Quote:
Originally Posted by redforever
I agree it is more of a faux pas than a law. And it is these type of faux pas that get you in hot water more than a lot of laws would. With all the recent press regarding those cartoons, in the DANISH paper, not Dutch as I had recalled, you could not get me in a million years to name anything Mohammed in any Muslim country. It is no excuse to say if she would have read something about giving the name of prophets to inanimate objects, she would have obliged. If you are being employed in a foreign country, you better be more sensitive than this teacher was. As far as I am concerned, this equates with calling a teddy bear KKK in the deep south of the USA and then feign innocence and say, if I had known what KKK means, I would not have allowed that teddy bear to have that name.
|
I think where you and I differ on opinion is on where the teacher's responsibilty in a foreign culture begins and ends. For me personally, if the due dilligence has been done, then it all boils down to intent. Is it really an insult if you didn't intend it as such?
We do agree on some points. I agree with you that the teacher should be well versed in laws and religious customs, especially when teaching in a poor, third world country where religious fundamentalism runs rampant. She should do her due dilligence and research the religion and culture as much as possible to try and avoid any such conflicts. However, I disagree with you that she could have had any way of knowing that naming the bear Mohammed was offensive for several reasons.
Firstly, the bear received its name by the children, not the teacher. I agree with your earlier comment that she should have vetoed this if she perceived it to be a religious offense, but I don't think she had any reason to believe so. Why would the children name the bear after their prophet if they knew it to be offensive? And why would she not think the name was to honour the prophet, as is typically the case in Western culture when we name something after a specific person? And why in serveral months would no one come forward and tell her than she's insulting the prophet?
I understand she should be wary of the Danish cartoons and the situation that created, but I don't think the comparison is valid in this case. The Danish cartoons were intentionally poking fun -- after all that is the purpose of cartoons -- at some aspects of the Muslim faith. I think we can agree that her intent was not trying to poke fun of Mohammed by likening him to a stuffed animal, even though that's the way it was percieved.
And I don't think you're KKK example holds water either. I don't kids in the deep south would name a bear KKK unless that was a either common first name in the deep south to begin with or the name of a religious figure, or both. They're not just going to randomly concoct a name which just so happens to be offensive.
And even if everything I have said is false there is, of course, there's the question whether such an offensive deserves 15 days in jail and deportation. We both agree this is a case of a faux pas more so that a violation of law. Does committing a faux pas warrant jail time and deportation? Even if we disagree that teacher could have prevented this, does she still deserve what she got?