Social Justice Atheists in a Dilemma

Hatemonger Hemant Mehta is upset:

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Scotland was on the verge of banning the “crime” of blasphemy. The nation had proposed a new Hate Crimes Bill, designed to modernize the law, that included a clause abolishing “blasphemy” as a crime. Fantastic news!

But maybe I spoke too soon.

It now appears that bill also includes a section that would criminalize “stirring up hatred” against various groups… including religious ones.

Somehow, blasphemy will be eliminated but hurting religious sensibilities could be prosecuted. How does that make any sense?!

LOL.  It’s fun to watch the social justice atheists twist themselves into knots.  They advocate for Hate Speech Laws and censorship, but only when it serves them well.  They want to carve out special exemptions that allow them to continue hating (certain ;)) religions and religious people.  In the world of Social Justice, hurting someone’s sensibilities is considered violence.  But not so when it comes to hating on religious people.

So it’s quite entertaining to watch Social Justice Anti-Christian activists scramble about trying to come up with Hate Speech laws that allow them to continue to spread hate.

HT: Dhay

 

This entry was posted in activism, Hypocrisy, social justice atheism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Social Justice Atheists in a Dilemma

  1. StardustyPsyche says:

    “So it’s quite entertaining to watch Social Justice Anti-Christian activists scramble about”
    No scramble required.
    Attacking a race or gender or similar trait is not OK.
    Attacking ideas is OK.
    Expressing contempt for public figures is OK.
    Expressing contempt for private individuals is not OK.

    So, I am perfectly OK in attacking Islam, the ideas, the ideology. Also, I am perfectly OK in condemning public Islamic leaders. It would not be OK for me to walk up to an individual Muslim on the street and launch into an anti Islamic tirade.

    The principle of a personal verbal assault constituting a crime of assault was established in law long before hate speech laws were enacted..

  2. apollyon911 says:

    Except few, if any atheists will publicly target Islam (or any religion except Christianity. How many attack Judaism)? Atheists are invariably authoritarian and support suppression of ideas/views/beliefs they don’t like.

    They needn’t worry: ‘Hate Speech Laws’ etc. will never be used to target critics (no matter how vile) of Christians or Christianity, only Islam, which atheists are ok with (at least the vocal atheists).

  3. Kevin says:

    It would not be OK for me to walk up to an individual Muslim on the street and launch into an anti Islamic tirade.

    Does that hold true for those whose political views don’t align with yours? Say, someone wearing a MAGA hat?

  4. Dhay says:

    StardustyPsyche > The principle of a personal verbal assault constituting a crime of assault was established in law long before hate speech laws were enacted.

    In none of the nations of the UK has a personal verbal assault constituting a crime of assault ever been a “principle” (whatever you might mean by that): it’s not in enacted laws, nor is it to be found in case law (established precedent.)

    *

    Guys, don’t get sidetracked with whether or not Islam is treated differently to Christianity. The Bill includes — see Section 2d — all “religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation” as to be treated on an equal footing with all the other characteristics in Section 2:

    1 Aggravation of offences by prejudice
    (1) An offence is aggravated by prejudice if—
    (a )where there is a specific victim of the offence—
    (i) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender evinces malice and ill-will towards the victim, and
    (ii) the malice and ill-will is based on the victim’s membership or presumedmembership of a group defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (2), or
    (b) whether or not there is a specific victim of the offence, the offence is motivated(wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (2).
    (2) The characteristics are—
    (a) age,
    (b) disability,
    (c) race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins,
    (d) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
    (e) sexual orientation,
    (f) transgender identity,
    (g) variations in sex characteristics.
    (3) It is immaterial whether or not the offender’s malice and ill-will is also based (to any25 extent) on any other factor.

    [pdf download.]
    https://beta.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced-hate-crime-and-public-order-bill.pdf

    I raised the matter because Hemant Mehta is concerned that protections already in place for some other groups…

    The bill would create a range of new ‘stirring up hatred’ offences – including ‘stirring up hatred’ on the basis of religion. It’s already an offence in Scotland to ‘stir up hatred’ on some other grounds – such as race and nationality. Now the Scottish government, which is concerned by the growth of bigoted attitudes, wants to expand it.

    https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2020/05/scotlands-new-hate-speech-law-will-be-too-censorious

    …are now going to be expanded to cover giving some other specified groups, too, (including religious groups) that same protection, to cover giving all groups (including religious groups) equal treatment in law.

    Mehta objects.

  5. StardustyPsyche says:

    apollyon911
    “Except few, if any atheists will publicly target Islam (or any religion except Christianity. How many attack Judaism)? ”
    Wow, I guess you kind of missed out on that new atheist thing, eh? Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins. Really?

    Kevin says:
    “Does that hold true for those whose political views don’t align with yours? Say, someone wearing a MAGA hat?”
    Donald trump in a MAGA hat, may the ranting begin. Some old guy just walking down the street in a MAGA hat, anybody who out of the blue just starts raging at the guy should probably be arrested. A protester in a MAGA hat who is himself shouting various slogans, turnabout is fair play.

    Dhay
    “In none of the nations of the UK has a personal verbal assault constituting a crime of assault ever been a “principle” (whatever you might mean by that): it’s not in enacted laws, nor is it to be found in case law (established precedent.)”
    Didn’t anybody ever tell you that the USA is “The World”? 🙂
    In the USA you can be charged for a technical assault, one based only on the exchange of words.

    The principle is that of instilling fear, which can be a severely painful experience, sufficiently similar to the infliction of physical pain that under US law it can constitute a criminal act.

  6. TFBW says:

    Wow, I guess you kind of missed out on that new atheist thing, eh? Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins. Really?

    You’re making me feel nostalgic. Yes, I remember the good old days when outspoken atheists would include snipes at Islam in amongst their anti-Christian rhetoric. In the last several years, however, the majority of atheists have become ideologically possessed by Identity Politics. Islam is a protected species of religion under that scheme, because Identity Politics basically means anti-white, anti-straight, anti-male, anti-Western, and anti-Christian.

    I don’t count you among that majority of atheists, by the way, Stardusty. You’re special.

  7. Isaac says:

    In the good old days, it was basically atheists cashing in on anger over 9/11 and trying to somehow transfer that over onto Christians by attributing it to religion in general.

    “Take a good look at those towers burning. Yeeesssss. Now, repeat after me: ‘Religion makes people do this.'”

    Did it work? I think it helped to tear down the amount of general respect held for Christianity in America. But we’re objectively, collectively dumber, less interested in science, more superstitious, and less ethical than we were before then. So perhaps there were unintended consequences.

  8. TFBW says:

    Collectively dumber? Oh yes, I remember the good old days when we knew the difference between male and female.

  9. Kevin says:

    Remember when disagreeing with someone wasn’t considered violence against them?

  10. TFBW says:

    Yeah, good times! And remember when you could go to work or the beach without being accused of wanting to kill grandma?

  11. Kevin says:

    You mean when people wanting to go to work and support their families and save their businesses are deemed Nazis and terrorists, while people burning and looting and assaulting are called understandably frustrated protesters?

    Oh wait, that’s today.

  12. TFBW says:

    Aw, don’t kill the mood.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.