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!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."
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.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.
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.
So are pictures of Mohammed the muslim equivalent of the n word, and if so could we avoid them and yet retain free speech?
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.
Medbh Ruane has just been making this point very cogently on the [broken link removed]...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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?