The police have more than 10,000 individuals currently logged as being at serious risk of death or serious injury at the hands of an intimate partner. Most are women. And it's acknowledged that it is a massively under-reported and hidden problem, too.
South Africa has horrendous violence problems across the board, and in one area in anonymous surveys a quarter of men asked admitted to having raped at least one person, with half of them (so an 8th overall) admitting to having raped more than one. That doesn't mean there is not a problem in this country too, and the implication that there isn't simply because it is worse elsewhere is... odd "reasoning".
The idea that laughing at what is alleged to be a violent murder at the hands of an intimate partner is somehow not relevant because furriners aren't like us seems pretty odd, to be honest. And one of the very sad things about this - amongst many - if it was indeed a murder, is that she was a campaigner against violence towards women (particularly sexual violence and domestic violence) herself.
As for the "censorship" issue: I think some people need to grasp the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of response. It's mind-numbing how often people huff and puff about people's right to say what they want, when the objection is actually to the actions of others to express disapproval. The aim is to ensure Paddy Power's disgusting misogyny and ableism don't go unchallenged, and to apply pressure to the company individually and the industry more widely to try to make the point that this is not good for them financially or reputationally. There's also a significant difference between protected speech for political activists, individuals and the media on the one hand, where the public interest defence can be balanced against the need to protect public decency and other groups' rights, and the claims that corporations who make extreme statements to grab attention should be allowed to do so for purely mercenary reasons, even if that creates a more hostile and difficult environment for marginalised people. "Censorship" is a nicely emotive dog-whistle word if one wants to steer a debate in a certain direction, but in actuality, it's a complex and multi-layered subject. Hence the very varied approaches taken to the balancing of competing rights in various jurisdictions - in the USA you can wear Nazi get-up in all seriousness and declaim from Mein Kampf; in parts of Europe, both are crimes. And both approaches can be very cogently defended.
And for all their bluster, that image and ad is no longer visible on their website. Which it was, yesterday. It's not a good time for the industry to attract even more focus on their ethics. This report, obtained by the Guardian, is to be released to Parliament next week.