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.

You're not serious? So if I were to horribly insult you it would be okay to kill me? Wtf this is the 21st century, this is fucking crazy talk.

OP do you understand why your posts are racist and belittling to practicing Muslims?

Haditover and Vinyl Detective
(Not sure how to tag people).

Of course people have freedom of belief. I do not say they should not have!
But why should I pander to their worldview and pretend I think it is rational?
Why is my post considered mindless insult?

I «label» religions wacky. If you read the texts that are considered the foundations and holy scriptures of these religions, what bits do not require suspension of your rational perception of the world?

@HannaYeah

OP do you understand why your posts are racist and belittling to practicing Muslims?

I think the OP is well aware of that. I suspect that is why they posted - so they could instigate a bit of casual Muslim bashing. Looks like they didn't get as many takers as they were hoping for though.

I am dosappointed that my comment should be considered an irresponsible use of freedom of speech.

People with religious beliefs are welcome to express their belief that people who do not share their beliefs will go to hell (directly or indirectly), for example.
All Abrahmic religions have that as an underpinning belief.

My opinion of that belief is that it is wacky and not quite sane.
That is not a mindless insult in my view. That is my response to all beliefs that are based entirely on made up and unverifyable dogma.

Which brings us to what the op seem to advocate: to tiptoe around people with these beliefs, pander to their worldview, so as to avoid upsetting them and CAUSING them to behave violently because they are offended.

I disagree.

@Haditover

An utterly awful terrorist act which should be punished accordingly.

Many have pointed out that we shouldnt be changing freedom of speech to please terrorists, only mocking the prophet Muhammed is offensive to all muslims and many made themselves heard by demonstrating in marches around the world.

Freedom of speech somes with responsibilty, if everyone could say whatever they wanted then people could say women who are victims of domestic violence bring it on themselves, if enough of us believe and say this we eventually repress women who are victims of domestic violence, and it's highly offensive to those who have had to live with DV. I think that is the point op is making with reference to Donald Trump.

It is not free speech if you're not allowed to say things that other people find offensive.

Free speech has downsides - which include survivors of DV potentially hearing views they find offensive. But, in a world where free speech is censored, we all lose, because we all hold views that someone else finds offensive.

As an example, you are probably either pro or anti abortion rights (not many women are neutral on the subject), so your views are deeply offensive either to people who believe women have the right to choose or to people who believe life begins at conception. You should have a right to express your views, regardless of whether they cause offence.

@SaskiaRembrandt the idea that the OP knows it’s racist is a relief to me.

Suspect stupidity does more harm in the world than we realize.

"Shouldn't people have freedom of belief/religion?"

But they do have.

@turbonerd

I am dosappointed that my comment should be considered an irresponsible use of freedom of speech.

People with religious beliefs are welcome to express their belief that people who do not share their beliefs will go to hell (directly or indirectly), for example.
All Abrahmic religions have that as an underpinning belief.

My opinion of that belief is that it is wacky and not quite sane.
That is not a mindless insult in my view. That is my response to all beliefs that are based entirely on made up and unverifyable dogma.

Which brings us to what the op seem to advocate: to tiptoe around people with these beliefs, pander to their worldview, so as to avoid upsetting them and CAUSING them to behave violently because they are offended.

I disagree.

That isn’t why your post is offensive. It’s a case of it’s not what you say but how you say it. Pandering is a horrible word, btw. It’s used to excuse lack of respect. There are plenty of ways to say you consider traditional religious beliefs to be irrational without dismissing half the world’s population as “wacky”.

That isn’t why your post is offensive. It’s a case of it’s not what you say but how you say it. Pandering is a horrible word, btw. It’s used to excuse lack of respect. There are plenty of ways to say you consider traditional religious beliefs to be irrational without dismissing half the world’s population as “wacky”.

But isn't this offensive to people whose religious beliefs are non-traditional?

@Icantthinkofabettername

I'm totally against the death penalty, think it is horrific what happened to this poor teacher and I don't understand the reference to sharing that George Floyd had a criminal record.

I have obviously expressed myself really poorly in the OP, as the impression you have taken from it is completely opposite to my views.

The point I was trying to make is that freedom of speech is often blindly advocated by those that have the freedom/the platform to speak and often what they are saying further alienates oppressed people.

This has nothing to do with the death penalty this was murder

@Icantthinkofabettername

I am absolutely not advocating a move to Sharia Law. I'm advocating assimilation by other means than laughing at and mocking something fundamental to a person's identity.

We have laws in this country sharia is not one of them and no we do not need to assimilate their law into ours

@SaskiaRembrandt

That isn’t why your post is offensive. It’s a case of it’s not what you say but how you say it. Pandering is a horrible word, btw. It’s used to excuse lack of respect. There are plenty of ways to say you consider traditional religious beliefs to be irrational without dismissing half the world’s population as “wacky”.

But isn't this offensive to people whose religious beliefs are non-traditional?

Is it? Care to elaborate?

OP: I think you are in danger of doing what you purport to be against.

Being a Muslim in France is no doubt often an uncomfortable experience, but not because a) Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon against Islam used as a smokescreen for terror or b) a teacher taught about the role of satire using it as an example. Long before the original CH furore 1 in 7 French people voted for the racist Le Pen party. Liberte, Fraternite etc notwithstanding, many aspects of French culture seem deeply conservative. As regards culture it is 'my way or the highway'. You speak the language, you abide by French Custom.

