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.

'Lots of people find depictions of gay couple offensive, including muslims. Should that be banned?'

You perhaps missed the furore beginning in Birmingham, where large groups of Muslim parents objected to children being given literature which explained that some families have two dads or two mums.

The new sex education framework amounts to teaching children that same sex relationships exist and the response from certain (of course not all but a vocal component)?

So much for free speech!

''The following day, Hewitt-Clarkson estimates, about half the children at the school were withdrawn from lessons by parents. She believes many were intimidated by protesters who stood guard on the roads that led to the school, and says they were telling parents: “If you take your kids to school today, you’re not a Muslim and you’ll burn in hell.”'

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/26/birmingham-anderton-park-primary-muslim-protests-lgbt-teaching-rights

@warrsan

Lots of people find depictions of gay couple offensive, including muslims. Should that be banned?

Should the reverse be banned? Apparently in schools, yes. For example, in the US the courts let stand disciplinary action taken against an evangelical Christian student for wearing a t-shirt that read, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” That kid didn’t have freedom of speech, in his school.

Free speech is actually quite limited in the US

For example, you don’t have a right to free speech in private workplaces. And within schools, in many instances.

Freedom of speech is actually quite a limited legal right and is constantly evolving.

I love the black and white views here, but thankfully the legal system is far more nuanced.

'Be happy, not gay' is surely hate speech?

It is anti-gay and saying you cannot be happy and gay.

Schools and work places make their own rules about what is and isn't appropriate in the work place. For example, there is usually a uniform.

MarriedtoDaveGrohl you seem to make a whole heap of judgements on someone you’ve never met. I find that a bit strange. However I do suggest you read up on islamophobia and collective blame.

Goading such people is not helpful, not least because they may take their anger out not only in you but on innocent third parties. No man is an island.

Free speech, sure, but think before you speak. Especially when you’re in a position of authority to young and impressionable students.

AKA don't say anything the Muslims won't like. Christianity has had the piss taken out of it forever. There has been open and visible anti semitism - that the leafy of the opposition was involved in. Shamelessly.

What about that? The painting that fuckwit Corbyn was involved with was FAR worse. Far more public. No one has bombed anyone. Yet here you are saying that the teacher should have known better and we all have to respect only one religion. Ugh.

In fact, Trut, you are incorrect and that particular student's rights to free speech WERE upheld in any case:

'CHICAGO (CBS) – A federal appeals court has ruled that school officials in Naperville were not justified in forbidding a student from wearing an anti-gay T-shirt.''

chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/01/court-upholds-be-happy-not-gay-t-shirt/

'“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said Nate Kellum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The 7th Circuit has, once again, rightly recognized the First Amendment-protected rights of students on a public school campus. In an environment that freely allows speech that promotes homosexual behavior, the school simply cannot shut out the opposing viewpoint.”

The ‘No Outsiders’ material that Muslim parents objected to wasn’t simply telling children that same sex couples exist. It was based on queer theory and gender stereotyping, and would now not be appropriate for use in schools under the government’s new sex and relationships guidelines.

Nostaples in relation to Muslims suffering the most from these terror attacks it’s because France acts on a policy of collective punishment. Therefore the whole Muslim community is effectively punished despite it having nothing to do with them. An example is Macron is now trying to shut down an organisation in France set up to deal with islamophobia and racist attacks on Muslims. Interestingly enough the attack on the Muslim women in Paris is not being considered a hate crime despite the language used by the attackers. Just an example of double standards and hypocrisy in France.

@Stripesnomore what specifically was it that was being objected to in the 'No Outsiders' material?

Furthermore it wasn't one madman. It was a student who deliberately CHOSE to stay and be offended just so she could get the teacher in trouble. She got him killed.

It was her father and his cronies spreading their outrage. Choosing to be offended with what a teacher shared in a private classroom with students who weren't Muslim.

What next?? The teacher hardly published an article in the Sunday times. He spoke to a small group of his students about an important political event and specifically explained to the Muslim students they would find it offensive so should excuse themselves.

