Trouble in Thailand - the complete idiot's guide

Thailand has been in the international spotlight yet again over the last few weeks as the latest round of political violence reached a head. The latest conflict is simply part of a cycle that threatens to continue for some years yet, until certain other events will either quash it, or take it to a whole new level.

Each time the violence is shown on international TV, well-meaning people ask me and my fellow expats: "Are you OK?" or "What exactly is going on over there?". The problem with the second question is that people, understandably, assume that ex-pats out here comprehend what's really happening and can explain it. Sadly this is a faulty assumption. Many expats are as ignorant and blinkered about the situation as anyone else.

Often, expats give the breakdown like this: "Red shirts want Thaksin back. They worship him and come down from the north to Bangkok to protest for a couple of hundred baht (about five dollars) per day." This typical statement has several obvious undertones - all red shirts are poor, weak minded and uneducated puppets.  The yellow shirts meanwhile, "hate Thaksin and want to keep him out." This is true in itself, but still lacks great detail.

For those who wanted a little more insight, I will now try to summarise the political situation in Thailand as concisely as possible.

Thaksin Shinwatra came to power in 2001. In his election campaign, he promised to pay attention to the poorer people of Thailand from the northern regions. He pledged village funds, discounted consumer goods and agricultural loans.

Thaksin and his party ("Thai Rak Thai" or "Thais love Thais") won the election by a landslide, partly due to his dynamic campaign and partly due to the weak performance of the preceding Democrat government during the Asian Financial Crisis.

Upon taking office, it was revealed/alleged by the National Counter Corruption Commission that the brand new PM had concealed millions of baht in assets by transferring them to relatives and house workers. Thaksin described it as 'an honest mistake'.

In the build up to his trial, tremendous pressure was placed on the NCCC and Constitutional Court judges. Thaksin would walk to the courts in celebrity style and make grand speeches decrying the courts and implying they were out of touch and undemocratic. He won his case. Years later, one of the judges admitted he had "been placed under tremendous pressure and threats".

Over the next few years Thaksin introduced many schemes such as the 20 baht health care scheme, village banking scheme and the war on drugs. The latter was opened by a remarkable speech but ended in thousands of suspicious deaths, often involving shootouts between police and unproven suspects.

Other problems occurred. Thaksin and his party had such a strong grip on parliament that no real opposition could be mounted. Various laws sailed through the house that involved massive conflicts of interest. Thaksin formed, then dissolved, then formed, then dissolved again a telecommunications watchdog while promoting his very own phone company across the country. He fired the advertisers who had won the contract for the Bangkok Sky Train development project and gave the contract to his own son, he used his position as PM to gain contracts for his own company abroad. Most worryingly, the senate and the Election Commission appeared to offer very little scrutiny of the house. Many senators had the same surnames as members of Thaksin's party.

Media freedom also became a concern. One newspaper that became critical of him found themselves subject to an AMLO investigation.

But none of this was wholly different to previous governments, except in its scope and chokehold on power. Meanwhile, the TRT party took the unique step of actually keeping some pre-election promises. The health-care scheme, the village funding, the loans to farmers were all delivered.

As this happened, some high raking people including the head privy councilor and a former business colleague began to launch vocal attacks on Thaksin, who responded in kind. The ex-colleague formed a group known as the PAD, who later became known simply as the "yellow shirts" and began a public war of words and lawsuits with the PM, followed by street protests.

Initially their protests were peaceful. The PAD were formed mainly from Bangkok people who were more aware of Thaksin's corruption and less beneficial from his policies, that were aimed at the poorer people in the north. The regular Bangkok protests made Thaksin a PM in exile. Eventually, it opened the door for the coup.

Thaksin responded by dissolving parliament and calling an election, but all major parties announced a boycott. When the elections were done, just one single MP who was not from Thai Rak Thai was elected. The situation was described by His Majesty the King as "a mess" and he urged the courts to solve the problem. From that moment on, the courts - particularly the Constitutional Court - made several strong,  key verdicts that had a huge effect on the nation.

The coup of 2003 was lead by general Sondhi, one of many officers who had been spurned by Thaksin in military promotions. The junta set up a special panel to investigate alleged corruption by Thaksin and his family and a new government, with a  former general as PM, took over the parliament.

