Three years ago this month, on Monday 22 May 2017, twenty-two people were massacred, and 139 people were wounded by a suicide bomber at the Manchester Arena. The victims were mainly teenagers and young people. At the time, I wrote a post on my blog challenging the impact of Islam on the British way of life. As a matter of utter triviality compared to the carnage at Manchester Arena, I lost my job for speaking freely and critically about the religion of Islam and its pernicious effects on freedom and democracy. A British management consultancy, PA Consulting, decided that preserving its woke credentials was more important than living up to its ‘core values’ and so terminated my contract with them summarily. To criticise Islam publicly is to invoke opprobrium as I discovered.

Freedom of speech is a precious thing. Notwithstanding, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Mr Humza Yousaf, is seeking to bring into Scots law a bill which is designed, inter alia, to criminalise unacceptable thinking. Had Mr Yousaf’s bill – the “Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill” – been on the statute books when I wrote my blog post in 2017, I would almost certainly have had a knock on my door from Police Scotland.

Like Sharks Scenting Blood

Last year I was attacked in the Scottish Nationalist press by a Scottish Labour Party Member of the Scottish Parliament, Mr Anas Sarwar. Mr Sarwar accused me publicly of being a criminal; specifically, of being an ‘abhorrent racist’. Racism is a crime. Mr Sarwar had no credible evidence of me committing a crime. However, he didn’t like something I’d written on this blog criticising the religion of Islam in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombings. So, casual application of the word ‘racist’ suited Mr Sarwar’s requirement. Incidentally, Islam isn’t a race, of course, but that’s another discussion.

Had I in fact committed the crime of racism I would have heard from Police Scotland by now (nothing yet). It’s convenient to call someone a racist if you don’t like their point of view because certain quarters of the media and other individuals and organisations round on the alleged racist in the same way that sharks react to blood in the water. In fact, what Mr Sarwar was trying to do was have me discredited as a Brexit Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) and removed from the political landscape. Working with a Scottish Nationalist journalist to see off a Brexit Party PPC was a marriage made in Jannah as far as Mr Sarwar was concerned.

What happened was predictable. Being publicly labelled a ‘racist’ is, at the best of times, a bit of a bummer and can result in media attention and unwanted and unwarranted grief. In the febrile atmosphere prior to the 2019 General Election, being publicly labelled a ‘racist’ was a sure-fire way to be let go by any political party and I was no exception (there were other PPCs like me suffering similar fates at the time). It doesn’t matter if one is in fact a racist, or not. I’m not a racist, of course. However, the mere act of accusing someone of racism is usually enough to impugn them and that was Mr Sarwar’s motive. Such are the virtue-signalling times in which we live.

Offensive Is In The Eye Of The Beholder

What interested me at the time was how easy it was for a politician (in this case) summarily to terminate freedom of speech. Instead of engaging me in a discussion about my arguably controversial views on Islam, Mr Sarwar, in collusion with a low-circulation, sectarian newspaper, was able to suffocate my contribution to political discourse in a trice. My views on Islam may have offended some but offensive, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. When the incident occurred, I was contacted by a number of Muslim women despairing that my voice had been silenced (by a male Muslim, funnily enough). One Muslim lady in particular was so upset by what had happened that I ended up agreeing to meet her privately in the south of England some weeks later. She was a charming, intelligent and formidable lady, and Mrs Moraymint and I spent a most enjoyable day in her company. She struck me as a woman of integrity; not an attribute one would associate with Mr Anas Sarwar MSP. The general rule is that discussing Islam in British society is a no-no. Certainly, projecting any kind of full and frank analysis of the compatibility of Islam with the British way of life is dangerous territory. Go further and have an irreverent or barbed pop at the religion of Islam (ie be offensive about Islam) and you’ll be labelled a ‘racist’ before you can say the Prophet Mohammed. Remember, like I said, Islam is not a race, but it’s extremely convenient to call Islam’s critics racists. I’m proof positive of that. The Muslim Council for Britain has been lobbying to have Islam treated as a race for some time now, in order to be able legitimately to criminalise people like me.

