Am I Charlie? The Problem of maintaining a moderate view

Source: Nury Vittachi


‘Je suis Charlie’I am Charlie – is the rallying call in Europe and even around the world but … am I Charlie? Can I really identify with the men who died and what they stood for? And if not, then who do I identify with?

We were all, quite understandably, shocked and appalled by the massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the subsequent murders which took place in Paris. Every form of media outlet was awash with stories, claims, opinions and debates and the social media busied itself with endless shares of cartoons from around the world. Overnight #JeSuisCharlie became a household term and the largest march of solidarity in French history took to the streets of Paris joined by many of the world’s most important people.

No one, to my knowledge, is condoning the attacks (bar the rants of radical extremists)but the sound of reason is certainly being drowned out by those who would have us believe it is right to point the finger at Muslims and condemn them in every conceivable way. We seem to believe that ‘incitement to hatred’ is a one-way affair – that only Muslims are – and can be – guilty of this. If you’re white, Western and (preferably) atheist then it is quite reasonable and acceptable to mock, jeer and call for an end to whole ways of life for billions of people. My aim in this post is to highlight some of the important articles on the internet which tell a different story in the hope (possibly vain) that this might redress the balance a little.

Although I have, of course, been following the news regarding the murders last week and their effect on whole communities of people, it was after reading a post on Facebook by writer Nury Vittachi that I felt the urge to add my contribution. Nury asserts that though it is right to condemn the barbarity of the attacks this doesn’t mean it is right to condone the actions and beliefs of Charlie Hebdo itself. He points out that it is a lie to believe we have the right to uncensored free speech:

EVERY country implants limits on free speech. Most commonly, defamation is banned… Hate speech is banned in almost every country. Material that can be seen as incitement to violence is banned… The publication of matter which violates “the offense principle” is prohibited to stop people causing a significant degree of offense to society or segments of society.

Does the material published by Charlie Hebdo violate any of these principles, in France, or in YOUR country, or in other countries? The answer is almost definitely yes.”

I shared his post on my Facebook and was immediately engaged in discussion with someone whose views worried me immensely. This man made it clear he considered all religious beliefs – particularly the concept of blasphemy –  ‘ridiculous’ and was offended that people are ‘required to respect these fairy tales’. He spewed out commonly cited extremes of religious thought to back his claims and would not accept my argument that, for many people who have a faith, insulting their God or prophet(s) is the same as abusing a family member. ‘How would you like it,’ I argued, ‘if someone called your wife or daughter a whore and jeered at you publicly day after day, encouraging others to do the same?’ Call my wife a bitch and sooner or later I’m going to snap I said – and his response was chilling: “If you do commit murder because of it, you’ll rightly go to prison. That said, at least your wife is real…if you can’t see the difference, there’s no helping you is there?”

His intolerance towards religion is chilling because I see comments like his repeatedly – incensed and violent in language – all over the internet on every media platform and daily wherever religion is discussed. Atheists have taken such a stronghold in every social and political stream that people seem to be blind to their own intolerance. It’s a given fact that religious people hold silly, made-up beliefs and no argument to refute this is accepted.

A friend, over Christmas, shared a link to a small news item where an English church minister blurted out to children during a service that ‘Santa Claus doesn’t exist’. My friend was angry at her cruelty but then labelled her a hypocrite because of her own beliefs. I was a little shocked that he equated a belief in the words of Jesus (a man rooted in history) with the fairy-tale of the fat man who climbs down several billion chimneys every Christmas Eve. I was stunned that a woman telling the truth (for no adult believes in Santa to my knowledge) was condemned for it on the basis of her own faith alone. It was a silly thing to say – no argument there – and the article made it clear she regretted her words the moment she said them, giving an apology straight away. It was an offhand remark and one that drunken uncles are guilty of every year at family gatherings. It is, after all, nothing but a story to entertain small children with and adults forget this sometimes.

It wasn’t so much the news item as the unquestionable assertion that religion has no basis in reality which concerned me considering nearly 6 billion people on the planet believe in some kind of deity or spiritual realm. I maintain that it is this arrogance which is the root behind the religious motivated acts of terrorism more than any other factor. When your religiously-centred culture is under constant attack – in word and deed – from others who believe you ridiculous and even, at times, inhuman is it any wonder that some of the disenfranchised rise up and take matters into their own, bitter and angry hands?