The government was, by all accounts, dismal. Their greatest failure was any effort to dispel Thaksin's popularity with the north-eastern people. As the election loomed, a controversial charge was filed against the Thai Rak Thai Party that involved retroactive application of law. The court found the party guilty of vote buying and dissolved the party, banning all executives from politics for ten years.

The response from the TRT party was to use its second string of members as a new executive, and to form a new party. The junta set a date for new elections and introduced a new constitution. The new document was given a lukewarm reception and passed through referendum, though it was rejected in northern provinces.

The new election was billed as the Democrat Party - popular in Bangkok and the south - against the new incarnation of Thaksin's party. The latter won. Samak Suntarajev was the new PM and Thaksin returned to Thai shores, vowing to clear his name.

Perhaps he became overconfident. The courts found his wife guilty of abuse of power and laid new charges against Thaksin. He and his wife jumped bail and left the country again. Shortly after, the second incantation of his part was yet again dissolved by the courts. The banning of executives tipped the balance of parliament and allowed Democrat Aphisit Vejajiva as PM. All this took place while the PAD yellow shirts hit the streets with protests more violent and intimidating than ever before, including the seizure of the airport.

Aphisit worked hard to win favour but those who supported the ousted TRT party formed the 'red shirt' group and began their own protests. During the song kran festivals of 2009, the red shirts were spurned on by calls to 'bring down the elite' and rioted in Bangkok. One big target of their anger was Privy Councilor Prem Timsoland, who had served as chief of the privy council for many years and is considered to be very close to His Majesty The King.

The Aphisit government managed to dispel the protests and the courts began a case against Thaksin to seize assets of his frozen in Thai accounts. The verdict was reached about three months ago and some fifty billion baht of assets were taken from the ex-PM. Soon after, the red shirt groups promised the 'biggest rally ever' which lead to the events of the last few weeks.

There is another, crucial - perhaps the most crucial - aspect to all this that I cannot discuss. Two editions of 'The Economist' were banned from Thailand last year as was a book by Paul Handley for discussing the same sensitive topics. A google search for "Thailand's succession" may provide further research detail in this area.

How this saga will end is both difficult to assess for the reason mentioned above and also depressing to consider, with no end to the polarisation in sight and those in political power seeking only to exploit the situation for their own gain. What is clear however, is that some of the stereotypes and simplifications applied by Thai and foreigners alike to the situation are at best, lazy and, at worse, stupid.

It is true  red shirted protesters mostly come from low income areas with lower standards of education. The Oxford University educated Aphisit Vejajiva of the Democrat Party has had over a year to win the hearts and minds of those in the north, and has failed to do so. Many of them want Thaksin back not because they worship him, but because for all his many faults, he actually had some benefit to people who live on sums of cash that many foreigners could never manage to live off, let alone support an entire family. Far from being foolish puppets of propaganda, most red shirts know exactly where their bread is buttered and are fighting for what is best for them, at least in the short term.

Moreover, the reds have a justified complaint. A government elected by a popular democratic vote has been overturned not once, but twice, in highly disputed circumstances. Meanwhile, the ruling Democrat Party were not even charged with a accepting an illegal donation until the same protesters stormed the Election Commission and demanded it happen.


Likewise, the yellow shirt PAD protesters had a full manifesto for change that went well beyond lynching Thaksin. Sadly, that detail was lost in the chaos of the violent actions taken by the group, who went on to form their own political party.

This is the briefest summary possible. Far more people, events and history have gone into making this saga. If you want to learn more, a few of these books may help:


Thaksin - the Business of Politics in Thailand - Pasuk and Baker
The Thaksinization of Thailand - Duncan McCargo

A Coup for the Rich? - Giles Ungpakorn

A political History of Thailand

The King Never Smiles - Paul Handley

The real party list

With the election coming up and with the importance of not voting Conservative the overriding factor for people like myself. What are the other options available?

Here's a quick summary of parties that I think are worth the time of day.


UKIP
Good points: Good policies - Nuclear energy, EU referendum, five year freeze on immigration, etc. Are a party most people know about. Already have one MP and several MEPs.

Weak points: Widely believed to have had a few dodgy transactions within the party and new leader  Lord Pearson made several expenses  claims that, while not illegal, certainly appeared greedy and unnecessary

English Democrats:
Good points: A well known, well designed party. The mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies is an English Democrat and a living legend.

Weak points: Not a unionist party. Manifesto is somewhat vague.

Popular Alliance:
Good points: The best, most detailed, researched and effective policies you will find in any party, period.