So FUCK your 'think before you speak' bollocks.

@Stripesnomore

The ‘No Outsiders’ material that Muslim parents objected to wasn’t simply telling children that same sex couples exist. It was based on queer theory and gender stereotyping, and would now not be appropriate for use in schools under the government’s new sex and relationships guidelines.

So you think it was the gender stereotyping and "queer theory" they objected to and not the same sex couples? Because that's not what it said on the signs some of them were holding.

There were interviews with parents at the time where they went through the range of issues they had with the material.

And they were not consulted prior to the implementation of no outsiders, which is contrary to the guidelines on how sex and relationship education in primary schools is supposed to be approached - which is in partnership and discussion with parents.

Make up your mind @nostaples, at one point you were calling it right to be banned as hate speech and then flipped saying it is right to be expressed as free speech.

This illustrates the point, what is allowed under free speech is nuanced and subject to controversy and scrutiny and is constantly evolving. And it is even more challenging in schools and offices.

You're wrong @Trut

You gave the example of a kid in an American school not being allowed free speech of saying that 'Be happy, not gay'.

In fact, his right to wear that T shirt was upheld on the grounds of free speech, in spite of it being against the school's policy.

So you have totally undermined your own point with your example.

And no I wasn't calling for it to be banned, I was speculating as to why it might have been banned which is what you mistakenly said had happened.

You will not find me calling for retribution, punishment, beheadings, however anathema the views with which I might be presented.

I call for education.

I very much hope that the kids thinking you can't be gay and happy got some of that in which case his t shirt will have been a positive thing all round.

Goading such people is not helpful, not least because they may take their anger out not only in you but on innocent third parties.

I don't think you understand your own argument. You appear to be arguing for free speech and also against it at the same time. Free speech has to be without consequence. If people's speech can be seen as 'goading' others to kill, then it's not free, is it? Saying you're for freedom of speech and then arguing against it is incoherent.

I am also not sure if you understand your own victim blaming. Saying that the teacher shouldn't 'goad' people, shouldn't 'abuse' free speech and should have thought before he spoke is victim blaming. Saying that you're not victim blaming and then victim blaming is also incoherent. The teacher was 100% innocent by any metric other than sheer fucking madness.

At least be honest about what you're arguing for.

And you are also wrong @Stripesnomore 'No Outsiders' is a registered charity and the programme is still in operation.

A view on the programme?

'However, I found Andrew Moffat to be very friendly, and eager to answer my questions. Not only that, but he took the time to go through exactly what the school had been teaching in the No Outsiders programme. We spent one and a half hours going through his suitcase of children’s books with a fine toothed comb, looking for offensive or age inappropriate material. I couldn’t find any. The books are innocent; especially those aimed at Reception and Year 1 pupils. Far from being what I’d been told, the books had nothing in them that I found to be offensive. No where do the books discuss sex, sexuality, or anything a parent might be concerned with their child reading during those early years.'

Who is this from? Oh yes, The Association of British Muslims.

More information here aobm.org/what-is-no-outsiders/

More information about the 'No Outsiders' project here:

no-outsiders.com/about-us

Anyone genuinely in favour of free speech and tolerance and diversity should be promoting this and not promulgating fear.

“Free speech has to be without consequence”

It’s not though, because we don’t live in la-la land.

A different perspective on the No Outsiders thing - Not sure I'm keen on 'queering the primary classroom' personally
www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/

So do you support freedom of speech for transgender people? Or not?

@quennofknives the title of that article 'queering the classroom' was given by that particular website which is 'Transgender Trend' and nothing to do with the 'No Outsiders' programme. I admit that I haven't read any word but I have seen nothing whatsoever that is controversial or inappropriate about the programme.

It would not have bothered me one iota to have my children read a book in which two male penguins love each other. As it was, I taught them what it meant to be gay and that being gay or anything else was OK.

What specifically is it that you find troubling?

every word