Corey Oakley writes about these attacks specifically on Muslims:

“For the last decade and a half the United States, backed to varying degrees by the governments of other Western countries, has rained violence and destruction on the Arab and Muslim world with a ferocity that has few parallels in the history of modern warfare.

It was not pencils and pens – let alone ideas – that left Iraq, Gaza and Afghanistan shattered and hundreds of thousands of human beings dead. Not twelve. Hundreds of thousands. All with stories, with lives, with families. Tens of millions who have lost friends, family, homes and watched their country be torn apart.

To the victims of military occupation; to the people in the houses that bore the brunt of “shock and awe” bombing in Iraq; to those whose bodies were disfigured by white phosphorous and depleted uranium; to the parents of children who disappeared into the torture cells of Abu Ghraib; to all of them – what but cruel mockery is the contention that Western “civilisation” fights its wars with the pen and not the sword?”

Oakley goes on to assert that we ignore facts like the persecution of Algerian Muslims by the secular French (the two gunmen last week were Algerian) and other secular attacks. In fact, if we were to score secularist against religious terrorism in Europe the secularists would win hands down. What the press doesn’t like to admit is that just 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe were religiously motivated!

terrorism EU 2

This is a staggering statistic.

Beenish Ahmed asserts that Islamic-based terrorism in America is also all but non-existent:

“Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina, has called Muslim Americans “a minuscule threat to public safety.”

In his most recent report tracking Islamist militancy in America, he included this startling figure. “The United States suffered approximately 14,000 murders in 2013. Since 9/11, Muslim-American terrorism has claimed 37 lives in the United States, out of more than 190,000 murders during this period.””

One could begin to suspect that there is a conspiracy here to ghettoize Muslims in a manner reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That far right groups are gaining political ground in Europe makes this more than mere rhetoric. It wasn’t for no reason at all that Le Pen wasn’t invited to the march in Paris last week.

Elizabeth Plank takes up exactly this theme when she revealed that the Charlie Hebdo attack was not the only terrorist action which took place over the same 24 hour period. Yet why was only the Paris attack given considerable air time? she asks:

“On Tuesday morning, the NAACP offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado, came under attack when someone who is believed be a balding white man in his 40s dropped an explosive device that went off a few feet from the building. And on Wednesday morning, news broke of a horrifying mass shooting at satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in France that left 12 dead and several wounded.

Both acts were motivated by radical ideology, but only one of them is being covered by the 24-hour news cycle. What gives?”

She goes on to demonstrate how language is used completely differently to report the two attacks. The bomb planted by a white man was ‘isolated act of violence’ but the Paris murders was ‘an act of terrorism’.

It’s not the first time this has happened either, Plank points out:

“…after a white man in Texas purposely crashed his plane into a building known to house IRS staff and left a note describing his plans for mass murder in 2010, a police chief described his acts as “a criminal act by a lone individual” rather than terrorism. When Elliot Rodger espoused his radical anti-woman ideology and killed six people near the University of California, Santa Barbara last year, newspapers like the Santa Barbara Independent , described him as a “lone gunman.” And Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said Rodger’s acts were “the work of a madman.” “

It really does seem the media want us to believe separate things about similar acts. But it’s not just the hypocrisy of reporting terrorism (or not) but the blindness towards our own acts which concerns me greatly. As Jared Keller notes concerning the political leaders found ‘linking arms’ on the march of solidarity with 3.7 million others on the streets of Paris, many of them had no right to be there.

“But as Reporters Without Borders points out, their policies at home are far from compatible with the solidarity for free speech on display throughout France.

The organization said Sunday that it was “appalled by the presence of leaders from countries where journalists and bloggers are systematically persecuted such as Egypt (which is ranked 159th out of 180 countries in RWB’s press freedom index), Russia (148th), Turkey (154th) and United Arab Emirates (118th).””

He quotes the tweets of student Daniel Wickham which list the Human Rights record of 21 of the 40 world leaders who gathered in Paris for the march. The mind boggles at how easily we lay aside what we know about our leaders when we hear the rallying call to solidarity.

