What am I giving up for lent??

"Remember two years ago when you tried to give up alcohol for lent?" This was a text message I received a few days ago, and yes. Yes  I do. I lasted 30 minutes before caving in. It would be fair to suggest it was the least impressive display of willpower I know of, but this year I shall do no such thing!

Why should I even give up anything? I am not religious, and although I like chocolate at Easter, and presents at Christmas (and I loved the pancakes I had on Tuesday night) I feel no need to give up anything to mimic Jesus in the wilderness. In fact I find the whole concept of giving up something for lent incredibly negative! I am very happy with my life, so instead of giving something up, I am going to take on an activity. Twice a week outside of hockey I am going to go out running. A little bit of extra fitness never hurt anyone, and I have been looking for an excuse to get out running again, so what better time than now!

So this year, instead of giving something up, make a change for the better and try something new!

PER

Because I say so!

It has been a while since I have written a post, and I knew it had been too long when friends asked why I had given up! Just to clarify, I haven't given up, I have just been waiting for something to inspire me! Sure, I could have written about the snow, but everyone with a window saw that, or about my trip to see Jersey Boys (if you can, see this show) however, if you want to see it, I'm sure you will. But a topic of conversation has been appearing fairly frequently in my life, so I took it as some sort of sign. I must write about it, so here it goes: What is freedom of speech?

The right to Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. Wikipedia also "reliably" informs me that under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom of speech is recognised. The article states that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice"...Yeah right.

Although if freedom of speech is supposedly there, we live in a society happy to suggest one thing, and act in the opposite way. Recently the boxer Chisora was arrested for stating he was going to "literally shoot" David Haye, yet when Jeremy Clarkson suggests all protestors should be shot, no such action was taken. This is not the only level at which this hypocrisy exists. If freedom of speech is truly real, why was John Terry reprimanded? Surely he should be allowed to voice his thoughts? Or do we have to accept that freedom of speech does not exist? I understand that threatening to kill someone like Chisora did is more extreme than John Terry's case. However when Terry called upon his limited intelligence to construct a sentence, he based his insult purely on the aesthetics of his target. In other words he called Anton Ferdinand Black. This is considered a heinous racial crime, yet when a trio of muslim girls beat a white woman shouting obscenities such as "death to the white girl" they were acquitted of the crime due to the fact they were not used to drinking alcohol. Now this is not me ranting about racism or race, but simply  highlighting that freedom of speech, isn't.

Everyone should be able to voice their opinions, that is how a democracy works!

If however you disagree with anything I have said, tough, it's my opinion! :)

PER