Current Affairs

Moralfagging Over The Recent ‘YouTube Kiddiefiddler Exposé’ Trend

[NB. This opinion piece is in no way intended to rag on or besmirch the character of any You Tubers who have made these exposé videos. All of the examples I watched were by content creators I enjoy/follow/respect and in each case the underlying sentiments the expressed were shock, disgust and a genuine desire to want to do the right thing. This piece is just my personal opinion, based on what I’ve been told about how investigations are conducted.]

There has been a bit of a recent trend emerging in the (so-called) “Skeptic Community”, whereby some You Tubers have been drawing attention to and castigating, certain content creators whose particular penchant is good, old-fashioned paedophilia. Yes you read that correctly; You Tube now has its own kiddie-fiddler community. Barf.

And it really is as stomach-churning as it sounds: a bunch of bloody paedos all waxing lyrical about such topics as:

  • How kids are sexual beings
  • Why they believe kids should be able to consent to sex
  • Places in the world where pederasty is accepted/welcome (backward tribes basically)
  • The “benefits” of your kid being in a relationship with a MAP*

*Oh, didn’t I tell you? Yeah these malfunctioning creeps have gone and created another slick little acronym for themselves, because branding is everything dontcha know? MAP stands for Minor Attracted Person (I guess ‘The Arseholes Formerly Known As Paedos’ just wasn’t catchy enough) and the idea behind it was to ‘rebrand’ paedophilia as something less controversial and as more of a completely benign lifestyle choice. No I’m not making this up. (I’d tell you to google it, but you really don’t want to die unexpectedly with THAT listed in your t’interwebs browsing history!) Their schtick revolves around the notion that these freaks are fully law abiding individuals, also known as ‘Virtuous Paedophiles’ who “Look, but never touch”…at least while child molesting remains illegal, that is. But don’t worry: they’re working on having their wee pervy peccadillo accepted as a form of sexuality and added to the LGBT+ umbrella of persuasians now too. Because why not, right?

As much as these life-destroying child-abusers repulse me and chill me to the bone, the logical part of my brain (the part that doesn’t just think that they should all have their entire content deleted, before being beaten to a pulp and fed to sharks/ piranhas/bears/crocodiles/huge snakes while they’re still alive) thinks that it might be more beneficial to law enforcement/child protective services, if these scuzz-balls were able to keep their accounts active. Because every video they make and upload (and every comment they leave on other videos made by like-minded sickos) will contain details that can be captured/recorded and be part of an overall picture of gathered intel, from a vast interconnected network of paedophiles that the police will be perpetually tracking/monitoring.

It’s gross for it to be out there in existence, full stop. But as a small “community” who a/ don’t interact much with outsiders, b/ probably aren’t stupid enough to try to get ad revenue and c/ mostly keep to themselves, they won’t appear on many folks’ “recommended” viewing lists; and up until recently probably didn’t receive much in the way of unexpected traffic from normal people. The police will undoubtedly be aware of this “community” and have probably already been monitoring all its activity – despite their content technically falling under ‘Freedom Of Speech’ – but that doesn’t mean we should all start throwing mega-watt spotlights on them and assume our actions won’t impede investigations.

In the past, law enforcement authorities have often told the public not to get involved or try to act on information regarding suspected sex-offenders/child-abusers/people traffickers, but to contact the police directly or via verified anonymous tip-off phone-lines/web-sites like ‘Crimestoppers’, with any suspicions/concerns/information they might have. As far as I know, current protocol remains the same. Whilst this is partly to avoid defaming the character of the wrongfully accused and also to prevent violent altercations and fall-out from confrontation, it was also to stop well-meaning members of the public from disrupting or damaging current and ongoing investigations. Those people who think that they’re doing the right thing and protecting the public from future attacks by confronting and exposing abusers, don’t realise that their actions could jeopardise massive coordinated investigations that have potentially been going on for years, costing the taxpayers huge amounts of money.

I know I sound like some normie fucking buzzkill, but I honestly think that whenever anyone comes across content of this manner (or any content that might have legal/illegal implications) that they should report it to the police and let them deal with it. We have no idea whether the content we are concerned about has already been noticed by/reported to the police, or if it is currently being monitored – either on its own merits, or as part of a bigger overarching investigation that could be just one link in an international networked chain of interconnected sick bastards. By drawing a lot of attention to a single link in said potential chain, we risk worrying them AND other potentially linked individuals, into pulling down their channels, removing their content, deleting their accounts, cutting their online connections and disappearing back underground, off of everyone’s radar. And that helps no one.

