French teacher killed

nickice

Anyone been following this? Originally I thought it was just a 'lone wolf' as they say but there are now 15 people in custody. I can't decide if at least some of them have been arrested so the authorities can be seen to be doing something but, on the face of it, it looks like there is some pretty good evidence against at least a few. It's hard to use the usual justifications of 'just a nutter' when they get help.

So not only can you not mock Islam (well not publicly anyway)but you can't even then show those images in a class about freedom of expression. What a brave, and quite naive, teacher. If I taught history, I'd probably just avoid the topic as it's just not worth it.

Whether Charlie Hebdo ever should have pubished the cartoons is another matter...

rjsterry

Regardless of how many were involved, is it not the case that the murderer was wrong? You very much can mock aspects of Islam or any other religion, and that is why there is no justification for this or any violence against anyone who does so.
The fact that this has occurred is not an endorsement of the action any more than, say the Salisbury incident was an endorsement of Russian assassination. That it has happened does not mean that it is acceptable, only that for one reason or another the French police failed to intercept the murderer. I'm not sure there is any wider significance beyond the fairly obvious point that murderers haven't taken the year off because of Covid.

TheBigBean

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

DeVlaeminck

How was the teacher offensive ?

nickice

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

nickice

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

And the censored word was an offensive term for a black person

nickice

rjsterry said:

Regardless of how many were involved, is it not the case that the murderer was wrong? You very much can mock aspects of Islam or any other religion, and that is why there is no justification for this or any violence against anyone who does so.
The fact that this has occurred is not an endorsement of the action any more than, say the Salisbury incident was an endorsement of Russian assassination. That it has happened does not mean that it is acceptable, only that for one reason or another the French police failed to intercept the murderer. I'm not sure there is any wider significance beyond the fairly obvious point that murderers haven't taken the year off because of Covid.

No wider significance??I think there's a clear pattern here dating back to the Danish cartoons. There have no been three attacks on Charlie Hebdo buildings, staff or in the street next to their office. This one, for me, was almost the worst as it wasn't the teacher's intention to even mock Islam.

The murderer cut off the teacher's head and posted it on social média. A few years ago, a priest's throat was slit. And in almost every one of these incidents, the perpetrators have had help.

By the way, the police caught him quickly. The problem is that there are over 10,000 Fiche S Islamists in France.

rjsterry

From the figures I can find, terrorism related deaths account for about 1% of all murders in France over the last 50 years. Let's not give these arseholes any more publicity than they have already managed to grab.

DeVlaeminck

Whether any of these 15 people were knowingly involved in murder rather than just inadvertantly alerting the murderer to the teacher by protesting I don't know ?

What I have noticed reading the comments sections below reports on this is a lot of "it was wrong but..."

If someone had hacked cinema projectionists to death after screening "Life Of Brian" there would be no "but" after the condemnation .

I mean the guy used some cartoons in a discussion of freedom of speech - the people who feel that is wrong demonstrate exactly why it is important.

rick_chasey

Comments sections are even worse than this place.

No one sensible thinks this anything other than awful.

TheBigBean

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

I think a better analogy would be wanting to teach holocaust denial as part of freedom of expression, and making it ok by asking the Jewish kids to leave the room.

I also think you confuse teaching at universities with teaching at schools.

Anyway, the teacher is going to be honoured.

Jezyboy

I think there's a fair bit of difference between denial of a historical event for the purposes of racism, and drawing a cartoon to mock a religion.

nickice

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

I think a better analogy would be wanting to teach holocaust denial as part of freedom of expression, and making it ok by asking the Jewish kids to leave the room.

I also think you confuse teaching at universities with teaching at schools.

Anyway, the teacher is going to be honoured.

My analogy was based on the fact that if someone uses a racial slur as an insult(or a specific racial slur) from some quarters it's seen as being as bad (or almost as bad) to repeat that word when reporting the story (even if it's an integral part of the story). It was the same with Charlie Hebdo. The cartoons were an integral part of the story.


