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.

"Seeing it for what it was?" What it was was free speech. So yes I support the right to lampoon, to tell jokes, satire and all the rest. Je suis Charlie. If people don't like freedom of speech there are plenty of countries which don't have it where they might prefer to live like Saudi, China, Thailand, North Korea and many others. Those countries might suit them better.

I doubt if they'd have the freedom to do such awful things if they didn't live in the West

@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.

The reasons it happened are that fucking lunatics had access to knives / guns and unleashed their pathetic tiny minds and monstrous chips on their shoulders on innocents. Freedom of speech (which we don't have in the UK) should be sacrosanct even when it offends.

If you're going to bark this Jon Pilger-esque drivel OP, at least learn how to spell "privileged"

Tbf shooting up a Cambodian restaurant (Batackan attacks) was pretty much random violence.

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.

As a pp has pointed out, there are times when you are going to teach a subject that some in your class might find difficult. When we were covering abortion for example, I didn't know if any of the girls in my Year 10 groups had had one, but I flagged the week before that this would be the next lesson and that if anyone had issues with this, come and find me and I'd write a library chit for them. It's not 'othering', it's trying not to cause distress to your students.

As to not wanting to engage with various materials; we all have to learn how to do that at some stage, and 14 seems about right to start imo.

@rashalert

Islamaphobia.

A phobia is an irrational fear isn't it and after events like this (including the plotting of the parents concerned) there is nothing irrational in my fear of islam.

Teacher friends are also worried now about offending islam and that's not bloody irrational either-it;s sensible.

Islam does not cause terrorists. Islam would and does condemn what these people have done.

It is entirely rational to have a fear of terrorists, but if you think terrorism is confined to members of Islam, you are seriously deluded. Have a think about the activities of the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Brenton Tarrant, Anders Breivik, Stephen Ernst, Robert Bowers, Thomas Mair and Darren Osborne, and tell me whether you really feel safer with non-Muslims.

Thinking...

Yes, because when it is declared '? take offence' you can bet your bottom dollar that question mark will be preceded by Muslim.

if you think it will be Church of England, Jews, Catholics then you need to give your head a wobble.

That offence is usually loud, almost always over nothing and more times than not, is violent in language or deed.

The west need to be less frightened of giving offence. But of course we're not are we because there's a good chance your head might end up on a pike!

@rashalert, what do we therefore do about people who take offence at the activities of Jo Cox and those Muslim worshippers in Christchurch?

@thegcatsmother

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.

As a pp has pointed out, there are times when you are going to teach a subject that some in your class might find difficult. When we were covering abortion for example, I didn't know if any of the girls in my Year 10 groups had had one, but I flagged the week before that this would be the next lesson and that if anyone had issues with this, come and find me and I'd write a library chit for them. It's not 'othering', it's trying not to cause distress to your students.

As to not wanting to engage with various materials; we all have to learn how to do that at some stage, and 14 seems about right to start imo.

While I agree with you, i think it is not so black and white.

Of course freedom of speech, equality, patriarchy and other sensitive topics are important to discuss within school.

It is how it is done. So for example, if your re discussing BLM with 13 year olds in school, would you consider it necessary to show the video of the killing that sparked the protests?

If you discussing abortion, would you share material/publications from the religious right on that matter? You could discuss it as ‘various nutter views that are protected under freedom of speech’ without explicitly showing their words as these could be quite demeaning and hurtful to women.

Christ almighty OP, I am actually gobsmacked at your posts. Unbelievable.

what do we therefore do about people who take offence at the activities of Jo Cox

I must say, I have never ever heard anyone excuse the murderer of Jo Cox on the basis that she offended them. Did this happen?

Trut If you discussing abortion, would you share material/publications from the religious right on that matter? You could discuss it as ‘various nutter views that are protected under freedom of speech’ without explicitly showing their words as these could be quite demeaning and hurtful to women.

