In the news today....

[Va-Va-Voom]

Teacher beheaded at Paris school

A source told Le Parisien: "The victim had recently given a lesson to his students on freedom of expression and had shown the caricatures of Muhammad."

It led to a parent confronting the teacher with a kitchen knife before cutting his head off, the source reportedly said.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12942960/ ... man-paris/

How did the extremist know the teacher had shown a picture of Muhammad to students?

That's worrying because presumably that means the parent who confronted the teacher somehow relayed the message to a jihadist.

The parent did the beheading.

But it says the suspect was an 18 year old from Moscow?

Wtf

There are Russian Muslims too.

Yes but the article said the teacher asked all muslim students to leave the room if they may be offended. That suggests it is a secondary school which would mean this dude had a kid at 7 or 8 at the latest.

Either the suspect claims are wrong or it wasn't the parent.

Yep.

[VCC]

Massive landslide victory for Aderns Labour party in the NZ election biggest win in years for NZ 's most popular PM for 50 years

[Reverend Gooner]

I mean I feel we should be as free as we can be but if we're judging this on todays inhibited vocabulary standards (PC) then that teacher was bang out of order and practically inciting a reaction.

If another teacher wrote that lesson plan then they will be feeling awful right now. If it was me and I was handed that lesson plan I would outright refuse to do that bit.

Free speech always comes with a freedom to respond and sadly there are people out there who will kill for saying or showing the wrong thing.

[Phil71]

We've taken some real backward steps in the West in recent years by pandering to these religious types.

I say f**k them and their gods if it restricts our freedom of speech. They should f**k off to a country that better suits their backward beliefs.

[Ach]

Hiding behind the freedom of speech crap to insult someone's religion needs to be stopped.

There was no reason whatsoever for this teacher to teach what he was teaching other than to mock Islam. And he's an idiot cos Islam much like in any other religion has their c**** who take it over the top.

Should've been sacked but we seem to be an easy target these days for the uneducated muppets.

[UFGN]

Context. Thats the key here. And before I start I want to make it clear I'm not talking about people who go out and murder people.... f**k them in all circumstances obviously

but for everyone else..... context.

I support Charlie Hebdo in what they originally did because they are a satirical magazine.... it is their job to satirise and take the piss. I dont think the offending cartoons were funny actually and I think it was a very bad joke, but thats an editorial issue for them. As long as everyones getting a piece of the same then nobody has any credibility in moaning about it. They can moan, thats their right, but they have no credibility in doing so imo. Satire is as old as the hills, especially in Western society.

Now...Should the cartoons be used in debates regarding free speech? Yes they absolutely should, considering what happened

Should they be used in a school? By a teacher teaching kids? No, absolutely not. Stupid, insensitive and unprofessional

[EliteKiller]

Hiding behind the freedom of speech crap to insult someone's religion needs to be stopped.

There was no reason whatsoever for this teacher to teach what he was teaching other than to mock Islam. And he's an idiot cos Islam much like in any other religion has their c**** who take it over the top.

Should've been sacked but we seem to be an easy target these days for the uneducated muppets.

So you would stop most teaching entirely? I can only imagine that such a dumb f**k response is born out of your sheer ignorance ...

If teacher's are no longer permitted to teach controversial subjects there goes Science - Darwin versus God that's out - History because 90% of all wars are fought over religion - Geography because religion doesn't recognise dozens of national boundaries - Language (there is only one true voice), Philosophy (obvious), Economics (Sharia taxation) all off the table because religious intolerance won't accept some of the text.

or just maybe it's the violence that is the unacceptable response and one more dead intolerant fanatic is the right solution.

Murderers are easy targets and rightly so - if you don't agree then frankly you're the muppet so FECK YOU

[EliteKiller]

Context. Thats the key here. And before I start I want to make it clear I'm not talking about people who go out and murder people.... f**k them in all circumstances obviously

but for everyone else..... context.

I support Charlie Hebdo in what they originally did because they are a satirical magazine.... it is their job to satirise and take the piss. I dont think the offending cartoons were funny actually and I think it was a very bad joke, but thats an editorial issue for them. As long as everyones getting a piece of the same then nobody has any credibility in moaning about it. They can moan, thats their right, but they have no credibility in doing so imo. Satire is as old as the hills, especially in Western society.

Now...Should the cartoons be used in debates regarding free speech? Yes they absolutely should, considering what happened

Should they be used in a school? By a teacher teaching kids? No, absolutely not. Stupid, insensitive and unprofessional

What else would you remove from teaching? The whole point of education is to expose children to society warts and all, banning books on topics that make them uncomfortable, we stopped doing that a century ago. It's utterly obscene that a teacher gets beheaded for exposing children to a very real issue in society, the murderous intolerance of religious fanatics, sadly his death proves just how necessary that education is to defeat the religious brainwashing that clearly still goes on. Your solution is not to educate our children? Honestly you need to think about that again.

