Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
Because he's a small minded intolerant illiberal bigot who doesn't like his views being challenged.
Oh dear Philip, you really do have problems. Aside from your obvious challenge of spending hours and days on here tediously expressing views on matters where it is apparent that you have no knowledge and trying to sound like a sage (which is quite frankly laughable most of the time), you are now doing psychological projection: Brexit fanatic who thinks the Charlie Hebdoe cartoons should be on the national curriculum accuses someone else (who is a genuine liberal) of being an intolerant illiberal bigot.
Incidentally, you probably guessed I was thinking of folk like you in the above post. Being opinionated is something most people on here can be accused of, but most, whether right or left, have some basis of experience for those opinions. Get some experience of real life you silly, silly little pillock.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
It is indeed a Comet, with the long 17pdr gun. Note also the Universal Carrier and the selection of wheeled armour here. Looks like a Dingo or two behind the Ferret (this last admittedly post-WW2). (I'm being cautious as there is a Canadian vehicle that looks very like the Dingo.)
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
Pretty sure they're a commemorative element, like these lads.
Tbf Lee-Enfields would be as good for shooting unarmed civilians as anything.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
A group which demand this in this way has no right to it. We are and have been offensive to all sorts of people throughout our history - look at 18th century cartoons for instance. Much of this was scurrilous, lurid, vulgar, tasteless, horrible etc. So what? It was a way of saying and showing that no-one was beyond challenge, no-one should think themselves beyond challenge and no-one, however humble or unimportant, should be afraid to challenge.
And I am afraid that this message has got be be made repeatedly to the Islamic bigots and extremists and all the other religious bigots and extremists until they get the point. Because wanting to be beyond challenge is exactly what they want. And this is intolerable in a free society.
The articles by Matthew Syed and Matthew Paris in the Times this weekend put it admirably. Very well worth reading.
Of course, but we are conflating different things. My view FWIW:
1. Violent protest is ALWAYS wrong unless democratic channels for protest have been removed. In particular, it's wrong for teachers or schools to be subjected to it.
2. Tact and good manners are generally a good thing, and should be expected of teachers as part of the job. It's less important to expect it of people on blogs or chatting in a pub.
3. Teachers in religious education should make pupils aware of alternative serious views. In doing so, they should try to avoid giving gratuitous offence, and instead focus on the concrete issues that people disagree about. If you show pupils satirical attacks on their beliefs, you aren't inviting them to challenge their beliefs, you're upsetting the kids for no constructive purpose.
I'm an atheist, by the way. In my view,as Marx rather touchingly said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". (Usually only the last bit gets quoted so the underlying compassion is lost.) But everyone should have the chance to find their own way without being exposed to derision.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
We were leaving the EU and the SM. That was clear. The pretense that that was not going to make a difference and did not require steps taken to adapt, whatever the outcome of the final deal, was dishonest and incompetent (as well as being the worst negotiating tactic ever).
I saw down thread that May is regarded by polling as the worst PM ever. Although there is a clear recency bias in the polling it is very hard to think of worse in my lifetime. Only Brown comes close.
Your prejudices are showing. David Cameron was the worst Prime Minister since Lord North. He flatlined the economy. He damaged the NHS. He reignited the Middle East by intervening in Libya. He lost Europe, and almost Scotland (a work in progress).
btw Lord North has been reincarnated as a racehorse who won the Dubai Turf on Saturday. I imagine we will see him again at Royal Ascot, for which tickets are not being sold as the Roadmap sees reopening a week too late.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Its not irrelevant because you were talking about "where to draw the line" against offending Muslims, for which the only right answer is "nowhere". Faith is not above offence.
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
But you don't mean "nowhere".
For example - you go into a Muslim area and stick one of those Hebdo cartoons through every letterbox.
What's the Philip Thompson Construct view there?
Not sure what you mean by Construct, but if someone wants to do that and they're not trespassing to do so then that's fair enough.
If they're trespassing on other's private property to do so and its objected to then that's not OK.
If someone wants to "into a Muslim area" and peacefully hold up placards outside a Mosque portraying these cartoons then that is fair enough too.
Free speech must include the right to say things you dislike. Only giving free speech to views you approve of is meaningless.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
The really silly thing is people try to advance the perhaps reasonable point of 'there's usually no need to be a dick and be pointlessly offence', as if it is in some way related to whether it was 'right' that someone was a dick who was pointlessly offensive. The former is being generally polite, but has no bearing on it being ok for someone to do it, for any reason, nor on whether people who protest are being reasonable.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
For all its lefty/liberal/wokeness, The Last Leg does get this right for me - the phrase "Don't be a dick" is not a bad way to run your life. Re showing cartoons of Mohamed - I have no objection if done in the right way. Allowing any students who might be offended to miss this class, or part of the class hits the brief for me. There is a case for showing them to stimulate debate on free speech, religious tolerance vs intolerance and so on. Why should it be ok to have 'Life of Brian' on the one hand, but not a cartoon showing Mohamed (and not actually mocking in any case) on the other? This is not to me deliberately provocative unless you choose it to be so.
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
I may have missed somthing, but who is saying we have to "give up" Easter?
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
I may have missed somthing, but who is saying we have to "give up" Easter?
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Wow. Their equivalent of the REME must be awesome if they keep this stuff running in any numbers.
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
The pubs open in exactly 2 weeks. The barrage of catastrophizing from two sides at once - both from those who fear we won't be locked down forever and from those who fear we are going to be locked down forever - does get a bit wearying...
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
It is indeed a Comet, with the long 17pdr gun. Note also the Universal Carrier and the selection of wheeled armour here. Looks like a Dingo or two behind the Ferret (this last admittedly post-WW2). (I'm being cautious as there is a Canadian vehicle that looks very like the Dingo.)
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
Pretty sure they're a commemorative element, like these lads.
Tbf Lee-Enfields would be as good for shooting unarmed civilians as anything.
Sky showing Nicola's pre recorded campaign speech and making the point she is not taking questions
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
I'm struggling here Philip. There was an absolute commitment that there would not be a border down the Irish Sea. There is.
If you want to see some practical evidence try ordering something from Lawnsmith to go to NI. Initially they charged an extra £50 for the extra paperwork. They have now given up altogether.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
None of that as I read it stops a teacher teaching about blasphemy. Nor does it stop teaching about homosexuality - the target of the last protests. And yet the protests always seem to come from Islamic community leaders who, however, they dress it up, want to stop their children knowing about the world beyond the strict confines of Islamic belief, as interpreted and taught by those self-same leaders.
