Did anyone hear the woman defending Charlie Hebdo on R4 Today?

[Icantthinkofabettername]

I read about the awful attack on the teacher in France last night. It is just horrific an no one should face that risk.

However, the spokesperson on the Today programme was spectacularly missing the point. She was defending freedom of speech and advocating children being taught about satire.

In my view, there is nothing groundbreaking about using satire to perpetuate the prevailing view and the view of the elite in society, particularly when groups on the lowest rungs of that society feel it is directed at them.

Much in the same way that Trump uses 'Freedom of Speech' and defending 'Liberty' to sanction the oppression of already oppressed members of society.

I don't know what the answer is, terrorism cannot suceed as a tool for change. However, what Charlie Hebdo stood for cannot continue to be blindly defended, without seeing it for what it was.

However, what Charlie Hebdo stood for cannot continue to be blindly defended, without seeing it for what it was.

Oh really? What was it (iyo) ?

Any idea what time the interview was broadcast?

The teacher was beheaded for teaching political science.
Beheaded.

Posted too soon.
Can you tell me what opinions garner a penalty of beheading, just so I know?

I'd also be interested to know which opinions you think warrant the death penalty, OP.

This man was murdered for teaching history, should we just stick to teaching the nice bits that no one could be offended about?

I'm totally against the death penalty, think it is horrific what happened to this poor teacher and I don't understand the reference to sharing that George Floyd had a criminal record.

I have obviously expressed myself really poorly in the OP, as the impression you have taken from it is completely opposite to my views.

The point I was trying to make is that freedom of speech is often blindly advocated by those that have the freedom/the platform to speak and often what they are saying further alienates oppressed people.

The point I was trying to make is that freedom of speech is often blindly advocated by those that have the freedom/the platform to speak and often what they are saying further alienates oppressed people.

Freedom of speech is an absolute good.

You cannot start restricting it to people who will say things you like. If you do that, it’s no longer freedom of speech (obviously).

If everyone has freedom of speech, they all free to express themselves. What’s the problem?

I've reread your original post and the second one and I'm not sure what you are saying?? Yes, I did hear the interview and she was fucking brilliant.

I totally condemn what happened to the teacher and at Charlie Hebdo. My point is that nothing like this should happen again. Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again.

@Icantthinkofabettername

I totally condemn what happened to the teacher and at Charlie Hebdo. My point is that nothing like this should happen again. Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again.

You do not stop terrorism by giving into it. The same reason we don’t negotiate with kidnappers.

Your ideas seem very confused.

Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again.

The reason this happened was because a terrorise behaved like a terrorist. This did not happen because the teacher did anything wrong. Blaming the victim is disgusting.

But this didn't happen because someone was expressing an opinion someone else was offended by; this happened because a teacher was teaching a class about the history of freedom of expression. So again, are you suggesting that history should have all the unpleasant and potentially offensive bits removed? Because that is going to put a bit of a dent in the curriculum.

My point is that nothing like this should happen again. Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again

So we should give in to terrorists?

It comes back to the same old question, who decides what is fit and unfit speech?

The minute some group, no matter who they are, gets that power, there is a chance that that power will be used to oppress.

Charile Hebdo, as we all are, are allowed their voice.
The satire was not hate speech or discriminatory, there fore it was lawful.
What is unlawful, is murdering people for their lawful viewpoints.
I don't understand your POV?

I am so distressed about what happened to that poor teacher. It's utterly horrifying.

The response cannot be to curb our freedom of speech.

If you don't have the right to satirise something, you don't have free speech.

Not everyone has the freedom to speak though, do they?
The BLM protestor have been vilified by Trump and violent, armed White supremecists have been defended: www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/world/trump-defends-teenager-accused-of-killing-two-during-wisconsin-protests-a4536911.html%3famp

I see similarities between 'freedom of speech' - as advocated by Trump and satire produced by the more priveledged section of society.

Seriously. You come onto a site of mainly female posters and you victim blame? Smdh

The point I was trying to make is that freedom of speech is often blindly advocated by those that have the freedom/the platform to speak and often what they are saying further alienates oppressed people

Free expression needs to be just that- with proviso for speech which incites physical violence.

If you believe in free speech it applies to all. And if you do not agree with free speech for those you disagree with you do not support free speech at all.

If we curtail free speech we end up with China... or god forbid, University Professors losing their jobs for expressing an opinion. Oh, wait.,..

Charlie Hebdo was attacked for refusing to accept that some religions should be more sacrosanct than others. For refusing to accept that religious sensibility should be used as an excuse or smokescreen for murderous terrorism. Charlie Hebdo targeted terrorists, not Islam. But what if they did, amongst other things?

Be careful what you wish for, OP.

@Icantthinkofabettername

I see similarities between 'freedom of speech' - as advocated by Trump and satire produced by the more priveledged section of society.

So what are your parameters for acceptable ‘freedom’ of speech?

Everyone does have the freedom to speak.
Even criminals get to defend themselves.
That's how it should be.

What?! The victim of this horrendous crime was beheaded because he taught his pupils about free speech and satire. As a pp pointed out, Charlie Hebdo stood for satire. That's it. Of course in this context it's absolutely relevant and right to defend free speech and the right to teach children about the concept of satire. What on earth had any of that to do with Trump? Your post is offensive.