[UFGN]

Context. Thats the key here. And before I start I want to make it clear I'm not talking about people who go out and murder people.... f**k them in all circumstances obviously

but for everyone else..... context.

I support Charlie Hebdo in what they originally did because they are a satirical magazine.... it is their job to satirise and take the piss. I dont think the offending cartoons were funny actually and I think it was a very bad joke, but thats an editorial issue for them. As long as everyones getting a piece of the same then nobody has any credibility in moaning about it. They can moan, thats their right, but they have no credibility in doing so imo. Satire is as old as the hills, especially in Western society.

Now...Should the cartoons be used in debates regarding free speech? Yes they absolutely should, considering what happened

Should they be used in a school? By a teacher teaching kids? No, absolutely not. Stupid, insensitive and unprofessional

What else would you remove from teaching? The whole point of education is to expose children to society warts and all, banning books on topics that make them uncomfortable, we stopped doing that a century ago. It's utterly obscene that a teacher gets beheaded for exposing children to a very real issue in society, the murderous intolerance of religious fanatics, sadly his death proves just how necessary that education is to defeat the religious brainwashing that clearly still goes on. Your solution is not to educate our children? Honestly you need to think about that again.

You can teach a whole lesson on the subject without actually showing the cartoons. Its very important to teach about scary horrible issues but its how you do it

For example kids should of course be taught about the holocaust but theres no need to show pictures of dead people.... you can describe bad things without showing them. Delivering an impactful lesson without inappropriate props is key to teaching in schools.

[EliteKiller]

Context. Thats the key here. And before I start I want to make it clear I'm not talking about people who go out and murder people.... f**k them in all circumstances obviously

but for everyone else..... context.

I support Charlie Hebdo in what they originally did because they are a satirical magazine.... it is their job to satirise and take the piss. I dont think the offending cartoons were funny actually and I think it was a very bad joke, but thats an editorial issue for them. As long as everyones getting a piece of the same then nobody has any credibility in moaning about it. They can moan, thats their right, but they have no credibility in doing so imo. Satire is as old as the hills, especially in Western society.

Now...Should the cartoons be used in debates regarding free speech? Yes they absolutely should, considering what happened

Should they be used in a school? By a teacher teaching kids? No, absolutely not. Stupid, insensitive and unprofessional

What else would you remove from teaching? The whole point of education is to expose children to society warts and all, banning books on topics that make them uncomfortable, we stopped doing that a century ago. It's utterly obscene that a teacher gets beheaded for exposing children to a very real issue in society, the murderous intolerance of religious fanatics, sadly his death proves just how necessary that education is to defeat the religious brainwashing that clearly still goes on. Your solution is not to educate our children? Honestly you need to think about that again.

You can teach a whole lesson on the subject without actually showing the cartoons. Its very important to teach about scary horrible issues but its how you do it

For example kids should of course be taught about the holocaust but theres no need to show pictures of dead people.... you can describe bad things without showing them. Delivering an impactful lesson without inappropriate props is key to teaching in schools.

I take your point and of course showing unnecessary violent or sexual images should not be condoned or allowed, but my point stands that it is now even more important for educators to tackle these mind-poisoning issues based on religious intolerance. The Charle Hedbo incidents are a huge teaching opportunity, on the one hand it shows where cartoonists and publishers need to show sensitivity and restraint, on the other hand how intolerance of a simple drawing leading to murder must be unacceptable whatever religion you follow.

To not teach this would be leaving children open to unopposed parental or religious indoctrination ... which sadly even in the 21st century is still a huge problem for many children.

[DiamondGooner]

I take your point and of course showing unnecessary violent or sexual images should not be condoned or allowed, but my point stands that it is now even more important for educators to tackle these mind-poisoning issues based on religious intolerance. The Charle Hedbo incidents are a huge teaching opportunity, on the one hand it shows where cartoonists and publishers need to show sensitivity and restraint, on the other hand how intolerance of a simple drawing leading to murder must be unacceptable whatever religion you follow.

To not teach this would be leaving children open to unopposed parental or religious indoctrination ... which sadly even in the 21st century is still a huge problem for many children.

In the end of the day I'd challenge you or anyone to give a valid reason to do something which you KNOW is going to p*ss people off religiously for no reason.

The question isn't "can we do it" the question is why? there are many things you can say about Islam but one of their fundamental requests is that people don't make images of Muhammed, there has been for at least a decade now a very strong agenda against muslims and I've mentioned this before, the way the media and Right wing treat them its like they have taken the place of black people in the hatred column.

Well if you keep poking you're going to get a reaction and that mans head is it, as grisly as it is right or wrong doesn't have a place in this argument, what does have a place is why fkin do it in the first place?

