SARAH VINE
THESE are dangerous times for the rights and safety of the individual. Social media acts as judge, jury and executioner. Quick as a flash, in a few short clicks, a reputation can be destroyed. Sometimes even a life. It was a social media campaign that last year ultimately led to the beheading of Samuel Paty, a teacher in Paris. His killer, a young Chechen Muslim called Abdullakh Anzorov, had been incensed by online posts from a parent at the school where Paty taught, denouncing him for showing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed during a lesson on free speech.
The parent, the father of a girl in Paty’s class, published the teacher’s name and the address of the school on Facebook and YouTube, demanding his sacking and urging his followers to act.
Only later did it emerge that the girl had lied to her father about the whole incident. She wasn’t even in class that day, having been suspended for truancy.
Thus the lies of a troubled 13year-old disseminated by her father cost a man his life.
That is the frightening reality of that case.
No wonder that the teacher at Batley Grammar in West Yorkshire, who earlier last week was suspended following accusations of Islamophobia, has reportedly – along with his wife and children – gone into hiding.
Not only did the school’s headmaster effectively add fuel to the fire by offering an ‘unequivocal apology’ before any sort of sensible investigation had taken place (an all too common knee-jerk response
IS THE Government seriously expecting newlywed couples not to kiss at the altar? As from tomorrow, people in England can marry – under social distancing rules – but unless couples have been living together they are not allowed to kiss, which presumably means they can’t spend their wedding night in the traditional manner. Not even the ghost of Mary Whitehouse would dream up anything so absurd.
in today’s frenzied cancel culture); the similarities with the Paty case are also, quite frankly, terrifying.
Both centre around the use of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in lessons, although in this case it was part of a Religious Education class; and both have led to a climate of intimidation fuelled by dangerous rhetoric online.
The man leading this campaign, Mohammad Sajad Hussain (who runs a charity called Purpose Of Life, allegedly dedicated to community harmony) called the decision to illustrate the nature of blasphemy in the context of an RE lesson with the cartoon ‘clearly sadistic’ and ‘terrorism to Islam’.
He published his accusations, together with the teacher’s name and the address of the school, on Twitter, before doing the rounds of the TV and radio studios repeating his allegations. Such behaviour is not only contemptible, it is also completely disproportionate to any alleged offence.
By acting in this way – and by being allowed to do so – Mr Hussain has potentially exposed this teacher to serious danger without himself being subject to a shred of accountability. There ought to be a law against it.
Actually there is, but it is selective and doesn’t apply to everyone.
It’s only if you happen to possess the necessary ‘protected characteristics’ – disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity – that being accused of wrongdoing without any evidence can be called a ‘hate crime’.
The law, in this respect, is itself discriminatory in favour of certain people. Who do not include ‘burly Yorkshire lads’, as this teacher has been described. But, I ask you, what is more hateful: doing your job as a teacher? Explaining to a classroom the truth about religion and prejudice? Challenging young minds to think independently and intelligently about these important issues? Or hurling unfounded accusations at someone, whipping up a hysterical climate of loathing, publishing their personal details online and exposing them and their family to all sorts of risks – just because they don’t happen to believe the same things as you?
Ricky Gervais perhaps puts it best when he says everyone has a right to believe what they want to, and everyone else has the right to find it ridiculous.
That is the fundamental principle of free speech and it should apply in all our British institutions – especially schools.
Because this madness has to stop, before someone else gets hurt.