As vile as this content is, you need to remember that these sickos have always existed and will continue to exist until scientific research and development comes up with a way of fixing this brain malfunction. I am NOT by any means suggesting that we learn to accept and/or happily coexist alongside these maladapted monsters. Far from it. What I am saying is that if we want our actions to have the greatest positive impact, then our reactions must be sensible, measured and proactive. This kind of content is revolting and disturbing and distressing. If you are likely to react adversely to this kind of content, don’t go out of your way to intentionally find it. If you do come across this kind of content and you believe it references illegal activity, report it. In the UK you can file a report online with CEOP Safety Centre or Crimestoppers (both of whom are also on Twitter) and the Internet Watch Foundation says: “If you want to report a child at risk or you’d like to report something other than an online image or video of child sexual abuse please contact your local police or child protection organisation for advice.” But, you know what to do. Forward it to the authorities, let them decide what needs to be done about it.

I know it’s dull advice, but just stop and think about the bigger picture; about the ramifications of your actions. Consider if what you’re doing is genuinely rooted in the best of intentions. Are you trying to gain attention/views/keks, or do you actually care about helping to keep kids safe? If it’s the latter then please consider avoiding any vainglorious heroics and just make sure that the relevant authorities are informed as to what they need to be aware of. The downside of us striving for unlimited free-speech, is that there are always going to be times when you have to hear some appalling things. It isn’t necessarily always obvious ‘when and if’ an individual has crossed over into the realms of incitement to commit a crime, hate speech or slander/libel/defamation of character, (although you can be real fucking sure that these sleazy fucks are gonna be a helluva lot more knowledgeable about the law as regards THEIR rights and exactly how far they can push their luck) so it’s important for you to not allow your own disgust or anger to end up getting YOU in trouble.

Just take comfort in the fact that the increased ease of access to self-promotion, the myriad options for online publishing, the continued push to demand our rights to absolute freedom of speech and the recent weird softening of attitudes toward paedophilia by regressive uber-leftist publications, ALL mean that these grotesque individuals are putting themselves out there more and more, feeling less reluctant to speak out about their paedophilic tendencies and may eventually end up being hoist by their own petard. So if you want to see these fuckers monitored and less likely to actually hurt any children, report them to the authorities who can actually help prevent that shit from happening and don’t scare them back into retreating underground.

Right. Lecture over.

As you were.


Put Your Money Where Your Spouse Is!

“How long will you keep me?” I asked.

You shrugged. “Forever, of course.”

Lucy Christopher – ‘Stolen: A Letter To My Captor’

I really bloody hate weddings.

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good finger-buffet as much as the next person. There’s a lot to be said for a well executed vol-au-vent – a vastly under-appreciated comestible creation, if you ask me – and a free bar is never going to be looked down upon by anyone round my neck of the woods. But the whole palaver of a day-long ‘celebration’ put on to witness the decision of two people to promise that they’ll never have sex with anyone else again, for the rest of their lives? I’ve just never really seen the appeal.

This isn’t a criticism of marriage itself. Far from it. For all my outpourings of postmodern cynicism, I’m actually a firm believer in the age-old institution and I’m delighted that the majority of the western world has finally cottoned on to idea that same-sex couples should be just as entitled to a lifetime of misery, as heterosexual couples. No, my objection isn’t to the notion of marriage – it’s bloody weddings that I can’t stand. Barring the obligatory smattering of maiden aunt types, who cry at everything from Countryfile, to the SNP’s Mhairi Black giving that speech to the House of Commons, most of us if we’re being honest, find them insufferably dull too.

From the moment you receive the invitation (and assuming you don’t have a really good excuse for not actually attending) you the guest, are expected to RSVP with enthusiasm, pick out and purchase an item from the pre-selected gift register (3rd-5th cheapest from the bottom, if you’re clued up and quick enough), find an outfit that manages to look as though you genuinely care enough to make the effort – but are in no way attempting to show the bride up – and then agree to give up an entire precious Saturday off work (a Saturday you’d otherwise be enjoying spent watching back-to-back episodes of classic Robot Wars and eating toasties, in your pants), to attend an event that could range anywhere from low-key and intimate, to the kind of opal-encrusted, opulent, one-upmanship you’d expect from Mr & Mrs West. (I’m talking about Kim & Kanye here of course – I’ve no idea how much Fred & Rose forked out for their special day.)