That is not education and we do children a complete disservice by pretending that it is or by denying them the right to a proper education, chief among which are the tools to challenge what their parents tell them.
I wasn't arguing for a moment that it did. Was it necessary to show a cartoon know to be highly offensive to some to do that ?
Again, you are presenting condemnation of the unacceptable behaviour of protestors as justification of the teacher's actions. Both things can be wrong.
Necessary? Not much is "necessary".
Was it appropriate? Yes, 100% absolutely yes.
It was neither, IMO. And clearly counterproductive from an educational point of view.
We are not in disagreement Philip. Our own self interest is the ruling principle here. It is unfortunate that the rank incompetence and basic dishonesty of May and Hammond meant we were not ready to protect our interests even at the end of an extended transitional period but we are where we are and we should be building that inspection capacity now making it very clear that it will come into force within months.
A world-class piece of doublethink. The catastrophe that May and Hammond were trying to avoid somehow becomes their fault because Boris trashed their approach and deliberately led us into it!
Indeed. And what specifically are we talking about? We have shagged our ability to import by demanding 3rd country status with no exemptions. We can't do the same checks in reverse because we failed to build the physical infrastructure or hire customs agents or have a working computer system.
When all those things are fixed we get to shag our ability to import as well. Yay!
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
Dunno what the going rate for a Comet is but a good deal less than the £14m the guys on Combat Dealers (a v. guilty pleasure) sold their Panther for.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
It is indeed a Comet, with the long 17pdr gun. Note also the Universal Carrier and the selection of wheeled armour here. Looks like a Dingo or two behind the Ferret (this last admittedly post-WW2). (I'm being cautious as there is a Canadian vehicle that looks very like the Dingo.)
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
Pretty sure they're a commemorative element, like these lads.
Tbf Lee-Enfields would be as good for shooting unarmed civilians as anything.
Sky showing Nicola's pre recorded campaign speech and making the point she is not taking questions
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
A group which demand this in this way has no right to it. We are and have been offensive to all sorts of people throughout our history - look at 18th century cartoons for instance. Much of this was scurrilous, lurid, vulgar, tasteless, horrible etc. So what? It was a way of saying and showing that no-one was beyond challenge, no-one should think themselves beyond challenge and no-one, however humble or unimportant, should be afraid to challenge.
And I am afraid that this message has got be be made repeatedly to the Islamic bigots and extremists and all the other religious bigots and extremists until they get the point. Because wanting to be beyond challenge is exactly what they want. And this is intolerable in a free society.
The articles by Matthew Syed and Matthew Paris in the Times this weekend put it admirably. Very well worth reading.
Of course, but we are conflating different things. My view FWIW:
1. Violent protest is ALWAYS wrong unless democratic channels for protest have been removed. In particular, it's wrong for teachers or schools to be subjected to it.
2. Tact and good manners are generally a good thing, and should be expected of teachers as part of the job. It's less important to expect it of people on blogs or chatting in a pub.
3. Teachers in religious education should make pupils aware of alternative serious views. In doing so, they should try to avoid giving gratuitous offence, and instead focus on the concrete issues that people disagree about. If you show pupils satirical attacks on their beliefs, you aren't inviting them to challenge their beliefs, you're upsetting the kids for no constructive purpose.
I'm an atheist, by the way. In my view,as Marx rather touchingly said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". (Usually only the last bit gets quoted so the underlying compassion is lost.) But everyone should have the chance to find their own way without being exposed to derision.
Re your last sentence - why is it ok to subject someone to derision on for believing aliens are among us but not for believing in an invisible and omnipotent being with strong views on how we should live our lives?
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
I think she's being too pessimistic about the future, but we should be very wary of the zealots demanding lockdowns next autumn in order to save the nhs/deal with flu/variants/modelling.
The pubs open in exactly 2 weeks. The barrage of catastrophizing from two sides at once - both from those who fear we won't be locked down forever and from those who fear we are going to be locked down forever - does get a bit wearying...
They all need to get off Twitter for a while.
JHB can make some good points, but by writing it the way she does, it adds nothing useful to the conversation. It's great for getting the likes and retweets though.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Is that a flipping Comet? The Tank Museum would probably make them a nice offer for it!
It is indeed a Comet, with the long 17pdr gun. Note also the Universal Carrier and the selection of wheeled armour here. Looks like a Dingo or two behind the Ferret (this last admittedly post-WW2). (I'm being cautious as there is a Canadian vehicle that looks very like the Dingo.)
Having said that, I'm not sure they are in frontline service. After all, an incautious observer might conclude that the Raff still operated Hurricanes and Lancasters from observing parades in London.
Pretty sure they're a commemorative element, like these lads.
Tbf Lee-Enfields would be as good for shooting unarmed civilians as anything.
Sky showing Nicola's pre recorded campaign speech and making the point she is not taking questions
Gone into hiding !!!
In a fridge?
Looks as if it was recorded in her lounge and she looked very tense
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
So I can conclude that no one can point me at an account identifying (and ideally publishing) the allegedly problematic cartoons?
Looking at that list of standards, @Nigelb, they are presumably not in place in Australia where they subject 13 year old boys to ritual group humiliation in class.
Things that interest me in this account are that the Head wrapped up the conclusion of his inquiry before he had even started it - "these materials are clearly inappropriate for class".
And that no one knows what he was teaching, or how, but that it was the second year that it was done and no one launched campaigns the first time around. Yet now a chilling effect has been created.
That is reminiscent of the original Mohammed Cartoons in 2007 (?). I published them on my blog out of disgust with the media self-censoring under threats. But I published a photo of the Cartoons as they appeared in an Egyptian Newspaper months before the thing went wild. And it went wild because of a further campaign by Imams, who had themselves made further cartoons to outrage their co-religionists. I think it would be an excellent RE: lesson encouraging kids to think about offence, perhaps alongside some iconoclast Christian material.
They could even include the NSS in how not to protest.
We saw this with Rushdie. Years later publishers were refusing or censoring books that they thought might be "offensive".
Which seems to me similar to the process around complaints about "unacceptable words" - where dialogue is impossible because the offensive thing cannot be mentioned.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
You're betraying your own ignorance here.
A belief in atheism is not remotely "as much a belief as a belief in a deity". A belief in a deity is equivalent to a belief in Russell's Teapot, or a flying spaghetti monster, not equivalent to atheism.