Weak points: We just don't have enough members to make a real impact.

Jury Team:
Good points: Nice website, well designed policies.

Weak points: Policies while good, are brief. The idea and system within the party may confuse some people.

Christian Party:
Good points: A good, well spoken and articulate leader.  Excellent policies. Because of the Christian angle, the party actually tries to keep its promises.

Weak points: Being a Christian party obviously limits its appeal.

Traditional Democrats:
Good points: The party website clearly explains the benefit and relevance of conservative policies to a modern Britain.

Weak points: Given that I had to trawl through the Election Commission's party list to find these guys, they don't seem to be very good at promoting themselves.

Other parties worth a look: Veritas, Impact Party, Common Sense Party, Imperial Party.

Remember, the real battle this year is true conservatives against the Conservative Party. It's far more important not to vote for the wrong party as it is to vote for the party that's right for you.

Sports and homphobia

 Who you calling a wimp?

An article in my local paper caught my eye this weekend. Apparently a prominent rugby player named Gareth Thomas announced he was gay and a few months later, returned to the sport. Well done that man.

I've never understood some of my colleagues' objections to homosexuality. They (those against) can usually be divided into two types - religious and/or moral objectors and those with personal fears. The former profess to base their objections upon instruction from The Bible and refuse to believe people are born gay. In fact, I usually find arguments from this crowd boil down to dogma - The Bible is against homosexuality, so to accept that people are naturally gay is to accept that The Bible's divine instruction (i.e. God) is deliberately disobeyed by, well, God himself.  In other words, it's a clear paradox and Christians and other religious groups must avoid it or face some awkward truths.

The second group often produce quotes such as: "It's just not normal for people to do that" or "These people have some disease" etc. Often these are the same people who have tattoos, take alcohol and nicotine into their bodies and a s a result suffer from colds or other illnesses. Nothing unnatural or ill about them, then! (And of course, homosexuality is not any kind of disease).

My favourite line from homophobics when they talk about gay men is  is: "Just don't let him try to do anything with me" because this warning normally comes from the ugliest, sweatiest person you can imagine.

As a heterosexual person (I mention this to be clear I am not biased), my attitude is that homosexuals do not create more crime, do not put any extra strain on the tax payer and are not any less productive or honest members of society than the next Joe Public, so why give them any trouble?  It may be true that certain illnesses or prescribed medications are attributed to the gay community at slightly higher rates, but this surely fades in comparison to the number of 'breeders' (as gay people playfully call us) who claim every single penny of child benefit that they can.

So with that in mind, let me be clear when I say one thing: I do not like gay pride festivals and marches, and other forms of 'advertising' a person's sexuality. My reasons for this are twofold: firstly, I find that usually, when a person feels a desperate need to tell us about certain aspects of their own private life, it's down to insecurity. The more we make a song and dance (literally, in the case of Gay Pride marches) about such things, the more we blow up that bubble of insecurity. It's emotional quicksand - the more I say 'look at me! I'm gay!" the more people think I must be different, the more different I feel, the more I need to shout about it, etc.

The second reason is more straightforward - I don't care what a stranger's sexual preference is, I just believe it's wrong to throw it around in public. I don't want to see woman on woman, woman on man or man on man action in broad daylight when anyone - including children - can be passing by.
That's not a conservative or outdated attitude and if anyone thinks it is, it's probably a sign of how evilly 'liberal' our society has become: if you object to people making out wherever and whenever they want, you must have something wrong with you.

That's not to say gays or anyone else can't get wild. I've been to gays clubs and had a great time just as I do at any other club. It's indoors, everyone inside is an adult.

The reason then that I applaud Gareth's announcement despite my usual attitude to sexual self-aggrandisement is that the world of sports is still loaded with prejudice and idiocy towards homosexuality.

My most vivid memory of this attitude is a football match between Southampton and Arsenal several years back. Back then, there was a widespread rumour that a certain Southampton player was gay, and halfway through the second half the entire section of visiting Arsenal fans began to chant :"(Player) is a homosexual" non-stop for about twenty minutes. Even as a kid at the time, I remember being struck by how callous and cruel fans must be to behave like that. It's one thing to banter, insult and try to distract a player on the opposition, but this was just plain vindictive.


 Thomas' announcement was not aimed at championing himself, indeed he called for more sportsmen to 'come out' to help wash away tides of idiots. I support him in this action, the more players that come forward, the harder it is for idiots to bully them. But it must be incredibly difficult for any gay sports stars considering going public. In these early days, coming out of the closet could be damaging to their career, as well as an incredible mental strain.

