Home, Sweet Home

CBS News reports that more and more American zoos are closing their elephant enclosures. This follows the unexplained deaths of several elephants in zoos across America. Reasons given for the deaths - and for the closures - are that the enclosures are too small and there is insufficient room to expand.
The elephant is an intelligent animal with a very large brain. It needs stimulus. It needs interest. Most of all it needs to do what elephants do - roam. In their African homeland herds - yes herds, not just ones and twos - roam the land, travelling up to 50 miles a day looking for food. Yes, their main interest is sustenance but in their travels they learn, they observe, they contribute to the natural environment. However big an enclosure they have in a zoo, they have not the chance to interact with the environment in the same way. There are no predators to avoid. There are no other animals at all with which they can interact. Food is served to them. They lose their true reason to exist.
However much the zoos want you to think that they have the animals' welfare at heart the main reason they are closing the elephant facilities is money. In today's more enlightened environment the public don't want to see caged and restricted animals. So to give them enough space would cost too much. Many zoos are sending their elephants to a "sanctuary" where they have much more space, hundreds of acres in which to roam. But even the owner of the sanctuary is saying that this is not the real answer.
I would suggest that the true answer is to put your money where your mouth is for these animals. Pay to make the elephants' natural environment safe. Humans are the main cause of the decline of this noble beast. The "glory" of hunting them was encouraged by the British, and other explorers. The greed for their tusks as ivory was a further nail in the elephants' coffins. If we could pay to give them back their natural habitat in Africa and Asia and protect it, then we would have done a true service to their cause.
Mankind and his greed is the main cause of the decline of the elephant. Mankind could still turn the tables and save it.

Blow into the Bag, Sir

ABC News (that's the one in Australia, folks) had a lovely little story on their website today. Apparently a resident of Victoria had a guest from America staying with him. The American gentleman had his own car shipped over - don't ask me why, perhaps he doesn't like the idea of hiring a car with right-hand drive. Apparently they went for a drink and the Aussie, being an Aussie, had quite a few tinnies (I have the vernacular, folks) but he was by no means legless. His American friend had very little and was well within the strict drink-drive limits. The American was driving his own car back from the pub with the Aussie in the front passenger seat. Get the picture? Driver in the left-hand front seat, passenger in the right.
Along comes a police car which flags down our intrepid friends. The officer proceeds to the the right-hand side of the vehicle where the passenger winds down the window. "Blow into the bag, sir," requests the upstanding officer of the law. Our Aussie friend, being an upstanding citizen and not wishing to cause a fuss, produces a breath sample which, of course, is well over the drink-drive limit. Cop gets a little too big for her boots and is all for running him in on a drink-drive rap until it is gently pointed out to her that there is no steering wheel on that side of the car and the guy seated in the other front seat is really the driver "honestly, officer" and he is stone-cold sober!
Now I know that Australia is a long way from anywhere, but surely there must be a few left-hand drive cars in that great land. But whether or not there are, surely one of the first rules for any police work is observation. The lack of a steering wheel on that side of the car is a bit of a giveaway, I'd say.
Apparently, when ABC went to the local police department for a comment on the matter, they could find no record of the encounter. Well, if you were the officer in question, would you own up to it? I can just see the her report: "I was patrolling the street when I decided to stop a car and carry out a breath test on the driver. I went to the drivers-side window and asked the occupant to blow into the bag. The driver said he wasn't the driver but his friend sitting in the passenger seat was. I said words to the effect that they should not mess with officers of the law but they both protested and pointed out that the steering wheel was on the wrong side of the car. Damn them, they must have moved the steering wheel while I was busy getting out the breath-test kit. I'll get the conniving Yankee bastards next time . . ."

Paranoia or Xenophobia?

So American port employees are up in arms. They don't want their ports to be controlled and run by a company from Dubai. Keep the ports American is the patriotic cry. We can't take the risk of our ports being run by a foreign company. Security is paramount and besides, the Arabs may do a better job than us and show us up - and we can't have that!
Hold on - who runs the six ports in question at the moment? P&O, erstwhile known as the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company. Where is their headquarters? Britain! Now I know that what most Americans know about geography is limited by the borders with Canada and Mexico and the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, but - for their information and edification - Britain is not within the confines of the United States.
Thus these ports are already run by a foreign company. Or didn't you know that? I did, and I'm not even a Yank, let alone one who works in the port of Beaumont, Texas, or the other five ports under discussion. Do you think that most employees are thick enough not to know at least some of the hierarchy of the company for which they work? These longshoremen look reasonably intelligent to me when they are paraded on CBS to make their objections. No, the real objections come from those who think they can control a British company easier than an Arab one.
Stupid prats!
The only way to make your ports secure is to have the US military own and run them. Then think of the mess you would find yourselves in.