I fail to see how your analogy is really an analogy. Teaching holocaust denial would be teaching that something didn't happen when it clearly did. If a teacher wants to teach that even holocaust deniers have a right to freedom of expression (which, ironically, they don't in France) then that's fine. The whole point of the class, to me, would be that freedom of expression is about ideas you might personally find offensive.

Can you imagine that; 'I'm going to teach you that freedom of expression is about accepting that some people might have ideas you find offensive but I'm not going to show you a clear, contemporary example as some of you may find it offensive.'

Whether a French middle school is the right place to do that, I don't know but he had, apparently, done it as part of the class before.

rick_chasey

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

nickice

DeVlaeminck said:

Whether any of these 15 people were knowingly involved in murder rather than just inadvertantly alerting the murderer to the teacher by protesting I don't know ?

What I have noticed reading the comments sections below reports on this is a lot of "it was wrong but..."

If someone had hacked cinema projectionists to death after screening "Life Of Brian" there would be no "but" after the condemnation .

I mean the guy used some cartoons in a discussion of freedom of speech - the people who feel that is wrong demonstrate exactly why it is important.

Three schoolkids are in custody because they pointed out the teacher (in exchange for cash) but there are some Fiche S terror suspects in custody too.

One of the children's father had made a video complaining about it but I don't think he is legally to blame for it. People have a right to object to something.

nickice

rjsterry said:

From the figures I can find, terrorism related deaths account for about 1% of all murders in France over the last 50 years. Let's not give these arseholes any more publicity than they have already managed to grab.

It shows future intention and has a far more chilling effect than other murders. And how many murders would they be committing if they didn't have a whole lot of the security services watching them?

TheBigBean

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

I think a better analogy would be wanting to teach holocaust denial as part of freedom of expression, and making it ok by asking the Jewish kids to leave the room.

I also think you confuse teaching at universities with teaching at schools.

Anyway, the teacher is going to be honoured.

My analogy was based on the fact that if someone uses a racial slur as an insult(or a specific racial slur) from some quarters it's seen as being as bad (or almost as bad) to repeat that word when reporting the story (even if it's an integral part of the story). It was the same with Charlie Hebdo. The cartoons were an integral part of the story.


I fail to see how your analogy is really an analogy. Teaching holocaust denial would be teaching that something didn't happen when it clearly did. If a teacher wants to teach that even holocaust deniers have a right to freedom of expression (which, ironically, they don't in France) then that's fine. The whole point of the class, to me, would be that freedom of expression is about ideas you might personally find offensive.

Can you imagine that; 'I'm going to teach you that freedom of expression is about accepting that some people might have ideas you find offensive but I'm not going to show you a clear, contemporary example as some of you may find it offensive.'

Whether a French middle school is the right place to do that, I don't know but he had, apparently, done it as part of the class before.

I read this largely as agreement with what I wrote. You got there in the end with holocaust denial, and "whether a French middle school is the right place" shows signs that you know it is probably not the right place.

DeVlaeminck

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

I think a better analogy would be wanting to teach holocaust denial as part of freedom of expression, and making it ok by asking the Jewish kids to leave the room.

I also think you confuse teaching at universities with teaching at schools.

Anyway, the teacher is going to be honoured.

So long as the starting point of the discussion was that the holocaust is an historical fact why not use that as an issue around which to hang a discussion on freedom of speech?

I'd imagine its something more suited to older school age kids.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

nickice

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

nickice said:

TheBigBean said:

Teacher thinks the only way to teach freedom of expression is to be offsensive - bad

A group of people think there are better ways to teach these things and try to address the matter through the school - good

Another group of people just kill the teacher - very bad

I did once discuss Salman Rushie with an Islamic scholar who believed he should die. Was quite interesting.

Not much point in teaching freedom of expression if you can't give real-world examples.

If you showed Jewish students Nazi propaganda would you be being offensive or, if it were in the context of a class, would it be acceptable ? I suppose the closest analogy would be the complaints about that journalist saying censored even though it was reporting what someone had said.