You’re Fired!

Incidentally, three months after the ‘abhorrent racist’ press incident, I had my management consulting contract with PA Consulting terminated behind my back. I was informed one day, out of the blue, over the telephone in a five-minute call, without any prior consultation, that my services were no longer required. When I challenged PA Consulting’s Chief Executive about my summary dismissal (effectively) I was told that I had been fired (effectively) because my views, as reported in the press, were unacceptable to PA Consulting. As I said, simply being labelled a racist without any evidence to support such an allegation usually means you’re stuffed. Again, Mr Sarwar and his journalist friend were well aware that casually slinging the sobriquet ‘racist’ at me would be an effective and efficient way of side-lining me in the arena of political discourse. Speaking freely about Islam, still less offending followers of that religion, must not be tolerated, including by PA Consulting.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill

In keeping with the themes of making Islam largely untouchable and treating freedom of speech as an irritating feature of society, another Member of the Scottish Parliament, Mr Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party), is now leading the introduction of new legislation in Scotland, namely the Orwellianesque ‘Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines hate to mean ‘an intense dislike for, or a strong aversion towards’. Mr Yousaf is moving us deftly down the thought-crime route here. It’s hard to see how hating something/someone or indeed encouraging others to hate something which you also happen to hate could be a criminal offence in itself, but that’s where Mr Yousaf is striving to take Scots law. If Mr Yousaf’s Bill is passed in the Scottish Parliament, it would be a criminal offence to ‘stir up hatred’ towards a random selection of targets chosen by Mr Yousaf and the co-authors of his Bill. For now, these targets have been identified as religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sexual characteristics, but the Scottish government would be able to pick and choose other protected species in the future.


This is very worrying in terms of freedom generally and freedom of speech especially. It’s one thing in society to threaten life, limb or property or, worse, to act in ways which take life, or harm people or damage property; those are and should be crimes. However, to make hating something/someone a crime, jointly or severally, is the stuff of fascism – increasingly a hallmark of politicians of the left, ironically. Now, I’m not a fan of hatred. I don’t even like the word and I choose not to use it in my everyday lexicon. Not quite true, I hate rhubarb and I inform Mrs Moraymint as such if ever she tries to serve me up a plate of the stewed stuff. However, the idea that we’re going to police people for holding ‘an intense dislike for, or strong aversion towards’ something, and who might encourage others to share that dislike/aversion is the stuff of nightmares. Where would I stand under such a new law if I got carried away expressing my hatred of rhubarb and, worse, stirred up a similar hatred in others? Would I get a knock on the door in the early hours of the morning? On the other hand, if rhubarb is an acceptable target to be hated by me and a group of rhubarb-hating fanatics, why is that? Who decides what we can hate and thereby avoid the long arm of the law and what we cannot hate and, therefore, be exposed to arrest and conviction? Under Mr Yousaf’s Bill, if you’re convicted of hating one of his ‘thou shalt not hate this’ targets then you could end up in prison for up to 7 years.

Age-Related Hate

For an individual to hate something and/or to spend time with others sharing their hatred, whilst unsavoury in itself, can’t surely be a criminal offence, can it? Well, it would be under Mr Yousaf’s Bill. If hatred leads to hateful actions, then that’s different. However, we have laws to protect people from being the victims of hateful actions and to deter people from acting hatefully. But to make it a crime to think or talk or write hatefully, or to encourage others to share your hatred, is very sinister. Where do you draw the line with this sort of warped legislation?

Who decides what can or cannot be hated, and on what criteria? Think of me and rhubarb. After all, hatred in itself harms no third party as such. Whether one person or one hundred people hate this or that, is neither here nor there. How can we possibly, therefore, make the emotion of hatred a crime? Hatred is not very nice, like I said earlier. But this is the nanny-state going mad (again). In fact, being filled with hatred does most damage to the hater himself in my experience. People who devote energy to hating this or that are usually pretty sad in themselves but invariably harmless to others.