Human Rights records brings me back nicely to the issue of religion with which we started. The person who commented on my Facebook post seemed adamant that religion is responsible for so much inhumanity in the world and he’s right – it is. But what media and scholars rarely tell us is that secular states have Human Rights records just as appalling. Over half of the countries listed by the IHRRI at the bottom of the ranking are secular states. China, North Korea, Vietnam and many more have terrible records and we should not forget the awful death toll in communist Russia especially during Stalin’s time where some experts estimate more than 20 million people were killed in the name of secular government.

The final big lie we all seem happy to swallow is the one which implicitly suggests all Muslims are secretly condoning the terrorist actions of Islamic extremists. ‘Why don’t they speak out against it?’ we ask ourselves. ‘If they were really one of us then they would publicly condemn these actions. But they don’t’.

This, I believe, is our worst crime in many ways (speaking as a white westerner). As filmmaker Kamran Pasha reveals, every single major Muslim group in the USA has spoken out condemning terrorist acts. You can find a list of these here but Pasha’s article links to many other sources as evidence to his claims.

His addendum to the article fills me with despair. No sooner had he demonstrated that Muslims are active in their condemnation of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists than he was then accused of it being nothing but empty words:

“In response to this article, the new meme is being promulgated: “Muslims condemn terrorism, but it’s all talk! Sure, Muslims say they condemn terrorism, but there’s no action!”

Where do I begin to respond to this kind of nonsense? There are 1. 5 billion Muslims living their lives in peace, trying to put food on the table for their families. Over six million of them live here in America as patriotic citizens. They work hard, pay their taxes, and have ZERO contact with the criminal underworld where these terrorists breed.

I have never, ever met a terrorist in real life (it is ridiculous that I even have to say this). If I met one, I would turn him in to the authorities, as would every other Muslim I know. Since I don’t have access to this shadowy underworld, I live my life on the surface in broad daylight, working in my community to promote interfaith cooperation, peace and prosperity. It is that grassroots effort that Muslims do to promote good in this world that receives ZERO coverage in the media. I could list every single good thing I and other Muslims have ever done to make the world a better, safer place, but people who hold this attitude don’t care. It will never be enough. If I listed 1 million positive things Muslims are doing in their daily lives today on this planet, they would respond: “Why can’t you name a billion things you’ve done? See, you’re not doing enough!”

So I ask those who are outraged at this supposed Muslim inaction: “What have YOU done to defeat racism in this world?” List every single thing you have ever done to fight the Ku Klux Klan. List it here, right now. Times, dates and hyperlinks please. The response would be that I am crazy — average Americans have nothing to do with the KKK, and don’t need to justify their daily actions in support of righteousness to me or anyone else. But that same common sense response is rejected when a Muslim uses it.”

Which brings me to my final point (which in turn brings us back to my initial questions). Can I say Je suis Charlie? For all I’ve stated above, I do believe in the right to free speech and the right to live our lives in peace without fear of violent action against us. But I also believe that it is human nature that when you throw stones at people sooner or later they will hurl rocks back. The cartoonists and journalists at Charlie Hebdo are being hailed as heroes because they knew their lives were at risk and persisted with their work. The latest edition out today has sold in millions rather than its normal circulation of tens of thousands in part as people pay homage to the men. But I can find only one hero among the dead.

While #JeSuisCharlie went viral around the world, so did #JeSuisAhmed and rightly so. That a Muslim police officer died protecting the rights of others to offend him has not been lost on the world. This is the only man to come out of this unblemished in my opinion. He caused no offence, killed no one, committed no act of insult or terrorism – and was executed for his pains.

I don’t know to what extent I can say I am Charlie or I am Ahmed for I am too distantly removed to truly say I stand in their place. I don’t know to what extent I want to, if I’m honest. But I do know that the claim of secularists that ‘at least we don’t kill people for our beliefs‘ is a stupid and dangerous one. For while we choose to ignore one side and build up the other, while we dismiss one opinion and overstate another, while we consider it our right to abuse, ridicule and offend but cry foul when some choose to retaliate – while all this continues whatever flag we choose to wave will have blood on it and we’re all responsible for that.

