Madam, - I find it disconcerting that President McAleese should comment on behalf of the Irish people regarding the cartoons of Muhammad. There are two legitimate sides to this issue, and President McAleese made no reference whatsoever to freedom of speech - and this at a conference in Saudi Arabia where women were made to sit behind a barrier while listening to her. Not only am I deeply concerned for the freedom of speech issue, but it looks as if our President is dubiously pandering to one side of this issue on pure economic grounds. She has no right to speak for all Irish people on this issue. - Yours, etc,
KEVIN NOLAN, Glendoher Park, Dublin 14.
Madam, - I see that President McAleese, during her visit to Saudi Arabia, has criticised publication of the Muhammad cartoons. Obviously she holds religious freedom in extremely high regard. So it is surprising that she didn't criticise Saudi Arabia. This is a country which, according to Human Rights Watch, "completely forbids all public non-Muslim religious activities". Non-Muslim clergy are prohibited from visiting the country. The distribution of Bibles is banned. Many Christians have been imprisoned or deported for practising their faith.
The Saudi authorities have even punished private religious expression, raiding homes where private worship was taking place and arresting the participants. In one such case reported by the US State Department, two Filipino Christian residents were sentenced to 30 days in prison, 150 lashes, and deportation in April in 2002 for conducting a Roman Catholic prayer group in their home. - Yours, etc,
DAVID O'NEILL, Frankfield, Douglas, Cork.
Madam, - In the early hours of New Year's day, a female friend of mine received a text that read: "Happy Easter from the Alzheimer's Society of Ireland". You may well have received the same text. I know that many people did and I'm sure the vast majority of its recipients found it amusing.
My friend, however, did not. Her mother is suffering from the debilitating disease and the pain of her first hand experience of Alzheimer's understandably overshadowed her sense of humour.
It turned out that the text had been sent by a mutual friend and, as soon as he realised his mistake, he did the decent human thing and apologised for the hurt caused by the text. My female friend accepted his apology and thankfully the two remain good friends.
It is interesting to note that my male friend did not insist on sending her the text once again or seeking out new Alzheimer's jokes to send her in the name of freedom of expression. Equally, my female friend did not choose to threaten physical violence, nor did she approach her local TD insisting that offensive Alzheimer's texts should be made illegal.
It is clear to me that for no reason other than human decency the newspaper concerned should quickly have apologised to people of Muslim faith for the hurt they caused by printing the Muhammad cartoons. We should learn from this experience and be respectful of Muslim sensitivities in the future without compromising our liberties.
Equally, those offended by the publication should accept expressions of regret and acknowledge that, in society as among friends, an apology is the appropriate remedy for emotional hurt - not legislation restricting freedom of speech and certainly not violence. - Yours, etc,
DAVE EGAN, Ceannt Fort, Mountbrown, Dublin 8.