A teacher has no place to be holding lessons based on mocking a religion that represents millions of people, out of those millions someone was going to react and they did.

Your excuse of being able to teach, well explain to me what lesson is learned from doing what he did? in a way a lesson was taught, don't mock people just because they're a minority and think you can just walk all over people and get away with it.

I'm all for absolute freedom to say and do what you want, but with that freedom comes a personal responsibility of not abusing that freedom to harm others and not expect their freedom to defend themselves or to go on the attack.

That's not a policy, that's not advice, that's just life, it is what it is.

[EliteKiller]

In the end of the day I'd challenge you or anyone to give a valid reason to do something which you KNOW is going to p*ss people off religiously for no reason.

The question isn't "can we do it" the question is why? there are many things you can say about Islam but one of their fundamental requests is that people don't make images of Muhammed, there has been for at least a decade now a very strong agenda against muslims and I've mentioned this before, the way the media and Right wing treat them its like they have taken the place of black people in the hatred column.

Well if you keep poking you're going to get a reaction and that mans head is it, as grisly as it is right or wrong doesn't have a place in this argument, what does have a place is why fkin do it in the first place?

A teacher has no place to be holding lessons based on mocking a religion that represents millions of people, out of those millions someone was going to react and they did.

Your excuse of being able to teach, well explain to me what lesson is learned from doing what he did? in a way a lesson was taught, don't mock people just because they're a minority and think you can just walk all over people and get away with it.

I'm all for absolute freedom to say and do what you want, but with that freedom comes a personal responsibility of not abusing that freedom to harm others and not expect their freedom to defend themselves or to go on the attack.

That's not a policy, that's not advice, that's just life, it is what it is.

I've read your post and would argue you are making the point as to why teachers should teach religious sensitivity ...

You say - fundamental requests is that people don't make images of Muhammad - how do you know why that's now the case without having been taught that at some point? ... were images of Muhammad always banned?

Well modern Muslims point to a verse in the Koran which features Abraham, whom they regard as a prophet:

"[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

Yet there's no ruling in the Koran explicitly forbidding the depiction of the Prophet, according to Prof Mona Siddiqui from Edinburgh University. Instead, the idea arose from the Hadiths - stories about the life and sayings of Muhammad gathered in the years after his death.

Siddiqui points to depictions of Muhammad - drawn by Muslim artists - dating from the Mongol and Ottoman empires. In some of them, Muhammad's facial features are hidden - but it's clear it is him. She says the images were inspired by devotion: "The majority of people drew these pictures out of love and veneration, not intending idolatry."

At what point then, did depictions of Muhammad become haram, or forbidden?

Many of the images of Muhammad which date from the 1300s were intended only to be viewed privately, to avoid idolatry, says Christiane Gruber, associate professor of Islamic Art at Michigan University. "In some ways they were luxury items, perhaps in libraries for the elite."

Such items included miniatures which showed characters from Islam.

Gruber says the advent of mass-circulation print media in the 18th Century posed a challenge. The colonisation of some Muslim lands by European forces and ideas was also significant, she says.

The Islamic response was to emphasise how different their religion was to Christianity, with its history of public iconography, Gruber argues. Pictures of Muhammad started to disappear, and a new rhetoric against depictions emerged.

How do I know that - because a long time ago in what was then called RE a teacher taught me to respect other faiths beliefs - are you now saying you're against teaching that to today's children? Ask yourself how many 60's / 70's / 80's or 90's teenagers cut off teacher's heads? Then ask yourself why not?

[LMAO]

Massive landslide victory for Aderns Labour party in the NZ election biggest win in years for NZ 's most popular PM for 50 years

The way she's listened to the experts and led your country through this pandemic (so far) has been nothing short of exemplary.

I also saw where that "Ok, Boomer" girl won a seat for the Greens in Auckland

[LMAO]

Imagine thinking your god is omnipotent yet being so insecure that you murder someone over a caricature of a person who died almost a millennia and a half ago.

Is the drawing disrespectful to Muslims? Maybe. Is a drawing worth murdering someone over? Miss me with that.

[Phil71]

Hiding behind the freedom of speech crap to insult someone's religion needs to be stopped.

There was no reason whatsoever for this teacher to teach what he was teaching other than to mock Islam. And he's an idiot cos Islam much like in any other religion has their c**** who take it over the top.

Should've been sacked but we seem to be an easy target these days for the uneducated muppets.

I grew up in the 70s watching people like Dave Allen mocking the Cathoilc church like you wouldn't believe.

Catholics tut at it and switch it off. Maybe write a letter of complaint.

Muslims cut people's heads off.

If people in a liberal and enlightened country want to mock religion they should be free to do so without worrying about having extreme violence committed against them.

If people are so brainwashed by religion that they feel compelled to cut someone's head off when they mock their religion they should f**k off to a country where they won't see that sort of thing.