanding of what is going on is surely good?

Supporting the values of a religion that issues fatwahs calling for the death of people who question it sounds a strange thing for you to support,

are you comfortable with these actions?

What are the positive learning outcomes of deliberately offending Muslim students? As for fatwas I condemn those that promote violence and am unconcerned about those that offer an opinion on whether one should drink Coke or Pepsi. However no fatwa has been issued in relation to this teacher so not sure where you are going with this.

[said]

What are the positive learning outcomes of deliberately offending Muslim students? As for fatwas I condemn those that promote violence and am unconcerned about those that offer an opinion on whether one should drink Coke or Pepsi. However no fatwa has been issued in relation to this teacher so not sure where you are going with this.

We have a British culture - when people come to live among us they are a guest in our country and should respect our laws, culture and values. We have no blasphemy laws in this country, they were abolished many years ago for good reason.

You say that you condemn violence, but you are actually promoting it because this teacher has done nothing wrong legally nor morally, and yet a mob of middle aged men - most of whom did not have children in the school, held a violent protest just outside a primary school terrifying those in the school. This is an offence in this country and they should have all been arrested.

This mob were sanctioning their own country's beliefs, not those of the country to which they have chosen to come to. They were not respecting our laws! A cartoon of Mohammed was shown - no-one knows what reference was placed on that exhibit, but already they condemn an experienced teacher.

The hypocrisy is that they were a violent mob offended because a cartoon had been shown - where are their protests when Muslims are being bombed and killed in the Middle East?

[said]

This is not about free speech. This is about a teacher not doing his job properly.

I know English teachers in the UK who in the days when Maths and Religious Studies were the only subjects required to be taught by law (is it still like that?) had to take RE classes to substitute for absentee colleagues. The policy of the school was to teach comparative religion and the teaching material was designed so that Moslems could learn about Christians, Sikhs about Hindus etc, without anyone being offended. It isn't rocket science.

The case in France was different. That was social studies and showing the cartoons was valid. To object was anti free speech.

All teachers are expected to stand in for absent colleagues for whatever topic they are expected to cover. Teaching is no longer subjective, it is taught by blanket generalisation in recipe format, so it is an easy task for a lesson to be taught by anyone as a follow up from the previous lesson.

In a Christian society, Christianity takes precedence. But it is not to the exclusion of other religions. I remember being taught religion in our school, and if any student's parents had objected to the teaching they could request that their child be excluded. This at the time, included Jewish and Catholics, but our lesson went on just the same.

If I had attended an Islamic school in say - Pakistan, I most certainly would not expect Christianity to be taught as a priority. It probably would not even be mentioned. If I had been shown a cartoon of Jesus on the cross - I would not be offended for I would listen to understand the context of it's use. Mohammed has never been depicted, the only illustrations being those showing Mohammed as a Persian person. Generic pictures of Mohammed have constantly changed, Turkish depictions were banned, while Mohammed appeared as a Chinese person with flames around his head remained - who is to say if any are correct? The Shiite Muslims have more pictures of Mohammed yet Mohammed's parents were Pagan later Christian.

It is not 'Free Speech' which is the problem, it is the zealots of society who are. No-one else is bothered. That teacher may well have been teaching children to accept everything in context, and not to be offended simply because they misunderstand the complexities of culture.

The UK no longer has blasphemy laws. By allowing our laws to be changed via mob law - we are changing our culture to that of those living in a third world nation.

[Polly Trott]

We have a British culture - when people come to live among us they are a guest in our country and should respect our laws, culture and values. We have no blasphemy laws in this country, they were abolished many years ago for good reason.

You say that you condemn violence, but you are actually promoting it because this teacher has done nothing wrong legally nor morally, and yet a mob of middle aged men - most of whom did not have children in the school, held a violent protest just outside a primary school terrifying those in the school. This is an offence in this country and they should have all been arrested.

This mob were sanctioning their own country's beliefs, not those of the country to which they have chosen to come to. They were not respecting our laws! A cartoon of Mohammed was shown - no-one knows what reference was placed on that exhibit, but already they condemn an experienced teacher.