This entry was posted in community, Culture, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Am I Charlie? The Problem of maintaining a moderate view

  1. Pingback: How to kill ISIS (and why we don’t want to) | kenthinksaloud

  2. Pingback: Who does our thinking for us? | Write Out Loud

  3. KawaiiBarbarian says:

    RE: China, North Korea, Vietnam and many more have terrible records and we should not forget the awful death toll in communist Russia especially during Stalin’s time where some experts estimate more than 20 million people were killed in the name of secular government.

    Sorry, but this is BS. At least about Russia. Stalin was the same damon as Putin now or Ivan The 4th Grozniy.

    Those reports about Russia is the same western BS as image of bloody muslims.

    Bloody “muslims” are only those who lick washignon, london or saudi legs or other body parts – they are shaitans, but not real muslims.


    • D K Powell says:

      No, it’s well-researched actually. Archival material from Russia is available and I know for a fact that atrocities were happening in the Soviet states right up until the Berlin Wall came down – this came from first-hand material from Russians themselves. If you can prove your point of view please refer us to your reference documents to back up your claims.

      Your reference to Muslims is, quite honestly, offensive. I have little time for anyone calling people they disagree with as ‘satan’ or ‘shaitans’ or whatever.


  4. Thank you Ken bhai for such a fantastic, researched, evidence-driven post. It’s easily one of the best I’ve read or written.

    Everything these days devolves into a question of whether Muslims secretly condone Terrorism or not. I guess, it is the best way to keep them on the defensive, constantly apologizing. There’s no pro-Islam position I can take – no matter how justified or logical – without being asked to apologize for / condemn Terrorism. It’s a source of both Indignity and Anger. We, common Muslims, are stuck between the criminals who act in our name and the instigators who oppress with their War on Terror rhetoric. In effect, Muslim intellectual discourse, statistics and arguments have been completely written off in International spheres.

    You Facebook encounter reminded me how many Westerners find it boring or futile to engage with Muslims who are well-read, rational thinkers. That’s no fun! Bring out the crazies. Everywhere I look, extremists (religious or secular) are leading the charge in the name of nations that have coexisted peacefully for centuries. The question is: who are these few that so hungers for a conflict and what is their ideology?

    Liked by 2 people

    • D K Powell says:

      It means a great deal to me that you appreciated this post Adnan bhai – thank you for your support. I suspect that much of the answer to your question lies in the fact people all over the world like to distrust people who are ‘other’ to them. The best way to support a notion that ‘they’ are evil/corrupt/bad is to let those ‘crazies’ you speak of speak loud and clear and silence those who are sane and reasonable.

      I’ve noticed just in the last 24 hours that publicity given to militant hate-inciting American Christian preachers is treated as – at worst – funny. No one wants to throw such people in prison or demand that their followers ‘leave the country’. Yet the west seems determined to paint Islam in this way and ignore the truth.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Yours is the most balanced and fair piece I’ve read so far on this issue. You may be interested in reading

    Liked by 1 person

  6. D K Powell says:

    Reblogged this on Write Out Loud and commented:

    I wrote this article for my personal blog a couple of days ago but thought that my readers on this blog might be interested too as most of you are very different people! Please, if you agree (even broadly) with the points raised, do share this post through your blogs, Twitter, Facebook and so on.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
    ― Edmund Burke


  7. Ben Naga says:

    As you quote, Corey Oakley wrote:

    “For the last decade and a half the United States, backed to varying degrees by the governments of other Western countries, has rained violence and destruction on the Arab and Muslim world with a ferocity that has few parallels in the history of modern warfare.

    It was not pencils and pens – let alone ideas – that left Iraq, Gaza and Afghanistan shattered and hundreds of thousands of human beings dead. Not twelve. Hundreds of thousands. All with stories, with lives, with families. Tens of millions who have lost friends, family, homes and watched their country be torn apart.

    To the victims of military occupation; to the people in the houses that bore the brunt of “shock and awe” bombing in Iraq; to those whose bodies were disfigured by white phosphorous and depleted uranium; to the parents of children who disappeared into the torture cells of Abu Ghraib; to all of them – what but cruel mockery is the contention that Western “civilisation” fights its wars with the pen and not the sword?”

