Teacher shows Luka Magnotta murder video to class

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr.Tea
Teacher shows Luka Magnotta murder video to class

blank

Mr.Tea

"MONTREAL - A west-end Montreal high school has suspended a Grade 10 history teacher after he shocked students by playing the snuff video connected to the Luka Magnotta body-parts murder case.

The male teacher was suspended with pay last week, hours after he played the online video titled 1 Lunatic, 1 Ice Pick, which police say shows Chinese student Jun Lin being stabbed to death with an ice pick and cut into pieces.

The video, currently being held as evidence in the case, also depicts cannibalistic and necrophilic acts being performed on Lin's body."

Unbelievable. What the hell is this guy thinking?

And I can't believe he was only suspended. And WITH PAY.

He should lose his teaching license and possibly face criminal charges.

 

Bärlüer

Mr.Tea wrote:

And I can't believe he was only suspended. And WITH PAY.

I'll just say this: from what I understand, this is an administrative suspension while the school board investigates the situation. This suspension is not the actual disciplinary measure. Administrative suspension is normally with pay. Then he might face actual disciplinary measures.

milo204

this teacher is messed up, i can't imagine what state of mind you'd have to be in to play that in a school!  any idiot would have to think "if i was to play this to kids, people are gonna freak out and i'm going to get fired."

 

Unionist

Wouldn't it be useful to get the facts before rushing to judgment?

 

Mr.Tea

Are "the facts" that a teacher showed his class of 15 year olds a video of a man being brutally murdered, sexually assaulted, dismembered and eaten? Those facts aren't in dispute and I don't know what he can say that will lead to a good "judgment".

He'll get his hearing, as he's entitled to, but I will be shocked if the outcome is not that he's never allowed to teach again.

Unionist

Well, at least you've climbed down from the criminal charges! I was going to ask which section of the Code you had in mind, but I guess that's not necessary now.

 

Unionist

About 50 students are wearing white and demonstrating right now at Cavelier-De LaSalle secondary school, demanding the reinstatement of their teacher, Philippe Trahan.

 

Ghislaine

They are 15 and don't get to decide whether they can watch real murder footage in school. Are they parents protesting for his re-instatement?

If it turns out that this teacher really did what is alleged, he should be fired. It shows a complete lack of judgment - how could he even think this was ok?

Ghislaine

I think we also need to consider the family of the victim here. It is hard enough for them to know that this footage (which is evidence) is out there online, but to now know that students were shown their son's suffering and murder in school?

Unionist

Students have been interviewed saying that half the class had already seen the video at home. The request to view and discuss the video in class came from them. The teacher replied that he would do so unless any single student objected. All voted to proceed. Apparently the topic of discussion was, what kind of material is being propagated on the internet.

Reports are also coming in that other teachers have shown the video as well.

After these teachers are fired and sent to prison, we should investigate allegations that some teachers are telling their students about the Nazi genocide, the slaughter of civilians in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Congo, Rwanda, and elsewhere.

I'm also told that there's a program on TV called Dexter where in almost every episode, a human being is cold-bloodedly mutilated and murdered - and the star of the series is the serial killer himself.

It's a damn good thing Harper promised to build more prisons.

 

Ghislaine

Oh my goodness, unionist. We are not talking about DISCUSSING the murder, we are talking about showing it to kids. And the kids's permission should've been followed with the parents' permission.

The fact that some unfortunately saw this online is irrelevant. I did not mention any criminal charges, I just think this person should not be teaching. there is nothing to charge him with. Perhaps the web hosting company that knew a murder video was online should be charged.

Mr.Tea

Unionist wrote:

Students have been interviewed saying that half the class had already seen the video at home. The request to view and discuss the video in class came from them. The teacher replied that he would do so unless any single student objected. All voted to proceed. Apparently the topic of discussion was, what kind of material is being propagated on the internet.

Reports are also coming in that other teachers have shown the video as well.

After these teachers are fired and sent to prison, we should investigate allegations that some teachers are telling their students about the Nazi genocide, the slaughter of civilians in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Congo, Rwanda, and elsewhere.

I'm also told that there's a program on TV called Dexter where in almost every episode, a human being is cold-bloodedly mutilated and murdered - and the star of the series is the serial killer himself.

It's a damn good thing Harper promised to build more prisons.

 

Dexter is a fictional TV show. It may be graphic but it's not an actual human being with a family who is being murdered and defiled.

And who cares if many of the students had already watched the video at home? (Though I think it's terrible that people would participate in this sick voyeurism. Probably the same type who are pissed that the Paul Bernardo rape and torture videos were destroyed before they could see them). I'm sure half the students in the class have also smoked pot at home. Doesn't make it acceptable for a teacher to offer his class bong hits (though I'd find that far less objectionable than showing them a snuff film).