On the ageism front, for example, under Mr Yousaf’s proposed law, can we hate young people below the age of, say, 32 years old (hating them is OK), but be arrested for a criminal offence if we declare we hate people aged 74 years and above, and if we share our hatred with others and stir up such hatred? The latter would be deemed to be some form of age-related hate crime. Again, who decides what age is, or is not acceptable to be hated? My little group don’t do anything, as such, we just agree to hate people over 74 years-old and hope that there will be more of us over time. How can this in and of itself be a crime? After all, hatred is an emotion, that’s all. What’s the burden of proof for showing that I’m a hateful person and deserve to be convicted and sent to prison? Can I form a ‘Hate Rhubarb’ group through my blog here and stir up such hatred in others? If ‘stirring up hatred’ becomes a crime in its own right, why would a well-orchestrated ‘Hate Rhubarb’ campaign not be deemed criminal activity? Or, a ‘Hate Ginger-Haired People’ campaign; would that be an acceptable or unacceptable form of hateful thinking? Mr Yousaf will decide.

Religion-Related Hate

What if I write 850 words here on my blog having an irreverent and barbed pop at Islam (oops, I’ve done that in the past) and then below the post I start ‘Liking’ comments from readers who share my views? Am I then ‘stirring up hatred’? So what if I am? Has anybody been physically hurt? Has property been damaged? If someone having read my blog decided to go out and scrawl graffiti over a Mosque, there are laws to prevent that sort of behaviour and to criminalise the offender. However, under Mr Yousaf’s Bill, here’s the future:

Police Officer: ‘Why did you scrawl graffiti over the Mosque, Jimmy?

Jimmy: ‘Because Moraymint seems to have a problem with the religion of Islam and its compatibility with the British way of life. I think he hates Islam’.

Police Officer: ‘Right, thanks Jimmy, we’ll nick Moraymint toohateful, stirring bastard that he is. Thankfully, we’ve got Mr Yousaf’s new law now, Jimmy, which says people like Moraymint can’t express their intense dislike for, or strong aversion to Islam in public and get you to go along with him. He’ll go down for this one’.

You can see where Mr Yousaf is coming from. He doesn’t want people thinking the wrong thoughts or saying or writing the wrong stuff, still less being offensive towards individuals and groups Mr Yousaf thinks should be wrapped in cotton wool. In Mr Yousaf’s mind, we can’t be trusted to love this or hate that for fear of things getting out of hand. Therefore, it would be best if the Scottish government proscribed a range of targets which citizens can’t, jointly or severally, have ‘an intense dislike for, or strong aversion towards’ (ie hate) because then we’ll be able to co-exist in harmony (Orwell would love this stuff).

Others’ Views

In this post I’ve taken an at times somewhat light-hearted approach to what is a desperately serious matter. However, I’m not the only one horrified at the implications of Mr Yousaf’s attempt to stifle freedom of speech.

Writing at spikedonline, Emma Webb, Director of the Forum on Integration & Extremism (FIDE) at Civitas said, ‘the instinct behind this Bill is ugly and misguided. In a free society, the state cannot be allowed to decide what we can say, think, read or share with each other. For its supposed good intentions, this Bill is taking us further down a dangerous road’.

Interestingly, a former Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party, Mr Jim Sillars is on record as saying, ‘Scots are now locked in a woke chamber: virtue-signalling, pandering to perceived victimhood, punishing any who assert biological fact, placing a halter of criminality on free thought when articulated by speech, abandoning common-sense. It’s all there in [Mr Yousaf’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill]’.

The Scotsman newspaper argues that Mr Yousaf’s Bill ‘[would criminalise] language deemed to be offensive [not just as directed at an individual], but anything written, broadcast or performed and deemed to have the potential to inflame would be an offence’. The Scotsman goes on to point out that ‘the legislation states that it would be an offence if “the person intends to stir up hatred” or “if it is likely that hatred will be stirred up”. Therefore, it’s possible that even if it wasn’t the intention, a subjective judgement of likelihood could lead to charges. With this legislation the police are unlikely to have to go looking for cases because it opens up a whole new avenue for political activists to use their terms to close down their opponents’. Mr Anas Sarwar would have a field day on people like me under Mr Humza Yousaf’s legislation. Obviously, men from the same stable.

