Protest in Dublin

oceanclub

http://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/10i13r/dublin_a_few_minutes_ago_about_200_people_very/

I for one am disappointed there doesn't appear to be a single "Down With That Sort of Thing" poster.

P>

Mark Hamill

What are they protesting for/against?

Bloodwing

They were protesting against the cartoons and the film on YouTube. Except for a few bad apples they conducted themselves in a more respectful manner than a lot of the more "native" protesters.

Frank Grimes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are they protesting for/against?

The youtube video/cartoons - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0926/breaking48.html

edit: The above hadn't been posted when I went to reply.

Cavehill Red

They're protesting against other parts of the world living in a century later than the seventh.

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are they protesting for/against?

The protest was against the recent video Innocence of Muslims and the reproduction by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo of the controversial cartoons of Muhammad originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.

There's a report of the march on the Irish Times website.

Edit: Thanks to everyone who beat me to it! The link above is the same as the one that Frank Grimes has given.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They're protesting against other parts of the world living in a century later than the seventh.

I'd imagine he was looking for the actual reason for the protest rather than a poor attempt at denigrating all Muslims.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I'd imagine he was looking for the actual reason for the protest rather than a poor attempt at denigrating all Muslims.

Ah, straw man already?
Those who protest against the publication of cartoons oppose freedom of speech, an inherent component of Western civilization and modernity. It is perfectly reasonable to point this out.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Ah, straw man already?
Those who protest against the publication of cartoons oppose freedom of speech, an inherent component of Western civilization and modernity. It is perfectly reasonable to point this out.

Not a straw man, just an observation. And they're as entitled to protest as much as you are entitled to disagree with them; both inherent components of Western civilisation and modernity.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Not a straw man, just an observation. And they're as entitled to protest as much as you are entitled to disagree with them; both inherent components of Western civilisation and modernity.

I didn't suggest they weren't entitled to protest. What I did do is point out that they were protesting the very modernity and Western civilization which facilitates their freedom of speech and right to protest, rights that do not pertain in many Muslim countries.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I didn't suggest they weren't entitled to protest. What I did do is point out that they were protesting the very modernity and Western civilization which facilitates their freedom of speech and right to protest, rights that do not pertain in many Muslim countries.

Or, they are protesting against an obviously bigoted video which was solely intended to ridicule their religious beliefs - hardly equates to living in the seventh century. And no, you didn't suggest they weren't entitled to protest, you just criticise them for doing so which goes against the very values which you are appealing to as a reason why they should not be protesting.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Or, they are protesting against an obviously bigoted video which was solely intended to ridicule their religious beliefs - hardly equates to living in the seventh century.

Actually it does, because it indicates that their desires are incompatible with contemporary pluralist society, which adheres to the Voltairean ideal of being in disagreement but nevertheless supporting the right of others to express their beliefs.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

And no, you didn't suggest they weren't entitled to protest

Nice of you to concede that. It was only your second straw man in as many posts.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

you just criticise them for doing so which goes against the very values which you are appealing to as a reason why they should not be protesting.

I didn't criticise them for doing anything. If they want a nice walk in the rain without the womenfolk along, that's their business. What I did was highlight the hypocrisy of their availing of Western liberal standards of modernity and plurality of opinion to seek censorship of others.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I didn't criticise them for doing anything

You did criticise them and you are still criticising them - you're basically saying no-one can legitimately protest against what others say, and anyone who does is against Western liberal values and modernity - before you tediously accuse me of straw manning, this is what you are saying.

If they want a nice walk in the rain without the womenfolk along, that's their business. What I did was highlight the hypocrisy of their availing of Western liberal standards of modernity and plurality of opinion to seek censorship of others.

These condescending remarks don't add weight to your argument - if you even bothered to read the report I linked to, which you obviously did not, there were women at the protest.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

You did criticise them and you are still criticising them - you're basically saying no-one can legitimately protest against what others say, and anyone who does is against Western liberal values and modernity - before you tediously accuse me of straw manning, this is what you are saying.

I'll keep pointing it out while you keep doing it. That's yet another straw man example, incidentally. It would help if you argued my points and not those in your head which you would rather argue with.
I have defended the right to protest repeatedly. What I also did was point out the sheer hypocrisy in utilising the very Western standards of freedom of expression to demand the censorship of others.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

These condescending remarks don't add weight to your argument - if you even bothered to read the report I linked to, which you obviously did not, there were women at the protest.

