President McAleese's comments on cartoon controversy

Didn't Chirac also apologise and incur the wrath of the Danes? Although at least they didn't burn the French embassy down. I suspect that McAleese commented on it because we're looking for business out there.
shnaek said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that one newspaper (Sun or Star?) published some of the illustrations. Still doesn't explain why the President would feel the need to refer to the issue though.
 
ClubMan said:
Didn't Chirac also apologise and incur the wrath of the Danes? Although at least they didn't burn the French embassy down.
Click to expand...
He didn't make any comment about the Danish paper, afaik, but when the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo reprinted them last week — in the face of [broken link removed] from Muslim organisations in France — he mumbled something vaguely to the effect that 'anything which might be offensive to the convictions of others, particularly their religious convictions, must be avoided.'
 
Thanks - I guess I picked it up wrong from the Danish journalist speaking on Newstalk at the weekend so.
 
I doubt Chirac would have raised an eye-brow were it not for the recent rioting by a section of the muslim community in France.
 
I wonder whether there would have been as much uproar if all the pictures apart from the ones depicting Mohammed with a bomb turban or evil grin holding a vicious looking knife had been published. Somehow I don't think so even though the offence was supposedly the actual depiction of the prophet irrespective of how he was portrayed. Also surely the law about the depiction of Mohammed only applies to Muslims or should they not also be rioting about the other things non-Muslims do every day that they find offensive.
 
doubt Chirac would have raised an eye-brow were it not for the recent rioting by a section of the muslim community in France.
Click to expand...

The riots in France were not religion-based, but rather your common-or-garden (allegedly) disenfranchised, poor, bored youths venting their anger over the tragic death of two teenagers.

It just happens that a large number of the rioters were of North African origin - not all of whom are Muslim. Another large number of the rioters were of Sub-Saharan African or white origin.

I suspect that McAleese commented on it because we're looking for business out there.
Click to expand...

Got it in one - God (or Allah) forbid that we'd let principles get in the way of Irish beef sales
 
I suppose its possible to abhor the actual publication of the cartoons (on the grounds of manners and/or taste) while supportive of the right to do so. If you parse the president's words, you can't rule out this interpretation.
 
Sherman said:
The riots in France were not religion-based, but rather your common-or-garden (allegedly) disenfranchised, poor, bored youths venting their anger over the tragic death of two teenagers.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking when I heard several commentators refer to these as some sort of sectarian/Muslim related riots.
 
Observer said:
I suppose its possible to abhor the actual publication of the cartoons (on the grounds of manners and/or taste) while supportive of the right to do so. If you parse the president's words, you can't rule out this interpretation.
Click to expand...
As I've said I'm still not 100% clear on what she actually said. However while your interpretation may be reasonable I still don't see how anybody can purport to speak on behalf of most or all Irish people in saying that they abhor the publication of the cartoons when this does not seem to be the case. I for one do not abhor the original publication or any offence caused. I do abhor the excessive and violent reaction in some quarters though.
 

Fair enough. I think opinion is well divided on this one and she went beyond reality in so declaring it. I suppose, conventionally, heads of state tend to make bland soothing noises on behalf of their people. EG following a natural disaster a statement such as "The Irish people share your grief in this time of sadness, etc" seems to be diplomatically expected. The fact that, undoubtedly, there are some Irish people somewhere who couldn't really give a toss will not normally be incorporated into the statement.
 

Kind of like the poeple who drew these knew they were going to insult someone.

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

and I noticed that the Sultan of Saudi didnt apologise to Mary for the offence his newspapers may have caused.

...and these; http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

Were the palastinians not the most offended?
 

I dont get your point exactly. Maybe you are saying people get intentionally insulted every day so whats the big deal.

What I'm saying is that (a) the frequency of something being wrong doesnt diminish it being wrong & (b) I dont really believe "free speech" in the wider sense is curtailed by a bit of restraint re insulting others. See the "n" word point below - thats as clear as I can make it. Are you really gagging someone by denying them the opportunity to use that word?? I dont think so.
 
I dont get your point exactly. Maybe you are saying people get intentionally insulted every day so whats the big deal.
Click to expand...

I think Itchy's point is that these newspapers in the Arab world, the same ones denouncing the Danish, French, etc. newspapers, routinely publish the vilest, filthiest anti-semitic rubbish.

The core here is the fact that newspapers in these countries are subject to extremely strict government control - ergo, by continuously publishing these disgusting cartoons, the very same (theocratic, undemocratic) regimes which are 'offended' by the Danish cartoons, are simultaneously condoning ongoing anti-semitic propaganda of the foulest kind.

Why should Western governments apologise for/prevent the publication of material they find offensive, when these regimes tacitly support such reprehensible anti-semitism - given that they know damn well we don't/can't control our media in the way they do?
 
Such generic statements are fine in disaster/tragedy situations and I doubt you'd find many people who would object. However, I would share ClubMan's viewpoint here . .
ClubMan said:
I still don't see how anybody can purport to speak on behalf of most or all Irish people in saying that they abhor the publication of the cartoons when this does not seem to be the case.
Click to expand...
. . what would annoy me further is that Mary was effectively selected as President, rather than elected. The process was a sham and I don't feel that she has any real mandate to speak on behalf of anyone but herself.
 
I've often been offended by views expressed by persons of a different opinion, and so has everyone else. I do not get violent towards them, though I may attempt to make them see just how they are wrong - verbally, and without insults (well, as much as possible). The most sensitive people on this island must be some of the Northern unionists - and they're generally quite happy to deal out insults to those who differ from them. I'm thinking Paisley.
However, Fintan O'Toole made a good point in his Irish Times article on this. He said that, as I remember, the degree of sensitivity reflects self-esteem. That in the 70s and 80s we would all have been incensed by the portrayal of the Irish by the drunken-leprachaun stereotype and now we just laugh at it, as reflectiing the ignorance of others.
BTW, the Muslim demo in Dublin seemed a small and good humoured affair, even if the protesters were nearly outnumbered by their accompanying gardai.
 
From what I've seen in the press, the messages on their placards were a lot more reasonable/constructive/conciliatory than some of the 'Decapitate all blasphemers' stuff that was featured — selectively/deliberately, of course — in some of the UK coverage of the London protests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register