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.

Trump and his political views are regularly satirised.

Rather depressingly, in some quarters, this only serves to increase his popularity....

As someone brought up in the liberal west where satire of the various branches of Christianity is commonplace and popular from the 'Piss Christ' to 'The Book of Mormon' I do struggle with the idea that a religious or political cartoon could be considered 'harmful'. Offensive, OK but harmful? I suppose if you think there is a God who can be offended and can strike you down. But then isn't that punishment up to God to dispense?

The problem we have with not having Freedom of Speech is that just because you don’t hear people outside your circle talking about something doesn’t mean the opinions and what people actually think aren’t there otherwise David Cameron would never have proposed the referendum. Gordon Brown wouldn’t have called the lady a bigot when she was just voicing the worries of a lot of people.

I disagree with this part. If Gordon Brown weren't allowed to call Gillian Duffy bigoted, it would have curtailed his freedom of speech. Freedom of speech works both ways; it doesn't mean that if you say something, no one's allowed to disagree with you.

What we don't have in this country (or France, for that matter), however, is freedom of beheading. It doesn't matter how offended you are by a cartoon - you have no right to kill someone over it. The teacher was simply doing his job. The single worst response Charlie Hebdo could give would be to stop printing cartoons of Muhammad. That would send out the message that violence wins.

@queenofknives

The point I was making is that the poor teacher was not killed because he wasn’t following the Islamic religion even though he was not a Muslim - he was sadly killed because a madman felt he wasn’t respecting his wishes and beliefs, which are far from Islamic.

The problem with freedom of speech is that usually the person shouting that it’s their right to say certain things or draw cartoons etc etc doesn’t face the direct consequences of said free speech.

Yes there are many jokes and satire directed at Christianity, but this is a religion that people are knowledgable about in the West. Everyone knows at least a couple of Christians and it is taught in many schools here therefore the negative stereotypes don’t hold and there is no fear stemming from ignorance. It’s a completely different story for Islam and Judaism, people aren’t knowledgeable and believe many opinions to be truth. Muslims and Jews are treated with inequality, are verbally and physically attacked and even killed because of the opinions formed by society due to said free speech.

This is why people need to stop linking Islam to these extremists claiming to be Muslims, as there is a direct impact on the Muslim communities who are as shocked and upset as everyone else when these awful events happen.

'The problem with freedom of speech is that usually the person shouting that it’s their right to say certain things or draw cartoons etc etc doesn’t face the direct consequences of said free speech.'

What consequences do you think they should face?

If I say something that somebody disagrees with, they have the right of reply.

There shouldn't be any other 'consequences' or punishment. That is the point of free speech.

There is no 'problem' with free speech.

It's a bit like saying the problem with justice is that the guilty also get a defence. That's also not a problem. It's how a civilised society should operate.

In a civilised society, we talk, we argue. We do not take brutal and violent revenge against perceived offence.

'Yes there are many jokes and satire directed at Christianity, but this is a religion that people are knowledgable about in the West.'

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

So if you have knowledge satire is OK?

And I'm concerned by the presentation of Islam as somehow a minority or oppressed religion. In fact, it is the second biggest religion but growing as fast as Christianity is declining.

It's probably also the official religion of more countries and totalitarian states of any other.

'It’s a completely different story for Islam and Judaism, people aren’t knowledgeable and believe many opinions to be truth'

I don't think there is or should be a hierarchy of offense.

I don't get how the 'Piss Christ' or 'The Book of Mormon' could possibly be considered less offensive than a cartoon of Mohammed.

Personally I would argue that the belief of opinions as truth is a much better definition of religion than ant-religion. Isn't that the point of faith? It defies logic.

Apologies if I wasn’t clear - for example, if somebody uses their freedom of speech to publish something that paints Islam in a bad light - they will most likely not face any consequences, and rightly so because as you say, freedom of speech should be allowed.

The Muslim communities however will face direct consequences, as members of society will now see Islam as a whole in a bad light due to lack of knowledge, and in the past many Muslims have been harmed because of said free speech. On a daily basis, people discriminate against Muslims because of negative connotations in the media, etc

'veryone knows at least a couple of Christians and it is taught in many schools here therefore the negative stereotypes don’t hold and there is no fear stemming from ignorance.'

