President McAleese's comments on cartoon controversy

C

ClubMan

Registered User
Messages
49,254
What exactly were they (verbatim)? Her speech is not on her website and press coverage seems to be synopsising it and asserting that she said subtly different things. Does anybody know what she actually said? I certainly hope that she did not purport to speak for all Irish people in abhorring, condemning or apologising for the publication of the cartoons as has been suggested in various quarters!
 
Dunno about the speech, or those 'certain quarters'... but our Minister for Foreign Affairs certainly seems to have gloriously evaded the whole question.

I'd have to say I'm with the [broken link removed] on this one... and I certainly don't mean Jacques-the-Lad Chirac, who delivered an impressive 'fudge'.
 
Another hackneyed comment in the context of the whole cartoon affair is that people should have respect for the religious beliefs of others. I would be with Richard Dawkins on this one and disagree fundamentally. I personally would respect an individual's right to hold any views that they want, including any religious views that they choose (with the obvious caveat that no non consenting others are harmed by these views or their expression), but I don't see why I or anybody else should of necessity afford these views themselves special respect. If somebody wants to believe in a God (or Gods or faries or telekinesis or astrology or whatever) then that's their prerogative and we must respect that choice. We must not necessarily respect the views themselves though.
 
I saw the cartoons on the internet yesterday. I really had to hunt for them! It kind of annoyed me because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. It was funny because when I heard about all this first I thought it was irresponsible of the papers but then as i was trawling the web it was like "hey, hang on, why has this obviously controversial satircal image been denied to me because some people are offended?". Now I almost think they should be printed!

This is a bit of ramble, but it was personally interesting to "witness" a change on my point of view on the issue.
 
When Eoghan Harris referred to her as a 'tribal timebomb' I guess we didn't think it would manifest itself in this way.

She doesn't speak for me cos I haven't seen the cartoons so I don't have an informed opinion in them. I only know what the media commentariat have reported (heard Dunphy use that term this morning - I like it).

Also, it annoys me shen anyone makes sweeping statements about what the people of Ireland know or believe.
 
from www.rte.ie/news

"The President said that Ireland abhorred the publication of the cartoons which she said had been designed to provoke, to be rude and to inflame."
 
Only looked at the cartoons today
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
I support the right to publish these cartoons and am fed up with the placatory rubbish spouted by people like Mary McEleese (who given her comments about northern protestants/nazis should know what it feels like to have something blown out of proportion).
However, looking at the content of some of the cartoons you get the impression that they were generated deliberately to provoke a reaction which begs the question, why?
 
Presumably whoever drew the cartoons knew they were going to cause such offence and you would expect there was a better way to get the point across than gratuitously insulting another religion. If they didnt know then an apology and a re-issue without Mohammed would have done.

Would it be the same as making fun of some aspect of catholicism but not having to take it out on the Pope, or giving out about some aspect of christianity but not showing it in terms of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately on the cross??

It not that we have to treat Islam and Muslims as "untouchable" just because they get so heated about things - but cant we express our views without going out of our way to insult them?? I think that "cheap shots" dont really inform the debate and give the extremists the opportunity to go mad.
 
There is plenty of information here on the background to the cartoons.

I do believe that it is fundamentally an issue of free speech. The right to 'free speech' would be meaningless if it only applied to things which offended no-one.

In my opinion, avoiding giving offence should never be the sole grounds for preventing (or censoring) something.
 
TarfHead said:
from www.rte.ie/news

"The President said that Ireland abhorred the publication of the cartoons which she said had been designed to provoke, to be rude and to inflame."
Click to expand...
This is still a synopsis of what she said - I still don't know what she actually said word for word. If she actually did say anything along those lines then she was certainly not reflecting my opinions on the matter. Maybe I'll shout that into her next time I'm passing the Áras! ;)
 
Betsy Og said:
Presumably whoever drew the cartoons knew they were going to cause such offence and you would expect there was a better way to get the point across than gratuitously insulting another religion. If they didnt know then an apology and a re-issue without Mohammed would have done.

Would it be the same as making fun of some aspect of catholicism but not having to take it out on the Pope, or giving out about some aspect of christianity but not showing it in terms of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately on the cross??