But come out they must, for this is the only way to tackle the problem. The government, as usual, is going about things completely the wrong way by attempting to impose yet more mind control. This year it officially becomes illegal to make homophobic chants at football matches. All this shows us is that the people in power have no answer to the problem, no way to reach out to people and no hope of achieving their goal.

Think back to my experience at the Southampton Vs Arsenal game. If that happened now, would the police really wade in and arrest a few hundred people? Would it solve anything? Would it make the victimised player feel better? Would it keep the rest of the crowd safe? The answer to all these questions is surely obvious. The way to eradicate homophobia in sports and society, less so.
*************
Photo credit:  http://www.rwc2007.irb.com

and there's more!

Following on from my comments yesterday concerning government agencies being used as political weapons, it seems the Equality Commission has let the power go to its head:

Most police forces in England and Wales still unfairly target black and Asian people in their use of stop and search powers, the equality watchdog has said.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission said it could not rule out legal action against some forces.

Source:  This BBC article

The report also voices concerns that ethnic minorities are "over represented in the criminal justice system."  In other words , there are too many of them in jail. I agree, I say we let all the black and Asian robbers out of jail right now.

Notice that nowhere during the report is the actual rate of crime per ethnic group discussed. If, and I say if, the rates of crime matched the amount of stop and searches, wouldn't that be justified?

It's a moot point in modern Britain. What has happened to us?

Shorts

The BNP has been fined after the court determined its constitution was still "racist". The court was ruling on legislation introduced by the government and the BNP had been charged by the Equality Commission which is, of course, a branch of the government.

Does nobody else see the problem here? The only reason there has been less outcry is because of fear that any objection would be spun as support for the BNP.

The Labour government has told us that we are terrorists until proven otherwise (ID Cards) , we are patriotic by sending our troops to war without the proper equipment (Afghanistan) and that we are idiots (WMDs in Iraq).

They couldn't be much worse, but I fear David Cameron could prove me wrong if he gets into power. I pray he doesn't. The gap is closing.

******************

The Popular Alliance got its first mention in 'Private Eye' magazine a few issues back. As part of the 'Alliance for Democracy' that includes Popular Alliance, UK First, English Democrats and the Christian Party. The group received coverage for a large donor who has also contributed huge amounts to the Tories. Hopefully this member of the Christian Party has, ahem, seen the light!

Capital punishment: the debate continues

Phil Dickens, over at his blog has typed out another one of his eloquent articles. This time it's a theoretical look at the death penalty. In particular, Phil responds to some points I made in my recent article on capital punishment. Phil writes heavily on the theory and frequently refers to works of authority in his writing, so a full reply would take a lengthy and committed response. Therefore, in the interests of light reading, I'll restrict myself to a few direct responses.

To follow the debate in full, please read my article, then Phil's article then the following reply. It may take a few moments but you will receive a balanced and credible argument both for and against the death penalty.

In one paragraph, Phil states (ignore the punctuation errors caused by my text editor):

We are, in condemning the perpetrator of a 'capital' crime, making a moral judgment. We are declaring the act committed, whether murder, rape, or some other action, to be wrong. For that moral judgment to hold up, it must apply in every similar situation. As Noam Chomsky states, 'one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something?s right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.' Thus, if the taking of human life in an offensive act is wrong, then it is always wrong. It is wrong if it is committed by a mugger with a knife, by a policeman with a gun, or by a doctor with a needle.

This is, in essence, a simple statement of moral absolutism. Whilst it may sound sweet, it is neither practical or true. To suggest a murder is an equally condemnable crime in any circumstances is to ignore human nature. Do we really believe that a man who shoots a burglar who has just told him he will rape his wife is equal in his sin to a man who gets drunk, walks up to someone in the street and kicks them to death? Do we really believe that soldier at war who takes a shot at, say, Kim Jong Il is equally murderous as a child killer?

Society always has and always will take circumstances into account when considering crimes. Indeed, Phil appears to acknowledge his own paradox in his next paragraph:

"I have used the word ?offensive? as a qualifier because this reflects my own judgment. I am not a moral absolutist and as such can envision situations where taking a life may be necessary or even right. For example, acting in self-defence, it may be necessary to take the life of an aggressor who would otherwise take yours. Or ending somebody?s life may be an act of mercy and the only alternative to endless agony and physical or mental decline."