Cheap wedding

But regardless of which end of the spectrum said wedding is likely to hover closer to, the whole shebang is basically going to boil down to you having to sit through a tedious church service (despite neither bride nor groom having set foot in a religious building since Uncle Jack’s funeral in 2006) where even the most militant of atheists among us will still find ourselves desperately trying to decide what octave to aim for, as we attempt to recall the tune to hymns last encountered in our old school assemblies. After that you’ll be off to an insipid, mass-produced carvery dinner (spent sat next to someone you don’t know and will naturally take an instant dislike to) where you’ll sit through excruciatingly abysmal speeches somewhat akin to hearing Ed Miliband recite Vogon poetry. Then, to top it all off there’s the ubiquitous shit disco. Because when you’re damn sure you’re never going to be able to cater to everyone’s musical tastes, it makes perfect sense to get someone to play stuff that appeals to absolutely no one’s musical taste, amirite? If you’re lucky there will be that free bar, in which case you’ll probably just order yourself Pinot Grigio by the bottle and get so shitfaced that you end up getting off with one of the groomsmen to ‘Careless Whisper’, whilst some fat DJ in a Bermuda shirt mumbles incoherently over the saxophone solo.

Weddings are shit. Call me old-fashioned, but I’ve always put a greater emphasis on actually ‘being’ married, than the notion of ‘getting’ married; which is almost completely at odds with how most women seem to approach the whole idea. Their ‘Big Day’ (and it always is ‘their’ day, because no self-respecting groom could give two shits about colour schemes, themes or learning how to perform the closing routine from ‘Dirty Dancing’) is treated with the kind of reverence and spectacle normally reserved for a B-list celebrity’s funeral. Never mind the fact that the average UK wedding costs just under £21,000 (about three times the amount you’d need to put down a deposit on a first time buyer’s house). If the local Premier Inn’s banqueting suite isn’t decked out to look like something from a Siegfried & Roy extravaganza, then Bridezilla will be throwing a shit-fit before anyone can mutter “mazeltov!”

OTT Blue wedding

If/when I ever get married, the whole affair will be the most simple, clandestine and briefest procedure I can legally get away with. None of my family will be there, the witnesses will be whichever anonymous passers-by could be roped into participating at the last minute and all my puff-pastry preferences aside, there won’t be a vol-au-vent in sight. Don’t mistake my ambivalence towards ceremony for an indifference towards commitment though – like I said, I think it’s the ‘being’ married, not ‘getting’ married, that’s important. But chances are, you’re not like me. Your potential other half is probably nothing like me. Your ‘Big Day’ is going to see you or your parents fork out a considerable amount of money, for an event that very few will truthfully enjoy – irrespective of how cunning and subtle the photographer you hired is working at making it appear otherwise.

But…ladies and gentlemen, there is now a new option on the scene for those who are willing to bet on their shacklement being a success. Sure, we’ve all heard that an estimated 42% of marriages now end in divorce. But everyone ‘knows’ that theirs is going to make it, right? And why not? If statistics are to be believed then you’ve got just over a one-in-two chance of making it all the way from ‘being way too pissed to consummate your marriage on your wedding night’, to ‘occupying side-by-side burial plots sometime in the not too distant future’. So why not take the ultimate gamble and put your money where your spouse is?

wager time

Before now, if you wanted to place an actual bet on you and the missus managing to stay hitched, you had to brave the despondent throng of sallow faced revenants at the local bookies as you tried to figure out how to complete the chit using the world’s smallest pen. Because nothing says ‘true love’ like enduring 20 wretched minutes in a room that smells like Bovril, whippets and despair, just to stick a tenner on your upcoming nuptials. But we’re in the 21st Century now folks and anything that can be done online, is done online. So across the pond in the land of burgers, bibles and guns a somewhat cynical sounding little start-up called SwanLuv is willing to bet $10,000 that YOUR marriage, isn’t going to go the distance. With phrases like “Everlasting Marriage Deserves to be Rewarded” sprinkled all over their site, the company basically offers you and your significant other $10,000 to spend on your wedding day, on the proviso that should you divorce you have to pay it all back plus interest. Sounds pretty sweet huh? Because you already know that when you tie the knot, it’s gonna be forever. Right?

