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.

Fucking hell Op, there's Terrorist sympathising and victim blaming and then there's you. There is nothing defensible about this or what happened at Charlie Hebdo previously. If people don't like the freedom of speech if western societies, then they need to consider where they're living and perhaps move elsewhere. Your viewpoint is abhorrent.

OP, could you possibly consider making some fecking sense next time you post.

It has to be acceptable for people to say things that other people find offensive. Otherwise we will never be able to say anything because there is always going to be someone who takes offence.

Like, I am really fucking offended by people disrespecting the right and duty of this teacher to do his job without getting murdered. I'm offended by the idea that the best way to deal with acts of terrorism is to concede to the terrorists' demands. If we lived in the world you are advocating for, you would lose your right to express these abhorrent views and we would lose the opportunity to put forward better arguments with more political and moral substance. You may think only your opponents will lose from losing the right to speak, but you'd be very wrong.

If people find images of the prophet Muhammad offensive then those people should simply not look at said images.

South Park has showed the Virgin Mary shitting period blood on peoples faces, I'm pretty sure offended catholics just didn't watch that episode.

No indeed there is no point in your anecdotes. They are no more valid than mine about racism in the U.K., of which there is plenty.

I’m not an apologist, I’ve never said murdering people for what they say is acceptable. However I think there are some things that should never be published regardless of freedom of speech. I’m not sure why Charlie Hebdo published that cartoon, they were obviously trying to provoke a reaction or proving some kind of point. They must have known it would have put them at risk, it only takes one nutter with nothing to lose.

@GroundAlmonds - I’m saying the opposite that those defending free speech are the tolerant ones. We must tolerate speech we don’t like whether trump supporters, woke liberals or religious fundamentalists.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
And how oppressed are these people that they can then bomb news offices and behead teachers in small villages in France?
#JeSuisSamuel
#JeSuisCharlie

But you are saying, 'pacify the nutters'. If not, you're at risk.

Do you follow that? Of course you do. You want them to hold this threat over everyone because you seem to agree with them.

This twat did have something to lose. he was gunned down in the street. Maybe his mates could take note of that.

Well yes satirists poke at society.
It's what they do. Or what they used to do maybe.

This poor man was t even going that.

He was asking his class to think and debate.

My point is that in the UK there are things we simply wouldn’t publish as they would be deemed too offensive and may even lead to criminal prosecution. For some reason insulting Muslims is deemed as fair game. Of course murdering people is abhorrent and never acceptable but this is not what we are debating!

"Laughing at and mocking something fundamental to a person's identity."

Satire does not kill
Laughing does not kill though it may be in poor taste

Terrorists kill

It s not ok to kill because someone mocked you

@'Insulting muslims is fair game'. Get real!

Every fucker quakes in case they do what they've done in France which makes you very pleased no doubt!

You are making an absolute balls of defending this behaviour-put one of your chums on instead.

@stairway

My point is that in the UK there are things we simply wouldn’t publish as they would be deemed too offensive and may even lead to criminal prosecution. For some reason insulting Muslims is deemed as fair game. Of course murdering people is abhorrent and never acceptable but this is not what we are debating!

? Charlie’s cartoons included the Pope and Rabbis not just Muslims. Yet you don’t see catholics and Jews killing anyone.

In short, it doesn't matter what muslims, jews, Catholics are called.

They cannot murder or try to silence someone taking the piss out of them.

If some individuals can't get used to satire, to being taking the piss out of, then FIFO.

That is better than murdering people.

Embracelife nobody is saying it’s ok to kill. However I do think what is published in the media can seriously affect people, especially minorities.

@notafanoftheman

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?

Personal experience! But there has been also a lot of investigative journalism, studies, etc. focusing on this. It is not to say that there are not parts of the UK where the situation is comparable, but in France I think it is much more widespread.

Freedom of speech is great obviously but I never understand why people think it's ok to deliberately say things that upset others, and say it's ok "because of freedom of speech".

@VillageGreenTree

Freedom of speech is great obviously but I never understand why people think it's ok to deliberately say things that upset others, and say it's ok "because of freedom of speech".

Well you are upsetting me with your idea that freedom of speech should be limited to only things that do not upset others.

"UPSET" if this is what they do when they're upset, I'd hate to see them when they're angry!

@Icantthinkofabettername
You're totally missing the point of one of the most basic values that are part of what goes to make up "Frenchness".
There is no sectarianism. Religion is not allowed to be above the state and therefore above the voice of the people. It's a republic. There was a revolution and subsequently, freedom of speech has been placed above any religion - including catholicism. It's constitutional.

So don't bother applying UK logic to this problem. You'll never get what's going on from a France point of view if you do.

@CaribouCarafe Thank you so much for your comments, I completely agree.

Ilikemethewayiam I’m guessing the terrorist was a French citizen so already in his own country.

He was not.
He was a Chechen who had been generously given a ten year residence permit quite recently, as a refugee. If you don’t like your adopted country, and most especially your adopted country’s values, do feel free to pick another one more to your ideological liking.

stairway Had Charlie Hebdo mocked a Jewish character there would be uproar.
You don’t know anything about Charlie Hebdo, do you?

The values of the French République are Liberté, égalite et fraternité and the fourth one, laïcité. It is very important, this fourth one.

I understand the point you're making - my Mum said sthg similar back when the Charlie office was attacked. I don't agree with it but I get the point - not in any way excusing the murders but saying it could be disingenuous to say 'it's my right to poke fun at a religious group' claiming freedom of speech.