Freedom of Speech ... or Thought?

So some unelected tribunal has condemned Ken Livingstone - elected Mayor of London - to four weeks' suspension from office.
Who the hell is this tribunal? Who said they had the power to suspend him? How can they - whoever they are - take away the authority of an elected person?
Surely the only authority that can do that is the courts after due consideration of criminality.
Ken Livingstone is a figure of loving or loathing. Whether or not you agree with his policies, actions and statements, there is only one way to express your disagreement - the ballot box. This is the democratic way. This is the only way in a democratic society or else rule by dictatorship is the norm.
There are many things Mr Livingstone says with which I strongly disagree. In the past he has been an extremist to the point of ridicule.
In this instance he likened a Jewish newspaper reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard. That was extremely insensitive. But did he even know at the time that the reporter was Jewish? Should that have made a difference? Of course it shouldn't! The Daily Mail, for which he works, is milking it for all it's worth.
Of course the newspaper will make as much of it as they can. It's a headline-grabbing story and they want to get what they can in the way of publicity for the story.
I am uncomfortable with the fact that elected people - whatever their views - can be unelected by others than the electorate.
I'm incoherently rambling on - so nuff said.

Stalag Luft Guantanamo?

Listening, as I often do, to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning I caught an interview with the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Mr Straw is known for choosing his words very carefully and is respected across all parties for this. Thus when I hear him state, and I quote: ". . . The United States has no intention of maintaining a Gulag at Guantanamo Bay . . ." I know he has chosen his words carefully. Note the word maintaining. Not starting. Not instituting. MAINTAINING. That infers that the Gulag is already in place. The United Nations is the latest organisation to join in the protestations against the inhumane and illegal prison camp. How much more does America need to be told? International Laws are flouted. If America is at war against terrorism then those purported terrorists incarcerated in Guantanamo should be given their rights under the Geneva Convention. If they are not prisoners of war then they must be tried in the proper way in front of judge and jury. If neither of these things happens America leaves itself open to criticism from every angle. Do they only accept the parts of International Law which suit them? Is the Geneva Convention just a worthless scrap of paper because it doesn't suit the present US regime to follow it?
If the US is putting itself above the law will it just bulldoze itself into a position of world domination? Hitler tried that - he ended up committing suicide in a bunker.
How long before the cry "Hail to the Chief" is supplanted by "Seig Hiel!"

Murder in the Name of Justice?

I have just watched video footage on CBS News of a murder. There is no other word for it. 14-year-old Martin Anderson was shown being beaten to death by uniformed persons in a Boot Camp in Florida.
Florida, note, in the United States of America - land of the free. Not a fascist regime, not an extremist tin-pot country - or is it?
There they send young kids to a "camp" (for camp read jail) where they are subjected to strict discipline. Now that, you may say is a good thing. Teach them respect for their fellow man. Teach them values. Teach them not to misbehave again. But where do you draw the line between discipline and abuse?
The video quite clearly shows extreme violence being meted out on the lad. He was held tightly and unable to defend himself while several uniformed people laid into him with fists, boots and clubs. Martin was seen to collapse. The next shot we see is half-an-hour later as he is being rushed into an ambulance. He died the next day in hospital. The authorities claimed his death was due to internal bleeding brought on by sickle cell disease. Whether or not that is true - and it is disputed by Martin's parents - I'm sure the severe beating captured on the video clip didn't help matters. Don't they check the health of the inmates in these establishments? Who made a cock-up there then? Should we blame the camp medical officer for not spotting the risks there?
The bloke in charge of the camp is full of self-righteousness. He looks an over-fed, self-opinionated slob. He is full of defence for the actions of his staff. He is Right! Everyone else is Wrong. I expect when he prays he says "Lord, look at me - a model of righteousness and upstanding citizenship." He claims an 80 per cent success rate for his establishment. I wonder how he measures his success? Is it by the number of people he subdues into total submission to the cruel regime at the camp? Does he instill the fear of death - literally - into the inmates?
Whatever his misdemeanours Martin did not deserve to die - especially in such a cruel way. Thuggery should not be made legal by wearing a prison warder's uniform. These thugs would be hauled before the courts and imprisoned if they did the self-same act on the streets. Goodness knows, if you beat a dog like that you would be imprisoned and castigated by your fellows.
Perhaps charges will be brought but I doubt it. Even if they are brought I suspect that twelve good Southerners and true would come down on the side of the State and its employees.
Once again the finger of justice is pointed at the American way of life. Too many times accusations of injustice can be levelled at the "land of the free".
Free to beat youngsters to death.
Free to live in a police state.
Free to invade who the hell they like.
And we all submit because they are bigger than us and Might is Right.
Bollocks.