Unionist

I actually wasn't responding to you, Ghislaine. Read the OP. The Montréal police have said they are looking into the possibility of criminal charges (you know - corrupting the morals of our youth - I am not joking). Minister Courchesne has already condemned the teacher. These are not fun times in Québec for students or teachers.

But now that we're on the subject, I'm trying to figure out why you are demanding that this teacher be fired (and, presumably, the others who have done as he did).

If the class had "discussed" the murder (as you suggest) in detail, going through the rape, the mutilation, the cannibalism - would that have been ok? Or a lesser disciplinary action than firing? Would you want to hear from the teacher first as to her/his intent and objective?

Or just fire the teachers and replace them with someone who reads aloud excerpts from approved textbooks, and answers controversial questions by saying: "I'll get back to you after I've checked with your parents"?

 

Mr.Tea

Unionist wrote:

Or just fire the teachers and replace them with someone who reads aloud excerpts from approved textbooks, and answers controversial questions by saying: "I'll get back to you after I've checked with your parents"?

Yes, cause those are the only two options.  It's either robotic automotons who read from a text or teachers who show their class videos of people being raped and murdered. If only there could be something in between those two extremes...

It's interesting that there seemed to be more objection to the teacher in BC who dared to give students a grade of zero for not doing their work than for the teacher who shows students a video of a human being being cut into pieces.

Unionist

Why should he lose his teaching licence - is this the kind of offence which doesn't depend on his record, his intent, whether he shows remorse, whether he can learn from his mistake? Just forget about teaching for the rest of his life?

And what section of the Criminal Code were you thinking of, Mr.Tea?

Sven Sven's picture

Ghislaine wrote:

They are 15 and don't get to decide whether they can watch real murder footage in school.

No kidding.

Unionist wrote:

Students have been interviewed saying that half the class had already seen the video at home. The request to view and discuss the video in class came from them. The teacher replied that he would do so unless any single student objected. All voted to proceed.

I'm sure if you asked some classes to vote on watching hard core pornography or to eliminate all tests, you might find classes where "all vote to proceed," too.

Mr.Tea

Unionist wrote:

Why should he lose his teaching licence - is this the kind of offence which doesn't depend on his record, his intent, whether he shows remorse, whether he can learn from his mistake?

He didn't show up late for class or some other minor offence. He went completely beyond the line of what was acceptable. Sometimes, people need to be punished severely. He apparently has a temporary teaching license. Maybe this shows teaching isn't the profession for him.

As to what criminal code violations, the guy who runs the website that originally posted is possibly facing charges for exhibiting obscene material. That seems to fit here. There's also a catefory in the criminal code about "corrupting morals of minors"

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You know, there are some things you can do that show such a complete and utter lack of good sense that you shouldn't get a do-over. 

Showing a snuff film to a bunch of minors might be one of those things.

6079_Smith_W

The surprising thing is that "snuff film" used to be an urban myth. Not any more. 

And I would contrast this with the treatment of evidence in the Bernardo case. 

As for charges, committing an indignity against a dead body is a crime. This may not technically be the same thing, but exploiting a person's death for voyeurism is in the same vein.

As for the teacher, if he did what he is accused of - exposing his class to that video - I wouldn't trust him to teach minors in a public school. 

 

 

Unionist

Frankly, having read the preceding posts with not a small dose of trepidation at the rush to judgment, and having lived through several months of social upheaval and uprising, I trust the judgment, maturity, and sense of fairness of the youth of Québec (yes, even the Grade 10 youth) far more than that of the grown-ups, whether in Québec or elsewhere.

Pretty radical notion, eh?

I'll look around for photos of the 50 kids that demonstrated outside their school demanding the reinstatement of their teacher. Young people are standing up and speaking out, without even parental permission slips. It's exhilarating.

 

Mr.Tea

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I would contrast this with the treatment of evidence in the Bernardo case. 

Well, Bernardo wanted to hide his crime. Magnotta wanted to show his off. Unfortunately, it's out there and the victim's family has to know that there are people out there watching their loved on being killed.

Of course, the police bungled this too as they got tips about the video`s existence and their reply was basically to say that special effects are really good these days and it must be a fake

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay, Unionist - Can you give me a single explanation for showing a snuff film to a roomful of minors that isn't just plain goddam stupid and irresponsible?  Because for the life of me I can't come up with one - and I'm pretty good at looking at both sides of a situation (it's part of my job description).