With abortion, and not having much time to cover it as I had an hour a week to deliver the syllabus, it was the law, secular views, Christian views and Jewish views. I also showed a documentary from the BBC about abortion, having run it past my Head of Department first.

Of course freedom of speech, equality, patriarchy and other sensitive topics

Sensitive topics? Who decided these are sensitive topics in the first place. That we have to constantly tip toe around debate on certain religions or ideologies, in case someone might take offence because they are so self absorbed they think reasonable debate is an attack on them personally

So sick of this crap

@MoonJelly think you might want to take a closer look at the ratios of Islamic:Right wing attacks and then reassess what's an "irrational fear".

@Flaxmeadow

Of course freedom of speech, equality, patriarchy and other sensitive topics

Sensitive topics? Who decided these are sensitive topics in the first place. That we have to constantly tip toe around debate on certain religions or ideologies, in case someone might take offence because they are so self absorbed they think reasonable debate is an attack on them personally

So sick of this crap

Huh? Try telling people who have suffered abuse at the hands of men that has been brushed under the carpet that discussions of patriarchy and male power are not triggering!

Or women who have been hounded and abused for abortion that these discussions of religion (eg as Ireland and Italy) that these are not triggering.

And try telling people who have suffered racial abuse that equality discussions are not triggering.

Of course for some they may not be, but for others they are.

Being sensitive and discussing things in an inclusive way rather than an inflammatory way are characteristics of being civilised and mature.
No point being militant just because some people are. Imo

If you discussing abortion, would you share material/publications from the religious right on that matter? You could discuss it as ‘various nutter views that are protected under freedom of speech’ without explicitly showing their words as these could be quite demeaning and hurtful to women.

Yes of course. We should be able to look at everyone's ideas and judge them or how can we work out our path through life? And I don't need someone (a man, presumably, since women are so in need of protection from ideas) to stop me from knowing things because I might get my delicate feelings hurt. Wtf. I have a mind of my own and I'm perfectly capable of making it up for myself. Don't patronise me.

I must say, I have never ever heard anyone excuse the murderer of Jo Cox on the basis that she offended them. Did this happen?

I hope not. But then again, I'd hope no one would try to defend any murderer on the grounds that the victim provoked them, and yet that has been argued in this thread.

I haven’t read the full thread, here’s is my view

Violence towards anyone because of their views - horrific and unacceptable. And in this situation deeply disturbing, frightening and barbaric

Freedom of expression in society - desirable in all forms, including edgy, satire, black humour etc. People who find it distasteful can express their views in the same manner (eg through peaceful communication)

Freedom of expression in schools and offices - since there is a hierarchy at play and people are not ‘equals’ and are evaluated by their superiors on their views, there is a possibility of feeling intimidated and othered. Especially with young minds. So probably a measured approach.

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

Yes it can and should. Actually it's really fucking important, especially now that we defend freedom of expression. No religion should be immune from ridicule or criticism. And they were cartoons ffs!

I am a teacher in France. My dh is a journalist. Where do we go after this? What does it mean for freedom of speech as we are both in agreement that our personal security comes before anything else. Interestingly, and despite the flourish of bombast from the Elysée palace yesterday, this teacher was awaiting a reprimand from the Education National inspectorate. He was left to his own devices, despite threats to the school and to himself. He was taking a different route to school every day. He was thrown to the wolves.
But my point is, who will put themselves out there? And if not, they have won. We will just do as the principal of the school suggested, which is to try not to rock the boat.

Sounds like you are in favour of blaphemy laws OP? I bet you are a fan of Gilead.

triggering!

Please just stop with these ridiculous Americanisms.

People want open honest polite debate and in a language accessible to all. Stop policing language and shutting down discussion with non words and isms all the time

I cant work out how to link to youtube but check out Brigitte Gabriele's speech on 'the peaceable majority were irrelevant' made at a conference on the Benghazi attacks ..quite a strong message