Stay the distance and you ‘n yours will get to keep the $10,000 that SwanLuv paid up front, in order for you to have that dream wedding. Granted, that’s only £6,700 in real money (which isn’t all that much when you consider that the new Mrs Frank Lampard spent £10,000 on her frock alone) so your dreams need to sit somewhere between bargain-bucket-chic and modestly mediocre; but you should at least be able to hire the local Methodist church hall, deck it out in bunting from DealZone and still have enough left over to give everyone a roast chicken dinner and somewhere to dance along to ‘Come On Eileen’ in the evening.

Testimonials on the site feature couples gushing about how much they appreciate the “pay it forward mentality” of SwanLuv, and how “the concept of the site is hopeful for love.” They’re obviously not in it for the money; no, SwanLuv are merely helping to facilitate the romantic ambitions of financially frustrated lovers, who just want to cement their commitment to one another – for free. Kind of like a ‘Make A Wish’ foundation, for the terminally besotted. And in case you’re wondering what happens to all that money that these philanthropic financiers recoup when those 42% of failures have to pay it back, don’t worry. According to their site “100% of the money collected from members who are later divorced is used to provide funds for future couples’ dream weddings. SwanLuv keeps the dream alive.” So you can take comfort in the fact that whilst SwanLuv aren’t actually profiting from the demise of other marriages, your three-tiered fruit cake and ivory-ribboned Bentley all came courtesy of the fact that Mr & Mrs Foret of St Paul, Minnesota were no longer able to sit at the breakfast table together, without wanting to stab one another in the eye with a butter knife. Nice. Now I’m not one for believing in karma, but I’m not sure I’d want my marriage being funded by some other poor schmuck’s failed attempt at forever.

Swan song logo

It doesn’t mention anywhere in the small print whether or not the contract becomes invalid if one party goes to prison, or whether you’re still obligated to repay the money if you actually do kill your spouse over breakfast; but there is a clause that states how divorces resulting from abusive relationships will require only the abusive party to repay the $10,000 and I can’t see THAT little caveat being exploited at all! I’m almost 100% sure that SwanLuv aren’t going to have a few dissatisfied wives turning up with some expertly applied MAC pigment powders around the eye-sockets, claiming that they aren’t responsible for repaying any of the $10K. Nor do I think for one minute that there will be any ladies sat smirking to themselves 5 years from now, safe in the knowledge that hubby can’t ever run away with someone who doesn’t berate him for playing on his XBox in the evening, because her decision to be a housewife left them with a very limited single income. I’m sure the brains behind this novel little Seattle based start-up have already thought about all the potential fraudulent exploits that future ‘smug-marrieds’ might dream up, so my cynicism is probably entirely misplaced.

I still can’t see myself ever going cap-in-hand to these guys though; asking them to pony up the fundage so I can have a chocolate fountain, a slow dance to Westlife and the opportunity to dress like meringue for the day, just isn’t my style. But that’s not to say that you shouldn’t apply and give it a go yourselves. SwanLuv (so named because swans are known to mate for life) are taking applications via their website now and will be using ‘online data and algorithm software technology to quickly assess applicants’ with a view to distributing the first hand-outs after they officially launch in February 2016. If getting yoked to ‘her indoors’ is important to you, but you just can’t afford the cost of getting her up the aisle, then why the hell not? Maybe it’ll give some couples a greater incentive to work on their relationships; or maybe it’s just going to turn the already precarious process of permanently pairing off into an even greater minefield, for those who might want out at a later date. Getting married IS a gamble, but that 42% failure rate is on the decline. So if you fancy your odds as much as you fancy your fiancee then fuck it. Have your flutter, have your flowers and have your finger-buffet but please, whatever you do, don’t send me a fucking invite, however close we are.

(Even if you are having vol-au-vents.)

I’m Not Apologising

It’s been about a week now since news first broke about the murder of Deah Shaddy Barakat, his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. These three, brilliant, intelligent, young people, with promising futures ahead of them were gunned down in their own home, by a neighbour, over what seemed to have been an ongoing dispute over a parking spot. At first glance the story sounded like another terrible casualty of the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, giving citizens the right to bear arms; which, all things considered, it still is. But as more details about both the victims and the perpetrator began to make the news, a much darker motive for a seemingly senseless crime started to emerge.

Craig Stephen Hicks, 46 was an atheist. His victims? All Muslim.

