Madam, - I am amused by the self-righteousness of the European press and political leadership in regard to the stultifyingly unfunny Danish cartoons. It is intriguing to hear them speak of this "freedom of speech", which allows them to abdicate their responsibility to deal with this matter.
Is this the same freedom of speech which would vilify anyone who dared question, for example, the Special Olympics, let alone mock it? Similarly, woe betide any person who might produce a negative caricature of black or Asian culture.
Why? Because, these are European sentiments which are guaranteed instant protection from the very people who now shrug their shoulders and admonish the Islamic community for their lack of understanding of our great institution of freedom of speech. It is hypocrisy of the highest order, justified only by political circumstances which are unfavourable to Muslims and thus implicitly support ridiculing them.
There are only two lines by which to understand freedom of speech: absolutism, where nothing is sacred; or protectionism, where critique is effectively curtailed. For myself, I advocate the former; the latter is fascist and anything else is blatant hypocrisy. - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL KEARY, Monaleen Heights, Castletroy, Limerick.
Madam, - The "cartoon controversy" has been dubbed the fight of the century - freedom of speech versus Islam. While the reaction emanating from some quarters - comprising a handful of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims - has been unnecessarily violent, the purpose has little to do with freedom of expression, just as the publication could not be considered such.
The cartoons are racist. They suggest all Muslims as terrorists. In 2003 the same Danish newspaper rejected freedom of expression and turned down cartoons lampooning Jesus on the grounds that they were offensive. What followed recently was not a show of solidarity by fellow newspapers, it was a provocation. If one truly wanted to test the media's solidarity with each other's right to freedom of expression, then the same newspapers will presumably print the winning entry from the Holocaust competition run by Hamshahri, Iran's leading daily - something, no doubt, we can all find offensive.
In understanding, to an extent, why the violent outbursts have occurred it is first necessary to put the cartoons publication in context. Since 9/11, war has been waged against a vague entity known as "terror", the targets being predominantly Muslim. Now it is deemed by the self-styled shapers of opinion, the media, to be acceptable to label all Muslims terrorists, in the interests of free speech, while the predominant views of ordinary Muslims are marginalised by extremist groups gaining support as a result of a "misunderstanding" of Western intervention.
Without a significant change in attitude towards Islam we are destined forever to explain violent incidents committed by Muslims as proof of barbarity - the West's use of torture, carpet-bombing and targeted assassinations as accidents, incidents and necessities. - Yours, etc,
DAVID MANNING, Sandymount, Dublin 4.
Madam, - Rioting over cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad raises the problem of what the proper response to blasphemy should be in a multicultural society. In Ireland, it seems, more or less anything goes.
When the Gaiety Theatre staged a performance by the Reduced Shakespeare Company which blasphemed the person of Christ, Christians distributed leaflets to theatregoers and reminded the Attorney General of his obligations under Irish law.
The outcome was instructive. The theatre company was warmly received on the Late Late Show where Christian objections to the material were subjected to some ridicule. The Attorney Genera"s office dispatched a garda to view the performance and got a report to the effect that the material was blasphemous, but the week's run had ended by then and the play moved on.
The absence of any enforceable standards creates open season for those wishing to use blasphemy to promote their agenda. Protest by those offended simply increases the publicity. The recent Paddy Power advert showing Christ and the disciples gambling in a pastiche of Leonardo's The Last Supper is a case in point. The letters of protest which you published simply gave the bookmakers more publicity.
The editors who decided to reproduce the cartoons of Muhammad knew the effect they would have. They sheltered under the umbrella of "freedom of speech". But there is another principle which needs to be taken into account - that of respect for another's religion. As faith evaporates in the post-Christian West, it is replaced by a tolerance which accepts just about anything - unless it reduces one's disposable income. The result is that we are becoming immune to the strong religious feelings of others, whether they be Christian, Muslim or of another faith.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion must both be valued, but when the two collide, the over-riding factor must be one of respect for all people. - Yours, etc,
GEORGE MORRISON, Kill, Co Kildare; JON BLACKWELL, Fairfield Park, Dublin 6.
Madam, - Some Muslims have in desperation resorted to suicide bombings. This, it seems, renders it appropriate to caricature the Prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber. Some Christian clerics, mainly but not exclusively, from the Roman Catholic Church have sexually abused children. Would we tolerate the publication of images depicting Jesus Christ engaged in such acts? - Yours, etc,
ALAN McPARTLAND, Grange Court, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.