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.

Polls consistently show an alarming minority (one showed 1 in 4) believe terrorist attacks. That is hundreds of thousands in the UK alone.

I'm sorry but I don't see how this is not a problem that the Muslim community should be trying to address from within, why wouldn't they want to?

Polls also show over 50% (the majority) wouldn't report a Muslim in their community committing terror offences.

Your personal account doesn't stop this being a fact.

There is a consensus on hear that satire is completely harmless. I think because it appears comical and childish. It isn’t, we know from history that satire was used in 1930s Germany.

Much of it against Hitler and the Nazis.

The imam speaking out against this in the video that I posted, with such desperation and passion is an exception not the norm - and he is so desperate and frustrated BECAUSE of the lack of action from his community.

*1 in 4 believe terrorist attacks were justified.

Muslim Council of Britain for example - completely silent on their twitter account about the beheading in France. Why?

This is a few years old, but an interesting statistical account of fundamental views
www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/16/no-difference-in-religious-fundamentalism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/%3FoutputType%3Damp

@stairway

Monstermacs I doubt you know anything about Koran other than what you have read in the daily mail. Censoring a religion would have extreme consequences anyway. There is a consensus on hear that satire is completely harmless. I think because it appears comical and childish. It isn’t, we know from history that satire was used in 1930s Germany. In the UK I was reading up about the Irish famine and how the UK allowed so many people to starve to death. Satire was used to depict the Irish in a very negative way at the time. Satire is often used in war propaganda too. The simple solution would be to stop showing these stupid cartoons periodically and in French schools. No other country feels the need to keep showing them. Extremism would decrease and the Muslim community would feel less under attack. The islamophobia is so rife on this thread that some people have suggested if these cartoons are not displayed regularly that France will fall to Sharia law. The hyperbole is ridiculous.

Your attitude is extremely concerning.

You believe extremism would decrease if they stopped showing drawings of Mohammed in France. So effectively ban them.

Should we also ban gay people from kissing in public incase they happen to offend a Muslim who walks past?

Using your logic, that might have stopped the Islamist stabbings in gay clubs/nightlife areas in the UK.

The simple solution would be to stop showing these stupid cartoons periodically and in French schools.

This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. We should be robustly pushing back on any attempt to censor free speech and erode hard fought for freedoms. Censorship for blasphemy, no thank you. This is the 21st century not the dark ages!

It isn’t, we know from history that satire was used in 1930s Germany.

Yes the Nazis burned books they considered offensive and "degenerate" and punished those who satirised the regime too, what is your point?

@Trut it's Wahhabi Muslims committing the huge majority of terror attacks in European countries though, not Christians.

Also, it's been shown via polls that Muslims in the US are less 'extreme' than Muslims in Europe.

@mangoesforever

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-51676923

This research, carried out by Criminal justice think tank Crest Advisory concerning the Prevent anti-extremism scheme, shows that “ UK Muslims would be more likely to tip off the scheme when someone was being radicalised than the wider public.”

The survey also found that “63% of Muslims and 67% of the wider public worried about Islamist extremism”

I would just like to repeat that these radicalised extremists are killing many more Muslims than non-Muslims, we are standing up to and dealing with these evil acts on a daily basis.

We should be robustly pushing back on any attempt to censor free speech and erode hard fought for freedoms

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/business/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon.amp.html

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/03/france.pressandpublishing

Do you believe that certain cartoons shown in the NY Times and Charlie Hebdo were anti-Semitic? Do you think it was wrong that they were made to remove the cartoons and apologise to the Jewish community/world?

@Purplesphere

"But they added that less than a third of the British Muslims surveyed who were actually familiar with Prevent were supportive of the scheme. They cited reasons including lack of trust and oversight and the MCB said this "demonstrate precisely why there needs to be an overhaul of the strategy" as "serious concerns" remained.
Dal Babu - a former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent, who used to chair the National Association of Muslim Police - criticised Prevent and the research.
He said the report sought to "mislead and conflate safeguarding with the Prevent programme" which "does not have the trust of the community".
"Unfortunately this clumsy, misleading report will lead to further evidence of the authorities failing to engage with communities and develop a system for preventing terrorism from where it comes," he added."

@mangoesforever, yes the link I shared shows that fundamentalism between Christians and Muslims is roughly equal in the US while in Europe there are far more fundamental Muslims. And the possible reasons and solutions are also discussed. It is quite an interesting analysis.

The islamophobia is so rife on this thread that some people have suggested if these cartoons are not displayed regularly that France will fall to Sharia law. The hyperbole is ridiculous.

Come on @stairway you were going to post some proof of this Islamophobia. You can't just keep repeating a claim without evidence.