I think your post there amply proves my point on childishness. It also proves that you have neither the imagination or the intellectual capacity to engage in such a debate. You may want to stick to things that you have knowledge or perspective on. Oh hang on, that might be a bit restrictive for you. Actually just carry on writing crap as you do, day in day out. Ad Nauseam
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
I do acknowledge that truth.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
The really silly thing is people try to advance the perhaps reasonable point of 'there's usually no need to be a dick and be pointlessly offence', as if it is in some way related to whether it was 'right' that someone was a dick who was pointlessly offensive. The former is being generally polite, but has no bearing on it being ok for someone to do it, for any reason, nor on whether people who protest are being reasonable.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
Which specific issue do you mean is black and white?
For example, take this statement -
Display of the Hebdo cartoons, whilst rightly not illegal (unless blatantly violating the hate crime laws), should usually be avoided. If an alternative way of achieving the objective is available, this should be taken.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I don't think comparing atheism to belief in that way is right. A belief that God does not exist is not provable because it is impossible, or very difficult anyway, to prove a negative like that. A belief that God exists, on the other hand, is provable if God (which God? Zeus? Thor? Buddha? Jahweh? Allah? the 13 million Hindu Gods?) decided to reveal himself or themselves.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
I do acknowledge that truth.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
I don't deny the consequences.
Philip this is bollocks. Many, many businesses have businesses that are location specific. Mine was. There is no adaption possible. It is a bit like when a steel mill or car factory closes and local businesses suffer, but at least that is local and it maybe possible to adapt, but this is the whole country where lots of trade has just been removed as unviable with no options available. My only choice would have been to windup. Luckily I retired beforehand.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not.
A group which demand this in this way has no right to it. We are and have been offensive to all sorts of people throughout our history - look at 18th century cartoons for instance. Much of this was scurrilous, lurid, vulgar, tasteless, horrible etc. So what? It was a way of saying and showing that no-one was beyond challenge, no-one should think themselves beyond challenge and no-one, however humble or unimportant, should be afraid to challenge.
And I am afraid that this message has got be be made repeatedly to the Islamic bigots and extremists and all the other religious bigots and extremists until they get the point. Because wanting to be beyond challenge is exactly what they want. And this is intolerable in a free society.
The articles by Matthew Syed and Matthew Paris in the Times this weekend put it admirably. Very well worth reading.
Of course, but we are conflating different things. My view FWIW:
1. Violent protest is ALWAYS wrong unless democratic channels for protest have been removed. In particular, it's wrong for teachers or schools to be subjected to it.
2. Tact and good manners are generally a good thing, and should be expected of teachers as part of the job. It's less important to expect it of people on blogs or chatting in a pub.
3. Teachers in religious education should make pupils aware of alternative serious views. In doing so, they should try to avoid giving gratuitous offence, and instead focus on the concrete issues that people disagree about. If you show pupils satirical attacks on their beliefs, you aren't inviting them to challenge their beliefs, you're upsetting the kids for no constructive purpose.
I'm an atheist, by the way. In my view,as Marx rather touchingly said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". (Usually only the last bit gets quoted so the underlying compassion is lost.) But everyone should have the chance to find their own way without being exposed to derision.
Re your last sentence - why is it ok to subject someone to derision on for believing aliens are among us but not for believing in an invisible and omnipotent being with strong views on how we should live our lives?
The same reasons that insulting/deriding Mormonism is A-OK with some, but insulting certain older religions is EVUL!!!!!
I remember exploding a few progressive heads by talking about the Danites and the Mormon War.... The parallels to other religions are quite interesting.
I forget, was it in Myanmar that the entirely mythical squadron of mint, crated Spitfires was waiting to be dug up a few years ago? The Telegraph almost wanked itself to death over that one.
Wow. Their equivalent of the REME must be awesome if they keep this stuff running in any numbers.
A chap I knew in the military vehicle restoring/sale business said that you had to be surprisingly careful - alot of what you might think was just museum/collector fodder would be of great interest to some scumbag countries around the world.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Right now the Batley teacher is in hiding after unsubtle threats against his life. It is conceivable he and his family might have to move and adopt new names. Because he showed some children a cartoon about a religious figure.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Right now the Batley teacher is in hiding after unsubtle threats against his life. It is conceivable he and his family might have to move and adopt new names. Because he showed some children a cartoon about a religious figure.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
Nail has met head. Our dark future in two sentences.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
It depends why the Hebdo cartoons are avoided.
If they're avoided because nobody likes them or wants to share them then that is one thing.
If they're avoided because of a climate of fear and threats of violence, then that is an enemy to freedom that needs to be faced down.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Its not irrelevant because you were talking about "where to draw the line" against offending Muslims, for which the only right answer is "nowhere". Faith is not above offence.
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
But you don't mean "nowhere".
For example - you go into a Muslim area and stick one of those Hebdo cartoons through every letterbox.
What's the Philip Thompson Construct view there?
Not sure what you mean by Construct, but if someone wants to do that and they're not trespassing to do so then that's fair enough.
If they're trespassing on other's private property to do so and its objected to then that's not OK.
If someone wants to "into a Muslim area" and peacefully hold up placards outside a Mosque portraying these cartoons then that is fair enough too.
Free speech must include the right to say things you dislike. Only giving free speech to views you approve of is meaningless.
Ok. So other than trespass (which it won't be) it is "fair enough" to carry out a campaign in, say, Bradford whereby the Hebdo cartoons are pushed through the letterboxes of Muslim householders.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Your reply bears little relation to my post.
But of course yes - it should not be illegal to cause religiou offence. If such a law was proposed I'd be strongly against.
Any other irrelevant banalities to offer?
Its not irrelevant because you were talking about "where to draw the line" against offending Muslims, for which the only right answer is "nowhere". Faith is not above offence.
Where do you draw the line against offending conservatives/socialists/communists/authoritarians? Beliefs are free to be attacked however you want.
But you don't mean "nowhere".
For example - you go into a Muslim area and stick one of those Hebdo cartoons through every letterbox.
What's the Philip Thompson Construct view there?
Not sure what you mean by Construct, but if someone wants to do that and they're not trespassing to do so then that's fair enough.
If they're trespassing on other's private property to do so and its objected to then that's not OK.
If someone wants to "into a Muslim area" and peacefully hold up placards outside a Mosque portraying these cartoons then that is fair enough too.
Free speech must include the right to say things you dislike. Only giving free speech to views you approve of is meaningless.
