Something deeply unpleasant has happened around this whole tiger enclosure tragedy. A man has died. His family will be grieving. His final moments are now being passed around online, not because people are solemnly reflecting on human dignity, but because they want ammunition in an argument. Yesterday I shared the footage with a cutting remark that he ought to be sent the medical bill. Yes, it was dark humour. At the time, he appeared relatively unharmed. I had no idea he had tragically lost his life. When I learned that he had died, I deleted the footage out of respect. I was cross because someone had entered an enclosure containing a magnificent and dangerous wild animal, potentially placing not only himself but the tiger at risk. I described the behaviour as stupid. Because entering a tiger enclosure is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. That is a description of an action. It is not a judgement on the dignity, worth or intelligence of the person involved. Could he have had a learning disability? Could he have been autistic? Could he have been mentally unwell or otherwise unable to recognise danger? Yes, possibly. But we do not know yet. What I find extraordinary is the number of people who have confidently diagnosed a complete stranger from a few seconds of footage, treating speculation as established medical fact. Apparently a raised finger is now enough for a full neurological assessment. Who knew? Meanwhile, my remarks have summoned the internet’s self-appointed guardians of compassion. I have been called soulless, unloving, ableist, a fake Catholic, a fake Christian and a disgrace to my faith. People have wished cancer on me. Others have wished me dead. And most revoltingly, I have been told that if my children die, I should expect no sympathy. All because I made a flippant comment about a man entering a tiger enclosure before I knew the tragic outcome. And these are the people lecturing me about kindness, empathy and Christian charity. Apparently describing dangerous behaviour as stupid is an unforgivable moral failing, but wishing death on a mother and invoking the deaths of her children is fine, provided it comes wrapped in a sanctimonious lecture about compassion. I didn’t claim my original joke was especially charitable. It was dark, sarcastic and made without knowledge of the tragic outcome. I do not regret making light of what, at the time, appeared to be an astonishing act of recklessness. But I do recognise that this man’s death is a terrible tragedy. His life had dignity and worth, whatever his circumstances or abilities. A tiger behaving like a tiger is not a moral failing. Concern that an innocent animal might be destroyed because of human error is not evidence of indifference towards human suffering. Nor does describing dangerous behaviour as stupid mean the person involved is somehow less deserving of compassion. If he was unable to understand the danger, that makes the failure to protect him even more serious. But I am not going to pretend that entering a tiger enclosure is sensible behaviour, nor will I accept that ordinary descriptive language has to be abandoned because someone on the internet has decided to take offence. You are perfectly entitled to dislike my humour. You are perfectly entitled to think my initial reaction was insensitive. You are not entitled to appoint yourself the arbiter of my faith while behaving with conspicuous cruelty towards me and my family. Christian charity is not a competition to see who can deliver the most sanctimonious denunciation. It is about how we treat other human beings, including those we dislike, disagree with or believe have said something wrong. There is nothing virtuous about displaying compassion for someone you never met while directing extraordinary nastiness & spite towards someone you dislike. Cruelty does not magically become compassion just because you have convinced yourself you are on the side of the angels.