Let's have a heated debate. Or not.

I was interested in what blog world would have to say about the debate over animal experimentation with the goings on in Oxford this weekend, but I've not found many posts that really engaged me.

The exceptions were Stumbling and Mumbling's Against Pro-Test, and Sunny from Pickled Politics post, Drugs Testing on Humans. Sunny talks of karma and Chris Dillow covers many of the arguments used in favour of experimentation. I did find one blog that covered the protests with good photos and unbiased and seemingly honest comment, but I can't find it now. Pity, because it was a good depiction of democracy in action. And I made the assertion on The Popinjays that whilst the people of Pro-Test might have just cause to march, they should feel bad about themselves whilst they do it - and I provided some examples of why. This has made me many new friends as you can imagine.

I would also say though that the ordinary animal welfare organisations that have long campaigned against animal experimentation are partly to blame for this new front on which they now need to fight. They have never condemned the animal rights extremists as loudly and as passionately as they should have done, mostly I should imagine because until now the extremist tactics have worked. But though the violent element have won many battles, they were never going to win the war. That could only ever be achieved by a long drawn out democratic debate, which could feasibly have shut down all gratuitous experimentation, and brought in even tighter more ethical rules and regulations that are more closely policed, if not ending experimentation completely.

But by allowing the thugs their way for so long much public support has been handed on a golden plate to Pro-Test, which was an organisation just waiting to happen. But actually this may not be such a bad thing all round. If Pro-Test can evolve to include in its ethos an acknowledgement of the more unacceptable practices that blight the vivisection industry, and address the issue of deeply held feelings about animal cruelty, they may just be the way forward. They could be the force that cleans up the animal experiment business in a way which benefits both human and animal.

If only I didn't have nagging doubts about the motives of the students marching with Pro-Test. I'd like to think they are marching purely fired by a deep desire to help mankind, but I can't yet convince myself of that. Big research centre in Oxford would mean big career, big money. Hmmm. We shall see.

I'm being pragmatic. I find life is easier and that you achieve more if you make an effort to do that. In truth, I find the idea of using animals in experimentation, despite the benefits to mankind, repugnant. Ten or more years ago I was very active when it came to animal welfare, and campaigned (legally, peacefully) on vivisection. I just don't believe it's right. But I'm older now. The pragmatist in me says that the way forward is not to demand an end to animal experimentation, but to demand an end to all that is unnecessary about it. And just what is and isn't necessary? That, my friends, is where the true and useful debate lies.

Harry's Place turns apologist

Okay. So we have a group of people who in their spare time like to torture animals. Actually, no, they don't just like to do it, they thoroughly enjoy it.

The majority of the country doesn't much understand how these people could enjoy causing cruelty to animals. There's a general feeling that in a civilised society it should not be legal to cause pain to living creatures in the name of entertainment. Some pretty powerful campaigns are set up to try and ban this particular brand of animal persecution, attempting to put it on a level with other outlawed acts of cruelty against animals.

The people who like torturing animals however are predictably incensed that anyone should dare try and tell them what to do. They get up some pretty powerful counter campaigns themselves arguing that stopping them from torturing animals will bring calamity upon the world. Thousands of jobs will be lost, businesses bankrupted, families destroyed, ancient traditions lost forever.

After much political time and energy, a law comes to pass. The spirit of this law says that it is not permissible to chase after animals with the intent to rip them apart just so that you can show off in your red coat and prance around on your horses. Stop doing it.

And that should have been the end of the story. The hunts should have gone out of business - as they assured us they would - and the hunters forced to take up swimming or squash as a leisure activity as opposed to digging suckling fox cubs out of their dens and throwing them to packs of dogs with razor sharp teeth. But no. It seems that when a person has got a taste for chasing a creature to the point of exhaustion forcing it to succumb to an agonising death, when they have found enjoyment like no other in watching a live animal being torn apart, when they have got a liking for hearing animals scream, then nothing else will do. And so having lied through their teeth about the affect a hunting ban will have on the countryside, they find loopholes in the law and they carry on just the same as before. Ignoring the spirit of the law, they find ways to carry on with their sadistic pastime, and they do so with a gleeful determination that is sickening to see.