By saying that satire and teaching about it causes terrorist responses you are massively insulting the huge majority of perfectly normal decent Muslims who would never respond violently and are completely against such acts and will not defend them.

The rest - nothing short of victim blaming.

The tolerance and respect needed for the Freedom to practice any religion or live life in your own way (as long as you don't harm others) needs to be afforded to Christians, Muslims, Jews, as well as homosexuals, Trans people, Socialists, Tory voters, etc etc.

But that also means that no group is more protected than any other from critique, debate or challenge .

In response to which we can disagree, debate back, agree, or feel offended and explain why.

Not issue death threats, Twitter hate campaigns, doxxing, and pressure for someone to lose their job.

Let alone murder anyone.

Those of us who believe in respect, tolerance and a liberal discourse must stand together and protect every person's right to express their opinion. Not to cause more division by trying to shut people down and attacking those who disagree.

Perhaps pandering is a horrible Word. But there HAS BEEN a lot of pandering, historically. The examples are abundant, and easy to find.
It is only very recently, and only in some areas of the world, where religious beliefs do not dictate policy and daily life in people’s societies.
I dismiss their beliefs as wacky, not the people. Many sensible people do hold wacky beliefs, often to my surprise. and I respect the people and their right to hold these beliefs. but I will defend my own right to call these beliefs wacky DESPITE someone finding that offensive.

I find it offensive to be labelled a «disbelieving bitch (female dog, because I am a woman). But that is my status in many religious communities. I also find it offensive (though more sad for them) that some people are adamant I am destined for eternal damnation in Hell. Or purgatory.
But again, they have a right to say it.

Now, that may not be conducive to a good debate in your opinion. That is fine by me.

This whole religion is irrational and therefore we should be able to satirise it is besides the point.

We should be able to satirise everything, whether it is irrational or not.

@Icantthinkofabettername

I totally condemn what happened to the teacher and at Charlie Hebdo. My point is that nothing like this should happen again. Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again.

Can you really not see the contradiction in your statement?

Stripesnomore

I agree . Everything should be up to scrutiny at least. Not sure I think everything should be satirised (such as exploitation causing (human) suffering, for example).
However, this situation, and the one with Charlie Hebdo, was due to religion being satirised and then a religious person not handling neither the satire, nor even the teaching of what is satire and one example of it!

I'm old enough to remember when to accuse someone of being offensive and to say you are offended would be met with a 'So what?'

I think the idea that no one must be offended that has been accepted for at least a generation has muddled the moral waters to the point where people often think that an opposing view from their own is intrinsically wrong and morally abhorrent and there fore should not be heard or tolerated. We have, as they say, a cancel culture.

It's not helped by universities selling education. The young are not taught to think for themselves, but are consumers buying a degree as an investment.

Yes it's got very silly and only one viewpoint is valid

That isn’t why your post is offensive. It’s a case of it’s not what you say but how you say it. Pandering is a horrible word, btw. It’s used to excuse lack of respect. There are plenty of ways to say you consider traditional religious beliefs to be irrational without dismissing half the world’s population as “wacky”.

But isn't this offensive to people whose religious beliefs are non-traditional?

Is it? Care to elaborate?

Because you don't say religious beliefs shouldn't be dismissed as wacky, you only say traditional religious beliefs. The implication is that the former can be dismissed as wacky, but traditional beliefs are off-limits. I'm not saying that is what you meant, but that is how someone might read it, and then be offended.

I think there needs to be distinction made between 'beliefs' and brain washing.

Religion and atheism etc all presented a la cart to Children, equally with no pressure... To pick up or leave 'belief' and religion as they choose would be one thing.

It's quite another for children to be brain washed from birth, sliced... Cut... Because it's what their parents did and their parents before them... With absolutely NO RECOURSE TO CHOOSE to leave.... It's quite another.

Any religion that doesn't allow for open teaching or allow their members to simply leave is more akin to a cult.

@turbonerd If people dont like their wacky religions or racist beliefs being made fun of, they could try to approach life in a more rational and sane way.

Shouldn't people have freedom of belief/religion? Again irresponsible use of freedom of speech.

You don't seem to understand freedom of belief/religion. People are free to believe whatever they want. That includes believing that someone's religion is a load of bollocks. Being able to say that some beliefs are, in your opinion, a load of bollocks, is a fundamental freedom.
And France, being a secular country, defends this freedom quite fiercely. The right to criticise religions (and any other ideas) is sacrosanct, and deemed more important than individual feelings. If certain communities or individuals refuse to accept this, it is a sign of their failure to understand or accept the culture of the country they live in.

I am a practising Christian.

I do not want to live in a world where people aren’t free to call my ideas wacky, irrational or stupid.

Maybe the West needs to demand more of its immigrants? It seems some come for the safety, economic opportunity etc but do not want to accept the prevailing values or join into the society. I would like to see Western countries expecting more in the way of integration, much like Switzerland asks for, before awarding citizenship. I do not want to see the West accommodating views like this and curbing our freedom of speech, so that the unreasonable can be catered to.