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.

@VillageGreenTree

Freedom of speech is great obviously but I never understand why people think it's ok to deliberately say things that upset others, and say it's ok "because of freedom of speech".

It is OK. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can go around saying what you want and everybody else has to accept it. They are free to think and tell you are rude, offensive or downright nasty based on what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences of your speech.

Freedom of speech just means that the government can't arrest or punish you for most things you say (and it's actually not true freedom in most of Europe, it has constraints and rightly so)

@33goingon64

I understand the point you're making - my Mum said sthg similar back when the Charlie office was attacked. I don't agree with it but I get the point - not in any way excusing the murders but saying it could be disingenuous to say 'it's my right to poke fun at a religious group' claiming freedom of speech.

In France it is absolutely a right to " poke fun at a religious group". In the past, so many French were down trodden because of religious oppression. And now, in the constitution, it is written that religion is not a part of what governs.

Exactly, laïcité as in a secular society, the principal of separating civil and religious society. (Secularism is the best translation, I guess?)

And this is applicable to all. Not just RCs.

There is a difference between secularism and and mocking a religion and race. I think France needs to accept it is a multicultural society, whilst mocking religion is acceptable in white French society it isn’t in other cultures and is deemed deeply offensive.

Op
You terrify me.
No exaggeration.

Yes, same

Same here

@stairway

There is a difference between secularism and and mocking a religion and race. I think France needs to accept it is a multicultural society, whilst mocking religion is acceptable in white French society it isn’t in other cultures and is deemed deeply offensive.

Stairway, these murders happened in France. There is no possible excuse for murdering journalists and teachers in France for doing what is acceptable in France. They’re not in Country X where it’s a beheading offence. Those “other cultures” need to respect the host culture of France when in France.

stairway what are you thoughts on Muslim satirists who have been imprisoned, torutured and/or killed because they poked fun at their religion and it's institutions?

@rashalert

I think we need to get rid of the word ,'offended' because too often it is used to excuse-as the OP is doing-murderous behaviour.

If one is out of step with society, every fucker in society doesn't have to change_you do!

Agree

If someone is offended so bloody what. I’m not saying it’s nice to deliberately offend someone but it’s only words, no one dies through being “offended”.

@stairway

There is a difference between secularism and and mocking a religion and race. I think France needs to accept it is a multicultural society, whilst mocking religion is acceptable in white French society it isn’t in other cultures and is deemed deeply offensive.

Murder is more offensive than slagging off a religion.

Stairway, these murders happened in France. There is no possible excuse for murdering journalists and teachers in France for doing what is acceptable in France. They’re not in Country X where it’s a beheading offence. Those “other cultures” need to respect the host culture of France when in France.

This

Islam is no special case. All religions should be open to criticism and ridicule in a free and liberal society.

You are free to be offended by it. You are not free to use violence to restrict the right to exercise freedom of speech.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Well said!

stairway - C Hebdo frequently mocks Jewish characters. People sometimes grumble, but that's as far as it goes. There is certainly no uproar....

Islam is no special case. All religions should be open to criticism and ridicule in a free and liberal society

This. I will defend the right of anyone else to criticise the religion, but not for aiming it at individuals
For example, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to say they don't like that some sects of Islam requires women to wear a face covering. It is not acceptable to harass a woman in public for wearing a face covering.

@silentpool

Maybe the West needs to demand more of its immigrants? It seems some come for the safety, economic opportunity etc but do not want to accept the prevailing values or join into the society. I would like to see Western countries expecting more in the way of integration, much like Switzerland asks for, before awarding citizenship. I do not want to see the West accommodating views like this and curbing our freedom of speech, so that the unreasonable can be catered to.

This.

France celebrates itself on freedom of speech. Hebdo satirised so many things, unfortunately only Islamic terrorists saw fit to murder in response.

Freedom of speech should be upheld.

Don't be disheartened OP- your point makes perfect sense to those who are capable of nuanced thought.

Beheading is wrong
Racism is wrong
Simple 👍🏼

Mocking any religion is fine (in my opinion). The journalists at Charlie Hebdo clearly have a problem with Muslims as individuals though. They published a frankly bizarre editorial a year after the attacks in which they blamed law abiding Muslim for all manner of ills because they are apparently 'silent' and therefore complicit in the face of terrorism - ignoring the many Muslims who condemned the attacks, including the family of the Muslim police officer murdered whilst protecting some of the journalists. It seems Charlie Hebdo believe that by simply practicing their faith, Muslims are to be regarded as enemies of secularism. Whilst they may mock other religions I don't think they make similar claims about everyday citizens who practice Catholicism or Judaism. Why are all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few?

I lived in France for many years and used to read CH. They lost me when they published a picture comparing a Black politician to a monkey. Not racist of course, just satire.

The teacher did not alienate the oppressed.

The class was discussing the Charlue Hebdo case. The teacher said Muslim students could miss the class in which they looked at some of the images from Charlie Hebdo. Despute this parents called demanding the class be cancelled.

This isn't about free speech , it's about teaching history and the Charlie Hebdo case is part of extremist actions from a relugious group.

Extremism from various religions/cults/etc should be free to discuss.

France are managing this well. Nobody will win with extremism long term.

The killing of the teacher is awful, he did not deserve that. I just hope ( now the killer's dead, that all those thst helped in the planning get the strictest sentence of the Courts.

How was the teacher 'racist' PurpleFrames? Islam is a religion that encompasses many races, as does Christianity. When Christianity is satirised, how come that isn't regarded as racism?

