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.

What about one depicting him as a terrorist? Surely that is implying all Muslims are terrorists? Why is that deemed acceptable. Imagine a cartoon showing all blacks as criminals ?

I’m sure though you wouldn’t deliberately try to offend a person though would you. You are probably just as likely to murdered by a Muslim as a non Muslim, probably more likely actually.

@stairway 'Imagine a cartoon showing all blacks as criminals ?'

Most of us don't have to imagine such things sadly.

Offensive views are expressed all the time and there are ways of dealing with them depending on who produces and promotes them.

Civilised societies debate. They do not take brutal revenge on views they find offensive.

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

What makes you think they're not real Muslims? As a previous poster pointed out, Muhammad had a nasty habit of beheading people. What exactly are the extremists doing that's out of line with his teachings?

@Icantthinkofabettername

I get that religious satire seeks to question and undermine the oppressive power of organised religion. What I think is missed in it, is that those subject to/following that religion often feel that the satire is mocking them. Being a Muslim in France is not a comfortable position to be in, the satire creates more discomfort and alienation.

I would like for terrorist incidents of this kind to never happen again, surely you need to consider why it happens?

But will giving in to this attitude help those who whether they are Muslims or not , recognise and understand that Charlie Hebdo /the cartoons /teaching about satire in a school are not attacks on Islam the religion but are ways of showing up the hypocrisy of those (including all religions here) who pevert religion by preaching tolerance but not practising it?

Isnt it also right and proper on a moral level to challenge anyone, religious or not, who thinks that hiding behind an organisation gives you the right to be violent and oppressive towards people you don’t agree with?

Surely if education is to mean anything it has to teach young people that they should be open minded enough to listen to discussion , perceptive enough to recognise hypocrisy, and strong enough to stand up and say when they know something is damaging to society and to other individuals.

@stairway

What an odd post. I don't as a rule spend much time thinking about who I'm likely to be murdered by. How horrible.

Personally, I don't go out of my way to offend, no.

But there are people who do want to provoke or challenge. Serrano's 'Piss Christ' is a good example.

In a free society, people are able to do that. Whether or not others are offended.

Not sure what your point is.

Also think of "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord" from the OT which is good advice.

It is not for humans to go about murdering people because they don't like their views in the 21st century. Isn't that for a higher being to judge?

Civilised societies debate. They do not take brutal revenge on views they find offensive

I wholeheartedly agree, extremists are not a part of society. Christian, Muslim et al. They are often lone wolves so far removed from everyone around them.

Muslims should not have to be the subject of negative free speech and then made to be held accountable by society for the acts of extremists when they feel, in their warped brains, that their awful revenge attacks are justifiable.

It’s a vicious circle:

Negative free speech about religion >> negative stereotypes and connotations of religion made by society >> extremists react and claim to be acting in the name of religion >> religious people held accountable and believed they’re all of the same thought >> negative free speech about religion

It's deeply concerning that many Muslims seem to be more concerned with being offended by a cartoon of their prophet, than the fact that Saudi funded Wahabi mosques are radicalising people to murder innocent people in the name of Islam.

@Purplesphere what you are describing is revenge.

Revenge is always wrong.

It is a choice how to respond to what is perceived as offensive.

There have been no beheadings in response to the 'Piss Christ' or 'The Book of Mormon' or any number of other satirical comments, jokes, cartoons about Christianity.

Satire is OK.

Free speech is a good thing.

he largest single group — the one which arguably gives Islam in Britain much of its character — is the Deobandi. It controls around 45 per cent of Britain’s mosques and nearly all the UK-based training of Islamic scholars. What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned. Women are advised not to emerge from their homes any more than is necessary.

The advice section of the website of Mufti Muhammed ibn Adam al-Kawthari, one of the Deobandis’ leading British-born, UK-trained Islamic scholars, gives a flavour of this group’s approach to living as a Muslim in the West. One follower posts a question asking whether it is permissible to wear a tie to work if asked to do so by one’s employer. The scholar says it is permissible but warns that it is better to ‘avoid the dress of the unbelievers’, so the wearing of the tie should be confined to work. Women followers are advised that it is necessary to cover their faces in ‘normal’ situations and that it is generally impermissible for them to travel a distance of more than 48 miles unless accompanied by a male relative (even if the purpose is to attend a religious gathering).

