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.

OP I find your post pretty offensive - does that mean I can justify committing a terrorist act?!

Of course not.

Freedom of speech is ingrained in lots of Western countries - if you don't like that then don't read/watch/listen to something you know may offend you. Or else go and live somewhere that fits better with your sensibilities

@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?

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 was responding to a pp who was rubbishing traditional religion. I didn’t realise we’d reached the level of nitpicking that I’d need to point out that what I said applies to all religious beliefs. This place is insane sometimes.

I think we need to get rid of the word ,'offended' because too often it is used to excuse-as the OP is doing-murderous behaviour.

If one is out of step with society, every fucker in society doesn't have to change_you do!

I was «rubbishing» the Abrahmic religions. Because in our part of the world those are the most prevalent ones. I referred to their texts and scriptures. Have you read them, VinylDetective?
Maybe you have and think they are great. I did not find them great when I read them.

I dont know much about other religions, because I could not be arsed to read more religious texts.
But surely there are other religions that are traditional? Like hinduism or bhuddism and such.
Are they markedly less violent? I dont know. But my impression is that they do not require their followers to multiply and fill the earth, or that NON believers should be extinguished.

Anyway, my point was: such socalled rubbishing should be ok.
Extinguishing, not so ok.

Beheading a teacher on the street because he showed a cartoon that made fun of a deity is something that should not be tolerated or accepted ever.

@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.

Of course it must never happen again, but not at the expense of the right to freedom of speech. That’s giving in to terrorism and fear. No no no.

Is there no-where in the world where these extremists can go and find a society that suits them, where no fucker offends them because they are all singing from the same page.

The world must be a hostile place to them if they are forced to wander it, finding offence on every street corner.

@silentpool

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.

Exactly

There have been excellent speakers on the French outlook, why they teach this lesson in civics, what the point is. Nobody has the right to insist on never being offended. Everyone has the right to use speech to say they are offended & to explain why and to try to persuade others not to be so offensive (using words). More communication is the solution, not tiptoeing around.

And it's patronising, to treat each other like delicate flowers that can't handle hearing rude ideas.

Freedom of speech cannot be restricted simply because you don't like what someone is saying.

We have the right to gather and express ourselves and those rights were hard won.

There are already protections in place in relation to inciting and glorifying terrorism - that includes using words to do so.

My point is that nothing like this should happen again. Surely thought is needed about the reasons this happened to stop it happening again.

This is what the terrorist wants you to think. And you're thinking along the lines of 'people shouldn't offend other people's deeply held beliefs'. (otherwise their heads will get cut off)

So people shouldn't say what they think. They should be scared of that. Because even if a mild academic introduces the subject of freedom of speech to his class of kids, one of them might cut his head off.

?

Good world?
Do you see the issue? It's about the violent reaction.

There is zero justification for what was done. It was even apparently incited by two zealous parents.
And the response can't be to worry about what you say.

But if course it will be. Who would want to risk their life for a history lesson?
😓
That poor, poor guy.

We don’t have 100 percent freedom of expression. Had Charlie Hebdo mocked a Jewish character there would be uproar. There is a big problem in France with racism and islamiphobia. There is a reason why immigrants risk the channel to get to the UK. If you’ve ever visited the suburbs of Paris you’ll get an idea. I don’t agree with deliberately offending people even if society deems it acceptable. Obviously no one has a right to murder someone just because they are offended. That can’t happen in a civilised society.

Correcting pp;
Mohammed was a prophet, not a deity.
Charlie Hebdo: “the publication, irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, is strongly secularist, antireligious and left-wing, publishing articles that mock Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and various other groups as local and world news unfolds”

@stairway.

Don't chat shit.

Charlie Hebdo has absolutely satirized Judaism.

Have you read them, VinylDetective? Maybe you have and think they are great

I don’t really think anything. I’m a humanist. But I do think, while it’s fine to be critical of other people’s religion, it’s not OK to be rude or insulting.

& the pope!

I don't even understand what you're saying but I know I don't agree with it

There is a reason why immigrants risk the channel to get to the UK.

So the UK isn’t the most racist, xenophobic, intolerant, white supremacist hellhole in the world?

Who would’ve thought....

I don’t think they have in the same way. This was really offensive to many Muslims. I’m not justifying the murder of innocent people obviously but there are things which people will loose their job over if they publish.

Racial divides in French society are absolutely hideous. Seriously, it is not comparable with most of the UK.

What happened to this teacher was just awful.

There are huge issues with the way white French view minorities in France, but there are also issues of integration from the side of those communities. Many years ago, there were two French distance runners who fought on the track at the end of their World Championships race. When they later apologised, one of them said he regretted it because their actions had "shamed north African people". Not a word about the country and federation they actually represented! It just shows how little affinity some groups feel with wider society, and how little wider society does to foster any sense of affinity.

Racial divides in French society are absolutely hideous. Seriously, it is not comparable with most of the UK.

Do you have any evidence to back up this rather sweeping claim?

Racial divides in French society are absolutely hideous. Seriously, it is not comparable with most of the UK

There is no evidence for that.

France isn't unusual, the divides and ghettos in the UK exist and run just as deeply, just look at our knife murder rates?

We've had terror attacks & individual terrorist murders too, plus i think the UK provided more recruits to ISiS than many other countries.

stairway https://www.google.com/amp/s/forward.com/schmooze/212244/when-charlie-hebdo-lampooned-jews-too/%3Fgamp

Examples of Charlie hebdo taking the piss out of Jews.

Most of these cartoons contain Muslim/Arab characters as well . I can’t say whether Jewish people found those cartoons deeply offensive or not, It wouldn’t be acceptable in the UK. However I think the Mohammed cartoon was much more offensive.
In terms of whether France is more racially divided, I could give anecdotes but what would be the point. I don’t think France collects racial data so nothing can be proven.