One might be forgiven for thinking then that the ones who are deserving of our condemnation here are the animal torturers. The ones who are now arrogantly mocking the law having wasted so much parliamentary time due to their thoroughly selfish and distasteful desire for blood. The law might be far from perfect, you might think, but it is a just law and worth persevering with. Some things are beyond the bounds of that which should be permitted in a society which calls itself enlightened, and just because it raises difficult and complex questions and issues, it does not mean that we should not try and tackle it.

Or, alternatively, you could take this view like Marus from Harry's Place (parliamentary time bandits outfoxed):

"Not only did the failed attempt to ban hunting with hounds make those who wasted nearly seven hundred hours of precious parliamentary time look spiteful and illiberal, but foolish too"

So the ones who tried to make the world a better and more just place are spiteful, illiberal, and foolish. And the ones who are the cause of all this trouble? The ones who deem it their right to cause pain and suffering? Not a word of condemnation. Not a word against. Here we blame the law and those who wanted the law - not the ones breaking the law. Perhaps the people at Harry's Place would like to start talking about the root causes of fox hunting and how the foxes had it coming?

Tony Banks, I'm missing you right now.

Getting back into the swing of things

My thoughts are still a bit mashed. I have nothing to say and too much to say at the same time. And I seem to have completely lost the ability to blog. So... deep breath... I'll take a long run at it and in no particular order...

On the David Irving v freedom of speech debate, I would like to repeat this:

But I would argue that freedom of speech is being denied to Holocaust deniers on very sound reasoning. There is a wealth of evidence, pieced together after the war, that documents the Holocaust in great detail. In contrast, when Holocaust deniers have been brought to court, their arguments have been found to be based upon faked and misrepresented evidence. And throughout the last century Holocaust deniers have been motivated by anti-Semitism. Therefore, were you to allow Holocaust deniers freedom of speech, you would actually be allowing them the right to slander a whole race of people, with arguments that have no factual grounding, in an act motivated by hate. Forgive me, but I would suggest that that goes completely against the spirit of freedom of speech. We all accept that no matter how free the country, nobody has the right to slander, libel, or threaten.

and

I've just never been convinced with the "bring it out into the open" argument about Holocaust denial. Why give these people any sense of legitimacy when they are arguing from a place of fabrication and hate?

and

there is an argument to say that making Holocaust denial illegal in certain countries was something that was necessary to allow Europe to build peace after the war. It may only be "safe" for Irving et al to say what the say now, because they were disallowed to say it in more precarious times. And some may argue these are still precarious times.

(Matt, I haven't yet read your stuff, but I will)

On the Shrine blast in Iraq, I can only think that if Iraq can get through this, it can get through anything. It sort of puts a few cartoons in its place on the "causing offence" scale. Thoughts of Iraqis at Norm.

On the Ken Livingstone fiasco, I agree with this:

This is once again a strike against freedom of speech and excessive political correctness over race and religion. I don’t buy it. Livingstone should never have been suspended.

On the Rover situation. My family used to rely on the manufacturing industry for jobs. A generation ago in West Bromwich the largest employer was Smith Corona, the typewriter makers. Everyone of a certain age in my extended family worked for them at one point, in fact it is where my mom and dad met. But ask any one of them about Rover and you'd probably be surprised what you hear. Other than a general regret at the loss of Britain's manufacturing industry, and sympathy with anyone who gets laid off, they have little time for Rover workers and little interest in the current Rover situation. My brother works with two ex-Rover workers and he hates them - "I aye gooin' ova thea. It's half one, I wo get back foa six" - and my uncle called them "overindulged, over paid, big heads."

