Random Fire*

Photo: Zoelee
The O£ympics torch relay went near to where I live on Friday. I somehow managed to resist the temptation to go and see it, but I did see the pictures, and marvelled at the number of people getting so excited at... well, so little. I was reminded of the above excellent picture that appeared on Boing Boing on Tuesday, which says everything we need to know about the torch relay.

Ever since the German court case which declared male circumcision to be against the child's interests, I have been mulling over writing a post on the subject (particularly after Jewish and Muslim leaders complained that the decision was contrary to their rights!), but I don't think I could do any better than this piece by Catherine Bennett in the Observer today. She concludes:
"Either the mutilation of children is wrong or, as many resentful supporters of [female genital mutilation] would argue, it is every parent's fundamental right to redesign their child's genitals."
The mutilation of children is, of course, wrong and would surely amount to child abuse if it weren't veiled in ancient mumbo-jumbo religious superstitions. After two thousand (or more) years it is really about time that we faced up to this fact.

On the subject of mumbo-jumbo religious superstitions, the UK Human Rights Blog yesterday published a post telling us that:
"Mississippi has officially made it illegal to talk to children about Richard Dawkins, reports the joyously-named website www.laughinginpurgatory.com."
Unfortunately for the UK Human Rights Blog, the story was a hoax, as they have since admitted. Now, anyone can fall for a hoax (and, it is true, little would surprise me when it comes to the antics of the American Christian fundamentalists), but it is particularly amusing when the victim is one of this country's most serious law blogs.

Lastly, good on Lady Steele for having a pink jaguar tattooed on her shoulder as a 70th birthday present to herself, thereby "proving that you’re never too old enough to do mad things". I would have liked to see the looks on the faces of the staid old fuddy-duddies in 'respectable social circles' who apparently took a dim view of it.

Right, now I'm off to have a blast in the sunshine in my Caterham...

*          *          *          *          *

*I've wanted to use this post title before, but haven't done so, as it used to be used by Geeklawyer. Sadly, Geeklawyer's Blog is now no more than a distant memory of a great love affair, so I figured it would be OK to use it now without fear of plagiarism.


  1. I wonder how many members of the High Court and the Supreme Court have tattoos and if so, what and where?...actually I don't think I want to know (way too much information).

    1. Yes, I daren't think what those judges get up to in their spare time...


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.