The truth is that people are using the charge of Islamophobia to derail from a discussion of terrorism. That is not to say there isn't real racism and Islamophobia in the world, but it isn't part of this terrorist attack and it's actually pretty shitty to try to excuse terrorism by claiming that the victim somehow brought this on himself by not following the Islamic religion even though he's not a Muslim.

It is scary how many people in the US think that laws should be based on religious beliefs!!!

All religions are backward when it comes to women’s rights. And this whole emphasis on virgins, whether it is Virgin Mary or the reward of Virgins in heaven. Wtf? I’m glad to be an atheist.

Should we also ban gay people from kissing in public incase they happen to offend a Muslim who walks past? Using your logic, that might have stopped the Islamist stabbings in gay clubs/nightlife areas in the UK

See here - you’re implying Muslims and extremists are the same.

I’ve had a quick google and the only news articles I can find referring to what you have stated as an Islamist attack are reporting on the stabbings across central Birmingham, including within the gay village, which was not declared a terrorist incident.

@Trut

It is scary how many people in the US think that laws should be based on religious beliefs!!!

All religions are backward when it comes to women’s rights. And this whole emphasis on virgins, whether it is Virgin Mary or the reward of Virgins in heaven. Wtf? I’m glad to be an atheist.

Exactly. organised religion (bar maybe Buddhism) is misogynistic, homophobic, and patriarchal and SHOULD be mocked.

Sod off with this "don't offend oppressed minority" rubbish.

it's actually pretty shitty to try to excuse terrorism by claiming that the victim somehow brought this on himself by not following the Islamic religion even though he's not a Muslim

The terrorist is also not following the Islamic religion and is not considered a Muslim.

Nobody should be losing their lives at the hands of these evil people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

@Purplesphere

Should we also ban gay people from kissing in public incase they happen to offend a Muslim who walks past? Using your logic, that might have stopped the Islamist stabbings in gay clubs/nightlife areas in the UK

See here - you’re implying Muslims and extremists are the same.

I’ve had a quick google and the only news articles I can find referring to what you have stated as an Islamist attack are reporting on the stabbings across central Birmingham, including within the gay village, which was not declared a terrorist incident.

It was committed by a Muslim. As was the recent stabbing of gay men in a gay nightlife area in Reading.

The majority of Muslims in UK think being gay should be illegal (another poll) - I think that their religion was relevant to the stabbings, come on.

Sorry, not the stabbing in Birmingham...it's the US gay club one I'm thinking of plus the one in Reading.

Do you believe that certain cartoons shown in the NY Times and Charlie Hebdo were anti-Semitic? Do you think it was wrong that they were made to remove the cartoons and apologise to the Jewish community/world?

@purplesphere - Yes, I think they should have been allowed to be published. No, I don't think they should have been made to remove the cartoons or apologise to the Jewish community. I believe in free speech and don't believe in censorship as I have said.

There isn’t free speech in this country.
When the Satanic Verses was published book shops were bombed and burned down: the publisher was threatened; a Japanese translator was murdered and an Italian one seriously wounded; Rushdie was in hiding for years.
Various of the great and the good such as Harold Pinter wrote letters to the papers signed by thousands on the importance of freedom of speech, but few publishers and booksellers are going to risk this sort of backlash and possible attacks on their employees so books which might offend some Muslims won’t be published.
Personally I think it’s extremely discourteous to insult someone’s religion but I certainly don’t think it should be banned.
However, say one of my dc worked for a publisher then I wouldn’t want them to be at any risk either.

@Purplesphere

it's actually pretty shitty to try to excuse terrorism by claiming that the victim somehow brought this on himself by not following the Islamic religion even though he's not a Muslim

The terrorist is also not following the Islamic religion and is not considered a Muslim.

Nobody should be losing their lives at the hands of these evil people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

This is a non-sequitur. What point are you trying to make? I'm talking about what people on this thread are doing - trying to blame the victim of a terrorist attack for somehow being at fault because he 'disrespected' the prophet. Which is exactly what the terrorists who killed him were also saying.

I'm not saying that it would be okay if he was Muslim, obviously. I should have thought that much would be obvious, at least.

Remember the Jerry Springer play in the USA which was controversial

I didn't think much of the behaviour over the Satanic verses at the time and thought the protesters had a cheek as this was the UK but probably an outdated view now

'There is a consensus on hear that satire is completely harmless'

Hmm.. satire is mocking criticism.

Depends on your definition of 'harmless' and what side of the fence you're on.

Public figures, ideologies, religions are regularly satirised and always have been.

Whether or not they are 'harmed' by it depends on all sorts of factors.

But only totalitiarian, rigid states ban satire usually because of fear that they cannot withstand the criticism.

A mature, democratic country can not only cope with debate and difference but embraces it.