Unfortunately for Phil, this appears to weaken his own argument. Phil goes on to state:

"There are those who will argue that judicial execution is an act of defence, as it prevents the person against whom it is enacted from harming anybody ever again. However, this is a non-sequitur."

Actually it is not a non-sequitur at all. A non-sequitur is an argument where the premise is not logical to the conclusion or vice versa. Neither is the case here, though in fairness to Phil he probably means that the argument is not honest, rather than not logical.

Returning to the article:

"The death penalty is not enacted to defend against potential future offences, but as a punishment for an offence already committed. It is a retributive act, and so cannot be classed as defensive. If an individual, taken by a moment of madness, killed someone upon discovering their guilt in the death of a loved one, we may be able to justify or explain it as a crime of passion. However, unless this revelation came in the midst of a direct and immediate threat (to put it crudely, ?I killed your daughter and now I?ll kill you?), the killing is not a defensive one."

Phil has a very valid point here. We can't honestly argue that vengeance for society takes precedence over prevention of repeat crimes when the death penalty is invoked. However, this does not change the fact that the statistics show beyound reasonable doubt that murders are committed by criminals who have been released from prison after a serious offence. Therefore, capital punishment does help to keep society safer and prevent murder. That's a solid fact. Let's also remember that while judicial process should be as free from emotion a possible, one side effect of capital punishment is that it brings some level of comfort and closure to relatives and loved ones of any victims.



Phil again, this time discussing the issue of the death penalty being barbaric:

 "The decision-making process he [the anti-politician] is advocating is not barbaric at all, but unique to more developed societies. However, it should be pointed out that people do not think execution barbaric because of how people reach the decision to carry it out. The argument for it being barbaric is that it is an act of vengeance masking itself as justice, often based on a sentiment (?an eye for an eye?) that originated in the dark ages."

These points may seem valid at a first read but consider further. Is a trial by jury really an 'eye for an eye'? Juries are there to consider prosecution and defence. They will ponder the circumstances of the crime, any defence pleas such as insanity or retardation (a common defence plea in Texas, and no that is not a bad joke, it's true) and anything else presented at the trial. The jury will then consider if the criminal has committed murder in legal terms. It is not simply a case of 'you killed someone so we can kill you'. It is a slow, drawn out and painstaking process, the exact opposite of the anger fueled response Phil is suggesting we invoke.

Phil frequently returns to the idea that the death penalty argument is weakened by the fact that it could never protect against 'crimes of passion', such as the man who grabs his knife and stabs the man he's just caught in bed with his wife. But crimes of passion, by their very definition, are never going to represent the majority of serious crimes.  Such events are random by nature. In any case, in cases where there is provocation and/or little intent of a serious crime, surely most juries would not argue for the death sentence?


The final point Phil tackles is the one most difficult for both pro and anti-capital punishment sides. It's the issue of deterrent, or lack thereof.

I already made my case for the statistical evidence about a deterrent in my article but Phil concludes:

"The reason it is so hard to find a correlation between the use of the death penalty as a punishment and the murder rate is because there isn?t one."

Actually the true reason for the difficulty in establishing evidence of a deterrent is more complicated. The first reason is the use of a logical fallacy: negative proof.

Negative proof is a simple concept yet it is so often overlooked by my students and by left wingers in general. It works like this: I cannot show you that Santa Claus does not exist. Sure, I can show you the overwhelming argument that it would be impossible for him to exist, but I can't actually find any solid way to show that he is definitely not real. Likewise, I can't prove to you that stars in the night sky are not made of cheese, I can show you all the evidence that they are made of gas, but I cannot specifically disprove the cheese theory.

These silly examples make a valid point: we cannot prove something could of happened but didn't. How could we do so? A door to door survey asking "Have you ever decided not to commit a serious crime because you were scared of the punishment?"? Perhaps we could hold a walk in centre for people to tell us: "I was planning to rob a Bank and shoot someone but I changed my mind when I thought about the electric chair"? There simply is no way to monitor and record a potential criminal's change of mind.

The second problem with establishing a deterrent in capital punishment is the sheer number of variables in the equation. Imagine that we have a scientific experiment where doctors feed apples to monkeys every day to see if it helps them grow. It would be fairly easy to do this, provided we had a control group and no other variables. At the end of the test, doctors could compare growth charts for the two groups. With a big enough sample group, it would be easy to see the results and suggest if there is any evidence that apples spurt growth (though of course there would need to be lots of repeat tests).