On the blogosphere's hysteria about Blair's supposed attempts to turn this country into a police state, I can do no better than to guide you to About Whose News.

I don’t buy the “Slice by tiny slice, we are waking up in a society where our traditional freedoms are draining away” line that Mr Huhne was peddling. Or the assertion in his title that “Our freedom is at stake”. There is no evidence to support the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ theory that is often trotted out when the police or secret services are given some more powers. There is no evidence that Britain is becoming anything remotely like a police state.

I don't get that I'm not supposed to be worried about protestors carrying placards calling for me to be slaughtered, but I am supposed to piss my pants over the bit of plastic that is the ID card.

And on Brownie’s call at Harry’s Place to attend a rally “to demonstrate solidarity with the professors” and their right to freedom of speech with regards the Oxford university and animal research situation. Okay. And next week I’m off with the neo-Nazis to support their calls for freedom of speech in regard to David Irving.

***

Right, that should do it for now. Just a few uncontroversial points to slide myself back into this blogging malarkey.

Rats!

Last night we caught one of our cats playing with a young rat on the stairs. We managed to rescue the rat by removing said cat and scaring the creature out through the front door. Then my husband and I went to bed satisfied that we had saved a living thing from the lethal clutches of one of the murderous beasts we keep within this house. Roughly, of all the rats, mice, birds, slugs, worms, snails, baby squirrels and deflated balloons our moggies bring into the house, we achieve a 50% survival rate.

Then this morning I awoke, as usual, at 4.30am and was forced, as usual, by my strange and inconvenient early morning blood sugar level drop to go and make some tea and toast. I walk sleepily down the stairs when... Lo! I'm greeted by a dead young rat on my hall floor. It looked like it had been taken out by one thunderous wack on its back. Reader, I know what to do when I find the corpses of animals in my house, and it involves plastic bags. So, I went into the kitchen intent upon getting such items when I see one of the other cats staring intently at the corner of the room where I keep the laundry. She didn't even so much as look up at me. I knew what this meant.

Sure enough, as I disposed of one rat another appeared from behind the laundry basket. This one was alive. It seemed to like the fact that the light was now on and didn't mind at all about the human and the cat gawping at it from across the linoleum. Merrily trotting along the skirting board it looked almost happy as it headed for my hall where the body of its brethren had lain just a few short moment before.

Unfortunately I moved and frightened the thing and it scurried behind the fridge before the cat could take a swipe.

I then busied myself with staring at the fridge in horror. But the cat had moved on. It was now interested in something else behind the door where I keep my cleaning equipment. I went and stood next to the cat and sure enough every now and again the little head of a grey rat kept peeping up above the sweeping brush.

Feeling on the verge of hysteria I rushed upstairs to notify my husband we were under siege. He took a while to wake up and when he did his response was "mmmm". At least I think that's what he said. So then I decided that our other cats would be more use than a husband and went around the house to find them - the idea being I would shut them all in the kitchen with the rats and deal with the rat bodies in the morning. Unfortunately, just when my felines could be made to earn their keep, they all seem to have either gone outside or tucked themselves away in some quiet corner that I won't discover until I nearly kick them or sit on them by mistake.

I can't go back to bed and sleep. I've got rats in my house. Not "a rat" that was brought in as a plaything, but "rats". Plural. RATS.

FUCKING RATS PEOPLE! I'VE GOT FUCKING RATS IN MY FUCKING HOUSE.

And now, lost for anything to do until I can call the council in the morning, I thought the most sensible act would be to write a blog post. The next time you hear that UB40 song "there's a rat in me kitchen, whatamI gonna do?", you know the answer.

Still ill (updated)

Still ill, sorry.

Can we make sure nothing happens worth commenting on until i'm better, please? Ta.

Update:

Normal service should be resumed very soon! Scribbles of Small Town would like to apologise for any inconvenience, distress or psychological damage caused by the temporary absence of postings to this blog. She would also like to thank Small Town visitors for their kind words and well wishes, and is very much hoping that when she comes back she doesn't find that you've all sloped off to some other town in her absence. Perhaps one with a pub and a gym. And a coffee shop. Or strip club.