A Better Life?

World trade is a wonderful thing. I allows people to gain economic freedom. It brings economic growth to third world countries and with that the chance for education and a better life for all. So it is good to encourage third world countries to plant the sort of crops that can produce income. So the local population grows richer and can afford the education to give them a better standard of life. So the story goes . . .
It can also bring economic competition - which leads to more production to keep up with the rest of the world - which leads to intensified production - which leads to over-utilising local resources - which leads to lack of resources, loss of income and even loss of whole lifestyles and even life itself.
What has brought me to these morose statements? The fate of a small village in the Philippines. The island of Leyete had a village which was once in the heart of a rainforest. That forest was cut down to produce timber. The resultant empty land was earmarked for planting of export crops - palm oil, etc - but these never got planted. The lack of tree roots in the de-forested area de-stabilised the land. A minor earthquake occurred. There were no roots to keep the land stable. The whole side of a mountain slid down and engulfed the village. It is feared, at the time of writing, that 1,800 people have perished in the mudslide. Pictures beamed across the world show earth-moving machinery unable to cope in the conditions, people struggling to extricate bodies from the mire. A whole community has vanished without trace. For most of them the hillside has become their permanent grave.
What price world trade now?
Nuff said.

Oops . . . Sorry!

So the Vice-President of the United states of America likes killing innocent birds. Typical of the gun-culture of the Yanks, so nothing new there. Unfortunately Mr Cheney's aim ain't too good either. So, instead of hitting a poor, innocent quail he shoots another of his shooting party. Luckily for the injured person the Vice-President isn't in too good health and so his entourage includes a medical team. This team was able to administer treatment for the shotgun wounds the poor injured person suffered. The Vice-President has visited the bedside of the wounded party in hospital and apologised.
So that's all right then.
Hang on. Mr Cheney is the Vice-President. That means that should anything happen to George W (dream on) the Vice-President would have his finger on the nuclear button (or nucular button as the stupid Yanks insist on pronouncing it). Oh my God! What if Mr Cheney were to shoot his own side with a NUKE?
Nuff said.

He's done it again!

Steve Fossett has broken yet another record. The number of records he has broken is now numbered in three figures. This time he has flown farther than any other person in a single journey in an aircraft - one-and-a-quarter-times round the world. He started off in Florida, circumnavigated the world and then flew on to land in Bournemouth, UK. There were upsets. Even before he took off there were worries about his fuel tanks leaking. Then turbulence over India nearly ended the mission. In a plane like his, designed for lightness so that the fuel would last out, turbulence could be catastrophic but he pulled through. Finally, as he flew over Shannon, Ireland, his generator gave out. He had about 25 minutes of battery power to keep his instruments going and so had to make a "Mayday" call so that an airport could be cleared for him to land. Air traffic control gave him the choice of Cardiff or Bournemouth. I don't know how much Mr Fossett knows of the political life of the UK, but it seems he chose - in my view wisely - not to land in Wales (the men all shag sheep there) but to take the option of Bournemouth. Apparently he had flown into that airport before and knew the area. Meanwhile all the media were waiting for him at his original planned destination in Manston, Kent. Shit happens. Eventually he was flown by private jet to Manston where he did the obligatory news conference and everyone was happy. But what good does this achievement really do? Mr Fossett is a legend in his own time - but probably only in his own time.