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As for charges, committing an indignity against a dead body is a crime. This may not technically be the same thing, but exploiting a person's death for voyeurism is in the same vein.

For the past two weeks I have been assaulted by the name 'Magnotta' over and over again, every single time I've turned on the radio, tv, or gone online - all without having ever sought out any news about him.

If we were to start equating voyeuristic exploitation of a person's death with committing an indignity against a dead body, than virtually every news outlet in the country should be charged. 'Cause when it comes to exploitation, this teacher's got nothing on the MSM.

Caissa

I can think of all sorts of good discussions that could be had about the video related to media issues. I'm just not sure that viewing the video was necessary to promote this discussion.

Having been a local president of a teaching assistants union (albeit 20+ years ago), I await more information  as to what transpired before I can really process my thoughts on this matter.

I know as a parent that our 15 year old son has left classes a few times when he has found video be disturbing.

Ms. C. is involved in Holocaust education and I know that some of the material that high students view can be disturbing.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Frankly, having read the preceding posts with not a small dose of trepidation at the rush to judgment, and having lived through several months of social upheaval and uprising, I trust the judgment, maturity, and sense of fairness of the youth of Québec (yes, even the Grade 10 youth) far more than that of the grown-ups, whether in Québec or elsewhere.

Pretty radical notion, eh?

I'll look around for photos of the 50 kids that demonstrated outside their school demanding the reinstatement of their teacher. Young people are standing up and speaking out, without even parental permission slips. It's exhilarating.

 

Well obviously their judgment isn't perfect, as all the students voted to watch torture, murder and necrophilia. and I agree with another posted above - if they had been asked to watch hard-core porn in class, do you doubt any would have voted no?

Is there any situation where minors should not be given full reign and decision-making authority over their parents? what age would limit this to?

The fact is, these are 15 yr olds who are not mature yet.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

[...]

If we were to start equating voyeuristic exploitation of a person's death with committing an indignity against a dead body, than virtually every news outlet in the country should be charged. 'Cause when it comes to exploitation, this teacher's got nothing on the MSM.

Reproducing the paragraph as a replacement for a thumbs up voting option.

6079_Smith_W

Well yes, I could say the same thing about CSI, and I agree in principle. 

Still, there is a difference when you watch someone die on screen. 

Some years back I saw some suppertime news footage of someone being stomped to death by a moose, and was shocked that they would run it. Many more years ago, I saw some footage on TV which was even worse, and was mystified as to how it made it to air. Yeah, I know it is all the same violence as entertainment and titillation, but there is a difference.

 

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Okay, Unionist - Can you give me a single explanation for showing a snuff film to a roomful of minors that isn't just plain goddam stupid and irresponsible?  Because for the life of me I can't come up with one - and I'm pretty good at looking at both sides of a situation (it's part of my job description).

As a unionist, and (besides that) as someone who believes in fairness and due process, my first reaction was to wait until we heard from the teacher and the students. It's amazing how actually looking at the facts sometimes can influence our judgment on an individual's fate. Or, we can just try to imagine scenarios in our own minds, and then reach a verdict on that basis.

But you want me to give "a single explanation" for what Mr. Trahan did, that isn't "just plain goddam stupid and irresponsible"? Well, which is it - stupid? (that applies to every teacher I ever had, on at least one occasion). Irresponsible? (ditto). But that's not what we're talking about here, TB. This thread opened with a call for his firing - for life - and "possible criminal charges".

Do you support his firing for life and possible criminal charges? Or do you think (as per your job description) that there may be another side to it?

PS: Don't worry - after receiving your reply, I will provide you with a hypothetical scenario where a teacher might have shown this video. Who knows - it may even turn out to be factual.

 

 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Well obviously their judgment isn't perfect, as all the students voted to watch torture, murder and necrophilia. and I agree with another posted above - if they had been asked to watch hard-core porn in class, do you doubt any would have voted no?

Your opinion about young people is quite telling.

Quote:
Is there any situation where minors should not be given full reign and decision-making authority over their parents? what age would limit this to?

The decision was the teacher's, not the students. I'm not praising their vote. I'm praising the 50 kids who are demonstrating in support of their teacher. Oh, and I haven't seen any parental complaints yet. Have you?

Quote:
The fact is, these are 15 yr olds who are not mature yet.

You have no clue how old they are. The only two I've actually heard on camera were 16 and 17.

 

NDPP

Would this be alright?

http://collateralmurder.com

 

quizzical

i gotta say a 15 year old  has every legal right to have sex, apply for emancipation from their family and a whole bunch of other life impacting decisions. and the law says they're old to make those kinda decisions for themselves.

i agree with those laws. 

and those decisions have a lot more far reaching outcomes than this incident over the course of their lives.

what would be the negatives that'd be worse for them than watching slasher movies or any other propaganda show or movie out there?

one big positive i see is their really getting the concept of watch who you hang with cause ya never know.

