Charlie Hebdo: This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech — It Was About War

Summary:

Douglas Murray (1.30 mins): The terrorist attacks are having a chilling effect on the media i.e. they won't publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Emphasises drawing Mohammed as the perceived offence. When the backlash against the Danish cartoons happened Charlie Hebdo was the only publication to continue doing so.

Asghar Bukhar (1.15 mins): Hebdo cartoons are racist. Comparison with offensive stereotypes e.g. Jews as bankers. Argues Muslims stereotypes are dehumanising. Thanks media for being respectful for not republishing cartoons.

Jodie Ginsberg (1.0 mins): Hebdo cartoons are offensive. Questions whether cartoons are racist. Freedom of expression includes freedom to critique and ridicule religion.

Asghar Bukhar (1.0 mins): References 1930's offensive depictions of black people that focused on them being inferior. Argues that offensive depictions of underclasses are the problem and that the existence of depictions of ruling classes don't justify the former since demonisation lead to policies aimed specifically at the former. Like what happened to Jews in Germany. Mentions anti-muslin marches and mosques burnt down.

Stig Abell (2.30 mins): Irony in that his papers freedom of choice in editorial decisions is being attacked because they didn't republish the cartoons. Editorial discussion in this case chose to focus on human cost of tragedy. Good that people are standing up for freedom of expression but this case shows that the sword/gun is mightier than pen. People attacking paper for not show cartoons are the kind that normally call it offensive. Charlie Hebdo is different kind of publication where this type of content is more fitting.

Asghar Bukhari (1.0 mins): Most people haven't seen cartoons. Why should Muslims suffer demagoguery. Argues that attacks shouldn't be seen as freedom of speech issue but related to war on terror and treatment of Muslims across the world. Issue is not a choice between allowing racism or justifying terrorist acts.

Douglas Murray (2.30 mins): Complains about not being given enough time to talk. Calls Asghar Bukhari an extremist and that its bad taste to let him have a platform on the program because he smeared those killed in the attacks as racists. Claims Asghar Bukhari doesn't know any of the background relating to Charlie Hebdo - that its secular, far left-wing and anti-racist and it attacked far right-wing Le Pen. Issue is not about war on terror but freedom of speech. Claims program has been diverted from what happened and why - world wide attempt to shutdown any criticism of Islam. Uses example of Private Eye front cover with comedy Christian cartoon and claims that if terrorist attack had been on Private Eye, media would have reprinted cartoon. Claims conspiracy to make founder of Islam immune from criticism and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Asghar Bukhari (1.20 mins): Claims its not a Muslim double standard but a western double standard. Obama/Bush have killed and locked up journalists. Claims its not about criticism but demonisation. Calls Douglas Murray a coward and wont join a public debate. Repeats argument about demonisation of underclass from earlier adding that Muslims are the latest to be demonised after blacks and jews. He can't see why liberals can't see this. Calls Douglas Murray a right-wing nut. Issue is not about criticism that's a false argument.

Jodie Ginsberg (1.20 mins): Should not conflate racism with religious criticism. Dangerous to call criticism of religion racism. Laws exist to cover racism, allowed to criticise religion. Not everyone that died where journalists. Her organisation would never dictate what images can be published. There has been a trend towards self censorship and not just with Islam. No right to not be offended.

Stig Abell (1.0 mins): We live in a country that wants to take offence about anything e.g. people arrested on twitter for being rude or obnoxious. Mob reaction often leads to loss of judgement. Being offended is not a bad thing. His paper is not afraid to criticise Islam. Can make argument that there is not an existential crisis for freedom of speech but there is an existential crisis for Islam as followers come to terms with an extremist element that regularly do insane an brutal things.

/r/ukpolitics Thread Link - medium.com