The report where one quoted woman said it was a pity there weren't any others there, the report where a bloke said the women were left at home because it was raining and someone had to mind the kids? That report? Yes, I read it.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'll keep pointing it out while you keep doing it. That's yet another straw man example, incidentally. It would help if you argued my points and not those in your head which you would rather argue with.

I am arguing your points, I do not agree with your position - that does not make it a straw man.

I have defended the right to protest repeatedly. What I also did was point out the sheer hypocrisy in utilising the very Western standards of freedom of expression to demand the censorship of others.

I do not agree with you, that does not make it a straw man.

The report where one quoted woman said it was a pity there weren't any others there, the report where a bloke said the women were left at home because it was raining and someone had to mind the kids? That report? Yes, I read it.

No, the actual report which actually said:

Irish Times wrote:

The marchers were overwhelmingly male, with only a tiny number of women among them...One of the few women present, Gulgona Rashid, who was there with her husband, Tahir, said she was very proud to be on the march but admitted it “would be nice to see a few more women coming along.”

I'm sure that's another example of me creating a straw man though.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I am arguing your points, I do not agree with your position - that does not make it a straw man.

No, it's your repeated attempts to attribute arguments to me which I didn't make that are the straw men. Feel free to argue with yourself as you wish. But I'm still waiting for you to engage with a single one of my arguments.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I do not agree with you, that does not make it a straw man.

See above.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I'm sure that's another example of me creating a straw man though.

No, that would be the report concurring with what I wrote.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But I'm still waiting for you to engage with a single one of my arguments.

I have - I do not agree with your position because I think people have a right to protest against what others say without being fundamentally opposed to Western liberal values because that right is itself part of Western values. You keep ignoring this and accusing me of creating straw men.

No, that would be the report concurring with what I wrote.

You said:

The report where one quoted woman said it was a pity there weren't any others there

How does that in any way "concur" with the fact that she was not the only woman there?

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I have - I do not agree with your position because I think people have a right to protest against what others say without being fundamentally opposed to Western liberal values because that right is itself part of Western values. You keep ignoring this and accusing me of creating straw men.

For the simple reason that on no less than three occasions you preferred to invent arguments which you attributed to me and then disagreed with rather than engage with what I'd actually written.
Let me take this slowly for you: I have no problem with people protesting. That is a fundamental freedom of speech. I find it hypocritical when people make use of this freedom of speech to demand the censorship of others.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

How does that in any way "concur" with the fact that she was not the only woman there?

You're rather making a fool of yourself now. She said it was a pity there weren't more women there. A quoted man in the same article said the womenfolk were left at home out of the rain to mind the kids. Just like I stated.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Let me take this slowly for you: I have no problem with people protesting. That is a fundamental freedom of speech. I find it hypocritical when people make use of this freedom of speech to demand the censorship of others.

Be as condescending as you want, I don't agree with you - that does not automatically make my replies straw men or imply some intellectual deficit on my part.

You're rather making a fool of yourself now. She said it was a pity there weren't more women there. A quoted man in the same article said the womenfolk were left at home out of the rain to mind the kids. Just like I stated.

Again, be as condescending as you want, I couldn't care less, but your original point was that (my emphasis added):

Cavehill Red wrote:

The report where one quoted woman said it was a pity there weren't any others there

i.e. you insinuated in your post that this one particular woman was lamenting the fact that no other women were present at the protest, when in fact the newspaper report, which you obviously did not read before making these comments, clearly contradicts this. I won't resort to your childish language but seriously, stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole by trying to deflect your own mistakes by insinuating things about what I have said.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Be as condescending as you want, I don't agree with you - that does not automatically make my replies straw men or imply some intellectual deficit on my part.

You don't have to agree with me. But what you ought to do is cease misrepresenting me and instead engage with what I actually say rather than what you would like to imagine I'd said.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Again, be as condescending as you want, I couldn't care less, but your original point was that (my emphasis added):
i.e. you insinuated in your post that this one particular woman was lamenting the fact that no other women were present at the protest, when in fact the newspaper report, which you obviously did not read before making these comments, clearly contradicts this. I won't resort to your childish language but seriously, stop trying to dig yourself out of a hole by trying to deflect your own mistakes by insinuating things about what I have said.