 

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

You have no clue how old they are. The only two I've actually heard on camera were 16 and 17.

 

I saw Grade 10 and students in grade 10 are usually 15 and 16. They are still minors. One girl I saw interviewed was only 14.

And apparently the vote was not unanimous by students, 3 students voted not to watch it but stayed in class anyways.

Bacchus

Sven wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

They are 15 and don't get to decide whether they can watch real murder footage in school.

No kidding.

Unionist wrote:

Students have been interviewed saying that half the class had already seen the video at home. The request to view and discuss the video in class came from them. The teacher replied that he would do so unless any single student objected. All voted to proceed.

I'm sure if you asked some classes to vote on watching hard core pornography or to eliminate all tests, you might find classes where "all vote to proceed," too.

 

According to one report, 3 voted against it but stayed and watched when the rest voted to watch.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1210668--luka-rocco-magnotta-...

 

6079_Smith_W

If minors really want to watch material like that, go do it in private at home, or off school property. I err on the side of school being a conservative place, when it comes to permissiveness, and exposing kids to traumatic situations. How can parents have any trust in the institution otherwise?

Are we to believe this teacher was providing some sort of protective guidance that made this experience okay? 

Having a protected space is an important concept when we think about this site, yet in a public school for some reason it is okay to throw the doors wide open, and it is okay for students to decide whether they can watch murder, torture, and sexual assault (or being forced to say no, or pressured into going along with the gang)? 

My nine-year-old has enough sense to come and tell me when he thinks he is seeing something that is not appropriate, and that is not something we ever drummed into him. I'm surprised that this happened in a place where adults were supposed to have at least that much awareness/

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Quote:
I err on the side of school being a conservative place, when it comes to permissiveness, and exposing kids to traumatic situations.

Sounds like a good argument against sex education. And exposing kids to religions other than their parents. And discussing politics. I err on the side of school being as permissive as humanly possible, which jealously protecting children against real harm.

Yes, I thought my daring to use the word "conservative" might get that sort of reaction.

This was not sex education, or politics, or religion.

And for me, I would take a closer look at what they rallied for before deciding how mature it was. People of all ages have rallied for all sorts of things.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, I thought my daring to use the word "conservative" might get that sort of reaction.

This was not sex education, or politics, or religion.

Oh unwind and pay attention.

Idiot parents regularly oppose sex education because they say it will be harmful to their children. Likewise with exposure to other religions and atheism. I am not making this up. They have gone to court in this province (and lost, thank the God of Promiscuity), with just such arguments - in addition to the old favourite, "I own my children, I'll tell them what to think until they're 18, thank you very much".

Parents have no right to ratify or veto the curriculum. Neither do students. Not in our society. That's society's job. I never said "they voted to see it, so they have a right to see it". I said, "Don't hang the teacher until you know the facts". And bravo to the students for standing up for their teacher!

 

6079_Smith_W

Who's hanging the teacher? 

Seems to me the fellow is still getting a paycheque and waiting for some due process.

And Unionist. This concerns a school allowing minors to watch real torture, rape and murder. It's not sex education, politics, or religion. It's not even Naked Lunch, or challenging the comics code.

Why are you continuing to try to equate this with prudery?

 

Ghislaine

Unionist, please stop conflating a video of murder, rape, torture, etc. with sex education or discussion of difficult or controversial topics. Apples and oranges. 

pookie

I'm curious about whether the clinical discussion of this video would change if the victim was female.  Or if the film was of a real gang rape.  Would that also merit suspending judgment?

quizzical

let's not expose our children to the real world out there in a safe space. let them go forth and think they know it all while having a good potential for winding up dead 'cause their helicopter parents kept them in a  privileged bubble.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Who's hanging the teacher? 

Seems to me the fellow is still getting a paycheque and waiting for some due process.

He was fired. Very surprising, given the Charest government denouncing him. So no more paycheque, and "due process" must have been really thorough...

Quote:
And Unionist. This concerns a school allowing minors to watch real torture, rape and murder. It's not sex education, politics, or religion.

I was merely pointing out that exactly the same argument as yours ("it traumatizes the children") is routinely used to oppose education which society now recognizes (but didn't always) as necessary. It may "traumatize the children", but that requires evidence and inquiry. Not a "guilty till proven innocent" hysteria.

6079_Smith_W

Ah yes, I see that just popped up. 

You know, if I could think of an argument against the decision to fire him I would certainly bring it up. I can't. 