Ok. So other than trespass (which it won't be) it is "fair enough" to carry out a campaign in, say, Bradford whereby the Hebdo cartoons are pushed through the letterboxes of Muslim householders.
Got you.
If someone wants to do that that's their choice. I see no reason to do it and would have no interest in doing it myself, but people are free to exercise their rights how they choose not how I choose it for them.
You're even free to spout your own beliefs I consider to be entirely wrong. Your choice, not mine.
I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
It wouldnt be a free speech issue if it had been handled differently. Pupils or parents raising it with the governors or head teacher and getting it changed would be fine.
It is the intimidation including from people with no connection to the school which makes it a free speech issue.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I don't think comparing atheism to belief in that way is right. A belief that God does not exist is not provable because it is impossible, or very difficult anyway, to prove a negative like that. A belief that God exists, on the other hand, is provable if God (which God? Zeus? Thor? Buddha? Jahweh? Allah? the 13 million Hindu Gods?) decided to reveal himself or themselves.
Many people have revealed themselves as gods. How do we know which ones were gods and which were deluded or charlatans?
It is more profitable to ask if there was any way we could have avoided a de facto blasphemy law, once we allowed large scale Muslim/Sikh immigration (which unhappily coincided with Islam itself taking a fundamentalist turn)
If we’d been firm in our defence of free speech from the off, we might have prevented this collapse. There were many opportunities - I remember that controversial Sikh play which got cancelled, and the government did nothing but waffle, and I remember thinking, then, ‘this spinelessness will end badly’. So it has.
I can, however, understand the cowardice. Who really wants to be beaten or stabbed or beheaded or chased into hiding, for a cartoon/novel/play?
It is so much easier to yield, while making yourself feel better with a few warm words about free speech, even as you abandon that same free speech.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
It sucks yes, but it will happen for some. Decisions have consequences.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
So I can conclude that no one can point me at an account identifying (and ideally publishing) the allegedly problematic cartoons?
Looking at that list of standards, @Nigelb, they are presumably not in place in Australia where they subject 13 year old boys to ritual group humiliation in class.
Things that interest me in this account are that the Head wrapped up the conclusion of his inquiry before he had even started it - "these materials are clearly inappropriate for class".
And that no one knows what he was teaching, or how, but that it was the second year that it was done and no one launched campaigns the first time around. Yet now a chilling effect has been created.
That is reminiscent of the original Mohammed Cartoons in 2007 (?). I published them on my blog out of disgust with the media self-censoring under threats. But I published a photo of the Cartoons as they appeared in an Egyptian Newspaper months before the thing went wild. And it went wild because of a further campaign by Imams, who had themselves made further cartoons to outrage their co-religionists. I think it would be an excellent RE: lesson encouraging kids to think about offence, perhaps alongside some iconoclast Christian material.
They could even include the NSS in how not to protest.
We saw this with Rushdie. Years later publishers were refusing or censoring books that they thought might be "offensive".
Which seems to me similar to the process around complaints about "unacceptable words" - where dialogue is impossible because the offensive thing cannot be mentioned.
I agree with a lot of that, but... I'd struggle to see how the cartoons could be usefully used as curriculum materials for that age group. On the other hand, reading around this, it seems that the materials had previously been used by other teachers in the school. So the school seem to have been disingenuous in their communications, and done a significant disservice to the teacher in suggesting it was his sole responsibility.
Similarly government (and the local authority) have somewhat distanced themselves from the row, at the same time as asserting the principle of free speech.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
I do acknowledge that truth.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
I don't deny the consequences.
Philip this is bollocks. Many, many businesses have businesses that are location specific. Mine was. There is no adaption possible. It is a bit like when a steel mill or car factory closes and local businesses suffer, but at least that is local and it maybe possible to adapt, but this is the whole country where lots of trade has just been removed as unviable with no options available. My only choice would have been to windup. Luckily I retired beforehand.
I said adapt or die. If adaption isn't possible, the other option is possible. So how was it bollocks?
Unpleasant, perhaps. Brutal, perhaps. But bollocks?
‘The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in a Sikh temple.
‘Stuart Rogers, the executive director of the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, admitted that the play's closure amounted to censorship, but said he had a duty of care to staff and audiences. A performance had been scheduled for tonight.’
I don't get what the cost savings are by running two on the same day vs two on different days. They are so far apart that there can't be any efficiency savings, surely?
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it.
Do you possess the slightest sense of irony? This whole furore is itself the lesson - namely that a de facto blasphemy law now exists in this country, enforced not by democratic consent or Act of Parliament, but by fear.
But apparently that's 'not a major free speech issue' on your planet.
I don't get what the cost savings are by running two on the same day vs two on different days. They are so far apart that there can't be any efficiency savings, surely?
There's cost savings by running them on election day since the election is already happening on that day so its just one more ballot in the polling station.
Running it a week after election day is an unnecessary expense.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
It sucks yes, but it will happen for some. Decisions have consequences.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
Perhaps when you say that people could just export to Canada / USA / Japan you may want to think in the future...
"The rush of events over the last week has abruptly raised the possibility that Marine Le Pen will sweep into power [in France] as dynastic leader of the eurosceptic right."
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
It sucks yes, but it will happen for some. Decisions have consequences.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
Perhaps when you say that people could just export to Canada / USA / Japan you may want to think in the future...
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
I do acknowledge that truth.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
I don't deny the consequences.
Philip this is bollocks. Many, many businesses have businesses that are location specific. Mine was. There is no adaption possible. It is a bit like when a steel mill or car factory closes and local businesses suffer, but at least that is local and it maybe possible to adapt, but this is the whole country where lots of trade has just been removed as unviable with no options available. My only choice would have been to windup. Luckily I retired beforehand.
I said adapt or die. If adaption isn't possible, the other option is possible. So how was it bollocks?
Unpleasant, perhaps. Brutal, perhaps. But bollocks?
But you are throwing pointless numbers of businesses to the wall for no good reason.
Opposes strictly come dancing....with that I am in total agreement....
The rest not exactly shocking that religious fundamentalist believes in the absolute interpretation of their religion on things like gay marriage. Where many on the left / "progressives" seem that have a big blind spot, they will go to town on a Christian who is say anti-gay marriage on religious grounds, cancel them, boycott their business etc, but would never dare to raise such objections about this guy....something something, oppression, hierarchy, patriarchy, only punch up, or something.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
It wouldnt be a free speech issue if it had been handled differently. Pupils or parents raising it with the governors or head teacher and getting it changed would be fine.
