OPINION: The Firebombing of Charlie Hebdo

The firebombing of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the early hours of this morning should send a shiver down the spine of all right-thinking and responsible people.

The editorial team had decided to make the next edition of the weekly magazine an "Arab Spring Special Edition" - to celebrate the new freedoms countries like Tunisia now had. The cover cartoon mocked the fact that Tunisia's new "freedoms" included the imposition of Sharia Law and had a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad saying: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".

The "Arab Spring Special Edition" hadn't even hit the newsstands yet.

Of course, cartoons of the prophet have been known to cause controversies before; the Jylands-Posten cartoons of 2005 caused no end of trouble with death threats, etc. The editors at Charlie Hebdo could, perhaps have thought things were different in France where, in 2007, their right to re-publish the Danish cartoons was upeld.

The Quran does not explicity outlaw images of Muhammad.

In fact, it is only in some supplementary teaching, called hadith, that Muslims are forbidden from making visual images of figures. Somehow, though, the fundamentalist and fanatical Muslims have decided that images of the prophet are a bad thing and to make such an image makes you a target for violent retribution.

Any sane person can see this is a nonsense. Can you imagine a ban on images of Jesus or the Buddha? Those religions not only allow for artists to create imagery of their religious figures but cope when those images are used to mock their religion. Why can't Islam be the same? Is Islamic belief that fragile?

And why make up extra rules that aren't in the Quran? It's not like art wasn't around before Muhammad had his revelations.

The Christian church has been worryling quiet about the Charlie Hebdo firebombing today. I realise that Rowan Williams is a bit busy trying to dig himself and St. Paul's Cathedral out of the huge hole they have created for themselves with their tepid response to the Occupy London protesters (and the huge finiancial investments and links the catherdal has with the City of London), and the Pope, well, he's always busy trying to cover up the wrong-doings of his clergy - but, surely, they should have stood strong and spoken out against this evil and dangerous fundamentalism?

Let's hope that politicians can stand up to this aggressive bullying by lunatics. No one should be in fear of their life because they draw or published a cartoon. No society should tolerate these extremists.

The story of the Arab Spring is yet to unfold - let's hope it is not the story of how fanatical lunatics took over a large amount of the world.

OPINION: The Occupy movement - are they going for the right targets?

A few weeks ago, when the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, I felt a sympathy for their cause - the anger at corporate greed, the world financial crisis and, the increasingly pantomime villains, the bankers.

This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.

So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.

It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?

Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.

The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.

Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?

And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.

Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.

Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.

* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.

* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.

* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.

To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.

This must stop.

OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!