charli hebdo attack.- attack followed the charlie charli hebdo attack. litical charli hebdo attack. i am a political scientist _ charli hebdo attack. i am a political scientist making . political scientist making comparison and the best way of making sense of secularism and france and the terrorist attacks is to make a comparison with make country the united states and we are now approaching the 28 year anniversary of september 11, and very similar questions asked here and there and i think after a few years, the united states really focused on citizenship and not discriminating, and in the last 20 years there has been major steps forward in the united states for the integration of muslim minority into mainstream. but in france, there has been too much emphasis on singling out muslim minority, and passing laws to restrict islam's public visibility, and the secularists coalition including the france both the left—wing and right wing, president macron declared they need an enlightened islam, so i think from an american point of view it is really problematic

charlie hebdo". >> guest: that was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back for me which, of course, everyone knows what happened with charlie help doe, several -- "charlie hebdo", several jihad diss burst into the longest satire magazine in france's history. "charlie hebdo", the magazine, had made fun of jews, christians, they had made fun of muslims, of all the political leaders in france. it had been a equal opportunity offender. well, these jihadists, obviously, were not happy they were in this case making fun of islam and had a cover with mohamed on it, and they shot up the artists, killed several of the cartoonists and writers, over the next couple days they were still out on the streets, they shot at people at a kosher supermarket. and what was interesting to me, a profoundly horrific event is, an absolute assault on free speech and freedom of expression, but broadly speaking, the left was suddenly defending the jihadists like, oh, don't poke the bear, don't make cartoons of things they don't want you to make cartoons of, don't talk about things they don't want you to talk about. i thought this was bizarre because pro

charlie — happened and why. indeed our 'ustice for the charlie hebdo * happened and why. indeed our 'ustice for the charlie'ustice for the charlie hebdo trial last _ for the charlie hebdo trial last year, those are the trials, the trial is film but something that doesn't happen in france ever. but thatis doesn't happen in france ever. but that is for the record and for history. first of all is the biggest child that we'd known in france. we had to build a special room that has a capacity of 550 attendance in the audience which did not exist in france. because they want the possibility of his many people to cover it is possible and to see that justice has been carried out properly. in accordance to french law when it comes to a terrorism trial it isjudged law when it comes to a terrorism trial it is judged by five professional french judges and not by a jury. in the idea is first of all to try and find out what happened, how they were radicalised, what networks they have those might be revived today, especially in the view of afghanistan. also to the hundreds of victims and families of victims to give closu

charlie hebdo. the killings shocked everyone, and all the cartoonists at charlie hebdo, the older ones had been workingspapers and magazines for 50 years and are familiar with cartoons. so it was as if it killed someone familiar. and it was also this brutality that if you express something i do not like, i can kill you. ♪ >> afghanistan's former president has apologized for the taliban takeover in his country. he issued a statement saying his abrupt apartment was the only way to save lives. he says he left on the advice of palace security because he was told that remaining in kabul risk setting off what he called -- risked setting off what he called the same street to street fighting that set off the civil war in the 1990's. he also addresses claims he fled with millions of dollars belonging to the afghan people, calling them categorically false. andy apologized to the afghan people that he couldn't make it end friendly. he did not comment on the taliban. here is our south asia correspondent. reporter: today, he is giving reasons for why he decided to leave in the manner he d on august 15. he said he w

you wrote a piece about the charli hebdo controversy in france explaining why in america? the publication of the charlie hebdo cartoons although considered blasphemous by some would but absolutely be protected by the first amendments of the constitution. tell us why the first amendment protects blasphemy what the central cases that protect blasphemous expression are and under what circumstances in the first amendment on offensive speech can be banned. so there have been laws in the united states in the past that prohibited blasphemy and if you go back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, they were occasional prosecutions for blasphemous speech but over the last hundred years or so, it's become clear that the concept of punishment for blasphemy clearly violates both the free speech clause of the constitution and the free exercise clause of the constitution and there to my knowledge hasn't been a successful prosecution for blasphemy in this country in close to a century. the the charlie head goes situation the issue that would arise today would be less one of that blasphemy and more one about whethe

charlie hebdo cartoons. and then what is the source of protection for free speech in france? is it the constitution? is it statute? are the charliedo car tunes protected? >> thank you very much for the question. very important, of course, because it is an important difference between french and the u.s., and on this topic, and the question of limitation. the first difference is in terms of legal protection because of course, we do not have a similar first amendment. the freedom of speech is protected by different statutes and very important statutes in france. of course, they are also very important decisions from the french constitution, so the french constitutional court. also, the europe human rights. the very wide scope of freedom of speech is very different in france compared to the u.s. and in relation to what just has been said, for instance, in order to limit the freedom of speech or the press freedom, the requirement is not as high as the imminent violence requirement or the danger requirement. actually, the french approach to freedom of speech is really more balanced, i would say. and i will talk about this maybe later.