On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:10:44PM +0000, geni wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:46:56PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
It is a source for an assertion that an Iranian cultural official considers the inclusion of the Muhammad cartoon images a desecrating, divisive and Islamophobic move.
i.e., it's a useful word to use against people who say something you don't like, and gets less meaningful with expanded use, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm - a minister raising concern with health issues caused by inbreeding in the British Pakistani community (where first-cousin marriage is common) is told that noticing this issue "verges on Islamophobia." What?
"Minister warns of in-breeding risk for Christians" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/ninbreds210....
I guess Christians wouldn't be amused about that Telegraph headline either.
br
Raphael
Eh? well established historical fact that the family of the head of the church of england has issues with in breeding. Doesn't seem to cause much fuss.
Did you ever read headlines like "Minister warns of 'inbred' Christians"?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
You seem to have a lot of sensationalist journalism in the UK. Do they all lie?