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.

@user1471565182 I've been interested in reading all the posts on here, including yours. It's a shame you can't post yours in a more adult way rather than the fake laughter/attempted sarcasm to another poster. It doesn't make your point any better.

Ok so what about Spitting Image, Have I Got News For You... should these programmes be banned?

Of course not. It's very important to ridicule and criticise people in the public eye. I don't think Boris Johnson is likely to behead anyone for laughing at him so no need to ban the programme to protect his fragile ego. Do you think it should be banned and if so, why?

@user1471519931

Ok so what about Spitting Image, Have I Got News For You... should these programmes be banned?

I don't find them particularly funny. Should we cancel them to appease me or shall I just not watch them? Always an option.Same with Charlie Hebdo. No need to buy it?

I live next to a couple of very Muslim suburbs. I've never had a problem. My husband is very good friends and business partner with one.

@Mimishimi that's not everyone's experience unfortunately.

@monstermancs absolutely it shouldn't be banned... I'm an atheist but have a Protestant culture and heritage...it is our nature to 'protest' and challenge authority...be it the Pope or The Prophet....

I don't find them particularly funny

Re Spitting Image I don’t find them particularly funny either but obviously they should go ahead and mock whom they please.
However I imagine they’ll only satirise safe targets who won’t answer back such as the Royal Family, politicians etc.
I doubt they’d mock Abu Hamza al Masri for example.
I could be wrong though - I don’t watch it.

We have to be able to mock Islam and take the piss out of it. Otherwise, what are we saying? There's one religion that is untouchable, that we can never criticise or satirise? That would put Islam above not just all other religions, but above the freedom of the press, above government, above every private citizen. Charlie Hebdo are right to lambast Islam - someone has to do it. No religion should be considered to be beyond criticism. Nobody should be able to use religion as an excuse for murder and terror.

Programmes deemed offensive by modern standards get removed or edited all the time, there has been some recent examples like gone with the wind and faulty towers. Society recognises the need to stop reinforcing negative stereotypes and offensive material. There is a big difference between mocking the Pope and a religious historical figure such as the Profet, particularly if the people doing it are not from that culture/ ethnic background. France has the biggest Muslim population of Europe I can’t see the point of mocking a historical figure other than to provoke religious/ ethnic tension. Obviously there is no justification for terrorism but in every population there are psychopaths who are looking for a reason to kill.

Obviously there is no justification for terrorism but in every population there are psychopaths who are looking for a reason to kill.

Right - they're looking for a reason to kill, so you're not going to stop them by giving in to their demands. It will just be something else. You stop showing cartoons, okay, but now you need to make sure your women are covered, or that you're giving money to the mosque... You don't fight terrorism by conceding to the terrorists.

What you're doing here is apologism and victim blaming. Teachers should not be decapitated for doing their jobs and it really doesn't matter how offended someone is. It doesn't matter. Their feelings don't matter AT ALL. There's no excuse for violence and murder. Stop trying to justify it.

I don’t even get why we’re supposed to ‘respect’ religion anyway. It does my head that I have to silently scream in frustration that in the 21st century so many people still believe in fairies. And not only that, people can use the excuse of believing in fairies to justify a whole multitude of ridiculous behaviour ranging from completely pointless to outright evil. It’s bonkers.

Stairway you contradict yourself.

And how do you get to judge it's ok to mock the pope?

We have to respect others peoples beliefs and religions because we live in a multicultural society. If we showed no respect for other people who think differently from us then it becomes harder for different ethnic minorities to live side by side. Unfortunately I think it’s a colonial attitude really that other people culture beliefs need mocking so that they end up believing what we want them to.
Charlie Hebdo printed pages and pages of really offensive racial and religious stereotyping. I’m sorry that a psychopath broke in and shot them, no one deserves that. I still don’t agree with what they publish and continue to publish.

The Pope is employed to do a job, like a politician so his actions can be scrutinised. I don’t actually agree with mocking Christianity or other religions.

I still don’t agree with what they publish and continue to publish.
And because you live in a society which upholds free speech, you can broadcast that opinion loud and clear, you can criticise and mock CH and their worldview, you could even publish caricatures of them, without living in fear of violent reprisals.

I still can't believe this needs saying, TBH.

I still can't believe this needs saying, TBH.

It's like people believe in free speech but only for their own point of view. Everyone else's point of view is offensive and wrong and indefensible. But their own point of view is good, moral and fine.

The problem with free speech is it has to be for everyone. It means that we have to hear speech that we find offensive and unkind. We have to have this because sometimes people find OUR speech offensive and unkind. So we all need equal protection to say what we think, and no one gets to judge and say this person can speak but this other person can't.

The great advantage of free speech is that bad ideas can be exposed to sunlight, debated, discussed and maybe even discarded. If you dislike Charlie Hebdo then you argue your case. You don't kill people and claim that it's somehow justified because lots of people are offended.