It is the intimidation including from people with no connection to the school which makes it a free speech issue.
No, that makes it a criminal justice issue. Such threats are, or ought to be illegal.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
I agree, but at the same time I'm aware that the clear separation that exists in our minds between religion and race/ethnic group is very much a Western/Christian idea. To most people in the Arab world, to be Muslim and to be Arab are one and the same thing. (This is also what lies behind Modi's reconception of India as an explicitly Hindu state.) I think they would struggle to understand the perspective that you can be as offensive as you like about someone's religion, but race is off-limits.
It's also possible for there to be things that people are free to say, but we don't want teachers saying them in classrooms. You'd have to be quite wilfully stupid not to understand this.
Which of Theresa May's red lines did Boris breach?
Boris implemented what May and Hammond claimed they were working towards, but as Hammond has already confirmed in his own words he didn't believe in them yet rather than having the self-respect and dignity of resigning from the Cabinet and opposing it from the backbenches he undermined his own government instead.
Well, for a massive starter he breached the absolute 100% red line (which he claimed to share) that there shouldn't be a border down the Irish Sea, which was particularly galling given that we Theresa May had actually solved that issue rather cleverly. Secondly May and Hammond were trying to get a closer deal with our EU friends, which could and should have included SPS equivalence which would have hugely mitigated the damage, and which Boris and Frost threw away despite claiming that they don't actually want to deviate from EU standards. And thirdly, and most importantly, it wasn't May and Hammond who were promising the moon and conning voters that there wouldn't be a huge downside to Brexit for all small businesses trading with the EU.
May didn't solve that "cleverly", she solved it by keeping us in the customs union via the entirely unacceptable backstop which breached her own line to leave it.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
That reply would make some sense if you actually acknowledged the truth: that Boris and Frost have wrecked the business model of lots of small businesses purely because of an ideological wish to be as free as possible from EU influence over UK regulations. Just admit it. You clearly think it was worth it to cause such huge economic damage, so why deny the inescapable reality of the consequences of the priorities Boris and Frost decided on - priorities which you share?
I do acknowledge that truth.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
I don't deny the consequences.
Philip this is bollocks. Many, many businesses have businesses that are location specific. Mine was. There is no adaption possible. It is a bit like when a steel mill or car factory closes and local businesses suffer, but at least that is local and it maybe possible to adapt, but this is the whole country where lots of trade has just been removed as unviable with no options available. My only choice would have been to windup. Luckily I retired beforehand.
I said adapt or die. If adaption isn't possible, the other option is possible. So how was it bollocks?
Unpleasant, perhaps. Brutal, perhaps. But bollocks?
But you are throwing pointless numbers of businesses to the wall for no good reason.
Its not for no good reason. It is for a belief that the benefits in aggregate will outweigh the costs in aggregate.
Is that right? Only time will tell. But that's why we had a referendum and those wanting to maintain the status quo lost. I nearly voted for the status quo but was convinced during the referendum to change my mind, nothing since has convinced me to change it back.
Yes there is a price to pay. Yes its a shame. Such is the nature of change and politics.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
It wouldnt be a free speech issue if it had been handled differently. Pupils or parents raising it with the governors or head teacher and getting it changed would be fine.
It is the intimidation including from people with no connection to the school which makes it a free speech issue.
No, that makes it a criminal justice issue. Such threats are, or ought to be illegal.
Criminalisation and law enforcement of such intimidation is quite tricky.
If someone said "Blasphemy is one of the worst sins possible and must be avenged" is that a crime? Ianal but doubt it as there is no direct threat of violence, but given global reactions to similar events it is implicit support for an act of violence and threatening.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Right now the Batley teacher is in hiding after unsubtle threats against his life. It is conceivable he and his family might have to move and adopt new names. Because he showed some children a cartoon about a religious figure.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
To say that free speech is "a thing of the past" in this country is ludicrous. It's such a precious and dim thing to say. Borderline offensive too. I wonder what the billions of people who live in the many parts of the world where free speech IS forbidden would make of it? I think you might get the raspberry.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
It sucks yes, but it will happen for some. Decisions have consequences.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
Perhaps when you say that people could just export to Canada / USA / Japan you may want to think in the future...
When did I say that?
"As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen."
The exporters say that its impractical and/or economically unviable to export to ROW. You say otherwise, that they "need to adapt". You know so much better than they do about their own business. Which has been the issue with the pro-Brexit argument in response to every one of these reality checks. "You're not trying hard enough" or "you aren't open to new opportunities" and then "you're just remoaners".
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
So I can conclude that no one can point me at an account identifying (and ideally publishing) the allegedly problematic cartoons?
Looking at that list of standards, @Nigelb, they are presumably not in place in Australia where they subject 13 year old boys to ritual group humiliation in class.
Things that interest me in this account are that the Head wrapped up the conclusion of his inquiry before he had even started it - "these materials are clearly inappropriate for class".
And that no one knows what he was teaching, or how, but that it was the second year that it was done and no one launched campaigns the first time around. Yet now a chilling effect has been created.
That is reminiscent of the original Mohammed Cartoons in 2007 (?). I published them on my blog out of disgust with the media self-censoring under threats. But I published a photo of the Cartoons as they appeared in an Egyptian Newspaper months before the thing went wild. And it went wild because of a further campaign by Imams, who had themselves made further cartoons to outrage their co-religionists. I think it would be an excellent RE: lesson encouraging kids to think about offence, perhaps alongside some iconoclast Christian material.
They could even include the NSS in how not to protest.
We saw this with Rushdie. Years later publishers were refusing or censoring books that they thought might be "offensive".
Which seems to me similar to the process around complaints about "unacceptable words" - where dialogue is impossible because the offensive thing cannot be mentioned.
I agree with a lot of that, but... I'd struggle to see how the cartoons could be usefully used as curriculum materials for that age group. On the other hand, reading around this, it seems that the materials had previously been used by other teachers in the school. So the school seem to have been disingenuous in their communications, and done a significant disservice to the teacher in suggesting it was his sole responsibility.
Similarly government (and the local authority) have somewhat distanced themselves from the row, at the same time as asserting the principle of free speech.
The 13 is a ref to the Australian controversy.
I have no idea of the Batley age group.
Certainly when I was at school we would have done the Motoons thing quite happily at any age between I guess 14 (maybe 13) and 17. 11 would have been a struggle I think.
He opposes Strictly? Then he is a danger to all that is right and proper.
If it was just Strictly, I’d be with him all the way. Sadly, there is the other stuff.
