Episode 4 - John Semley - Is Charlie Hebdo Racist? by Polite Conversations published on 2016-02-17T22:29:37Z YouTube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBve1K6u2X8&feature=youtu.be Books Columnist John Semley (@johnsemley3000) from Canadian paper The Globe & Mail joins us to discuss his review of Charb's posthumous book called Open Letter. Do check out his controversial piece here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-charlie-hebdo-editor-charbs-open-letter-is-problematic/article28050654/ We evidently have very differing viewpoints on this. Enjoy! And pardon the heavy breathing, promise we weren't jogging while recording this interview...my headset mic is clearly way too sensitive. (-Eiynah) Genre CharlieHebdo #FreedomOfSpeech Comment by Polite Conversations @7goipfxjkhb4: Thanks for listening! 2017-01-19T01:18:18Z Comment by Νίκος Κ really painful listening to your guest. First time listener here. Enjoyed episode 4 2017-01-15T22:45:41Z Comment by HeardItB4 this is the first time these types of questions have entered his bubble and therefore ill-prepared to write that article or do this interview. 2016-11-05T19:07:35Z Comment by Boomslang Is John Semley a jackass? Oh yeah. 2016-08-22T00:40:20Z Comment by Alberto Jimenez @heber-gurrola: Only if you fear for your life. If you dont then go ahead and draw. Because the appropriate response to a drawing from a religion of "peace" is killing the artist. Why are we even considering this? If the killer had any other faith it wouldn't be a problem. We all be calling on the killer; there would be no one justifying the killer because it "offended" them. 2016-06-21T17:50:38Z Comment by AntisocialJustice Semley so brave, calling Hebdo bigots and racists, but doesn't say anything about the attackers. 2016-04-02T09:24:31Z Comment by AntisocialJustice At 35:27 Semley says "But you don't think stuff like this incites violence?". It incited violence against the artists. What an idiot he is. 2016-04-02T09:23:26Z Comment by X3R0 J4M You do know those views are from people who just came from Sam Harris's podcast ?! Interesting show though. I'll give you a look. 2016-02-26T15:14:54Z Comment by Tom Yates Minute 47 is the great moment that the guy is cornered. If you only answer/argument to a point is "because it's their religion", you've lost the argument. 2016-02-25T13:09:18Z Comment by Tom Yates The guy completely loses the plot around the 42 minute mark. 2016-02-25T13:04:19Z Comment by Polite Conversations @matt-rufo: Honoured thank you! Hope you will enjoy future episodes :) 2016-02-24T17:37:48Z Comment by Matt Rufo Gotta say that Sam Harris got me here, but Eiynah and Paul won me over. You just got on my already overfilled auto-download list on my podcast app. I look forward to hearing much more. 2016-02-24T17:32:32Z Comment by Matt Rufo John Semley: "I understand what irony is" Do you though? Are you sure? Maybe think about it again and get back to us. 2016-02-24T17:18:27Z Comment by itsaliveish @derekjamesfrom: Yes but the reasoning in that case turned on the fact that the imposition on the hutterites was not particularly onerus because there is not right to a driver's licence. The reasoning in that case would not necessarily apply because in the hijab/niqab cases you are denying someone their ability to recieve citizenship and/or vote. 2016-02-24T01:19:27Z Comment by Polite Conversations @judahwarsky: thanks for listening 2016-02-22T13:41:44Z Comment by Polite Conversations @nattheplat: thanks for listening :) 2016-02-22T13:41:39Z Comment by Heber Gurrola I'm on the side of Eiynah throughout the whole interview, but John Semley made a point that gave me pause. We all agree that the only justification for preventing free speech is if it incites violence. Well, we know for a fact that drawing a picture of Mohammed is likely to incite violence. Should we then refrain from doing so? 2016-02-22T02:21:53Z Comment by Polite Conversations @yas-matazz: ;) 2016-02-21T16:15:13Z Comment by Polite Conversations @joshua-abell-1: thank you :) 2016-02-21T16:15:00Z Comment by JudahWarsky This is so interesting, thank you Eiynah 2016-02-21T13:33:33Z Comment by davegermain introduction is forced and awkward but the conversation is great. 2016-02-21T07:45:08Z Comment by Graham Strong Semley sounds nervous and unsure of his own narrative. Its like what ever speech he has written on the back of his hand doesn't work with Eiynas challenges but he keeps going anyway! 2016-02-21T03:13:55Z Comment by User 94730098 Why is Semley hammering Mohammed's asshole so much? 2016-02-20T21:03:30Z Comment by Eric Holp Man this Semley guy is irritating and full of crap!! 2016-02-20T04:22:04Z Comment by es/ca John Semley is an idiot. 2016-02-20T03:21:22Z Comment by Jason Macleod 1 By definition of its scripture, Islam is, right wing, bigoted and intolerant. By your reasoning, is it then bigoted to criticise Donald Trump for his bad ideas/ideology? Or the British National Party? The answer is no. How then is it bigoted to condemn the Islamic ideology based on its bad ideas? Religion should hold no special privileges when it comes to critique. You call yourself the left, I don’t see this, you appear to be turning a blind eye to liberal values, making excuses for the Islamic ideology? An Ideology which would have you killed for being an apostate, as you know. It doesn’t make sense. To finish by quoting Dawkins, If you can convert to it, be baptized into it, or apostatize out of it . . . it's not a race. 2016-02-20T03:18:38Z Comment by jamsgra Idiot. 2016-02-19T13:55:22Z Comment by Antacid OMG I can't listen past halfway because that man is so infuriating. Cognitive dissonance tying him up in knots aargh 2016-02-19T13:20:37Z Comment by Josef M. Schomburg One thing Semley (or anyone) neglects to mention is that Charlie Hebdo is all about pushing -back- ... if there was no-one imposing their dictate on a democratic society, there would be nothing to criticise. 2016-02-19T08:10:49Z Comment by Ryan Thornton Why are you even asking this question? Such a waste of time. 2016-02-19T07:52:39Z