The Voice of Reason

Yesterday there was a demonstration in Trafalgar Square, London by several thousand Muslims protesting about the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. To these people such caricatures are blasphemous and unacceptable. This I can understand. This I, and most other cogent people can agree would be upsetting to people of really heartfelt beliefs.
The difference between this demonstration and others that are happening all over the world is that this was peaceful. The participants deliberately kept their protest down to cogent argument, not threats of violence. Several young Muslims decried the violent attitude of some previous demonstrators. British Muslims, who have never known other than a British way of life, can still be offended by such cartoons. They deserve to be heard. They have demonstrated their concerns and worries in a peaceful and democratic way. No threats, no violence, no fatwahs.
These people deserve to be listened to. Most of them were young. Most of them were born in this country. Most of them want just to be treated with respect and to be allowed to worship their god in the way that they see fit. To these people the upsurge of violent protest does nothing but harm to their cause. They just want to live in peace with those around them, whatever their beliefs.
I salute these young Muslims as the true ambassadors of their faith. God, Allah, call him what you will, will smile down on these people and on those who accept them for what they are - fellow human beings.

Kissing is Bad For You

As they do when they cannot think of really constructive things to do, "experts" have conducted a survey. This survey was among young people and their habit of kissing the opposite sex. Apparently 150 youngsters who had contracted meningococcal diseases were asked how many people they had kissed. Many of them admitted to kissing more than one person on a regular basis. The survey came to the conclusion that promiscuous French kissing could increase your chances of contracting such diseases, some of which could be serious or even fatal.
What were the controls in this survey? Did they find a like group who had never kissed more than one person? How could they be sure? After all, how many red-blooded teenage blokes or girls would admit to never having kissed more than one person?
"No mate," says a spotty teenager, "I've never even touched a girl, let alone put my tongue down her throat." I can't see that happening, can you? I can't see any teenager admitting that for fear of ridicule. More likely the ego-boosting, keeping up with one's peers, answer would be "Yeah, Suzi's epiglotis tastes really nice . . . and Zoe's . . . and, come to think of it, my tongue nearly reached Kim's intestine 'cos I pushed it in so hard . . ." as they fantasised about what they would really like their love-life to be like.
It may well be true that intimate mouth contact can communicate these diseases but I think the research needs to be ratified.
I personally volunteer here and now to kiss as many young teenagers as the researchers can supply in the name of science.
What? No takers?

Virgin Territory - but for how long?

News has come from Indonesia of an expedition to explore the Foja Mountains. The area has no human habitation. The local tribes don't go into it because they consider it to be sacred. A team of dedicated scientists went there - after seven years of negotiations with the local tribesmen - on an expedition of discovery. Discover they did. Several species of birds, amphibians, marsupials and other animals were discovered, or rediscovered. Species known about and thought to be extinct were found. Species never known to mankind were found. Most of them had one thing in common - their total lack of fear of human beings because they had never come across them before. Beautiful pictures of exotic animals have been published in newspapers across the world. It seems that the Foja mountains are truly a Garden of Eden, unspoiled, untouched, not yet fouled by the march of human progress.
Notice the word YET.
How long before the tourism trade gets hold of the idea of "safaris" to the Foja Mountains so that ordinary people can see these beautiful animals "in the wild"? I have already heard it mentioned on radio news reports.
I have hopes that this place, one of the very few remaining untouched wildernesses in this world of ours, will be left to be what it is - beautiful, untouched, unspoiled by the destructive forces of man's touch. Yes, it would be good to learn about the flora and fauna. Yes, scientific research can and perhaps should be done. But this must be strictly controlled. There must be strict regulation of who may enter and how often. Otherwise the area will become spoiled, just like the Himalayas where it is almost like a day-trip to go to the top of Everest and trample everything underfoot on the way.

Statues with Health Warnings?