Within moments of this information being made public, the predictable uproar blew up on Twitter with hundreds of people calling for the same kind of of outrage and public outcry, as had been witnessed after the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris last month. Because with the mere mention of this crime having taken place between a non-Muslim perpetrator and three Muslim victims, for some it seemed as though obvious parallels were to be drawn. In those first hours after the story had broken and as people all over the world began waking up to the news, it seemed as though the majority of public opinion was firmly rooted in one of two camps: those who seemed convinced that this was in fact a hate crime, somewhat on par with the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or those who understood that there was a very real difference between the incidents and that atheism at it’s core is not something that can ever be tied in with hate crimes and violence.

But the internet is a place of reactionary statements, where emotional outbursts often take the place of rational thoughts and opinions. There were calls for the more prominent atheists among us, such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss to apologise and be held accountable for the actions of this one, lone gunman’s actions. Dawkins responded immediately to these claims via Twitter:

Dawkins on Chapel Hill

Lawrence Krauss in turn responded to the brimming tensions among those who wanted to connect outspoken atheist voices such as his, with this heinous killing, in an article published on the Huffington Post:

“Let’s be clear about one thing. Hate speech is directed at people, not ideas. To argue that individuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any of the other outspoken atheists, including myself, who criticize the doctrines of Islam, or Christianity, are inciting violence against individuals on the scale of the terrorists who espouse Islamic fundamentalism is akin to suggesting that the Enlightenment was fundamentally no different than the theocracies it eventually undermined.”

UNC Isn’t Charlie Hebdo, and Thomas Paine Isn’t Osama Bin Laden – Lawrence M Krauss

And whilst I understand why both they and scores of other prominent atheists/skeptics, felt that speaking out against this incident was the right thing to do, I’m absolutely fucking fuming that they were made to feel that way in the first place. Twitter poured forth with similar statements from other members wanting to apologise “as an atheist” for the actions of Craig Hicks. Making matters worse were tweets like the one from a user @lina_serene (whose account has now been deactivated) demanding that all atheists apologise for the shootings at Chapel HIll.

Excuse me? You DEMAND an apology? I don’t fucking think so. I don’t care how horrendous this man’s actions were. I will condemn the actions of anyone who takes it upon themselves to attack, injure or kill another person REGARDLESS of their age / gender / sexuality / race / nationality / religion / whatever; but I will NOT kow-tow to pressures from other people on social media sites, expecting me to somehow shoulder the blame and responsibility of one man’s actions PURELY BECAUSE BOTH HE AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE NO BELIEF IN A DEITY.

Wow, you know, when I type it out like that, plain for all to see, it seems so ridiculous, one can hardly imagine that anyone would even consider suggesting such a thing. Because in being an atheist, all I can really say that I have in common with the Chapel Hill shooter, is the fact that neither of us believe in a god. That’s it. And that’s because that is really all anyone can truly deduce from discovering that a person is an atheist. I know that there are certain other groups of people who would love to associate the term with a whole host of other things, but the reality is, it means just one thing: a lack of a belief in a deity.

And I get pissed off enough as it is, having to explain to people over and over again, that atheism is not a religion, that we don’t have a set of rules to live by, that there is no Grand Poobah who we follow/worship/give praise to or that speaks for us all as a collective. But it’s as if a general consensus of willful ignorance has been adopted by the majority who want to believe that we operate like a religion, so that we too can be held accountable in the same way that we expect of their belief systems. Sorry, but you don’t get to determine what it is we/I stand for or believe in. It just doesn’t work like that.


Now a lot is being bandied about as to whether or not the actions of Craig Hicks on that day can be considered as a hate crime, with a huge amount of attention being paid to his Facebook page, where he posted and shared a lot of atheist memes. At first I was quite interested to see for myself, just what exactly his Facebook page did say, so I spent a good hour or so, trawling back through everything he’d posted over the past three years. What did I find? Well… nothing particularly out of the ordinary as far as the atheist content goes. A lot of the memes he had on there were exactly the kind of thing you’d find on my Facebook or Twitter pages. As has been pointed out time and again, yes there was a post regarding a handheld gun & holster, but lets be honest, if you’re going to make owning guns legal in your country, you’d better be ready to see a bunch of people posting pics of their favourite piece, here every so often.

But in response to the allegation that this guy was some kind of bigot who had killed his neighbours because of their religious inclinations, I found more posts suggesting the exact opposite. Posts about equality for same-sex marriage, for women’s rights, posts about seeing an end to racist attitudes and even a post which fully supported the rights of the Muslim community of New York, in their bid to build a mosque two blocks away from the Ground Zero site. The only thing setting this guy’s Facebook postings apart from mine, were the couple where he posted about his guns. I’m completely anti-gun and not just because I live in Britain. And so i thought about taking to time to copy and paste a few of his posts here to show how I really didn’t think that this guy’s actions could be considered a hate-crime. Because if half the world is trying to use the fact that he posted a lot of atheist memes, to denigrate and tar all atheists with the same brush, well, surely it made sense to look at whatever else he was fond of posting to get a better idea of how the guy thought.

