I’m getting pretty sick and tired of the way Europe and North America kowtow to Islam. Due to both misplaced fear of prejudice and genuine fear of reprisal from the “religion of peace”, the Danish people have decided that criminalizing the defacing of religious symbols is a good idea. Well, I should be more specific: spineless social democrats and Liberals made this decision, not the general public.

This is actually a move backwards. The country had eliminated blasphemy laws back in 2017, but has since re-introduced a version that explicitly calls out the defacing of the Koran as having “major consequences”:

The bill prohibits “the improper treatment of objects of significant religious significance to a religious community.” There is no doubt, however, that it is the public burning of the Quran that the government wants to prevent. Indeed, the bill refers to such acts, mentioning their “major consequences” for Denmark and “its interests,” as well as its “security.”

I’m hoping that the hundreds of artists and writers who signed a petition demanding the withdrawal of the bill has some traction, but I’m guessing otherwise. What really needs to happen is that someone with some balls needs to challenge this ridiculous law. I would love to see them squirm to punish someone who dares to defy this unjust law. If any Dutch Muslim has a problem with free expression, they can always move to a country that does not value this sort of thing.

There’s no denying it: the UK is afraid of free speech. With their ridiculous libel laws, scientists are routinely brought to trial for exposing quacks and frauds. Ben Goldacre, author of the book Bad Science has spent a considerable amount of his own money defending himself from England’s ridiculous legal system. While the country claims to give its citizens freedom of speech, in reality their rights are ‘negative’, meaning the government simply doesn’t prosecute speech, unless of course it includes the following:

1. Threatening, abusive, or insulting speech

2. Behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace

3. Incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred

4. Incitement to terrorism, encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications or even glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist [whatever the fuck that means]

5. Treason including imagining the death of the monarch [don’t use your imagination in England]

6. Sedition [speech critical of government or other institutions]

7. Obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[So they would still jail Socrates I guess]

8. Defamation,[basically calling quacks out on their shit]

There’s also a bunch of other stuff related to court proceedings, but I think you get the gist of what I’m saying. I haven’t even included Blasphemy Laws in this whole mess. Why bother when it should already be patently clear that free speech is a misnomer in the UK. You’re free not to offend or defame anyone, and that’s about it.

A perfect example of their cowardice is the arrest and trial of Peter Crawford, who decided to express his outrage at Islam by showing up at an information kiosk and ripping his own copy of the Qur’an, finally throwing it on the ground yelling “your religion is bullshit”. Naturally, nearby Muslims were in shock that other people on this planet could give a fucking rat’s ass about their shitty book, but this was enough to arrest him and send him to court to waste everyone’s precious time and resources defending a religion that can’t seem to defend itself.

He is on trial at Leicester Crown Court accused of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group, Islam. He denies the charge.

How is ripping the pages of a fucking book causing distress to anyone? Perhaps their inflated sense of righteousness is actually to blame here: no one who claims to possess the sole truth about the Universe would react so strongly to any challenge unless they felt somewhat insecure about their beliefs. It cannot be easy defending the indefensible, but that does not mean we should warrant jailing or prosecuting individuals simply for having ‘hurt’ the feelings of people highly invested in nonsense.

Mr Quyyum agreed that apart from a hand gesture – which Mr Newcombe suggested was the pointing of a finger rather than a gun gesture – the defendant did not threaten or provoke any violence.

So why then is anyone bothering to bring him to ‘justice’? Because he dared to insult the feelings of Muslims by showing zero respect for their holy book? Good. Any book that encourages its readers to kill anyone who does not share their ideology deserves as much. The fact the government has to employ its legislative powers in an attempt to save face for these religious ass-hats is hat so shocking. it amounts to the government suppressing dissent, a clear sign of intellectual cowardice and moral bankruptcy. Thank you for showing us the wrong way to handle free speech, guys.

Every religion claims to be the one and only truth, but when confronted with conflicting reality, their true colors really come out. Faith is actually a fragile thing: it persists due to ignorance, and is fueled by a raw hatred of anything contrary to its pathetic narrative. Nowhere is this more true than with Islam. This religion is possibly the most insecure religion of them all. Dissent is not tolerated, and apostasy is a real crime in their eyes. If God truly is on their side, why does ‘He’ need to be defended so much?

While we non-believers know the real answer (i.e., that one ridiculous superstition is as unworthy as the next), the faithful have tried to justify their persecution as piety. The latest in a series of injustices brought to you by the world’s most violent and misogynistic faith involves an Egyptian man by the name of Alber Saber. He’s accused of being an atheist and spreading ‘sectarian ideas’ (which you quickly realize are two conflicting charges), and faces up to 5 year in jail for the crime of speaking his mind.

The case against Saber, who is charged with ‘contempt of religion’ for being an atheist and for allegedly spreading ‘sectarian ideas’ after being accused of disseminating the anti-Islam film that sparked protests across the Islamic world in September, is a battle for belief, or no belief, and is riding high on activists’ minds.

Amnesty International has asked that people write to the Egyptian government urging them to release Saber, whose only crime is having a controversial opinion about God. Unfortunately, with the growing power of Islamic fundamentalists in the country who demand a hardline stance against any perceived insult to Islam, it’s doubtful Saber will be released. It’s far more likely, in fact, that he will be found guilty this December and spend 5 years behind bars for daring to question the validity of the world’s most insecure religion. I would also seriously question his safety inside the prison: he was apparently threatened with sharp blades and some neck slashing before he ‘confessed’ to the crime. This was after an angry mob had attacked him in his home. None of these violent vigilantes face any kind of punishment for taking the law in their own hands. This is the double standard of Egypt, and it’s not about to change any time soon.

The bravery of religion is yet again on display, this time in Pakistan where a man has been sentence to death for supposedly insulting the prophet Mohammed. There’s a familiar pattern that arises in these parts: the predominately Muslim population has a few altercations with other religious groups that are Christian, and suddenly the lone person is accused of blasphemy and is usually beaten, followed by the customary kangaroo court.

Hazrat Ali Shah, 25, was convicted of blaspheming against the Muslim Prophet Mohammed and the Koran during a quarrel in his village in northern Pakistan in March 2011.

Despite the fact that many in government are actually afraid of this law, no one has the balls to repeal it, since fundamentalists can easily stir up their violence base in order to execute anyone who opposes them. While it’s true that no one has actually been executed under this law (enacted in 1986), those sentenced are usually imprisoned and then forgotten about, only to be left in the hands of their Islamic fellow prisoners. It’s an invitation to daily beating and an unceremonious prison death.

A few months ago, Sanal Edamaruku, who heads the Indian Rationalist Association (you might remember him as the guy who challenged a witch doctor to put a death curse on him) was charged with ‘deliberately hurting the feelings’ of Catholics after he exposed a leaking Jesus statue as the fraud it was. He’s recently been denied anticipatory bail, and as a consequence, he’s currently hiding in Europe while he attempts to convince the Archdiocese of Bombay to pressure local bishops who filed the charges with police to drop them immediately.

There’s currently a petition circulating, and so far almost 7k people have signed. Naturally, we need to do substantially better. Fighting bogus blasphemy laws should be a big priority; how can we ever hope to grow as a movement if our brothers and sisters in rationality are being jailed simply for expressing doubt in false assertions. It just goes to show just how weak religious faith is when they have to silence us using the law, doesn’t it? Good luck Sanal, we’re all rooting for you!

It’s easy to forget the right to express our disbelief is a fairly recent phenomenon. I recognize many fans were angry when I argued Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s reaction of the title ‘atheist’ was an act of intellectual cowardliness, but I voiced my anger precisely because I know how important it is for some to even express their disbelief. The bravery of those willing to stand up for what they believe (or in this case, disbelieve) is not something we often recognize. It’s why I found his dismissal of ‘the movement’ so insulting. There are real consequences to declaring your lack of belief, something Alex Aan of Indonesia is learning the hard way:

…after posting “God doesn’t exist” on Facebook, the soft-spoken civil servant, 30, faces up to 11 years in jail for what is considered blasphemy in Indonesia… From the medium-security rural prison where he has been held for the past two months, Aan has little hope for the future. He has been beaten by angry mobs, rejected by his community and endured public calls for his beheading.

Alex had no way of knowing the horrible consequences of rejecting the idea of God. While he inherited his bravery from the West, he has little hope for support half a world away. Our words gave him the audacity to question God, but it did not prepare him for the misery and abuse he would face as a consequence. What can we offer him in return? What words of comfort can alleviate his fear the world he lives in is getting worse in the light of a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, itself a direct consequences of our own war on religion?

“I only want to see a better world and help create a better world,” he says. “If I cannot … then I would prefer to die.”

Declaring my atheism isn’t just something I do for myself; I do it because like Alex, I want to make a better world, and the only way to do that is to fight the evils of religion head on.

If you’re like me, you might be wondering what it takes to get arrested on blasphemy charges in the UK (I have a vested interest in this question, after all). Well, not a hell of a lot as it turns out. Last November, Rowan Atkinson (of Mr. Bean fame) did a fairly innocuous sketch on ITV for the Prince of Wales’ 60th Birthday. His act involved dressing as a vicar and making a few milk-toast jokes about Jesus (including one where after turning water into wine, he’s asked if he does kid’s parties).

As a result, the station received over 500 complaints from humorless Christians wishing to use Britain’s pussy blasphemy laws to silence any mockery of their ludicrous beliefs, and because it’s now illegal to “entice religious hatred”, overly sensitive religious rubes can now use the long arm of the law to silence any criticism of their belief. Luckily, he’s been recently cleared of all charges.

This isn’t the first time Rowan has been fighting against this ridiculousness. In 2004, Rowan was battling the Serious Organized Crime and Police Bill that included measures against “inciting religious hatred”:

But Mr. Atkinson and his fellow critics oppose part of the bill which will create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred to protect faith groups, particularly Muslims, from attack.

Mr. Atkinson told a meeting at the House of Commons on Monday night there are “quite a few sketches” he has performed which would come into conflict with the proposed law.

No Shit.

The blasphemy elements were expunged from the bill, but later became “The Racial and Religious Hatred Act” passed in 2006. While the drafters claimed it would only be used to stop people from stirring up religious hatred, it’s instead being used to censor guys like Atkinson who “upset” overly sensitive Christians who can’t bother to defend their beliefs themselves.

Home Office Minister Paul Goggins said: “It is about protecting the believer, not the belief.”

Protect them from what? Reality? Can we stop making it a crime to speak your fucking mind already?