I did read the report - it is demonstrable from the fact that the sole woman quoted lamented the lack of women and the man quoted stated that women stayed home to remain dry and mind the kids. Try and misrepresent their words if you care to.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You don't have to agree with me. But what you ought to do is cease misrepresenting me and instead engage with what I actually say rather than what you would like to imagine I'd said.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this - I did engage with what you are saying, and I don't agree with you.

I did read the report - it is demonstrable from the fact that the sole woman quoted lamented the lack of women and the man quoted stated that women stayed home to remain dry and mind the kids. Try and misrepresent their words if you care to.

No, you implied that there were no other women at the protest other than the woman you quoted. I am not denying the parts about the children nor am I trying to misrepresent anything that they were saying - this is your approach so please do not ascribe this to me. I am, yet again, pointing out that you said:

Cavehill Red wrote:

The report where one quoted woman said it was a pity there weren't any others there

There were other women at the protest, which you are now saying, but only a few posts previously you said there were not. It is not my fault that you are contradicting yourself.

Cavehill Red

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I really don't know how many times I have to say this - I did engage with what you are saying, and I don't agree with you.

No, what you did was repeatedly invent things to argue with which you attributed to me, even though I'd written entirely different things, which you, to date, have failed to engage with. Specifically, I mean the fact that these protesters hypocritically used the freedom of speech and protest inherent in Western culture to demand the censorship of others.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

No, you implied that there were no other women at the protest other than the woman you quoted. I am not denying the parts about the children nor am I trying to misrepresent anything that they were saying - this is your approach so please do not ascribe this to me. I am, yet again, pointing out that you said:

There were other women at the protest, which you are now saying, but only a few posts previously you said there were not. It is not my fault that you are contradicting yourself.

I think it's probably a better use of my time to cut out the middle man here and let you argue directly with yourself. It's obvious from the report, and from the quoted statements of those who attended the protest, that almost no women were present. Incidentally, this is largely unimportant, but clearly functions as a useful McGuffin for you to detract from the more important point, which you have systematically avoided addressing, that the protest itself is an entirely hypocritical event.

Frank Grimes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, what you did was repeatedly invent things to argue with which you attributed to me, even though I'd written entirely different things, which you, to date, have failed to engage with.

I have not done this. I made a point that they are entitled to protest, I never said that you claimed they do not have that right - you came up with this and accused me of using a straw man. I also took issue with your 'seventh century' snide remark; again not a straw man or whatever.

Specifically, I mean the fact that these protesters hypocritically used the freedom of speech and protest inherent in Western culture to demand the censorship of others.

I have repeatedly addressed this; I do not see their actions as being hypocritical - I think they have every right to protest against the sort of bigotry that video stands for without their actions being fundamentally at odds with Western values. If they were calling for an end to free speech altogether I would not support their actions, but I do not believe that this is what they are doing. NB: I am not accusing you of saying they cannot protest before you start that again.

I think it's probably a better use of my time to cut out the middle man here and let you argue directly with yourself. It's obvious from the report, and from the quoted statements of those who attended the protest, that almost no women were present. Incidentally, this is largely unimportant, but clearly functions as a useful McGuffin for you to detract from the more important point, which you have systematically avoided addressing, that the protest itself is an entirely hypocritical event.

I'm not trying to detract from anything, it was you yourself who said there were no women at the protest contrary to what was reported by the Irish Times. Continuously trying to either insult me (or whatever it is you're trying to do by using condescending language with me) or accusing me of setting up straw men because I point out an error in what you said really doesn't add weight to your argument. Again, this is what you said:

If they want a nice walk in the rain without the womenfolk along, that's their business.

oceanclub

I'm curious to know what the aim of such a protest is. The film was not made in Ireland and has nothing to do with anyone here. Indeed, we are one of the few countries which actually has a blasphemy law, required by the Constitution. So, erm, what was the point, precisely?

P.

Bloodwing

oceanclub wrote: »

I'm curious to know what the aim of such a protest is. The film was not made in Ireland and has nothing to do with anyone here. Indeed, we are one of the few countries which actually has a blasphemy law, required by the Constitution. So, erm, what was the point, precisely?