But then I realised: It doesn’t actually matter if Craig Hicks was motivated to commit a hate crime because of the way he may or may not have felt about his neighbours. I mean, sure it matters to the victims’ families, the police and the authorities who are responsible for trying to figure out motive and motivation; but it really doesn’t matter one iota to me.


Because I have no reason to care about this man at all. He is nothing to do with me. We’re not related, we don’t live on the same street, he didn’t harm anyone directly connected to me. What he did was heinous enough without me needing to clarify his motivation for having done it. If I start to try and defend the guy and pick apart his online life as a way of somehow mitigating the actions of someone who just happens to have the same lack of a belief in god as me, then I’m falling into that same trap that everyone else in the mainstream and social media. Craig Hicks does not represent me. Nor does he represent ANY other atheist. In the same way that I don’t represent any other people who don’t believe in ghosts, or who happen to really love fountain pens.

There is NO atheist ideology that we all adhere to. There is no creed that Craig Hicks has disobeyed or dishonored. By committing such an atrocity, he has destroyed the lives of three innocent, young people and in doing so, set himself apart from the majority of the rest of the human race. But he isn’t about to be thrown out of any club for his actions. Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Grayling, Krauss, Boghossian & Degrasse Tyson, aren’t all going to get together and vote for him to be ejected from some imaginary atheist fraternity. It just doesn’t work that way. Craig Hicks happened to be someone with no belief in any gods prior to him committing his crime and now as he sits in his prison cell, awaiting sentencing for said crimes, he remains an individual with no belief in any gods.

I think that all good intentions aside, fellow atheists in the public eye and on the internet, were too quick to jump to apologise for this man’s actions, in the wake of the burgeoning media attention around his alleged lack of beliefs. This was not Charlie Hebdo in reverse. This was not something that required a group of people united in belief, to come together and defend their position, because Craig Hicks’ actions didn’t actually contradict or contravene any code, creed or belief system.


It’s hard for a lot of people to be an atheist in many countries across the world, so when stories like this hit the news, it can feel like any progress we’ve made towards being viewed with less hostility, just evaporates in the wake of sensationalist headlines. But whilst getting to know other atheists online via Twitter, Facebook, You Tube or an online forum might help to bring like minded people together for support (especially for those living in the US Bible Belt, Middle East or other heavily religious countries) what we refer to sometimes as an ‘atheist community’ isn’t actually a congregation made up of people all following the same rules or expressing the same views, by any stretch of the imagination. The only thing we have in common really, is that we all have no belief in any gods. Yes, there seems to be a greater number of people in the ‘atheist community’ who would consider themselves skeptics, rational and scientifically minded, but that generally just happens to be the kind of people who are more likely to question something as absurd and fantastical as some divine creator and the subsequent holy books ascribed to his word.

But having an interest in science, philosophy, theology or the historicity of any religion is not a requirement for being an atheist. You either believe in a god, or you don’t. Everything else is just down to personal preference. We’re not trying to be the perfect cookie-cutter example of any particular ideal. We may share some similar views, but they’re by no means a requirement. We atheists come from every walk of life. From every part of the world, every social class, every race, gender, age, sexuality, political leaning and any other demographic you can think of. We may identify strongly as being atheists, but being an atheist does not determine who we are or what we stand for. So for anyone to dare suggest, to me or any other atheist, that we should associate with, stand for or apologise for the actions of Craig Hicks, a week ago today, pisses me off more than you can probably imagine.

I am sorry that three beautiful, brilliant, intelligent young people had their lives cut short by this devastating crime and my heart goes out to their parents who I feel have shown great dignity and strength in what must be the most difficult time of their lives. My opinion here is in no way intended as any form of disrespect towards them in their time of grief. I feel sorry for them, but I cannot say sorry on behalf of the perpetrator, or some imagined group people believe he belonged to. I did not pull the trigger that day. i did not know Craig Hicks before he murdered his victims and I have absolutely nothing to do with that man and whatever it is that may have motivated him. I am not Craig Hicks. I am not a murderer and I have nothing to apologise for. So as contentious as it may seem, I’m afraid that this atheist, for one, will not be apologising.