Protest in Dublin

Icepick

If they are going to protest against a piece of film-making, surely there are better targets than that. You know, like the Total Recall remake.

MrZero

MagicMarker wrote: »

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?

Okay, you dont have to respect such a belief, as it is clearly racism! But any religious beliefs are mostly have nothing to do with you, but with the believer, so why would you to interfere with his beliefs ? why would you want to mock his beliefs ?!

Many muslims lack education and there are some extremist -as there are in any other part of the world- who will kill in the name of Islam. You should not be killed if you drew a picture of Mohammed, but in my opinion there should be a legislation that doesnt allow such things.. just the same way there is a law against Holocaust denial in Europe !!

MagicMarker

MrZero wrote: »

Okay, you dont have to respect such a belief, as it is clearly racism! But any religious beliefs are mostly have nothing to do with you, but with the believer, so why would you to interfere with his beliefs ? why would you want to mock his beliefs ?!

It doesn't matter if it's racism, the point that I'm trying to make and that you've finally agreed with, is that a person's beliefs are not deserving of respect. Just because you or anyone else believes something doesn't mean I have to respect it.

Why I might want to mock something is irrelevant, the point is I have the right to do so.

MrZero wrote: »

Many muslims lack education and there are some extremist -as there are in any other part of the world- who will kill in the name of Islam. You should not be killed if you drew a picture of Mohammed, but in my opinion there should be a legislation that doesnt allow such things.. just the same way there is a law against Holocaust denial in Europe !!

I really hope you're not talking about legislation against drawing pictures of Mohammed? Why not legislate against drawing caricatures of people, for fear of offending them? Or legislate against stand up comedians, in case they mock someone?

MrZero

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 ..

So what you're saying is everyone that you happen to agree with or like deserves respect. Everyone you don't agree with or like is "just different" and you can totally not respect them.
Well, beliefs are beliefs, respect one, respect em all.

oceanclub

MrZero wrote: »

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

Just to be clear, do you think

(a) offending the beliefs of Muslims should be illegal, but offending other people's beliefs are fine?

(b) offending _anyone's_ beliefs should be illegal?

P.

irishconvert

I don't agree that freedom of speech extends to using the freedom purely to insult a person or group of people. This is an abuse of the freedom.

irishconvert

When does freecom of speech become harassment? Accoring to this document from University of Galway, these videos and offensive cartoons qualify as harassment

http://www.nuigalway.ie/equality/documents/Harassment_SexualHarassmentPolicyProcedure.pdf

2.1 What is harassment?
Harassment may be defined as behaviour which is unwelcome, intimidating or offensive to
the recipient which is based on gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation,
religious belief, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community and which
the perpetrator knows, or should know, is unwanted. It can take the form of a verbal,
physical or psychological attack, and can be openly aggressive or subtly hidden. Sometimes
harassment may involve repeated and persistent behaviour.
The impact of harassment can be devastating, and it can threaten a person’s job security or
create an intimidating working or studying environment. It can also affect health and
personal life generally.
Harassment can include
• Suggestive remarks, insults, gestures, jokes or unwanted physical contact
• The use of or the circulation of pornographic or other offensive material
(refer to par 2.4)
• It can be sexual, ageist, sectarian or racial in form or in undertone
• It can offend because of a person’s disability
A detailed definition of Harassment is found in Section 32 of the Employment Equality Act,
1998 (Appendix 1 attached) and Section 11 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (Appendix 2
attached).

wes

irishconvert wrote: »

When does freecom of speech become harassment? Accoring to this document from University of Galway, these videos and offensive cartoons qualify as harassment

http://www.nuigalway.ie/equality/documents/Harassment_SexualHarassmentPolicyProcedure.pdf

That document is for Sexual Harassment, and it deals with individuals. So for the video to fall under harrassment, someone who have to send it to someoneS email, VIA post or whatever else. The harassment would have to be targetting someone specfically. So someone going to a Muslim house, and plastering the street outside there house and only outside there house, would probably fall under that definition.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

I don't agree that freedom of speech extends to using the freedom purely to insult a person or group of people. This is an abuse of the freedom.

So slagging off Fianna Failers is an abuse of freedom then?

P.

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

That document is for Sexual Harassment

No, it is for harassment, both sexual and non-sexual.

wes wrote: »

and it deals with individuals. So for the video to fall under harrassment, someone who have to send it to someoneS email, VIA post or whatever else. The harassment would have to be targetting someone specfically. So someone going to a Muslim house, and plastering the street outside there house and only outside there house, would probably fall under that definition.

I know, I was just giving it as an example of how this kind of behaviour is not socially acceptable and is certainly not tolerated in a workplace.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

So slagging off Fianna Failers is an abuse of freedom then?

P.