P.

The protest passed the US embassy and ended at the French embassy. These are the countries that the Muslim group have the biggest issues with.

oceanclub

Actually, this is a good article linking the current protests with the Rushdie affair:

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/the-myths-of-muslim-rage/

As the author says, this protest may have more to do with groups jockeying for position rather than any real outrage.

P.

oceanclub

Supposedly there's now another protest outside the Google office in Barrow St happening.

P.

Bloodwing

oceanclub wrote: »

Supposedly there's now another protest outside the Google office in Barrow St happening.

P.

Any idea when?

MagicMarker

Already been and gone, didn't last long.

babaracus

Neilos wrote: »

Any idea when?

Passed down the Quays by the IFSC today at about 3.15. About 100 in it and a few megaphones. Cops marshalling it.

A lot of anti Youtube posters so makes sense that they were google bound.

babaracus

This guy doesn't do irony:



I hope the Government doesn't take his advice and ban further protests by him . Not sure if this was Ireland, don't think so.

oceanclub

babaracus wrote: »

Passed down the Quays by the IFSC today at about 3.15. About 100 in it and a few megaphones. Cops marshalling it.

A lot of anti Youtube posters so makes sense that they were google bound.

I trust they'll all be boycotting Youtube then.

Yeah right, they're probably already chuckling over "Gangnam Style" again.

P.

babaracus

oceanclub wrote: »

I trust they'll all be boycotting Youtube then.

Yeah right, they're probably already chuckling over "Gangnam Style" again.

P.

There is plenty of horrible anti-Jewish stuff on youtube. Maybe they are concerned about that too.

MaxSteele

Christ, do these people ever have anything constructive to protest about other than silly, cartoons and spoof videos ? Like in Ireland of all places ?:rolleyes:

oceanclub

It would really highlight how stupid the blasphemy law is if a complaint was made to the Gardai about Google...

P.

Lance Mai Boil

MaxSteele wrote: »

Christ, do these people ever have anything constructive to protest about other than silly, cartoons and spoof videos ? Like in Ireland of all places ?:rolleyes:

When they aren't queuing at the dole office, no obviously.

MrZero

MaxSteele wrote: »

Christ, do these people ever have anything constructive to protest about other than silly, cartoons and spoof videos ? Like in Ireland of all places ?:rolleyes:

people have the right to protest.. right ? remember "Freedom of Speech"
it might be silly to you, but to them it is not..abuse to any faith is not

MagicMarker

MrZero wrote: »

people have the right to protest.. right ? remember "Freedom of Speech"
it might be silly to you, but to them it is not..abuse to any faith is not

Yep, "freedom of speech", too bad the protestors are protesting against "freedom of speech". Kind of ironic really.

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yep, "freedom of speech", too bad the protestors are protesting against "freedom of speech". Kind of ironic really.

is "freedom of speech" limitless ?!

MagicMarker

There are limits, but they haven't been reached in this particular instance. Just like they wouldn't be reached should I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed riding a unicorn over a rainbow or if I decide to call Mohammed a pedofile.

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are limits, but they haven't been reached in this particular instance. Just like they wouldn't be reached should I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed riding a unicorn over a rainbow or if I decide to call Mohammed a pedofile.

okay, so there are limits to freedom of speech! But, however, they have not been reached in your opinion...

so offending others beliefs (1.5 billion muslims) is considered to be freedom of speech ?!!

MagicMarker

Doesn't matter if it's 1 person or 1.5 billion people, your beliefs are open to criticism and even ridicule. If you're offended by that then you need to deal with it.

A person shouldn't be afraid of his/her life to say what he/she thinks.

MaxSteele

MrZero wrote: »

okay, so there are limits to freedom of speech! But, however, they have not been reached in your opinion...

so offending others beliefs (1.5 billion muslims) is considered to be freedom of speech ?!!

Offense is subjective. If you're offended, fine, be offended. Theres nothing morally or legally wrong in causing offense. But don't cry about it because no one else takes your protest seriously. It's a strawman argument used to for people to stamp they're feet. These worldwide protests just further make a mockery and a comedy show of islam.