Terror Bill goes through with glorifying thingy in it

Wa Hoooo! I think. We'll have to see.

(I'm ill. This'll have to do for now)

Cheer up you miserable bastards!

It's Valentine's Day!

And for those of you who didn't get a card, then here's a pink and lovely Valentine message from me.

(no, I'm not drunk)

Just a blip

Fulham 6 - WBA 1

Just a blip, my mom says, just a blip.

Muslims are the new Jews. Discuss. (updated)

"Is it so difficult to digest that Islam considers insulting the prophets of God a profound violation of what is sacred, just as Europe rightly regards denial of the Nazi Holocaust? Indeed, if freedom of speech were really the non-negotiable absolute in the west it is now claimed, then we would expect there to be uproar at legal bans on Holocaust denial."

Writes Anas Altikriti, ex-president of Muslim Association of Britain in yesterday's Guardian.

Is it me, or are Jews and the Holocaust being referenced an awful lot lately by people like Mr Altikriti in relation to current Muslim issues?

Faiz Siddiqi, of the Muslim Action Committee, said only yesterday:

"Europe has a history of not treating minorities properly. The Holocaust is an example of that. The imagery being used today is the same kind that Hitler used against the Jews. Look where that ended up: in world war."

(Someone should tell him that no country went to war with Nazi Germany because of its anti-Semitism.)

Mr Altikriti and Mr Siddiqi are using the Holocaust to make different points. The first uses it as an example of where freedom of speech is already curbed (saying therefore that it isn't absolute) and the second as an example of what happens if freedom of speech is allowed to go unchecked. In both instances the Nazi persecution of Jews is used as a comparable - Holocaust Denial is on a par with insulting Muhammed; The Danish cartoons are in the same tradition as Hitler's anti-semitic propaganda.

But if you are going to use such a crime of humanity like this, to put yourself in the same ringfence as it, then you must have damn good grounds for doing so. To do so without good reason both attempts to diminish the enormity of the Holocaust and also invalidates any true claim to victimhood.

So are Muslims the new Jews in Europe as both men seem to be saying? I dare say that far more valid comparisons can be made between the treatment of the Jews in the 1930s and the treatment of Muslims now than are quoted above. Certainly there are enough newsreel and newspaper articles to show that Britain did not welcome Jews fleeing from persecution with open arms. They were rendered "the other" in a comparable way to how the right-wing press in this country now alludes to Muslims. Other immigrant groups may feel this too, but it is Muslims who find themselves in the glare of the spotlight at the moment.

But talking specifically about the comparisons in the quotes above, are they valid? First of all Altikriti states that in Europe the Holocaust is sacrosanct. I think he's right. We are very protective over any denial (or revision) of the horrors of that event. So therefore Altikriti's logic follows that so we "negotiate" our freedom of speech for the Holocaust, so should we also over the right to print satirical cartoons featuring Muhammed.

But I would argue that freedom of speech is being denied to Holocaust deniers on very sound reasoning. There is a wealth of evidence, pieced together after the war, that documents the Holocaust in great detail. In contrast, when Holocaust deniers have been brought to court, their arguments have been found to be based upon faked and misrepresented evidence. And throughout the last century Holocaust deniers have been motivated by anti-Semitism. Therefore, were you to allow Holocaust deniers freedom of speech, you would actually be allowing them the right to slander a whole race of people, with arguments that have no factual grounding, in an act motivated by hate. Forgive me, but I would suggest that that goes completely against the spirit of freedom of speech. We all accept that no matter how free the country, nobody has the right to slander, libel, or threaten.

