Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by chelsea2, Mar 4, 2020.
Despite your nit-picking., Hindus did take exception to it.
Sorry, I didn't "ignore" your post because, as a rule, I don't read them. I saw this one by accident.
Couldn't find anything there to make me what to consider my policy, either.
It is cute, though, watching people try to lawyer their way out of things rather than just saying "It's not nice to portray persons of Hindu ancestry in bovine guise". See? Not that hard.
I don't want to censor Steve Bell or tell him what he's allowed to draw; I'm not a liberal. But I do think people should have to play by the same rules they so readily impose on others.
They never forget their principles; it's just that their principles become kind of, um, "elastic" when elasticity becomes helpful.
I wouldn't say they were common though.
Aside the cartoon was ill judged and should never have been passed by the editor.
Totally agreed- which is why I'm bemused to see so many people who rant about oversensitive snowflakes making so much fuss when freedom of speech is used to characterise one of their heroines as a bull(y).
It still doesn't explain though why you cropped the picture to make out only she had been given that treatment? I am sure there was an earlier regime that liked to edit people out of pictures although in that case it was to deny credit rather than pretend that one person had been singled out for offence.
BTW- isn't the cow sacred in Hinduism- so it shouldn't be offensive to the person who has been elevated, but to the religion which has seen it's symbols degraded. This isn't so much drawing a Muslim as a pig as drawing a Christian on a cross.
A couple of points - is Ms Patel actually a practising Hindu? I'm not sure she has ever said she is.
And, whether she is or not is, in my opinion, irrelevant: freedom of speech means the freedom to produce words or images that may offend. Any Britain of Indian (say) origin should be pleased that they are accepted equally to a white British politician. To do otherwise means that the writer/cartoonist is not actually thought of as truly British.
[For the 'what about Holocaust jokes' argument. See post 221 above].
Funny how this thread has morphed from the OP.
As if the tastefulness or otherwise of a cartoon is more important than alleged bullying & harrassment.
Those crying foul against the cartoon have generally been those seeking to excuse Patel by criticising those in various government departments who have spoken out against her.
Somewhat of an assumption - the sort of thing that you have previously chastised me for making.
Hence my use of the word 'generally'.
Look back through the thread...
And I agree.
And Mr Bell is free to produce whatever cartoons he wishes - but the Guardian newspaper - like all newspapers, is supposedly regulated as to what it can and cannot publish.
Advocating censorship by another means? You can draw the cartoon but we'll stop anyone seeing it because we don't like the message it gives out. (But, if you were making fun of Diane Abbott, well that would be fine, thanks!)
You (along with Ms Patel) are free not to buy or read the Guardian.
Press regulation is supposed to enforce this.
How the fun is poked is what counts - unless you think that religious hatred, like racism, is permissible.
Notice that neither of these cartoons employ either:
Neither are bad cartoons - indeed many might see them as funnier than Bell's. That's fine. Matter of personal taste.
But your suggestion that 'press regulation' could censor a pretty inoffensive cartoon such as Bell's would, if enforced, seriously erode free speech in this country. His cartoon, whether funny or not, is in no way racist.
Probably around the same time that Muslims did, maybe even sooner given that they are more closely linked with one racial group.
Did you manage to remember what search criteria you used to find so many pictures?
Did you try an image search for cows before you realised that generally only the bulls are associated with nose rings or did you search for cow + nose ring at the start?
Well yes, it flatters her by association with the sacred.
Understandable. I expect many Marxists have taken exception to the depictions of Corbyn, and some Muslims have been known to take offence at depictions of Mohammed.
Aren't you usually a defender of freedom of speech?
I suggest you look back at the posts you've both made and liked on the "Leaving the EU- the Goon News" thread. Given your newfound dislike of racism you may want to reconsider them. I'm sure the mods would understand were you to mail them and ask for your comments to be removed, you can unlike posts without their help.
I am and have said nothing to the contrary
In fairness - there was an attempt to turn it into an attack on Labour by the end of post 3, a few others picked it up, but try as they might they couldn't make it run. We've had a few going for victim blaming, arguing over the cartoon is just the latest attempt to deflect any criticism from Patel.
Pretty inoffensive to you perhaps. Some Hindu's appear not to share your opinion.
It is however - a display of religious hatred.
The next chapter....
Priti Patel faces unfair dismissal claim from Philip Rutnam