Interesting to note that he apparently can’t spell ‘rabbi’. You clearly don’t have to be very smart to be an imam. It is also striking how many of these fundamentalists are completely dim. Their self righteousness is inversely proportionate to their IQ
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
You're right it is just like racism, with the protesters being like racists: intolerant against others.
"Flexibility" in the face of intolerant bigots threatening violence to enforce their own view of the world is not a strength.
If instead of religious zealots trying to chase away "blasphemy" these were were white supremacist zealots trying to chase away those with a different skin colour, would you call for us to kowtow before them? Would you be calling for us to "flex" and all all those with a different skin colour to be chased out of the school so they can have a pure white only school?
"The rush of events over the last week has abruptly raised the possibility that Marine Le Pen will sweep into power [in France] as dynastic leader of the eurosceptic right."
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
You are describing politeness and good manners. But what you ignore is that these cannot be demanded by means of threats. If I am polite it is by my choice not because I fear being attacked if I am not...
Rather stricter requirements than you impose on yourself are mandated for teachers in their professional standards, though. ...Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law...
Of course none of this in any way justifies violent protest, but I think you are conflating two issues here in a way which does not justify the teacher's original decisions.
(Of course there is a separate issue of whether the cartoon was included in the curriculum materials for the school, which I don't know.)
So I can conclude that no one can point me at an account identifying (and ideally publishing) the allegedly problematic cartoons?
Looking at that list of standards, @Nigelb, they are presumably not in place in Australia where they subject 13 year old boys to ritual group humiliation in class.
Things that interest me in this account are that the Head wrapped up the conclusion of his inquiry before he had even started it - "these materials are clearly inappropriate for class".
And that no one knows what he was teaching, or how, but that it was the second year that it was done and no one launched campaigns the first time around. Yet now a chilling effect has been created.
That is reminiscent of the original Mohammed Cartoons in 2007 (?). I published them on my blog out of disgust with the media self-censoring under threats. But I published a photo of the Cartoons as they appeared in an Egyptian Newspaper months before the thing went wild. And it went wild because of a further campaign by Imams, who had themselves made further cartoons to outrage their co-religionists. I think it would be an excellent RE: lesson encouraging kids to think about offence, perhaps alongside some iconoclast Christian material.
They could even include the NSS in how not to protest.
We saw this with Rushdie. Years later publishers were refusing or censoring books that they thought might be "offensive".
Which seems to me similar to the process around complaints about "unacceptable words" - where dialogue is impossible because the offensive thing cannot be mentioned.
I agree with a lot of that, but... I'd struggle to see how the cartoons could be usefully used as curriculum materials for that age group. On the other hand, reading around this, it seems that the materials had previously been used by other teachers in the school. So the school seem to have been disingenuous in their communications, and done a significant disservice to the teacher in suggesting it was his sole responsibility.
Similarly government (and the local authority) have somewhat distanced themselves from the row, at the same time as asserting the principle of free speech.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
Absolutely right. The people making it about free speech are being played like yoyos by islamist extremists (some of them, others know exactly the game they are playing)
Opposes strictly come dancing....with that I am in total agreement....
The rest not exactly shocking that religious fundamentalist believes in the absolute interpretation of their religion on things like gay marriage. Where many on the left / "progressives" seem that have a big blind spot, they will go to town on a Christian who is say anti-gay marriage on religious grounds, cancel them, boycott their business etc, but would never dare to raise such objections about this guy....something something, oppression, hierarchy, patriarchy, only punch up, or something.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
More likely you can sense that the foundations of so much of the postmodern moral edifice you've invested yourself in are so rotten that you'd rather not inspect them for fear of what you might find...
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
"The rush of events over the last week has abruptly raised the possibility that Marine Le Pen will sweep into power [in France] as dynastic leader of the eurosceptic right."
Telegraph
TBF that was Ambrose - his track record proceeds him
He opposes Strictly? Then he is a danger to all that is right and proper.
If it was just Strictly, I’d be with him all the way. Sadly, there is the other stuff.
Interesting to note that he apparently can’t spell ‘rabbi’. You clearly don’t have to be very smart to be an imam. It is also striking how many of these fundamentalists are completely dim. Their self righteousness is inversely proportionate to their IQ
I think that is true on here as well, those with fundamentalist, hyperbolic reactions to stuff are not the brightest.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
*giggles* When the checks start, things get even worse. Trying to get things imported in January was fraught with massive problems - its only when the government gave up that the barriers came down.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
Where have I said they can? Please quote me saying that?
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
No you are just happy to throw the businesses away and let the owners go bankrupt.
It sucks yes, but it will happen for some. Decisions have consequences.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
Perhaps when you say that people could just export to Canada / USA / Japan you may want to think in the future...
When did I say that?
"As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen."
The exporters say that its impractical and/or economically unviable to export to ROW. You say otherwise, that they "need to adapt". You know so much better than they do about their own business. Which has been the issue with the pro-Brexit argument in response to every one of these reality checks. "You're not trying hard enough" or "you aren't open to new opportunities" and then "you're just remoaners".
The majority of our trade by value already goes to the ROW. So we're already talking about a minority of trade in the first place.
I explicitly acknowledged there that there may be edge cases that can't survive and die. That sucks for them. All decisions always come with an opportunity cost, you're in denial if you think otherwise.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Right now the Batley teacher is in hiding after unsubtle threats against his life. It is conceivable he and his family might have to move and adopt new names. Because he showed some children a cartoon about a religious figure.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
To say that free speech is "a thing of the past" in this country is ludicrous. It's such a precious and dim thing to say. Borderline offensive too. I wonder what the billions of people who live in the many parts of the world where free speech IS forbidden would make of it? I think you might get the raspberry.
We have a de facto blasphemy law. It is simply the case. Everyone self censors out of fear, the odd person who crosses the line - like the teacher - gets threatened with death and runs into hiding. No one repeats the mistake. The unspoken blasphemy laws are enforced and hardened.
It’s not just blasphemy of course. On any number of issues - race, sexuality, transgender - there are many things you can no longer publicly say, even though they are scientifically true. Saying them gets you cancelled - which is a real and painful thing, involving total loss of career, status, income.
Perhaps we never had absolute free speech; there is no doubt the free speech we once had (however imperfect) is now in headlong retreat. Sadly, this is also true of America, which enshrined the right to free speech in its constitution, yet now eagerly surrenders the same.
Their equivalent of the REME must be awesome if they keep this stuff running in any numbers.