    For my two two-penneth:


    “The War on Terror …”
    Dressed in tricksy rhetoric
    Obomber drones on
    While collateral damage
    No longer has flesh or bones

    Please see also

    Liked by 1 person

    • D K Powell says:

      Thank you for your thoughts Ben and also for the link which was very good. While I broadly agree it does feel like your stance leaves Muslims and other religious people who might feel great offence somewhat powerless other than to ‘have the right to be offended and complain about it’. I go back to my metaphor that if you call my wife a whore often enough and long enough and I can’t make you stop by any legal means then sooner or later I’m not sure how many would blame me for punching you. While I don’t – not for one minute – condone the killings (there is no justification) it is also human nature that something is going to build until those who have political motives (lets not forget the politics behind this which the West has to understand its culpability with) are going to snap and take ‘an eye for an eye’. Your WAR IS PEACE comment, I think, is describing this very frustration for those who are powerless.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ben Naga says:

        I think the argument as to where to draw the line in retaliation to malicious offence will be going on long before you and I are dead and gone. 🙂


        • D K Powell says:

          Or after even! 😉 Yes, alas I think you’re right. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all figured out how to fight these battles with words (and pictures, perhaps?) rather than with violence or even the need for law courts and policing. But then that would require the whole world to act like adults really…


      • Ben Naga says:

        I read recently an article pointing out the difference between what is “legal” (i.e. what is possible within a statute) within and what is (morally) lawful.


  8. Armin Pöhlmann says:

    Thank you, Ken, for this text! “Je suis Charlie” became a very easy phrase for so many people – but I doubt that everybody reflects it in that deep way like you. I became a symbol of “freedom of speech”, but to my taste, there is too much spoken and too less listened in this world.
    There is no ear for all the goodhearted and moderate people in the world who are injured by drawing the Prophet as a bearded Muslim with turban, weather shown as a good or a bad man. Now the picture of this cartoon-figure holding a sign “Je suis Charlie” goes around the world – the latest issue of Carlie Hebdo. And half of the world says: “What a great, forgiving gesture of the surviving cartoonists!” – and the other half says: “Again they show us this ugly drawing and claim this is the holy Prophet”. And both are right in their own universe of mind – but they will never understand unless they listen to eachothers hearts.
    In many articles I read that cartoons are humorous and funny, and humor unites humanity, and only inhumane people like terrorists are insulted. But in this case cartoons don’t unite but split humanity. They are meant to attack. There is another cartoon by Charlie Hebdo showing the Trinity (it can easily be googled) – and as a Christian I find it really bad, ugly and offensive. But as a Christian in the Western world I have learnt to shut up and to ignore such things while trying to get them out of my head, so I can live my daily life in peace of mind.
    The Carlie-Hebdo-Version of Muhammad will become picture of the year, and it will become the official-inofficial picture of the Prophet in the West. And the West will think of it as a good and understanding representation, and the Muslim world will condemn it, and the Muslims in the Western world will not know what to do. Because of this fhank you especially for referring to JeSuisAhmed and the dimension of Ahmed’s sacrifice.
    Sorry for writing such a long text, I couldn’t stop. 🙂


    • D K Powell says:

      Thank you Armin for commenting – please don’t apologise for writing much here. I love to read well-thought through comments!I agree with your thoughts and am pleased to see like-minded people – it brings hope to me that humanity is not completely lost. Best wishes, Ken 🙂


  9. davidprosser says:

    A very well thought out piece. I’m one of those athiests who doesn’t object or ridicule those who hold a belief. I do think kit wrong that we indoctrinate children who should be allowed to choose what to follow – if anything- when they hit their teens but in the interim should be taught respect for all others.
    The killing in France was awful ( as it is anywhere) but we do tend to forget that the magazine had taken a potshot at Islam via the cartoon when Moslems are taught to revere Mohammed rather differently that Christians look at Jesus. As you rightly say, in the West we wouldn’t appreciate insults to our family and would probably react.In America most probably with a gun.
    I detest the fundamentalists who preach hate but am aware that most Moslems just want to get on with their lives, putting bread on the table every day. But every time the West decides it wants oil and foments unrest we send more recruits to the terrorists.
    As Thomas Paine said. The world is my country; mankind is my brethren; to do good is my religion.


