Debate Over Muslim Caricature

I'm not going to add my two cents here, as I have already done so here. Dav is covering this debate quite well and I would urge you to check out his views on the matter, and the views of our resident politics/media sage, Caddicus. What I will do is give a brief run-down of the the conflicting ideas propounded by the panel on Questions and Answers on Monday night.

Damien Kiberd: "We should not compromise hard-won freedoms. The cartoons are unedifying but that's the flip-side of free speech".

Finola Meredith: Too gratuitous (not here, the cartoons)

David Norris: Human life is more sacred than any image, however regrettable the images might be, and, as such, the radical Islamic response is outrageous.

And finally, Mary Hanafin actually said this, I'm not making it up, I heard it with my own tired ears...

"Anything that causes offence should not be published"

Welcome to the Thirties!

My own personal view is that Muslims have every right to be offended by the images, but those who have embraced violence as a result of the offence caused have no right to be so fucking militant about it. But they were, and they are, so it's a a problem that cannot be avoided.

And I completely agree with the argument that media nourishment of the issue was a cynical attempt to hijack the issue to increase circulation. Typical. And wrong