There is probably a special fleet of otherwise unused vehicles for this type of parade nonsense. Having said that the Myanma equivalent of Ruins Everything Mechanical Eventually are probably better...
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
This is not about free speech "extremists" - and what a weaselly phrase that is - a thoroughly dishonest attempt to put those who want to extend freedom and critical thinking on a par with those who want to limit it and close it down.
It's about saying that I - a non-Muslim - should not be expected to pay any regard whatever to the precepts of Islam. It is simply of no interest to me what the rules are on depictions of Mohammed or indeed anything else about him. If I want to draw him or refer to him I can do so in whatever way I choose. There is absolutely nothing special about him as far as any non-Muslim is concerned.
Whereas what is being attempted is to try and make him special to non- Muslims by making us pay regard to Islamic strictures about him. On the entirely spurious grounds of offence or hurt. Spurious - not because the hurt isn't real, it may be, though quite a lot seems confected - but because someone's personal hurt is an utterly irrelevant consideration.
Can I require Muslims to start saying the Our Father and going to confession because I am hurt that they don't recognise Catholicism as the One True Faith? No of course not. It is an utterly silly idea. And it is just as silly when Muslims demand that we pay attention to the tenets of their faith.
The really silly thing is people try to advance the perhaps reasonable point of 'there's usually no need to be a dick and be pointlessly offence', as if it is in some way related to whether it was 'right' that someone was a dick who was pointlessly offensive. The former is being generally polite, but has no bearing on it being ok for someone to do it, for any reason, nor on whether people who protest are being reasonable.
I really cannot understand why this issue causes some people to equivocate so much. I'm a huge fan of equivocation, but some things actually are black and white. Whether the provoking actions are a good idea or necessary is actually irrelevant (which is the weaksauce diversion seen here), when the reaction is so much more unreasonable. Indeed, every time people seek to walk on eggshells because of the reaction it just makes it easier to defend people who provoke because they are dicks.
Which specific issue do you mean is black and white?
For example, take this statement -
Display of the Hebdo cartoons, whilst rightly not illegal (unless blatantly violating the hate crime laws), should usually be avoided. If an alternative way of achieving the objective is available, this should be taken.
Agree/Disagree.
You think that's a slam dunk no-brainer?
I do disagree and I do think it's a no brainer, since I don't think it would be possible to agree on 'usually'.
I'd look down on people who offend for offensiveness' sake, but I'd much rather such people feel free enough to do so than other people restrict their self expression because they are worried about offending people.
When drawing the line, I think it indisputably better to err on the side of risking offense than to play it safe and curtail one's own speech. And people aren't choosing caution if its because of threats.
Better an arsehole be free to be an arse, than everyone feel they cannot say what they think. This isn't yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Comments
Incidentally, you probably guessed I was thinking of folk like you in the above post. Being opinionated is something most people on here can be accused of, but most, whether right or left, have some basis of experience for those opinions. Get some experience of real life you silly, silly little pillock.
Tbf Lee-Enfields would be as good for shooting unarmed civilians as anything.
1. Violent protest is ALWAYS wrong unless democratic channels for protest have been removed. In particular, it's wrong for teachers or schools to be subjected to it.
2. Tact and good manners are generally a good thing, and should be expected of teachers as part of the job. It's less important to expect it of people on blogs or chatting in a pub.
3. Teachers in religious education should make pupils aware of alternative serious views. In doing so, they should try to avoid giving gratuitous offence, and instead focus on the concrete issues that people disagree about. If you show pupils satirical attacks on their beliefs, you aren't inviting them to challenge their beliefs, you're upsetting the kids for no constructive purpose.
I'm an atheist, by the way. In my view,as Marx rather touchingly said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". (Usually only the last bit gets quoted so the underlying compassion is lost.) But everyone should have the chance to find their own way without being exposed to derision.
btw Lord North has been reincarnated as a racehorse who won the Dubai Turf on Saturday. I imagine we will see him again at Royal Ascot, for which tickets are not being sold as the Roadmap sees reopening a week too late.
If they're trespassing on other's private property to do so and its objected to then that's not OK.
If someone wants to "into a Muslim area" and peacefully hold up placards outside a Mosque portraying these cartoons then that is fair enough too.
Free speech must include the right to say things you dislike. Only giving free speech to views you approve of is meaningless.
Re showing cartoons of Mohamed - I have no objection if done in the right way. Allowing any students who might be offended to miss this class, or part of the class hits the brief for me. There is a case for showing them to stimulate debate on free speech, religious tolerance vs intolerance and so on. Why should it be ok to have 'Life of Brian' on the one hand, but not a cartoon showing Mohamed (and not actually mocking in any case) on the other? This is not to me deliberately provocative unless you choose it to be so.
It was a red line to leave the customs union, a red line she breached with her backstop, and doing so would require customs infrastructure - infrastructure that Hammond didn't pay for despite that being his responsibility.
The rest is history.
Restrictions end 21/6.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Gone into hiding !!!
If you want to see some practical evidence try ordering something from Lawnsmith to go to NI. Initially they charged an extra £50 for the extra paperwork. They have now given up altogether.
If that is not a border I don't know what is.
And clearly counterproductive from an educational point of view.
When all those things are fixed we get to shag our ability to import as well. Yay!
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
JHB can make some good points, but by writing it the way she does, it adds nothing useful to the conversation. It's great for getting the likes and retweets though.
Looking at that list of standards, @Nigelb, they are presumably not in place in Australia where they subject 13 year old boys to ritual group humiliation in class.
Things that interest me in this account are that the Head wrapped up the conclusion of his inquiry before he had even started it - "these materials are clearly inappropriate for class".
And that no one knows what he was teaching, or how, but that it was the second year that it was done and no one launched campaigns the first time around. Yet now a chilling effect has been created.
That is reminiscent of the original Mohammed Cartoons in 2007 (?). I published them on my blog out of disgust with the media self-censoring under threats. But I published a photo of the Cartoons as they appeared in an Egyptian Newspaper months before the thing went wild. And it went wild because of a further campaign by Imams, who had themselves made further cartoons to outrage their co-religionists. I think it would be an excellent RE: lesson encouraging kids to think about offence, perhaps alongside some iconoclast Christian material.
They could even include the NSS in how not to protest.
We saw this with Rushdie. Years later publishers were refusing or censoring books that they thought might be "offensive".
Which seems to me similar to the process around complaints about "unacceptable words" - where dialogue is impossible because the offensive thing cannot be mentioned.