Today in Devon, England, they unveiled a statue of Sir Walter Raleigh. The chap was an adventurer who sailed the seas in Elizabethan times. He plundered from the Spanish, which pleased Queen Elizabeth who was always looking for ways to get one over on the Spaniards. He sailed to the New World and was instrumental in introducing potatoes and tobacco to this country.
The statue cost £30,000 to make. It shows a swashbuckling figure in Elizabethan garb. A truly noble tribute to one of the heroes of English history who helped open up the New World and thus instigated the American nation we know today. The statue was paid for by - wait for it - British American Tobacco Corporation. Shrieks of anger! Calls for the statue to be torn down! How dare they, these people who make profit from people's addictions and the resultant death toll!
Tobacco is, no doubt, a curse on mankind. Raleigh and others saw the native Americans using it both as a narcotic and as a ritual sign for peace - hence the "pipe of peace". He didn't know about the health hazards. The locals didn't put health warnings on their pipes. So today, in the knowledge of the true cost of smoking, some people are castigating him. They are saying that the statue should not have been put up - mainly because it was financed by what is now seen as an ogre bent on causing pain and suffering to mankind in the name of profit.
Bollocks!
Balderdash!
People are also of the opinion that chips - "fries" to you Americans - are also bad for you because of the fat content. If the British potato growers had financed the statue would there have been an outcry? I think not, although the way that establishments like McDonalds have abused the humble potato poses the question "should we entrust the development of the potato to the Americans - they only bugger it up".
Sir Walter Raleigh was a figure of historical interest. He was one of the people who furthered the curiosity of mankind and helped to explore the world in which we live. Statues of other explorers of that time litter many countries in both the Old World and the New. His life and actions were part of the forming of present-day America with its diversity of origins, including people from pretty-well all over the world.
He was, in fact, one of the true founders of the present USA.
The city where I live, Bristol, thrived on trading mainly in tobacco and slaves. Its history is inexorably linked to the formation and expansion of the US. For much of the period from Elizabethan times until the mid-20th century Bristol was one of the most important links between Europe, Africa and the New World because of this trade.
In the light of what we know today, if tobacco was only discovered within the last 50 years it would have been banned immediately as a narcotic along with heroin, cocaine and all the other hard, addictive drugs. But in Sir Walter's time we did not have that knowledge.
Please, all you do-gooders, have a sense of perspective. Look on the time of Sir Walter and his like as a time of learning about the world. In his time there were still many who believed the world was flat and ended in the middle of the Atlantic. Sir Walter and other more intrepid explorers gave us knowledge. How we used, it and sometimes abused it, is not down to him.
Some may even castigate him for helping to start the American nation.
Now there's a thought.
Nuff said.

Idolatry

When is an idol not an idol?
That question was brought into my mind by the current violent protests brought about by the publishing of derogatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Yes, I agree with the protesters when they say it is disrespectful to depict the Prophet in any shape or form as a bringer of evil. Muhammad preached peace and the worship of God. He preached the love of one for another - as many religions do. As such his teachings and example were worth following and led to great civilisations with aspirations which were nothing but good. But - as with many religions - it strikes me that man and his various interpretations of the story of the Prophet has twisted the message to his own and various ends. Thus we have Muslim disagreeing with Muslim (just as we have Christians disagreeing with each other, sometimes violently).
The questions of whether the Prophet should be depicted at all is a slightly different matter. Apparently the reason, simply put, is that the Prophet stated that idolatry should not be allowed because it could take the place of the worship of God. There are many in the Christian sects who believe that too. Many Northern Irish Protestants will not have a crucifix in their churches because it is said to be idolatry. Even the Pope is looked upon by some as a human idol. I agree that it is possible that this could happen.
In an Edinburgh University Museum there are early paintings and drawings dating from the 1300s to the 1600s depicting the Prophet Muhammad. These were mainly found in Turkey and the Indian sub-continent. In the earlier part of this period they show the Prophet in the full, his face, his body and his actions. As the time went by during this period the likeness was gradually lessened with angles that did not show his face, or with veils. By the end of this period there were no more pictures.
So it seems that this belief evolved, rather than was the norm at the start.
But we do not need to have pictures or statues to have idols. There are holy places within Christianity - I think of places like Lourdes - which, because of their religious significance take on the mantel of idols on a grand scale. They have the same distracting effect as any idol. I am sure that the same may be true within Islam. Dare I suggest that Mecca and the Holy Pilgrimage may have a similar effect. To hear the few Muslims I know talk about their ambition to make the Pilgrimage to Mecca sometimes makes me wonder whether to them the Pilgrimage is more important than the teachings of Islam? I hope not because I know that the true teaching of the Koran, if followed in their true sense, are full of hope and peace for mankind and if anything is really to unite all people it is the teaching of peace and love for your fellow man.