The hypocrisy is that they were a violent mob offended because a cartoon had been shown - where are their protests when Muslims are being bombed and killed in the Middle East?

Assuming your repeated description of a "violent mob" outside the school is correct it does not excuse what the teacher did. The teacher could have made the point without showing the image.

You repeat O'Neill's ( and everyone's) point that "we have no blasphemy laws in this country". This will explain why he hasn't been arrested for blasphemy. What the teacher was thought to have done was contravene their employer's disciplinary code and/ or their professional registration conditions. That is why they were suspended, on full pay, pending an investigation. That is different from breaking the law.

Gawd knows why or how you think I am "promoting violence". Care to expand?

[local]

What are the positive learning outcomes of deliberately offending Muslim students? As for fatwas I condemn those that promote violence and am unconcerned about those that offer an opinion on whether one should drink Coke or Pepsi. However no fatwa has been issued in relation to this teacher so not sure where you are going with this.

Sorry but I can't switch my support for women and girls' rights on and off to avoid offending people who think it's perfectly reasonable to treat them like sh5t.

I cannot switch my belief that children should not be indoctrinated with religion by threat to appease horrible old men, you might I cannot.



If you are offended by seeing images good bad or indifferent of your god enough to disrupt a school and frighten its teachers and pupils then I suggest you have a problem not the teacher or the school.

Squashing dissent, free-thinking and speech by threat and force should be condemned by right-thinking people everywhere.

We are in a free country not a caliphate.

[Hamble]

Local means keep 'caliphates' for Israel.

[Little Londoner]

Sorry but I can't switch my support for women and girls' rights on and off to avoid offending people who think it's perfectly reasonable to treat them like sh5t.

I cannot switch my belief that children should not be indoctrinated with religion by threat to appease horrible old men, you might I cannot.



If you are offended by seeing images good bad or indifferent of your god enough to disrupt a school and frighten its teachers and pupils then I suggest you have a problem not the teacher or the school.

Squashing dissent, free-thinking and speech by threat and force should be condemned by right-thinking people everywhere.

We are in a free country not a caliphate.

This country is the laughing stock of the world by allowing the hatred being spouted by immigrants to be allowed yet me you or any other British subject are vilified by the Liberals for having the audacity of having an opinion on anything.
We have to ***** foot around illegal immigrants (who are supposedly refugees when the mainly young males get here) if they can't change their own countries they may as well come here and change ours.

Sorry Cats I am not allowed to call you PUSS with a Y now, see what I mean.

[local]

I detest this pull up the drawbridge mentality from both men and women in our country.

Yes you have your freedoms but don't let anyone else get them, its a nimby thinking for women, is it because their not white?

How can any one think its reasonable to support bullies.

[Polly Trott]

Sorry but I can't switch my support for women and girls' rights on and off to avoid offending people who think it's perfectly reasonable to treat them like sh5t.

I cannot switch my belief that children should not be indoctrinated with religion by threat to appease horrible old men, you might I cannot.


If you are offended by seeing images good bad or indifferent of your god enough to disrupt a school and frighten its teachers and pupils then I suggest you have a problem not the teacher or the school.

Squashing dissent, free-thinking and speech by threat and force should be condemned by right-thinking people everywhere.

We are in a free country not a caliphate.

Okkey cokkey, let me suggest a similar scenario to you that might help clarify the issue here. Supposing the teacher had been conducting a lesson on how pigs are regarded as unclean and spiritually polluting in Islam. Would you argue that it was good teaching to bring a pig into the classroom?

[said]

Okkey cokkey, let me suggest a similar scenario to you that might help clarify the issue here. Supposing the teacher had been conducting a lesson on how pigs are regarded as unclean and spiritually polluting in Islam. Would you argue that it was good teaching to bring a pig into the classroom?

Yes! The teacher would have told the students that certain religions have specific beliefs, and those beliefs are held only by those who belong to that religion. While Christians do not hold the same beliefs - for here is a pig, do you see this animal as more unclean than any others? In the present day most animals have and are fed animal sourced foods

I would then explain about the difficulties once faced by Islamic and Jewish people in Australia, about Hindu and Buddhists etc., lessons are meant to be open learning.