So should freedom of speech be negotiable for matters of religious sensibility then? If we look at why the Danish newspaper printed those cartoons, I think we can see that we are coming from an entirely different place. The cartoons came about because of a Danish writers complaint that he couldn't find any illustrator who would draw pictures of Muhammed for a children's book. The reason he couldn't is that illustrators were afraid of the possible repercussions. Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, picked this up and called for cartoonists to supply some cartoons in an article about freedom of speech.

That was the inspiration behind the piece, not racism, not Islamophobia, not a desire to offend, but an inquiry into just where the lines of free speech and religious sensibilities in this matter lay. And that is pretty much how freedom of speech and expression in democracies work. Boundaries are pushed, awkward questions are asked, dogma is challenged. This is, ultimately, how we come to know what is and what is not acceptable in our free societies.

Therefore I don't believe that Altikriti's comparison stands. Freedom of speech is a complicated thing, as I have said, more of a spirit than an absolute, and his argument is far too simplistic. To follow his logic to its obvious conclusion, if it is demanded of Europe not to use images of Muhammed in pieces of satire, then it must be demanded of Islamic countries never to deny the Holocaust. But that doesn't seem to be what he is saying.

So what about Mr Saddiqi's direct comparison of the cartoons with Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda? It's just nonsense. As stated above, the motivation behind the Danish newspaper article was not to offend, and the context of the piece was that of freedom of speech. It was not intended as an attack on Islam. And if illustrators were frightened to portray any other prophet or deity, then I dare say that religion would have been part of the discussion too, but the unassailable fact is that they weren't.

In fact, I wonder whether Saddiqi is aware that to European eyes, it looks very much the other way around. This doesn't look like an incident where a minority was being defamed, but to us has more the feel of a feeble cry against the absolute demands of a massive all powerful institution. I am not saying that we are right to hold that view, or that that view is accurate, but that is none-the-less the European view of this matter.

And that's not so hard to understand. There is an elephant in the room and its name is Violence. Radical Islamism, a politicised imperialist movement, has been butchering its way around the world for some time. Islamism is not Islam. But Islamism does what it does - slam planes into buildings, behead peace workers, blow up lines of children queuing for sweets - in the name of Islam. I would ask for some understanding from those prominent members of the Islamic community just how all this must feel to a band of countries less than one generation away from fighting the most destructive war the world has ever seen against the most vicious form of fascism. We might be forgiven for being a little jumpy here. And it is a lot to ask, esecially after the bloody attacks on Madrid and London, to see ourselves as the aggressors. Particularly as we are not the ones issuing the death threats in this matter.

And in order to try and forestall any misunderstanding or offence taking here, let me explain what I am not saying. What I am not saying is that Islam, or Islamism, equates with Nazism. I have no wish to be offensive to Muslims, and long time readers of this blog will know that I feel I can write what I write because I don't come from a place of hate. I am interested in the truth of things, and that's all.

My point is, as stated earlier, that if you are going to reference the Nazi persecution of the Jews in relation to your own plight, you'd better have damn good grounds for doing so. And I have tried to argue here that neither Altikriti nor Saddiqi have made a reasonable enough point, or come from a strong enough position, to make a claim for such high moral ground.

In fact, it all looks very cynical to me. Using the Holocaust - very carefully, never suggesting it was anything less than it was - to manipulate European sensibilities into regarding Muslims as victims in need of special protection. Very clever.

Now that it is apparent that the whole fuss over the printing of these cartoons has been orchestrated from the start, and kept alive and growing through some very nasty power games, (read this, via MH) I take attempts at manipulation by the MAB and MAC even less kindly. This whole sorry saga has become a screen onto which we are all projecting. Europe projects its fears of fascism making a comeback, or sees an opportunity to vent some racism, or a battle between Islam and the West, whilst Muslims see either religious offence, or an act of aggressive by the West, or a Zionist plot, or an opportunity to build up their power base.

And whilst the MAB and MAC could have used the fact that British newspapers did not print these cartoons to foster feelings of unity and inclusion amongst British Muslims, they have chosen instead to foster a victim mentality. And by invoking the Holocaust to aid them in this they are not only being disingenuous, but inconceivably irresponsible and deeply offensive.