He said Muslim students could leave the room if they wanted. I think he shouldn't have done it but only as it wasnt worth the personal risk to him.

I think a better analogy would be wanting to teach holocaust denial as part of freedom of expression, and making it ok by asking the Jewish kids to leave the room.

I also think you confuse teaching at universities with teaching at schools.

Anyway, the teacher is going to be honoured.

My analogy was based on the fact that if someone uses a racial slur as an insult(or a specific racial slur) from some quarters it's seen as being as bad (or almost as bad) to repeat that word when reporting the story (even if it's an integral part of the story). It was the same with Charlie Hebdo. The cartoons were an integral part of the story.


I fail to see how your analogy is really an analogy. Teaching holocaust denial would be teaching that something didn't happen when it clearly did. If a teacher wants to teach that even holocaust deniers have a right to freedom of expression (which, ironically, they don't in France) then that's fine. The whole point of the class, to me, would be that freedom of expression is about ideas you might personally find offensive.

Can you imagine that; 'I'm going to teach you that freedom of expression is about accepting that some people might have ideas you find offensive but I'm not going to show you a clear, contemporary example as some of you may find it offensive.'

Whether a French middle school is the right place to do that, I don't know but he had, apparently, done it as part of the class before.

I read this largely as agreement with what I wrote. You got there in the end with holocaust denial, and "whether a French middle school is the right place" shows signs that you know it is probably not the right place.

In understood, for some reason, you saying that they would be teaching holocaust denial in the sense that they'd show the arguments for it.

I don't know how old the kids were. I'd imagine they were in later years (so 15) which I think is an age when they can start to understand challenging ideas.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

yeah, far right innit

DeVlaeminck

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

Because killing hundreds of thousands of people is equivalent to teaching that in the West we have a tradition - not an unchallenged one - of allowing lampooning of religion and ideology ?

nickice

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

Defamatory nonsense that.

nickice

DeVlaeminck said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

Because killing hundreds of thousands of people is equivalent to teaching that in the West we have a tradition - not an unchallenged one - of allowing lampooning of religion and ideology ?

Apparently context doesn't matter here. If the teacher wanted to deliberately offend (I'd even take issue at the understanding of people taking of personal offence for insulting a religion as where does that road lead to?) he wouldn't have asked the Muslim students if they wanted to leave the class. Once again, just like Charlie Hebdo, we're heading down the 'yes but should he have done it' road.

bompington

TheBigBean said:

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

This really, really looks like victim blaming to me:
1/ associate what the teacher did with militarism and repression - WTF?
2/ "serves him right for being so insensitive"

Speaking as* a member of a religion which is considered a soft and legitimate target for mockery without the risk of comeback, I am absolutely prepared to back anyone's right to mock, offend and criticise religion, and if someone reacts to it with violence it is their own fault, not anyone else's.


*that's the correct formula now of course. Lived experience innit, you're therefore not allowed to argue

TheBigBean

It's possible to believe both that people shouldn't be murdered and that it was an inappropriate thing to teach.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

Why is it always only a far right dream story in your view?
I'm sure far left regimes are just as keen to clamp down on islamist extremeists.
Perhaps you need to start looking both ways, not just one all the time!

For the sake of integration and living comfortably side by side, various cultures in the west, such as lampooning religion needs to be accepted by those choosing to make their homes in western Europe.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Far right's dream this story - makes it doubly unfortunate

It's not the far right that I worry about, it is the centre.

?

Rational people in the centre suddenly start thinking that it is appropriate to invade another country and kill hundreds of thousands or detain people without trial or put everyone of a certain religion under surveillance or teach kids "freedom of expression" by deliberately offending a minority of the class.

to be clear, that's the reason why I said this. This is the kind of story that plays in the mainstream to lure people to the far right.

pblakeney

That something beginning with a discussion on the right of freedom of speech descends into an argument about what is acceptable to debate doesn't surprise me in the slightest.