Two-faced Protest

A gentleman by the name of Omar Khayam was seen to apologise for his behaviour on the day of the demonstration at the Danish Embassy in London. He was seen dressed in a garb which represented a suicide bomber, with pockets strapped to his body as if they contained explosives. His apology was full and complete. He acknowledged the hurt he had given to relatives of the victims of the London bombings. He even acknowledged that his fellow Muslims would be offended by his actions. Unfortunately for him he was on parole from a six-year prison sentence on drugs offences. Now I am the first to defend any Muslim who is truly offended by the unwitting actions and statements of people who do not know what offends them. They have a right - indeed a duty - to point out the offence and demand an apology. But Mr Khayam cannot be numbered among them. If he has been dealing in drugs he has probably contributed to the long, slow, lingering deaths of many more than those who died in the London bombings of July 2005. The major difference here is that suicide bombers go out to kill and maim as a statement of their faith whereas drug dealers don't give a damn about who suffers and dies because they're only in it for the money. This does not excuse any suicide bomber or terrorist because to me human life is the most precious thing and most religions teach that this is so.
Mr Khayam has now been returned to prison for breach of his parole licence. I hope his apology was sincere. But more than that, I hope he has realised that the misery he has caused to many people by helping the drugs peddlers to keep their grip on people is just as sinful as any murder or suicide bombing - or even any blasphemous cartoon. God, Allah - call him what you will - would surely not condone such behaviour.
Search the internet. You will find many instances of Jesus being villified in various cartoons - whether they be in Western or Muslim publications. I am not giving this as a justification for the Danish newspaper which originally published the offending cartoons but - in the world in which we live - faith must prevail above criticism. Love of your God should surely overcome your critics. True faith should not be diverted or perverted by the criticism of mere man. If you really believe in your God - whichever one you believe in - you can rise above the mere statements and villification of mankind.

Responsibility

Several months ago a Danish newspaper published a satirical cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban which resembled a bomb. At the time few even noticed it. Yet, very recently, a grand furore has developed. Saudi Arabia has threatened to break relations with the Danish Government over the incident. Muslims around the world have started protests, mainly centred on Danish embassies and businesses, and demonstrations have been held in streets of various Western cities. This has awkened interest around the world and several newspapers in various countries have reprinted the offending cartoons.
The original Danish publication's editor has apologised unreservedly on Arab TV, in effect stating that it was not realised how much offence would be caused. Watching the statement, I am of the belief that the editor was being honest in his statement and was truly apologetic.
I do not know much about the Muslim beliefs but, apparently, it is considered sacrilege to show any depiction or image of the Prophet Mohammed. Thus to see such an image, especially a derogatory one, is highly offensive to the followers of Islam. Many Muslims live in our various societies all across the world. Some of these societies are based on Islamic teaching, some on Christian teaching, others on the teachings emanating from the other great religions - or no religion. Many of these societies hold dear the "freedom of speech".
Freedom of speech is held in the highest regard in our so-called "free" democracies of the Western world. But with freedom must come responsibility.
Would a citizen of, say, South Carolina or another state of the so-called "Bible belt" in the American South, stand back and not protest in quite vocal - if not physical - terms if a cartoon was published of Jesus Christ armed with nuclear missiles and preaching hate?
Perhaps that may sound like an extreme example but perhaps that is how extreme some Muslims feel these cartoons are.
Freedom of speech must be tempered with sensitivity and responsibility. The US courts are littered with cases of libel and slander mainly because people have not used responsibility before opening their big mouths.
Responsibility seems to be in short supply in some sections of the media. A French newspaper caught the story and immediately re-published the cartoons in the full knowledge of the further offence it would cause to some devout Muslims. I heard later that an editor was sacked. Where is the spirit of the French Revolution, epitomised by "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" (sorry about the lack of accents but I can't find them on my keyboard) roughly translated as "freedom, equality and brotherhood". They are taking the freedom but where is the equality? Where is the brotherhood? Is this showing responsibility? Is this showing respect? Or is it just cashing in on the situation for the short term and bugger the consequences?
Even the normally restrained BBC showed fleeting glimpses of the offending cartoons in its news coverage "in the interests of reporting". Why? What is to be gained?
With freedom comes responsibility. With freedom must come respect for others' viewpoints. If not freedom just descends into total anarchy and with that comes the end of all freedoms.