Most half wit, mature adults will just brush this off for what it is. Satire and a badly made, obvious piss take film of islam. Yes it's freedom of speech. A large shower of idiots protest against the idea of Freedom of Speech without realizing it and expect to be taken seriously ?

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it's 1 person or 1.5 billion people, your beliefs are open to criticism and even ridicule. If you're offended by that then you need to deal with it.

A person shouldn't be afraid of his/her life to say what he/she thinks.

I totally agree with you that they are open to criticism, but,however,not abuse ... you cannot just offend others faith and expect them to accept it ...

People have the right to be respected and their faith to be respected too! Spreading hateful speech will do nothing good ...

MagicMarker

MrZero wrote: »

I totally agree with you that they are open to criticism, but,however,not abuse ... you cannot just offend others faith and expect them to accept it ...

People have the right to be respected and their faith to be respected too! Spreading hateful speech will do nothing good ...

No, people and their faith do not have the right to be respected.

Do you think the KKK and their beliefs have the right to be respected?

MrZero

MaxSteele wrote: »

Offense is subjective. If you're offended, fine, be offended. Theres nothing morally or legally wrong in causing offense. But don't cry about it because no one else takes your protest seriously. It's a strawman argument used to for people to stamp they're feet. These worldwide protests just further make a mockery and a comedy show of islam.

Most half wit, mature adults will just brush this off for what it is. Satire and a badly made, obvious piss take film of islam. Yes it's freedom of speech. A large shower of idiots protest against the idea of Freedom of Speech without realizing it and expect to be taken seriously ?

I do not think it matters if you take it seriously, or not. They are just practicing their rights to protest against something they think is hateful to their faith! And I think we all agree that it is their right to do whatever they want! Protest against whatever they disagree with..

what you think is "Freedom of speech" others might disagree with you and consider it to be a "hateful speech" .. You can't have a limitless freedom of speech .. it never existed before, it doesn't exist, and will never exist.

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, people and their faith do not have the right to be respected.

Do you think the KKK and their beliefs have the right to be respected?

Respecting someones beliefs, does not mean accepting them .. And I think there is a huge difference between KKK beliefs and Muslims beliefs. And mocking muslims is not very civilized thing to do

biko

I think they should have a right to protest peacefully which most demonstration have been.
They even have the right (in the Western world) to step on and burn our flags - just like we have the right to step on and burn their flags.
But when it get violent there is no excuse.

In Stockholm during the movie protest this guy (black jacket/red armband) attacks a Swede, then later he goes up on the podium to hold a speech in Arabic. The Swede gets told off by a police man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J0B34JjLpM

Violence is the last stand of desperation (and then I think it can be justified in certain cases) - but Muslims in the Western world aren't desperate, they are merely "offended" and tbh I don't give a toss about that.

MagicMarker

MrZero wrote: »

Respecting someones beliefs, does not mean accepting them .. And I think there is a huge difference between KKK beliefs and Muslims beliefs. And mocking muslims is not very civilized thing to do

So we should always be respectful of the KKKs beliefs? Why? If someone says to me "I think non white people are sub human", am I not allowed to say that that is ridiculous? Why does that belief deserve respect from me?

Why am I not allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed?

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

So we should always be respectful of the KKKs beliefs? Why? If someone says to me "I think non white people are sub human", am I not allowed to say that that is ridiculous? Why does that belief deserve respect from me?

Why am I not allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed?

As I said before, there is a huge difference between KKA beliefs and Muslims beliefs .. You cannot compare between them ! Everyone deserves respect unless they have shown otherwise ..

why would you want to draw a picture of Mohammed ?! what is the REAL reason that would make anyone want to mock others belief ?!

MagicMarker

MrZero wrote: »

As I said before, there is a huge difference between KKA beliefs and Muslims beliefs .. You cannot compare between them ! Everyone deserves respect unless they have shown otherwise ..

why would you want to draw a picture of Mohammed ?! what is the REAL reason that would make anyone want to mock others belief ?!

You're ignoring my question. You said people's beliefs have a right to be respected, I'm asking you why I should have to respect the belief that non-whites are sub human? Why should I respect that belief?

I don't want to draw a picture of Mohammed, but I like having the option, so why can't I? Do I not have the right to draw it without my life being in danger as a result?