Absolute tosh. You're probably much more likely to know a practising Muslim than a practising Christian in this country. I certainly know more, although I am an atheist. And you make extraordinary assumptions when you suggest that satire or criticism of Islam is based on ignorance (but satirie of criticism of Christianity is apparently not).

This is why people need to stop linking Islam to these extremists claiming to be Muslims

Again, Mohammed’s career was a long one. Many of his teachings were undoubtedly about peace, but his later work was characterised by violence and a penchant for beheading those who disagreed with him.

So whilst the majority of Muslims are peace-loving adherents to the good parts, it is inaccurate to say that the fundamentalists aren’t also authentically Muslim.

@Purplesphere with respect, that's such a stupid argument.

'The Muslim communities however will face direct consequences, as members of society will now see Islam as a whole in a bad light due to lack of knowledge, and in the past many Muslims have been harmed because of said free speech. '

Rubbish.

People may or may not be influenced by all sorts of things.

You have to credit people with the ability to think for themselves otehrwise you are promoting censorship and totalitarianism.

The Muslim community is no more or less influenced by cartoons than any other religion or ideology.

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that it is a growing religion and the dominant religion of more states than any other.

Absolute tosh. You're probably much more likely to know a practising Muslim than a practising Christian in this country. I certainly know more, although I am an atheist.

Same. We are not as ignorant about Islam in the UK as we used to be.

Nobody here would or should discriminate against Muslims.

However I DO discriminate against Islam as I do against any other religion.

I think it's absolute nonsense.

Im not talking about a hierarchy of offence - I’m talking about the direct consequences on communities due to the negative use of freedom of speech.

Why post offensive stuff about or mock beliefs that don’t harm others anyway? I’m not just talking about Islam, just in general

Likewise Catholicism.

If people want to satirise the notion of transubstantiation or criticise the Catholic's church treatment of women or turning a blind eye to paedophilia, good for them.

' I’m talking about the direct consequences on communities due to the negative use of freedom of speech.'

What 'direct consequences are you talking about?

There are laws to deal with crime and to deal with 'hate speech'. There will always be some unstable people who are influenced by hateful ideologies and attack all sorts of faiths as a result of this, whether this is fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Christians.

None of this means that there should be censorship.

'Why post offensive stuff about or mock beliefs that don’t harm others anyway? I’m not just talking about Islam, just in general confused'

But this is so ignorant. Who decides what is and is not offensive? I find all religions offensive. I find the views and treatment of women in Catholicism and Islam abhorrent. But I do believe in free speech.

“You have to credit people with the ability to think for themselves”

Um, like the deep thinkers who voted Brexit?

But this is so ignorant. Who decides what is and is not offensive? I find all religions offensive. I find the views and treatment of women in Catholicism and Islam abhorrent. But I do believe in free speech

Surely this boils down to intelligence and common decency? Why would anyone go out of their way to mock the Holocaust because they decided it shouldn’t be offensive to Jewish people? Because they can?

Not everything is so clear cut, yes there should be freedom of speech but just because you’re allowed to say something does not mean that you should.

Trut, not everybody will make the right choices but they have to be able to make choices (although Brexit not a great example).

What's the alternative? Totalitarianism and censorship.

@Purplesphere we have laws to deal with cases where people cross the line.

People express all sorts of abhorrent views. Because of their extremity and the strength of feeling against them we can believe they are more influential than they are and ironically this may give them more opportunity to spread.

Presumably you go around telling people in real life that their religion is abhorrent nostaples?

'Surely this boils down to intelligence and common decency? '

I repeat there are no objective measures or single truth as to what is and isn't offensive.

My finding the view of some Catholics that they are drinking the actual blood of Christ and that people are born sinners offensive does not trump the views of Catholics. A cartoon of Mohammed is no more objectively offensive than The Book of Mormon.

@stairway happy to say that certain ideas espoused by certain religions and expressed in certain religious practices are abhorrent, yes indeedy.
Any day of the week.

I don't 'go around telling them' but I will say what I think if the topic comes up in conversation.

What with me living in a democracy with freedom of speech.

Would very much like to continue to do so without being beheaded.