 

Yes, vaccinations and trips to the dentist also sometimes traumatize children. So does throwing them off rooftops. My point, actually, is that a public school should err on the side of conservatism in its responsibility for taking care of people's children if it wants to continue to hold any sort of public trust. 

And no, that doesn't mean not teaching them sex education or even difficult ideas. And again, it is not as if this is material that was not freely available outside the school. Of course school should be a place for free and even rebellious thought, but to defend an action like this based on that principle is ridiculous. 

This is about a teacher not upholding his responsibility to protect his students - those who may have felt pressured to go along, and even those who were eager to do so, but did not realize what they were in for. If they had wanted to go for a drunken joyride would it have been okay to put that up to a vote too? 

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:
My point, actually, is that a public school should err on the side of conservatism in its responsibility for taking care of people's children if it wants to continue to hold any sort of public trust.

Your point, actually, is based on a simple misunderstanding of what this discussion is about.

No one has said that the school ought to have sponsored or approved the viewing of this video. No one said he made a brilliant decision as an individual. In fact, he sent an email apologizing for his action.

The simple issue is what is stated in the OP. Should he be fired without further ado, and then charged as a criminal?

The school administration, of course, took the only route open to cowards - dismissal. That way, they will face no criticism at all from the government or the MSM. Or, apparently, most of those who are posting in this thread, including those who think all 15-year-olds will jump at the chance to watch hard porn in school. If he fights his dismissal and happens to get his job back through arbitration, the administration can just throw up its hands and say, "not our doing".

I have yet to hear of any parent who wanted this teacher fired. If there were complaints, we haven't heard of them yet. No one has heard his explanation for his actions. He was simply discarded. I've seen this happen in the workplace, to workers who have done nothing wrong, and to those who have made very bad mistakes. I oppose such hysteria against my fellow workers, and I oppose it in this case.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If minors really want to watch material like that, go do it in private at home, or off school property.

You have no clue why the students made their request. Half of them had seen it at home. Should the parents lose custody? Apparently there was to be a discussion on whether such material should be circulated on the internet (which it was and is). For sure, you don't know the facts.

Quote:
I err on the side of school being a conservative place, when it comes to permissiveness, and exposing kids to traumatic situations.

Sounds like a good argument against sex education. And exposing kids to religions other than their parents'. And discussing politics. I err on the side of school being as permissive as humanly possible, while jealously protecting children against real harm.

Quote:
Are we to believe this teacher was providing some sort of protective guidance that made this experience okay?

No, obviously he's just a torture fiend getting his jollies. Which is why his students overwhelmingly support him. It's their shared hormonal immaturity.

Quote:
Having a protected space is an important concept when we think about this site, yet in a public school for some reason it is okay to throw the doors wide open, and it is okay for students to decide whether they can watch murder, torture, and sexual assault (or being forced to say no, or pressured into going along with the gang)?

No, students have no right to decide what the curriculum should be. That's society's job. And in this case, I specifically have nothing to say about the students' "vote". It's their mature determination to demonstrate in support of their teacher which is worthy of admiration and praise.

 

6079_Smith_W

If you think he has been railroaded as a worker that's a valid argument, and it's not one I'm taking issue with. If he or anyone else (including his students) wants a reversal and can make a case, fine by me.

I'm basing my feelings on what he did in his classroom. Whether he goes back to work or not is not my call, though I have already said what I think about it.

I'm not even basing my argument on the fact that an accused murderer and attention seeker is probably lapping up this added attention, and the family of a murder victim are probably suffering added pain.  I was only reminded of that by the story most recently posted - specifically the picture at the top of the page.

 

macktheknife

Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to see such a thing, regardless of age. I stupidly decided to watch a beheading video way back in like '04 or thereabouts, it was Nick Berg, that young American guy who went to Iraq to "see what it was all about". The people who captured him said he was a spy. Doesn't matter, watching someone's dying moment in such a horrific way is something I definitely regret having done. I felt an overwhelming shame afterwards.

What does it mean when a fifteen year old, or a fifty year old, can watch, wants to watch, someone being stabbed to death, cut to pieces and then the person having sex with the parts afterwards? Have we all lost our collective minds?

Anyway this "teacher" was also an assistant hockey coach, but the purging has begun.

Sven Sven's picture

pookie wrote:

I'm curious about whether the clinical discussion of this video would change if the victim was female.  Or if the film was of a real gang rape.  Would that also merit suspending judgment?

Bump.

Ghislaine

I also wondered about that, Pookie. If the victim had been female, would our perceptions have been different?

Would people still be argueing that the teacher should not be fired if he had shown a woman being sexually assaulted?