You seem to want to stop freedom of speech. With out freedom. .. What are you left with ? Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It also underpins most other rights and allows them to flourish. The right to speak your mind freely on important issues in society, access information and hold the powers that be to account, plays a vital role in the healthy development process of any society.
Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions
Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

published articles, books or leaflets
television or radio broadcasting
works of art
the internet and social media
The law also protects your freedom to receive information from other people by, for example, being part of an audience or reading a magazine.

Are there any restrictions to this right?
Although you have freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights.

Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
prevent disorder or crime
protect health or morals
protect the rights and reputations of other people
prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintain the authority and impartiality of judges
An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.

However, the relevant public authority must show that the restriction is ‘proportionate’, in other words that it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the issue concerned.

@cheesemongery

I cannot believe what I am reading OP. I am truly distressed this morning. The teacher had asked Muslims who would believe they were going to be offended to leave. It's not teaching purely satire, it is teaching religion and history too, a history that my children are having to grow up and live with. It should absolutely be known what happened at Charlie Hebdo HQ as it should be known why. We have lost all right to free speech now by discussing a historic act, bound by religion and have lost the opportunity to talk with both sides about feelings impacted. Disgusting behaviour from said Muslim. I hope he rots.

This comment deserves a round of applause.. no need for me to post, this covers my feelings on the whole thing!

@queenofknives

We have to be able to mock Islam and take the piss out of it. Otherwise, what are we saying? There's one religion that is untouchable, that we can never criticise or satirise? That would put Islam above not just all other religions, but above the freedom of the press, above government, above every private citizen. Charlie Hebdo are right to lambast Islam - someone has to do it. No religion should be considered to be beyond criticism. Nobody should be able to use religion as an excuse for murder and terror.

This.

Programmes deemed offensive by modern standards get removed or edited all the time, there has been some recent examples like gone with the wind and faulty towers

This is why in the UK we don’t have freedom of speech.

Anything someone finds offensive we are too quick to ban.
A lot of what people deem offensive in comedy is missing the point. Something like Fawlty Towers was about poking fun at those people like the Major or Basil twisting and turning because of his prejudices.

That you have to be conscious of using the correct words when talking to someone or about a particular subject.
I was pulled up by someone about the name of a cinema in the 60s which she found offensive
The pronunciation of the name was the same as something else which is now a derogatory term but the spelling was different.

Am I supposed to rewrite my childhood because I might inadvertently offend someone who wasn’t from my area in the 60s and 70s

@stairway

We have to respect others peoples beliefs and religions because we live in a multicultural society. If we showed no respect for other people who think differently from us then it becomes harder for different ethnic minorities to live side by side. Unfortunately I think it’s a colonial attitude really that other people culture beliefs need mocking so that they end up believing what we want them to. Charlie Hebdo printed pages and pages of really offensive racial and religious stereotyping. I’m sorry that a psychopath broke in and shot them, no one deserves that. I still don’t agree with what they publish and continue to publish.

You're forgetting that this country is a European, western society. Multiculturalism is a myth when you consider that British laws and culture has evolved to be what it is over literally thousands of years.

It's only very, very recently that mass immigration from very different cultures has occurred.

Are you suggesting that Conservative, Misogynistic Islamic culture and what is in affect Sharia law, should have equal standing with a modern, progressive, liberal society with an ancient and developed legal system?

How does that work, for example, when it comes to Gay Rights?

Of course not, I’m talking specifically about the kind of stuff Charlie Hebdo publish. It produces really unpleasant racial/ religious stereotypes as well as other offensive material. I’m not talking about what the teacher did. I wouldn’t want to comment on that situation at present.
Satire is a risky business, if you offend someone be it religious or political there is a risk there.

@stairway

Of course not, I’m talking specifically about the kind of stuff Charlie Hebdo publish. It produces really unpleasant racial/ religious stereotypes as well as other offensive material. I’m not talking about what the teacher did. I wouldn’t want to comment on that situation at present. Satire is a risky business, if you offend someone be it religious or political there is a risk there.

It's funny how mocking the Islamic prophet is what results in fatwas being carried out though, isn't it?

The Life or Bryan didn't result in any beheadings as far as I know.

So you're suggesting we should now refrain from indulging in our own British culture of mocking religion, because conservative Muslims might behead us...

stairway

Isn’t that just taking away freedom of speech and victim blaming.

Almost like a woman walks down the street in a short skirt and gets raped.

Well what did she expect was going to happen.

You might not like what CH is about or produces but it is their right to produce it.

You might find what people say offensive but it should be their right to say it and you have a right of reply for your opinion.

Stopping debate and speech is never going to shine a light on the unpleasant and bring it into the open.
It just goes on behind closed doors

Satire is a risky business, if you offend someone be it religious or political there is a risk there.

Victim blaming again. We are all a part of the society we live in. That means not chopping people's heads off when we get offended. I can't believe there are people who don't get this.