If you want to test out how much freedom of speech you really have, draw an offensive cartoon of your neighbour's mother, stand in the street with it and see what happens. You will be arrested by the Guards, that is if your neighbour doesn't beat the life out of you first.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

If you want to test out how much freedom of speech you really have, draw an offensive cartoon of your neighbour's mother, stand in the street with it and see what happens. You will be arrested by the Guards, that is if your neighbour doesn't beat the life out of you first.

You're derailing the question. You have said that groups of people should be protected from concepts that offend them. In the above instance, the neighbour's mother actually exists and therefore the cartoon depending on content could be considered libel.

If you feel that religious groups should be protected, I hope you are at least consistant and apply it to anti-Semitic Islamic clerics:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67157280

P.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

You're derailing the question. You have said that groups of people should be protected from concepts that offend them. In the above instance, the neighbour's mother actually exists and therefore the cartoon depending on content could be considered libel.

I didn't specify if his mother is alive or dead. For consistancy, let's assume she is dead. The son would probably be even more upset.

oceanclub wrote: »

If you feel that religious groups should be protected, I hope you are at least consistant and apply it to anti-Semitic Islamic clerics:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67157280

P.

You accuse me of derailing and then you link to this! LOL.

For the record I did not say I believe religious groups should be protected. I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to use the freedom of speech excuse to go out and purposely offend others.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

I didn't specify if his mother is alive or dead. For consistancy, let's assume she is dead. The son would probably be even more upset.

There's no crime of libel/slander against the dead. Therefore, people can write what they like about them. The son's upset or lack of, whether it's one of the Haughey family or someone else, doesn't come into it.

Besides which, _we already have a blasphemy law_. If you or others on the recent marches think someone in this country is responsbile for blasphemy, why hasn't it been reported to the Gardai?

I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to use the freedom of speech excuse to go out and purposely offend others.

Neither do it, but I don't think this should be enforced by law. I mean, I also don't think people should commit adultery but neither should the police enforce that either. It doesn't mean I support adultery.

P.

boiledsweets

they protest about a few lampooning cartoons,but wont protest against the crimes against humanity and sexual abuse and domestic abuse prescribed under sharia law and the book of islam..

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

If you want to test out how much freedom of speech you really have, draw an offensive cartoon of your neighbour's mother, stand in the street with it and see what happens. You will be arrested by the Guards,

not freedom of speech

that is if your neighbour doesn't beat the life out of you first.

Is freedom of speech

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

There's no crime of libel/slander against the dead. Therefore, people can write what they like about them. The son's upset or lack of, whether it's one of the Haughey family or someone else, doesn't come into it.

Besides which, _we already have a blasphemy law_. If you or others on the recent marches think someone in this country is responsbile for blasphemy, why hasn't it been reported to the Gardai?



Neither do it, but I don't think this should be enforced by law. I mean, I also don't think people should commit adultery but neither should the police enforce that either. It doesn't mean I support adultery.

P.

So why are you arguing with me when we are in agreement?

Onesimus

hivizman wrote: »

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.

I don't get it. That youtube video was up there for months and months prior to the demonstrations in the middle east. Its obvious there were no protests while it was up there for months and that it was a scapegoat for the terrorists in the middle east to incite the crowd to hatred around the world.

irishconvert

Onesimus wrote: »

I don't get it. That youtube video was up there for months and months prior to the demonstrations in the middle east. Its obvious there were no protests while it was up there for months and that it was a scapegoat for the terrorists in the middle east to incite the crowd to hatred around the world.

I believe it was purpously hyped up knowing there would be this kind of reaction in order to prepare the people of the west into accepting an attack on Iran, which seems to be imminent.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

I believe it was purpously hyped up knowing there would be this kind of reaction in order to prepare the people of the west into accepting an attack on Iran, which seems to be imminent.

Just to note it wasn't up "months and months"; the Arabic version was only uploaded in early September and almost immediately found and promoted on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

The theory that Al-Nas is attempting to prepare Westerners for war on Iran is an interesting one.

P.

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

Just to note it wasn't up "months and months"; the Arabic version was only uploaded in early September and almost immediately found and promoted on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

The theory that Al-Nas is attempting to prepare Westerners for war on Iran is an interesting one.

P.

Backed by a Saudi Arabian investor. That's enough information for me to make up my mind on it.

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Backed by a Saudi Arabian investor. That's enough information for me to make up my mind on it.

It's hardly odd that anything in the Muslim world is backed by Saudi investors. They have lots of money.

Nevertheless, even if we accept your claim, you're saying a Sunni theocracy is undermining a Shia theocracy with nuclear ambitions, and somehow this is entirely the West's fault.

P.

systemsready

oceanclub wrote: »

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>

Missed opportunity

oceanclub

Some video footage of the protest, via Broadsheet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6ztdyj8kU

"We will struggle to the very last drop of blood", screams an hysterical man at a search engine.

P.

getz

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.

if one is secure in his/her religious belief,why the hell would they get worked up about the opinions of others,