The business models of lots of small busineses will need to adapt or die.
I don't deny the consequences.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
For example, take this statement -
Display of the Hebdo cartoons, whilst rightly not illegal (unless blatantly violating the hate crime laws), should usually be avoided. If an alternative way of achieving the objective is available, this should be taken.
Agree/Disagree.
You think that's a slam dunk no-brainer?
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
As for "they'll adapt" its back to you with all your expert knowledge telling business owners that they don't know how to run their business as well as you do. There is a reason why businesses start local - its cheap and its easy. As they grow they *may* be able to expand their scope. Many cannot for a multitude of reasons - practicality and cost as prime examples.
The example of the Cheese company - or the Honey company in the press this morning - isn't of a company that could easy export to Canada or wherever. That you think they can is parroting the government's fuck business line.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
I remember exploding a few progressive heads by talking about the Danites and the Mormon War.... The parallels to other religions are quite interesting.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
If they're avoided because nobody likes them or wants to share them then that is one thing.
If they're avoided because of a climate of fear and threats of violence, then that is an enemy to freedom that needs to be faced down.
You're attacking a straw man. I haven't pretended this is cost-free.
Got you.
https://order-order.com/2021/03/26/blackfords-spectacular-by-election-own-goal/
You're even free to spout your own beliefs I consider to be entirely wrong. Your choice, not mine.
I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
It is the intimidation including from people with no connection to the school which makes it a free speech issue.
If we’d been firm in our defence of free speech from the off, we might have prevented this collapse. There were many opportunities - I remember that controversial Sikh play which got cancelled, and the government did nothing but waffle, and I remember thinking, then, ‘this spinelessness will end badly’. So it has.
I can, however, understand the cowardice. Who really wants to be beaten or stabbed or beheaded or chased into hiding, for a cartoon/novel/play?
It is so much easier to yield, while making yourself feel better with a few warm words about free speech, even as you abandon that same free speech.
And that’s what we did.
Am I wrong to acknowledge that? Should we pretend its all rainbows and unicorns and sunshine?
I'd struggle to see how the cartoons could be usefully used as curriculum materials for that age group. On the other hand, reading around this, it seems that the materials had previously been used by other teachers in the school. So the school seem to have been disingenuous in their communications, and done a significant disservice to the teacher in suggesting it was his sole responsibility.
Similarly government (and the local authority) have somewhat distanced themselves from the row, at the same time as asserting the principle of free speech.
Unpleasant, perhaps. Brutal, perhaps. But bollocks?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/dec/20/arts.religion1?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
‘The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in a Sikh temple.
‘Stuart Rogers, the executive director of the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, admitted that the play's closure amounted to censorship, but said he had a duty of care to staff and audiences. A performance had been scheduled for tonight.’
Do you possess the slightest sense of irony? This whole furore is itself the lesson - namely that a de facto blasphemy law now exists in this country, enforced not by democratic consent or Act of Parliament, but by fear.
But apparently that's 'not a major free speech issue' on your planet.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1376506547732414469
Running it a week after election day is an unnecessary expense.
Telegraph
https://twitter.com/nkrankie/status/1376255692672270339?s=21
The rest not exactly shocking that religious fundamentalist believes in the absolute interpretation of their religion on things like gay marriage. Where many on the left / "progressives" seem that have a big blind spot, they will go to town on a Christian who is say anti-gay marriage on religious grounds, cancel them, boycott their business etc, but would never dare to raise such objections about this guy....something something, oppression, hierarchy, patriarchy, only punch up, or something.
Such threats are, or ought to be illegal.
Is that right? Only time will tell. But that's why we had a referendum and those wanting to maintain the status quo lost. I nearly voted for the status quo but was convinced during the referendum to change my mind, nothing since has convinced me to change it back.
Yes there is a price to pay. Yes its a shame. Such is the nature of change and politics.
If someone said "Blasphemy is one of the worst sins possible and must be avenged" is that a crime? Ianal but doubt it as there is no direct threat of violence, but given global reactions to similar events it is implicit support for an act of violence and threatening.
What better reason could there be?
Then he is a danger to all that is right and proper.
The exporters say that its impractical and/or economically unviable to export to ROW. You say otherwise, that they "need to adapt". You know so much better than they do about their own business. Which has been the issue with the pro-Brexit argument in response to every one of these reality checks. "You're not trying hard enough" or "you aren't open to new opportunities" and then "you're just remoaners".
The outgoing Mike Hill is from Lancashire, but apparently that didn't prevent him holding the seat.
I have no idea of the Batley age group.
Certainly when I was at school we would have done the Motoons thing quite happily at any age between I guess 14 (maybe 13) and 17. 11 would have been a struggle I think.
Interesting to note that he apparently can’t spell ‘rabbi’. You clearly don’t have to be very smart to be an imam. It is also striking how many of these fundamentalists are completely dim. Their self righteousness is inversely proportionate to their IQ
"Flexibility" in the face of intolerant bigots threatening violence to enforce their own view of the world is not a strength.
If instead of religious zealots trying to chase away "blasphemy" these were were white supremacist zealots trying to chase away those with a different skin colour, would you call for us to kowtow before them? Would you be calling for us to "flex" and all all those with a different skin colour to be chased out of the school so they can have a pure white only school?
There is more at stake in the case of Batley Grammar than the fate of one teacher
BY ANDREW DOYLE
https://unherd.com/2021/03/the-new-inquisition-must-never-win/
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
I explicitly acknowledged there that there may be edge cases that can't survive and die. That sucks for them. All decisions always come with an opportunity cost, you're in denial if you think otherwise.
It’s not just blasphemy of course. On any number of issues - race, sexuality, transgender - there are many things you can no longer publicly say, even though they are scientifically true. Saying them gets you cancelled - which is a real and painful thing, involving total loss of career, status, income.
Perhaps we never had absolute free speech; there is no doubt the free speech we once had (however imperfect) is now in headlong retreat. Sadly, this is also true of America, which enshrined the right to free speech in its constitution, yet now eagerly surrenders the same.
I'd look down on people who offend for offensiveness' sake, but I'd much rather such people feel free enough to do so than other people restrict their self expression because they are worried about offending people.
When drawing the line, I think it indisputably better to err on the side of risking offense than to play it safe and curtail one's own speech. And people aren't choosing caution if its because of threats.
Better an arsehole be free to be an arse, than everyone feel they cannot say what they think. This isn't yelling fire in a crowded theatre.