But imagine if the doctors did not simply have the apple group and the non-apple group, but instead had hundreds of different groups with hundreds of variables. Some groups ate ten things a day, some groups ate just apples but then went outside to exercise, the next group ate apples and did no exercise. The next group ate green apples and the next group after that ate green and red apples...and so on.

The point here is, of course, that it would then become very hard for scientists to see what, if anything, affected the growth of all the different monkey groups in the experiment. There would be too many factors that could have influenced the monkey's growth patterns.

In our society today, trying to establish the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent would be almost as difficult as the task of the doctors in our second example. The variables at play in our society include population, changes in culture and media, changes in demographics, wealth, diet (yes, diet affects behaviour in many ways) and so many others.

So what can we hope to establish, well aside from the limited but crucial statistical evidence we can examine as per my first article? Well, we must must rely on common sense. Would you consider robbing a bank if you knew the worst possible consequence was a day in jail? Now would you still rob that bank if you knew the worst possible penalty was the electric chair? Not a hard decision is it? You weigh up the potential benefits against the possible consequences. This is human nature and despite Phil's argument that it is not realistic, it is. Many serious crimes such as assassinations, kidnapping and bank robberies require planing and forethought. They must include consideration of the potential outcomes and obstructions, or they would never be carried out.

Science supports us here, too. Behaviorism is a field of psychology that studies how behaviour of a species can be altered and conditioned. Numerous studies have shown that human behaviour can be modified by a consideration of the punishment involved for committing an act.

The risk of a wrongful conviction in capital punishment is a real concern. However, such evidence is almost non-existent in modern cases. Phil rightly mentions a case in Australia involving possibly invalid DNA evidence for some crimes. However, the chances of such evidence being faulty and a jury making a wrong decision and the court trial going the wrong way remain minuscule. There is no more sense in denying the death penalty because of this risk than there is of stopping everyone from driving because of the danger of a driving accident. We must be extremely vigilant and maintain the integrity and transparency of our judicial system and justice should follow its path.

Before I stop, I must finally point out that Phil is quite right to stress that arguments from emotion are not good arguments, but it is also true that some level of emotion nd empathy make us human, and help us to decide what is right. While it may be bad practise to let anger decide the punishment of a convicted ad guilty thug who kicks an old lady to death, I don't believe it is wrong to let us imagine her terror and sense of helplessness she must have felt in her last moments when we consider if the punishment should be thirty years in prison, or execution.

So thank you to Phil for another intriguing and well written article. The argument over the death penalty is likely to rumble on for a long time. I only hope that it is restored in the UK and saves lives in the process.

Cleric uses police to censor a blogger

This article is from pubphilosopher

*****************

I've been jolted out of my recent lethargy by this story. It appears that an Anglican vicar complained to the police about an article written by blogger Seismic Shock, which the vicar claimed had associated him with terrorist organisations . The police then paid a visit to the blogger and to his university, demanding access to his computer files and strongly suggesting that he should delete his blog.
The vicar, Stephen Sizer, apparently left this comment on a Christian blog that had linked to Seismic Shock:

Dear Vee,
You must take a little more care who you brand as anti-semitic otherwise you too will be receiving a caution from the police as the young former student of Leeds did recently. One more reference to me and you will be reported.
Blessings
Stephen

A number of bloggers have picked up this story and many are asking how the hell the police came to be involved in this. Surely an allegation of libel is a civil dispute not a matter for the police.

However, as regular readers of this blog will know, over the past few years the government has passed a number of laws which effectively give religious fanatics more rights and protection than the rest of us. They only have to utter the phrase 'religious hate speech', or something similar, and the police are obliged to follow the complaint up. Seismic Shock isn't the first person to have a visit from the cops after writing an article criticising a religious viewpoint, and he will not be the last.

Seismic Shock has been the victim of censorship by intimidation. Worse still, this was done using the taxpayer-funded forces of the state rather than the civil law. Regardless of where you stand on the Zionist vs Anti-Zionist conflict, or the various Jewish-Christian-Muslim arguments, this is a vicious attack on free speech.

If you have a blog, please publicise this story as many others have this weekend.

If you would like to email Stephen Sizer and tell him what you think, his address is here.

Hat Tip:Modernity Blog