Sir, Just before Christmas I renewed my subscription to a well known British satirical magazine. One of the reasons I did so was the high quality of some of its cartoons.
They regularly ridicule various things including religion, relationships and marriage. Arguably, some of them might cause offence, but I doubt it. They are done so artfully and the humour is soft rather than vindictive.
Still, in the aftermath of the atrocity involving employees of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, I can’t help wondering how we’d react if the same thing happened here.
I take Kieran Andrews’ point (Courier, January 10). There can be no excuse for violence, intimidation or murder because we take offence at something that has been drawn or written.
We should all remember, though, that freedom of expression can never be absolute. Anyone who works in an organisation knows there has to be some restraint on what people say.
Even in this digital age there are still barriers to what newspapers and the electronic media can print or broadcast.
The fashion for political correctness means that most of us think twice about what we say aboutothers.
Je suis Charlie, but we still need to think long and hard about where restrictions on free expression should start and end.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
‘Islam is not a pacifist religion’
Sir, What ignorance of religion (Courier, January 9) your leader illustrates in the words “no organised religion would sanction such bloodshed in its name”, particularly when even in surreptitiously defending Islam it shows fear in not naming it or perhaps public order and the newspaper’s circulation is more important than the truth?
Try reading the New Testament and the Koran. The NT essentially promotes a god of love while the Koran tells us in no uncertain terms to fear god more than we fear anyone or anything else.
As an atheist I could live with Christianity, the Koran would not allow me to live with Islam.
The leader is probably correct in referring to “organised religion” in that Islam is not an organised hierarchical religion. It has no Pope, or bishops, there is no central authority that rests in the Koran and other words of the prophet, the reading of which illustrates the profound
irony of the imam who commented that it should be understood that “Islam is not a pacifist religion”.
History shows that Islam does not so much convert the infidels as conquer them. Indeed, to fight and conquer, or die, in god’s name gains the highest accolade in Islam, as the Prophet Mohammed makes clear in his talks with his companions.
The proper response from the media would be for all of them to publish the cartoons and demand action against those who would support the Koran as an excuse for murder.
Andrew Lawson. 9 MacLaren Gardens, Dundee.
Why no debate place for SNP?
Sir, The controversy rumbles on about who should take part in the upcoming general election TV debates.
Unsurprisingly, the SNP and others are being sidelined.
It appears you must be a “major party” to take part.
With the third largest political membership in these islands, the sixth largest political membership in the House of Commons and currently out polling coalition member the Liberal-Democrats UK wide, under what definition is the SNP not “major”?
I am not surprised, of course, that Scottish unionism has been silent on this snub to the SNP but as they proclaim Scots are “better together” in the UK why are Scottish voices being excluded at a UK level?
An SNP voter makes the same contribution to the UK electoral process as anyone else so let their voices be heard and let the electorate make up their own minds accordingly.
Henry Malcolm. 331 Clepington Road, Dundee.
An obsession with Rangers
Sir, HM Revenue & Custom’s driven obsession with Rangers FC raises a num-ber of questions: If the EBTs (employee benefit trusts) in question were in use by more than 500 firms throughout the UK, including football clubs in England, why was Rangers FC, an organisation with well-known financial problems, singled out?
If this was a “test case”, surely the target should have been patently solvent not teetering on the brink of administration.
Are HMRC intending to pursue the other hundreds of firms seen as “offenders” and if not, why not? In what other cases, where clearly there is no chance of financial gain for the Treasury, have cases, once decided, been appealed?
Surely HMRC should be concentrating on closing well-known loopholes, which enable rich people, with clever accountants, to avoid paying their fair share of tax or, in some notorious cases, paying no tax at all?
It also stretches all credibility, that it would require anything more than simple arithmetic to establish the cost to the taxpayer of the fruitless pursuit of RFC.
In a private company, a monumental shambles like this would lead to resignations, and the public should not be subject to such utter contempt from a huge government department.
Joseph G Miller. 44 Gardeners Street, Dunfermline.
No wholesale changes
Sir, The feature in Saturday’s Courier (January 10) seriously misrepresents the 20mph issue in suggesting it is about comprehensively replacing the 30mph limit.
It will do no such thing. There will be the strategic application in residential areas of a proven way of reducing the speed of traffic.
It is not a magic answer to the real fears that many people, old and young, have of not feeling safe on public streets where the space should be safe and not intimidating, but there is sufficient evidence to show that it has a positive effect.
We are not talking about main arteries (though some of these have seen speed reductions from 40mph to 30mph recently), but those networks of streets where pedestrian movement and safety need to have priority over motor traffic.
George Gammack. 13a Hill Street, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Getting most for each pound
Sir, The Cancer Drugs Fund, set up by the government to pay for expensive cancer treatments, is to announce which of the 40 most costly drugs will be removed from its approved list. Predictably, the pharmaceutical companies are outraged.
The cancer campaigners’ victory in the propaganda war has led to over-treatment, needless tests often using costly technology, as well as the ballooning of cancer drug prices.
Aggressive treatment near the end of life is absurd but women have breasts taken off and men suffer huge collateral damage in “heroic” surgery for breast and prostate cancer. The fact is, nations spending most on cancer do not have the best outcomes and as this is especially true of the UK the time has come to ensure every pound is used to the best effect.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.
Plenty cheap bags available
Sir, What gives Mr Thornton of Broughty Ferry (Courier, January 13) the right to expect council tax payers to pay for him to clear up his dog’s mess?
If he goes to a well-known supermarket that sells the “basics” range he can purchase 100 nappy bags for 27 pence.
Alan Provan. 19 Park Place, Elie.