Also writing at spikedonline, Professor Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Commercial Law at Swansea University said, ‘put bluntly, these are terrible proposals. The Scottish government has no interest whatsoever in freedom of speech. Instead, it wants to project a comforting, woke image to professionals and [its other supporters]. The Bill must be opposed. Not only is it appallingly illiberal in itself, if passed it would not be the last word. Indeed, the Bill itself envisages going further still: it contains a sinister power for the Scottish government to extend its effect … so as to criminalise misogynistic speech too’.

Chris Slogget at the National Secular Society said, ‘the Bill’s provisions on religious hatred risk enacting a de facto clampdown on freedom of expression’.

In The Spectator, Stephen Daisley said, ‘the Bill is drafted in such a way that in abolishing the old offence of blasphemy it threatens to introduce a new, more wide-ranging one. If you hate religion and want to encourage others to do the same, you’ll have to do it on the other side of the [England/Scotland] border’.

Finally, my own union, the Free Speech Union said this about Humza Yousaf’s Bill: ‘it will enable groups claiming to speak for people in the protected categories to lobby the authorities to prosecute anyone who challenges their ideology on the grounds that doing so is likely to stir up hatred. Under this new law, not only will those who challenge identitarian dogma be vulnerable to prosecution, but anyone who possesses “inflammatory material” will be too, as will theatre producers who put on plays expressing these forbidden ideas and the actors who perform in them. If the Bill passes, Scotland will become the most aggressive regulator of speech in the United Kingdom and one of the most belligerent in Europe. And it could easily become the basis of a similar law in England and Wales’.

Why Do Politicians Do This?

It’s depressing having to take on in this way one’s own elected representatives; men like Humza Yousaf who are minded to suppress our freedoms in law. One wonders why people like Mr Yousaf and Mr Sarwar seek public office in the first place holding as they do such regressive attitudes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Riding on the backs of the 15,316 people (0.3% of Scotland’s population) who voted for him at the last Scotland Election, Mr Yousaf potentially wields staggeringly disproportionate power over our lives here in Scotland. It would be disgusting if Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill ever became Scots law, but there are plenty of people in Scotland who would relish its arrival on the statute book; Anas Sarwar would be one of them, no doubt. What do you think?

Opportunity to Comment on Mr Yousaf’s Bill

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 23 April and is open to public consultation – a Call for Views – until 24 July. The Bill is, to all intents and purposes, a fascist’s charter and I intend to lodge a formal objection to the Bill becoming law. On reading this post, if you live and vote in Scotland, you may wish to respond yourself to the Call for Views. You may also wish to bring this blog post to the attention of your own Members of the Scottish Parliament accompanied by your own thoughts on Mr Yousaf’s Bill.

To stimulate debate, please share this post on social media using one or more of the buttons below. Tell people you share my views; or tell people I’m talking cobblers; I don’t mind either way. I just want us all to use peaceful means to effect change. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Feel free to join the 400-odd other followers of my blog by clicking on the ‘Follow Blog via Email’ box over to the right of the page. I didn’t plan it this way, but Moraymint Chatter now gets tens of thousands of hits during the course of a year, so if you comment your views could be widely read. At the last count, this blog had received 200,000 hits from readers all over the world, as well as countless shares on other social media platforms.

See you down the pub … eventually.


  1. […] been on the receiving end of people seeking to repress my own freedom of speech; it’s a dreadful experience. Whilst my own experience was as nothing compared to what China […]


  2. reallyoldbill · ·

    We live in very dangerous times for freedom of expression and even democracy itself. We saw the absurd and previously unthinkable efforts of the last parliament to frustrate those wishing to see the result of a free democratic vote enacted. It made the United Kingdom look ridiculous on the world stage, damaged perhaps for ever the belief of many people that votes actually mean anything and achieved the almost impossible feat of lowering respect for politicians even further.