    • D K Powell says:

      Thank you David. It’s good to know there are some atheists out there just as there are religious ones out there too who are happy to let people believe whatever they wish with respect and in peace. You quote from Thomas Paine is excellent and perfect for the occasion – thank you 🙂


  10. Reblogged this on Kruti Mehta and commented:

    A refreshing piece on much going debate “Je Suis Charlie”


  11. Anonymous says:

    It is a superb article so far I read on this issue. Thank you ken unlce for this incredible article ☺


  12. orples says:

    I love the ‘up yours’ attitude the newspaper is displaying in their reaction to the terrorists who have obviously failed in their attempts to frighten the paper into submission. It appears the terrorists who carried out the attacks, not only died in vain, they shone a light on the paper, increasing its revenues due to their horrendous fear tactics.

    I love it when a terrorist shoots themselves in the foot trying to make their point.

    Still in the end, It is so sad people died because of some looney tune’s outrageous religious beliefs.


    • D K Powell says:

      I think that the motives for the shootings were more political than religious to be honest. This is why Muslims have and do come out in condemnation of these and other attacks. They have nothing to do with mainstream Islam. But dissaffected young men (and women) are easy to suck into political movement – which are really the purposes of ISIS and Al Quaeda. These attacks were making a point that these groups can strike anywhere anytime. So I think the verdict is still out about whether or not their efforts failed this time.


      • orples says:

        Given the fact that Charlie stood up to these fanatics in such a brazen manner is, in my opinion, the best move they (Charlie) could have made. It sends a strong message, and the world appears to be standing with them. I think you are probably right about the political vs religious motives.


  13. This post is incredible.
    It is the most cohesive post I have read on the subject matter since the unfortunate incident occurred. You look at it from varied angles.. I like the fact that you are questioning whether you can be Charlie or whether you may be too far removed to know.. And how you have included Ahmed.. Who seems to be overlooked at times.
    I am in awe at how you have captured the very essence of what this is all about. There are a lot of points that I agree with in this article and a lot of other valid points that I did not consider, as well as new information that I am learning.
    Again, I think this is incredible and I applaud you for taking the time to write such an outstanding and refreshing post!

    Liked by 1 person

    • D K Powell says:

      Thank you so much for your lovely comments. Yes, I could not ignore Ahmed – he is key to any hope of peaceful resolution in Paris to all that has taken place. He literally falls between two different worlds.

      I thank YOU for reading it and, I hope, encouraging others to read it too. I keep hoping and praying for peace between people and it starts with understanding…

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Brilliant post. Freedom of speech is a cloaked dagger; yes, you could say what you wish, but there are often consequences. It is a terrible thing to have happened and I certainly don’t condone it, but was it really appropriate to mock an entire religion? I think not.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Pingback: Am I Charlie? The Problem of maintaining a moderate view | The British Asian Blog

  16. This is a refreshing piece I’ve read in days, so much so, that I’m going to re=blog it over at my blog and ping it back to you. The information contained is priceless.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Superb article, excellent research and explained with admirable clarity — Ken, you are a treasure

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Alas, a rational analysis! With so much ‘freedom of speech’ around it’s become risky saying anything else than ‘I am Charlie’. I fear the major problem nowadays is that what is being attacked is our principles. Whether it’s our belief, religion or faith. Freedom of speech should be based on respect and that of course applies to EVERYONE! I also heard that CNN campaigned that Santa story ought to be banned because it creates false perceptions to children! Honestly! The only thing / god excluded from any criticism is, well, money. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo resulted in the unjustifiable and tragic loss of BRILLIANT cartoonists / artists and men. Killing is unjustifiable, period – hell, I believe it’s unjustifiable for animals! I can’t bring myself to say however that it is freedom of speech to mock religions / gods. It’s like holding a precious gem in your hands, while believing that this is your source of life and someone telling you that this gem is actually a piece of charcoal. That particular freedom of speech may actually ruin your whole life. If some people believe they should fight over something, how about education / culture / peace and… respect.
    Thank you, my dear Ken for this exceptionally insightful post.

    Liked by 2 people

Over to you! What do YOU think? Comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.