It not that we have to treat Islam and Muslims as "untouchable" just because they get so heated about things - but cant we express our views without going out of our way to insult them?? I think that "cheap shots" dont really inform the debate and give the extremists the opportunity to go mad.
Click to expand...
Maybe if somebody announces that the God that they decided to believe in requires them to create illustrations that may offend some people that would make it OK? After all they would then just be exercising their freedom of religious expression rather than simply freedom of speech.
 
ClubMan said:
Maybe if somebody announces that the God that they decided to believe in requires them to create illustrations that may offend some people that would make it OK? After all they would then just be exercising their freedom of religious expression rather than simply freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

For once I wont bother splitting hairs with you on which right takes precedence over the other - my point is that free speech (in terms of being allowed to put across whatever point you want) should surely by possible without going to the lengths of gratuitously insulting someone.

For instance - should the "n" word be used to describe people of African origin, or maybe would could desist from using such a term and yet our free speech isnt unduly curtailed.

Now, odd as it seems, a picture of Mohammed & probably the context of the picture, appears to be as insulting to muslims as the "n" word to others. So could we keep away from the Mohammed picture as yet retain our freedom of speech? - I would have thought so.

If, on the other hand, any uncomplimentary mention of Islam or Muslim were treated in similar terms then I'd agree that we have our right to our opinion and to be free to express it.

So are pictures of Mohammed the muslim equivalent of the n word, and if so could we avoid them and yet retain free speech?
 
So are pictures of Mohammed the muslim equivalent of the n word, and if so could we avoid them and yet retain free speech?
Click to expand...

The point (at least the point I'm taking) of the objections is that if say, the Irish Times, printed the 'n word' we wouldn't have the USA or Britain, or any other country with a significant black population, denouncing the Irish government, demanding apologies from the government, and demanding sanctions be taken by government against the author and the Irish Times.

I have no problem with legitimate, peaceful protest to express what is obviously genuine offence - but using violence/boycotting a nation's goods simply because a private, independent enterprise published something offensive is going beyond the line.

Trying to export their own 'cultural' 'norms' to the West is simply not going to be tolerated.
 
I dont disagree with you there Sherman, I dont think the voilent protests are in any way justified.
 
Free speech means that if people want to, for example, use the "N" word mentioned above then that is their prerogative. Of course if this results in any breach of relevant legislation (e.g. incitement or hatred or equal status legislation in Ireland) then they must face the possible consequences of their action. But just because something might cause offence or insult is not, in itself, a reason for putting barriers on free speech.
 
Why did Mary Mc feel the need to even address the issue? I mean, Ireland didn't print the cartoons and had nothing to do with their publication. I actually find it bizarre that the head of state of one country is essentially apologising for the press of another.

I don't really think the publication of these cartoons was necessary but at the same time, there is no reason for "the west" to collectively apologise to the islamic world. I don't remember any attempt to denounce/apologise for the fatwas regularly issued by some islamic leaders (officially in the case of Iran) against journalists (from salman rushdie to the danish cartoonists), the call for the slaughter of infidels (that would be you and me) the slave-like treatment of women and murderous attitude to gays etc.
 
Chamar said:
Why did Mary Mc feel the need to even address the issue? I mean, Ireland didn't print the cartoons and had nothing to do with their publication. I actually find it bizarre that the head of state of one country is essentially apologising for the press of another.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware 'Ireland' (ie. a paper in Ireland) did publish the cartoons - a fact that has managed to slip under the radar.
 
Chamar said:
Why did Mary Mc feel the need to even address the issue? I mean, Ireland didn't print the cartoons and had nothing to do with their publication. I actually find it bizarre that the head of state of one country is essentially apologising for the press of another.

I don't really think the publication of these cartoons was necessary but at the same time, there is no reason for "the west" to collectively apologise to the islamic world. I don't remember any attempt to denounce/apologise for the fatwas regularly issued by some islamic leaders (officially in the case of Iran) against journalists (from salman rushdie to the danish cartoonists), the call for the slaughter of infidels (that would be you and me) the slave-like treatment of women and murderous attitude to gays etc.
Click to expand...
Medbh Ruane has just been making this point very cogently on the [broken link removed]...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top