    The freedom to cause offence, not something to be taken lightly, is an integral part of free speech. There have always been limitations of course, which is why libel, slander and incitement laws are on the statute book. I doubt any sensible person would defend the right to incite violence resulting in personal injury or worse, but openly being critical of any individual, section of society or any of the myriad groupings now within the UK is not the same as incitement to violence, and nor is ridiculing them or their beliefs or lifestyle. If ridicule is outlawed then what future do comedians have?

    It was Tony Blair who pushed us onto this slippery slope when he introduced the term “Hate Speech” with an absurd definition that placed the interpretation of it into the hands not of the speaker whatever his meaning, nor even the person to whom the remark was directed, but any person who overheard it. That created in law the possibility that any flakey or malicious individual, should they choose to take offence on behalf of someone else, could see a criminal prosecution undertaken on something that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Light-heartedly call a friend in the pub a poof when he admitted to some phobia or other and you had better look over your shoulder before doing so! I don’t know if such legislation extended to Scotland, but it was a watershed moment for English liberties stretching back over a thousand years.

    It is now apparent that certain groups, the LGBT community, people of colour and Muslims, to identify just a few, enjoy protections that are not always available to the majority of our citizens. Ridicule a Christian for “believing in sky fairies”, a white male for being “a colonial aggressor” or hetrosexuals generally for “lacking sensitivity” and nobody will turn a hair, nor come to your aid if you should feel insulted. Suggest that radical Islam (note not even the wider religion) is medieval in its beliefs and actions, however, and you can expect the sky to quickly drop onto your head. As ever with such Orwellian laws the question inevitably arises as to exactly who is the arbiter of what is acceptable free speech, what is simple humour and what is to be considered beyond the law. It is clear from recent judgements that the judiciary is no longer widely trusted to apply common sense to its deliberations, which was an unavoidable consequence of such draconian and novel legislation but is a dangerous development for a democratic nation.

    Perhaps the supporters of this kind of unacceptable restriction being placed upon long-held and cherished freedoms, often to shield themselves or their particular creed from justified criticism, should recall the habit in Ancient Rome for a general enjoying the honour of a triumphal procession through the city to employ a slave on his chariot to constantly whisper in his ear “you are only human”, just to remind him that he was not a God. We are all human, none should be better protected by the law than any other, and that includes the right to be shielded from ridicule or criticism.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. 10navigator · ·

    Good to see you commenting in today’s DT re’ the Cummings episode MM. The MSM commentators (Bunter Boulton, the execrable and deranged Piers Morgan, Peston, Kuenssberg, Rigby et al) must be frothing at the mouth at having been unsuccessful in their blatantly politically motivated attempt to unseat Dominic. Oh dear how sad!
    I note that latterly, a huge number of commenting subscibers to the DT are so perplexed at the extreme Grauniadesque nature of the political stance it has taken over the DC issue, that they are looking to cancel en-masse (poetic justice for the Barclay bros). I forsaw the direction of travel moons ago and voted with my feet, since I couldn’t be ar5ed to keep swimming against the tide. I can gauge the mood of the readership by their comments (though I’m no longer allowed to interact) and I’m heartened to see the backlash the DT has deservedly provoked in the last few days.
    Having sown the wind, let’s hope they, and the BBC reap the whirlwind in the form of DC seeking vengeance and given his head to enact reform. It’s high time.


  4. 10navigator · ·

    I like the Voltaire quote at the top of the article. However, I’m always mindful that it was Voltaire who said “A witty quote proves nothing.”
    I’m glad I’m in my 70s now. How thoroughly depressing our society has become! Brought home with a bang by (inter-alia), the Cummings witch-hunt over the last couple of days.
    A 73 year old Nobel Prize winner, giving his views on the CV-19 situation, opined that since he was far nearer the end then the beginning, he may as well buy a motor-cycle and take up skiing. I still ski annually, but Mrs Lee refuses to countenance the acquisition of a Harley-Davidson!
    Keep banging the drum MM.
    PS I find rhubarb most toothsome, but it’s nigh-on impossible to find here in Spain.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Chris · ·