There is a good reason why this interpretation of Islam sounds so similar to that of Afghanistan: the Taleban movement grew out of the Deobandi madrassas of Pakistan. Tony Blair justified to the Muslim world the post-9/11 attacks on Afghanistan on the basis that driving out the Taleban would be an act of liberation: ‘I don’t believe,’ he said, ‘that anybody seriously wants to live under that kind of regime.’ Did he realise that the rules enforced by law in Afghanistan were being adopted, voluntarily, in parts of Leicester, Dewsbury and Blackburn? Even the Prime Minister seemed not to know about Deobandi Britain?"

@Purplesphere you are not developing a logical argument and continue to warp the idea of 'free speech' to suit your own ideology.

'Muslims should not have to be the subject of negative free speech'

That is a contradiction.

If you have freedom of speech you are free to be critical about anything.

If you don't accept that freedom of speech means the freedom to offend then you are not in favour of freedom of speech so don't pretend you are.

@ZoeCM

This is a false Islamic narration (believed by some Islamic sects) from very untrustworthy sources and stems from a very political perspective.

"negative free speech"

So... you're all for free speech as long as it's positive? People can say what they like as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Because it's not free speech that's a problem, it's only NEGATIVE free speech that's a problem, so all we need to do is ban speech that people might find negative and then we can keep free speech?

I think some people on this thread are struggling to understand some basic principles here. Free speech means being free to speak. About ANYTHING. Positive or negative. It's free from punishment, such as beheading or shooting. It's free from other kinds of punishment too, such as losing your job. If people don't like your speech, they can use their own speech to complain or to argue back.

Now you can argue that people shouldn't be allowed to have free speech at all, which is in fact what you are arguing for, but at least first understand your own argument and be honest about it. And please realise that this is you saying YOU don't want freedom of speech and you don't want anyone else to have it either.

Have you considered who should be in charge of what we are allowed to say and not say then? Not us ourselves, not terrorists presumably... Maybe leave it all up to Boris to decide? Or the BBC? What do you think? Someone positive, yeah?

@Purplesphere either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't.

There is no freedom of speech except when it offends Muslims clause.

I am disturbed by your suggestion that stereotyping and negative connotations must lead to retaliation.

As you say, Christians, Jews, black people and women are all subject to the most appalling stereotyping and negative connotations but, in general, seem more respectful of freedom of speech.

The particular sorts of retaliation to which we're referring (beheading) while only perpetrated by minority, fundamentalist Muslims does still seem to be specific to Islamists.

I may be wrong but I do not know of any equivalent response to a cartoon or a perceived act of blasphemy by a Christian or Jew.

I get your point OP.
There’s a line - not even a thin one - between free speech and being deliberately offensive and provocative.
OP’s post did not condone murder.

There’s a line - not even a thin one - between free speech and being deliberately offensive and provocative.

No there isn't. Free speech means free to speak offensively and provocatively. Even deliberately. Without getting your head cut off. (In this case, free to teach about free speech - still too "provocative" for some on this thread.)

The OP is victim-blaming.

I think I have made it clear that I don’t think brutal retaliation is justified, I think it’s abhorrent. I have never said that stereotyping must lead to retaliation I have been talking about innocent people wrongly being affected by the retaliation of crazed individuals - and no this does not give the innocent justification to react either.

I have also made it very clear that I don’t think offensive actions having consequences should apply to Muslims only.

If you’re racist or sexist to a colleague - yes you definitely should face consequences in the workplace.

If you depict Jewish people negatively - yes you absolutely should be made to apologise and remove content.

Muslims are pretty accepting of free speech (we would be bloody busy if we weren’t, ha!) I think we challenge certain elements of free speech in the same way that Jews do. There was uproar about the Jewish cartoons by the wider public too, and I’m pleased that society is now fighting their corner and is non-accepting of anti Semitism.

Cross posted with you @queenofknives

Some posters seem to think that there is one true 'positive free speech' which is essentially the Quaran. Ultimately that's fundamentalism, however gently they might express it.

To say otherwise is not allowed!

@Purplesphere you said:

'Negative free speech about religion >> negative stereotypes and connotations of religion made by society >> extremists react and claim to be acting in the name of religion >> religious people held accountable and believed they’re all of the same thought >> negative free speech about religion'

That is presenting retaliation as inevitable.

It isn't. It's a choice.

You are not engaging with the fact that stereotyping and offensive views do not just affect Muslims but there is not the same sort of retaliation.

Victim blaming not allowed.
Only other kinds of free speech are allowed.