It was not racist to show the images of Muhammed, any more than it would be to show ones of Jesus or Abraham.

You have projected the idea I claimed the teacher was racist.

CH is a clearly racist publication that hides behind a veil of free speech/satire. Much like Trump.

Neither me nor the OP have defended the terrorist.

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.

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

First quote: are you suggesting that freedom of speech is not groundbreaking and should be quelled because the oppressed don't have it in fullest?
Second quote: I totally agree with you but quelling freedom of speech in the manner you seem to advocate is dangerous. It should be more about giving it to everyone as equally as possible. I am a minority of minorities here in the UK. I would however hate it if ills of my culture or "my religion" were overlooked as a way to balance with elite positions. Let me take you through a quick rabbit hole of what what you seem to suggest would entail:
Child marriages - ok. Many groups (not all, not only) practicing these are minority and oppressed
Honour killings - ok. Many groups (not all, not only) practicing these are minority and oppressed
Killing because you converted to another religion - ok. Many groups (not all, not only) practicing these are minority and oppressed
FGM - ok. Many groups (not all, not only) practicing these are minority and oppressed
Practising a religion different to what I believe in; not allowed

May be the messenger was wrong. At the same time, what are we saying. We can't absolutely speak for an affected group if we don't belong to it? Yes, it some cases but some advocates are steeped. In other cases, those within that group can't speak up because of fear of recriminations within their group : see lack of freedom of speech within their own groups.
And to compare someone against murder as punishment for teaching various aspects of political science, for teaching democracy , to Trump is disingenuous. You don't know about this teacher and what other examples he used. You don't know his race, heritage, religious beliefs, political stance etc.
If we can't teach history from real events, what can we teach it from? What if next day someone is offended by teaching of the Holocaust, or talking about realities of slavery, what then?

stairway I grappled with this question when CH happened but trust me, it's dangerous path as well. Think about the number of religious beliefs used to oppress women, enslave blacks, practice racism etc. Should we accept them because we are multicultural or should we challenge them in any way we can including satire? Also we are not sure how the teacher used the cartoons. It's might have been "see, these are the pics that provoked that attack on freedom of speech. What do you think kids?". He might have used them because for the generation he was teaching it's the most recent, memorable, tangible example. In a way, let's separate CH itself from this teacher.

And let's also remember, not all Muslims agree with this. All I met/know (granted none are French) disagreed.
And stairway what's your answer to K00kiEe?

I find this line of thinking so offensive. That some people of some backgrounds can not control their violent impulses so we must tailor our thinking so as not to upset the poor dears. It is so patronizing!

I am Canadian and Indigenous people here still encounter a lot of racism, some of it in institutional settings (hospitals, social workers). I have yet to hear of a First Nations person getting so wound up about this that they murdered anyone. We’ve had our share of racist teachers showing racist images of Indigenous people. Did they get murdered? No they did not. Not that the French teacher was doing that, he was discussing a terribly impactful event in recent French history.

We cannot tiptoe around in case individuals are murderous.

«Islam is no special case. All religions should be open to criticism and ridicule in a free and liberal society.

You are free to be offended by it. You are not free to use violence to restrict the right to exercise freedom of speech.»

This is very important!
It is also not racist to discuss and TEACH freedom of speech, critical thinking, criticism of religion (or other things) and then show examples of such criticism in the shape of satire. We can also criticise the satire. Sometimes it is not sharp wit, just awful gobbledygook. We can point that out; it can be discussed.

How else will there ever be change?
Copernicus and Galileo Galilei offended the majority of their society when they disagreed with the Church and maintained (And proved) that the world is heliocentric.
The church had a terrible grip over the people of Europe, and consequently much of the world, for centuries. In many places the grip is still there and some places it is worsening.
The same is happening with other religions: the worst recent example is the formation of the Islamic State.

That France also has a problem with racism, is a matter that sometimes overlap with religion, but to conflate the two is not helpful.

@Genevieva

Freedom of expression is fundamentally important. Not only that, the type of satire that Charlie Hebdo uses has a long tradition in Europe. It is edgy. It is designed to make the view feel uncomfortable at times. It is often layered in meaning. It is also not plastered on a billboard where you are forced to look at it. If someone doesn't like it then they don't need to buy the magazine. There is nothing that Charlie Hebdo needs to change.

And it is important that teachers are able to use this material in an educational context, so that students can compare the images and the message with equivalent publications in the past, so that they can unpack what this means about clashes in culture in a multicultural world... France has a very clear constitutional position on religion. It is a secular republic. No one gets special treatment when it comes to being off limits for satire and criticism, well no one except Napoleon perhaps :-).

I agree that Charlie Hebdo should be free to publish their satire. As you mentioned, people are free to not buy their magazine if they don’t want to see it.

I am not sure that this material should be shared in a classroom though, at that point you take away the freedom of people (kids) who don’t want to engage with it. And to seemingly tell some students that they can leave the classroom if they find it offensive? Wtf, that’s pretty othering.

I think people should be free to publish whatever they want, and I think it is really important to be critical and make fun of oppressive structures such as religion and patriarchy etc. But when it comes to classrooms and office settings, I think these things need to be discussed in a way that is inclusive and non offensive to the group being used as an example. I mean these are little kids...surely they can learn about freedom of speech in many ways without sharing CH cartoons (which I find crude in general and I would t like kids to see these. And I say that as a non Muslims and an atheist).

The beheading is horrible and very sad and I can’t imagine the terror and pain he felt and what his family is going through. It is so utterly barbaric and hard to believe it can happen here 😔