    In my earlier comment, I described that which may not be criticised or slandered or spoken ill of as “a sick and cruel ideology, cloaked in religious garb.”
    Taking matters to the extreme, as some are wont to do, a suitably timed false flag atrocity in order to sway gullible, blinkered public opinion into causing the adoption of such legislation would work wonders.
    Afterall, what’s a few more martyrs to the cause when the promise is paradise and virgins – ideally young, white-skinned and speaking with a Yorkshire accent, perhaps !
    If you were to be living in New Zealand or Canada, I rather suspect that you would have had your collar felt long ago. Countries such as those are a window into what the future has in store.
    Unfortunately, the die is already cast and despite the much needed valiant efforts of good men and women, evil looks set to triumph.
    To the ‘Three Wise Monkeys’ has been added a fourth – ‘Think No Evil’.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. If offensive is in the eye of the beholder…

    I am completely unconnected with the legal profession but…
    I believe in English law an accusation of hate crime can be made even if the hate is only perceived. It therefore follows that if this is the case, a criminal proceeding can take place where neither material evidence nor witnesses are necessary for conviction. An individual could therefore be imprisoned in the UK solely for the hurt feelings of another individual.
    Can this really be the case?

    Does this not mean that the accuser – simply by perceiving hate or having hurt feelings – becomes the sole arbiter of whether an offence has been committed (i.e. whether a law has been broken), and the forces of law and order are prepared to relinquish this responsibility to the individual.
    I´m not sure they’ve thought this one through.

    Where do the police draw the line when it comes to wasting police time?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Richard Ross · ·

    Are Scottish MP’s unaware of the feelings sometimes expressed by Celtic fans towards Rangers fans, and vice versa? In some cases “hate” would be putting it mildly. Let’s see Sarwar addressing that. Or maybe, if football is too flippant an example, simply criminalize criticism of the English, as that can be a bit sharp sometimes too.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Donna · ·

    Islam means submission – supposedly submission to the Will of Allah. It actually means submission to the prejudices of the Iman or Mullah who is telling you what he thinks the Will of Allah is.
    That’s not so very different from the Catholic Church of the middle Ages and the Inquisition, which also sought to see into men’s souls.
    Islam desperately needs a reformation. And it also needs a Dave Allen to highlight its hypocrisy and absurdity.
    And that’s what the likes of Anas Sarwar fear: loss of control of their brainwashed flock; a sizeable block of educated and enlighted former Muslims and the absurdities of their faith being mocked.
    So-called Hate Speech Laws just demonstrate how weak and how frightened they are of losing control. So they seek to silence us.

    Well I’m not frightened of saying what I think. I think Islam is a regressive faith which does not fit in a democratic society where every citizen, regardless of their personal characteristics, is equal. I have no respect for any faith which teaches that, as a woman, I am a second-class citizen because of my genitalia and reproductive “equipment.”

    Hate laws should apply to UNCHANGEABLE CHARACTERISTICS (ie skin colour). They should not be used to silence those who disagree with you. Free speech MEANS the right to offend; and the right to be offended. But it doesn’t mean the right to silence those who disagree with your opinions and any government which truly believes in free speech would not legislate to silence OPINION.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. Jerry · ·

    Good words, chum and I shall certainly peruse and contact whichever one of the many elected representatives I seem to have, to voice my displeasure at this. I don’t hate Islam by the way. It is impossible to hate any workings of an imaginary deity. I do abhor all religions (whilst happily respecting all those who find their religion important and beneficial to them). Religion almost stopped my parents from marrying – only the escape offered by WW2 gave them the opportunity to do so, but I believe it is surely not unrelated to the fact that I never knew any of my mother’s family, so cut off from them was she, as a Catholic marrying a Church of Ireland Protestant.