Update:

In The Observer: Islamophobia is the new anti- semitism. Manna Whitestone should read this post.

Update Two:

Shuggy: On anti-Semitism and other profanities. (found via Never Trust a Hippy). Thought-provoking stuff. And relevant to this post:

"You start hallucinating that the publication of these cartoons represents a frightful spectre haunting Europe - the 'new anti-Semitism' where Muslims are the new Jews that are being maligned with a positively National Socialist ferocity in Europe's media. Apart from the rather distasteful attempt to claim the mantle of a couple of thousand years of anti-Semitism by lazily identifying Islam's adherents as 'Semites', now that they've discovered the hurt that desecration can cause, only ignorance or willful blindness can now allow people to treat anti-Semitism as if it were unimportant. "

And

"Finding the 'new anti-Semitism' of Europe in Islamophobia is utterly facile. The kind of people who are forever announcing the arrival of something 'new' have frequently to be reminded that the old version of their comparison is still around, and this is no exception; the original is still with us."

UPDATE THREE:

From To The Point: French Muslims to sue newspapers.

"Instead of working with government, political parties and NGOs towards fixing the country's failed social integration model, the CFCM has chosen to stand on the margins and throw stones at secular France on behalf of Islamists and totalitarian Middle Eastern governments. Pathetic."

Never too much of a good thing

According to some statistics the English are over eating and having lots of promiscuous sex.

What gets me is they make it sound like a bad thing.

Cultural Misunderstandings and Puppet Masters

You know all those scenes we are seeing in Egypt over the sad ferry disaster - the rampaging hordes of men, the ransacked buildings, the burning of ferry pictures? Well, does it not all look a bit familiar? Does it not look a lot like the scenes of the rampaging hordes of men who are ransacking buildings and burning Danish flags elsewhere because of the cartoon fiasco?

Now, steady yourself, but I have to admit that I don't know very much about Egypt or the Middle East. No, really, I don't. But what if rampaging, ransacking, and burning things is a generally accepted way of reacting to emotive events in those sunny climes? In Britain we write letters to the Guardian, threaten legal action, or possibly throw eggs, but over there the generally accepted custom is to go mental and trash things? It might have something to do with the oppressive regimes that the people of the Middle East live under. There is no safe way to vent their anger at their tyrannical leaders, so it's a good way to let off steam. In that sense things such as tragic disasters and religious offensiveness act like the Two Minute Hate in Orwell's 1984. Which might explain why the rulers of such places encourage excess of feeling in such matters rather than try to bring about calm.

So perhaps we can safely ignore the burning of embassies and such as long as they happen "over there". They don't have much joy in their lives those people, let them go mad for a bit. Not so much a clash of civilisations, more a cultural misunderstanding.

Far more worrying to me is the now infamous Friday demonstration in London in which those nasty placards were carried, babies wore "I Love al-Qaida" hats, and students dressed as suicide bombers. No cultural thing this. Nor was it some hot-headed rampage brought on by deeply offended people provoked into an extreme reaction. What I think we saw were a load of puppets playing parts given to them by persons unknown whose intent seems to have been primarily to provoke a reaction from the police, the press, and the public. I mean, come on, even their chants sounded like something a group of people in suits brainstormed in a meeting one afternoon. And those placards, so neatly written, so carefully designed to cut right to the core. Even the exclamation marks, added to make it clear that the sign was saying something forceful smacked of fake sentiment - turning a sign that called for a beheading into something which read more like "look just how nasty I'm being!!!"

The question we should be asking ourselves is just why persons unknown wanted these puppets to perform in such a way. Was it merely a case of "I want to hurt your feelings like you hurt mine?" Possibly, but Scribbles fears it was more, much more than that.

I can never chase my conspiracy theories right to their absolute conclusion, but obviously we are talking about a radical Muslim group here, and so my thinking goes in two directions. Either persons unknown wanted to poke a stick into British apathy so that they have a better more aggressive enemy, which is good for recruitment purposes. Or, persons unknown wanted to kick up a stink and come out smelling of roses - looking like reasonable, respectable people, calling for calm amidst a riot they had secretly orchestrated. Or possibly both.

Now, anyone notice any radical Islamic organisation that have been on the telly a lot talking about this demo, looking very respectful in suits, and seeming very reasonable? I can think of one.

The puppets we shouldn't worry about. They were a handful of losers. But the figures in the shadows behind them pulling the strings - I don't think we can afford to be so dismissive. So I'm not one of the ones asking why the police didn't make arrests on Friday. I think we need to be far cleverer than that and I hope that's just what we're being.

6.6.06

Matt has kindly let me know that there has indeed been a remake of The Omen, as previously speculated on STS.

For some reason I can't download the trailer, so I am not in a position to comment just yet on how it looks, but I feel oddly anxious. If they have put glowing red eyes anywhere near this film I am going to campaign outside the American embassy.

(I'm doing a lot of blogging today. It's because I need to clean the bathroom)

The template for MSM columnists wishing to write about the cartoon issue without incurring death threats

In the secular west the Free Press has the right to mock and offend whomever it so chooses. In fact it must be free to mock and offend. Our Free Press is the litmus test for how free we are in the west - if it is not free, then neither are we. [insert something about Enlightenment values].

But we ought to consider before we print things that might mock and offend, whether or not we should do it. In fact, when you think about it, the Free Press has absolutely no right to mock and offend at all. [insert something nice about a Muslim you know/knew]

Should these cartoons be printed by the British Free Press? Consider The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In this country at least, you can lawfully insult and abuse as long as you don't threaten. And as these cartoons don't threaten, then the Free Press in this country should be able to print them without fear of their lives. You have every right not to expect your life to be threatened just because you cause offence.

Clearly though, any publication that does print these cartoons is hugely irresponsible. You cannot expect to print something so offensive and not have your life threatened.

[a long way to go until enough maximum word count reached. Insert some random personal anecdote connected to John Stuart Mill or the Magna Carter]

But, we musn't be blinkered secularists. We must understand that some people have funny ideas about sacrilege and idols and stuff. We must try hard and understand that some religious things, although they make no sense to us and are completely irrational, mean an awful lot to religious people. We must try and put ourselves in their shoes, and ask how we would feel to be offended so. When we do this, we can understand why we have people rioting and burning flags in [name latest country to set Danish embassy on fire].

But of course, there can never be any excuse for the disgusting scenes we have witnessed of people rioting and burning flags. Are we to defer to a bunch of thugs who take such offence at something so trifling?

No, we should not accept the blinkered view of hardline Muslims. No one else takes offence like they do [name several other religions, and if possible examples of where they have been offended but not gone out into the streets rioting and burning flags].

The question now however is where we all go from here. It is not an easy question to answer. What is clear though is that we should curb our Free Press in order not to offend Muslims, and Muslims should take less offence when we do offend them and understand more about our Free Press. Or something.

You don't like the cartoons? Why didn't you say?

Can somebody please tell the bunch of worldwide macho arseholes that they can put their willies away now - we get the message.

And somebody please also explain to this bunch of knuckle-dragging morons the concept of free press. And what is meant by freedom of expression. And how to stage a protest without setting fire to buildings, burning flags, and calling for people to be executed - because quite frankly all of that is getting very cliched now.

And someone also needs to tell the London branch of Willy Wavers that, nice try and all, but those placards (all written in the same hand - didn't someone work hard then) calling for "beheadings" and "massacres" will not have the desired affect to provoke the infidels into a violent backlash - much as they would like it to. How disappointed they must be not to have caused an affray and been arrested. And how disappointed they must be at the British press for not giving them a reason to riot. Perhaps they'll stage a violent protest at the fact that Britain has given them no cause to have a violent protest.

Put your willies away you silly, silly men, and take your fake placards and your faux demonstration with you, you vile disgusting low down pitiful excuses for human life.

Some people need telling what to do, argues Scribbles

Okay, everyone thinks that the idea of having five statutory freedoms enshrined for pets is a dizzyingly silly example of the nanny state gone mad or whatever.

Naturally, having little faith in human nature, I think it is a good idea.

My next door neighbours used to think that the way to look after a dog was to keep it tied up all day in an unsheltered corner of the garden (sub zero temperatures or not), never take it for a walk, never groom it, and only stop ignoring it to shout at it when it barked or whined too much. Amazingly, they did recognise that it needed feeding and would put a bowl of food and water out for it amongst the dog's many faeces that they never bothered to clean up.

I don't believe they thought they were being cruel, my neighbours, I just don't think they understood that there is more to looking after a dog than feeding and watering it. Of course you wouldn't expect me to keep my gob shut witnessing such treatment, and so for months I tried various tactics to get my neighbours to improve the dog's lot, even volunteering to walk the dog everyday myself (response - "we'd have to buy it a lead"). When all that failed I tried to get them to give the dog away as they clearly didn't want it. Eventually, I called the RSPCA. Yes, I'm that kind of interfering busybody. I can't stand to see suffering. Shoot me.

Shockingly though, the RSPCA could do nothing. The dog wasn't being physically mistreated and no law was being broken.

Now tell me we didn't need something that protects pet animals basic rights. Just because I know how to look after my pets, I'd never make the mistake of assuming that everyone else does too. Animals cannot speak for themselves. They cannot say to their owners: "I am suffering severe and possibly irreversible mental impairment due to being tied up in this corner all day. Please take me to the park and throw a ball for me. I need to run around and do doggy things. I cannot just sit here day after day in my own shit and piss, because I'll lose my mind." They need our help people, they need us to speak for them.

Eventually my neighbours gave the dog away and got a kitten instead. Before that kitten grew into a cat, it had moved in with me and my cats. Cats aren't like dogs. If you don't look after them, they'll just leave and find a better home.

That all purpose Blog Post for when a Lib Dem MP does something to embarrass the party

Can anybody tell me what business it is of anyone else what [insert Lib Dem MPs name] does in his spare time?

Everyone has skeletons in their cupboard. Everybody lies. And who reading this hasn't [insert embarrassing act]. We all do it. If my colleagues/wife/boss/NotW caught me doing [insert embarrassing act] they'd just smile sadly, pat me on the head, and understand that everyone has their weaknesses. Please tell me why then, if it's a politician, they have to be held up before public scrutiny. What the hell has it got to do with the public what an MP does?

But what has really sickened me about this is the hypocrisy of the tabloids. Who are they to sit in judgment when an MP is caught [insert embarrassing act], when all of them are at it as well?Who wants politicians who don't [insert embarrassing act]. I know I don't. I want a politician who is just as hypocritical, shit-faced, duplicitous, and unfaithful as I am.

It just goes to show what makes for a story in this country. Blair can start an illegal war and kill thousands of innocent people and no one blinks an eyelid, but get an MP who [insert embarrassing act] and the papers try and stir up public hysteria. Everyone I've talked to couldn't care less about a politician that [insert embarrassing act], in fact, they don't even know the politician I'm talking about - that's how much they care!

My heart goes out to [insert Lib Dem MPs name]. I can't even begin to imagine what hell he must be going through right now. Just because he was weak. Just because he was human. I'm crying right now as I type these words. Where is God when something like this happens? Why is the world so unfair???!!! I can't stand to think of his suffering. How have we come to this - that a man is made to suffer the consequences of his actions? My heart's just breaking. I'm going to hold a vigil tonight and get as many people as I can to come along, so that we can pray together and hope that the cruel and unjust persecution of [insert Lib Dem MPs name] comes to an end soon. I'm sorry, I'm just too upset to write anymore.