    And of course “our own” version of mythology is not without its own firebranding; “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” Pretty rough justice, that… Luckily the centuries have allowed us to mature out of the barbarity of 2,000+ years ago, although some have managed to keep the pot boiling behind a thin gauze of religious coat-tailing in Northern Ireland, Glasgow and other areas of the UK. And I suggest it is only the last generation that has effectively not understood that the fun, baked spuds in tinfoil and fireworks were to accompany the ritual, symbolic burning of a Catholic every 5th November.

    Islam is indeed not a race, but the proximity of religious fervour to nationalism is never a wide gap. Again – the fractured UK is a prime example. Religions, like cars, aeroplanes, knives and guns, do not harm or kill. Only twats who justify their own warped actions by using them as weapons and dressing up what they do under the shawl of religion harm and kill. The absurdity of one group of people killing another group for not believing in the same version of an imaginary being is beyond parody.

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones…” comes to mind, “…but words (“and hate-filled thoughts”, one might add) will never hurt me….”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. moraymint · ·

      Good comment, thanks. I don’t hate Islam either btw, but others will deliberately interpret my views as hateful. Under Mr Yousaf’s Bill, that would be all that was needed for me to have my collar felt 😕 …


  10. I suspect this push for such a ‘hate law’ by a follower of Islam just goes to show how insecure the religion/ideology of Islam is. Many of it followers have no choice but to defend it otherwise their place in the family, community or employment would be threatened. Other followers see it as a means to have power and control over the masses, especially women. If Islam is such a brilliant ideology/religion it should be able to defend itself from all criticism. Of course, the answer is that it can’t! Like all religions, it’s a man made myth, relying on sky gods and threats to cajole the communities it dominates or is in the process of invading.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Chris · ·

    Superb, MM.
    I’m trying to think how best to describe it. Perhaps a version of the Heineken advert from many years ago … ‘refreshes the parts others cannot and will not contemplate reaching for fear of retribution’.
    It was Winston Churchill who first sussed it and put it in writing thus …
    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apa­thy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
    It has, of course, advanced leaps and bounds since then. Afforded a highly privileged status by the ‘leaders’ of contemporary Western civilisation.
    I spent 40-odd years working in the Gulf and living in close proximity to a predominantly Shi’ite area.
    Islam is not a race. Never has been, and never will be. Islam is a sick and cruel ideology, cloaked in religious garb. It’s the very antithesis of peace, even amongst its own Sunni and Shi’ite followers and, of course, it was an ideology which fascinated Hitler.
    For all the ills of the world, I always seem to end back at … Socialism !!

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Robert Graham · ·

    I don’t regard Islamophobia as a crime (it’s a perfectly rational position) and I support the notion that every right-minded person should have a phobia of Islam.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. moraymint · ·

      Yes, I agree that it is in fact perfectly rational for any free-thinking person living in a human-rights-respecting democracy to fear Islam, or at least to treat it with extreme suspicion …


  13. Faux bewilderment on your part Moraymint re the reason for your “friends’ ” running for public office? It is every muslim’s duty to further the cause of expansion of Islam into the Dar Al-Harb. Success will surely be rewarded in heaven!
    The published bill “protects” a range of categories to widen its acceptability but really religion is the only thing on the sponsor’s mind and only one religion at that!!
    A similar Canadian law was eventually rescinded with much difficulty following several perverse judgements.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. By the waters of Loch Ness I sat down and wept.

    Liked by 1 person

Economics from the Top Down

New ideas in economics and the social sciences

Derekbernard's Blog

Just another weblog

Great Debate

where disparate minds meet

Aisle C

I See This


“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

Chai et Rasade

The Vintage Wine Seller's Blog

Moraymint Chatter

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Chauncey Tinker's Blog

Reversing "Western" decline with reason.

The Participator

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Worldview

Explaining our world in simple terms

The Brexit Door

Independent thinking for an Independent Britain

EU Referendum Blog

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Surplus Energy Economics

The home of the SEEDS economic model - Tim Morgan


Matthew Scott's Legal Comment Argument and Discussion. Comment Awards 2015 Best Independent Blog

Our Finite World

Exploring how oil limits affect the economy

Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Sandy Paterson Mountaineering

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Do the Math

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Archdruid Report

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

%d bloggers like this: