Richard Carrier has just published some of the most vacuous and insulting of the recent smears against Atheist Ireland, Hemant Mehta and me. And so I have to again reschedule other activities, including finishing my response to the more considered posts by Ashley Miller, MA Melby and Secular Woman, in order to ensure that Richard’s false claims are corrected on the record before even more myths take hold.

Richard includes false claims about Atheist Ireland and its members, a hidden insult against women activists, false claims about Hemant Mehta, and of course the obligatory defamatory claims about me. Some of his claims seem based on prejudice plus zero research, and some on sources that represent mostly one set of perspectives, some of the content of which he misrepresents.

A word of warning for those who selectively dislike long posts. If you were full of praise when I was lengthily defending PZ Myers and his friends, but are not so happy with me lengthily defending other people against them, you might prefer to reminisce about those earlier days instead. Public service announcement: 2,996 words.

1. Introduction and basic principles

2. The enemies of truth and justice

3. Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin)

4. A fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent

5. The source of Atheist Ireland’s quotes

6. Richard’s insult to women activists

7. Nugent did this for only one actual reason

8. This is literally all this is about

9. Hemant Mehta and due diligence

10. Richard’s selective primary resources

11. Summary

1. Introduction and basic principles

This was Richard’s introduction:

“This is a quick source document for anyone who “hates drama” and doesn’t want to do much work to investigate what all the hubub is about. Why did Atheist Ireland write a dishonest disassociation letter against PZ Myers, and why did gullible nice guy Hemant Mehta fall for it? Details below.”

This is actually a good start. Richard is wise in aiming this post explicitly at people who don’t want to do much work to investigate the truth. Because, if he had aimed it instead at people who do want to investigate the truth, they would find that almost everything he says is wrong.

Richard then began, under the heading ‘Basic Principles: Drama vs. Truth’:

“In the atheist movement over the past five years or so what people call “drama” the rest of us call fighting for respect for minorities and victims of harassment and sexual assault. The people who hate that we do that are the ones who have caused almost all the drama you have ever called drama. Pretty much entirely.

This is essentially Richard’s foundational claim. He divides the atheist movement into two groups: (a) people, including himself, who are “fighting for respect for minorities and victims of harassment and sexual assault,” and (b) other people, who hate that he and others fight for such respect, and call that drama, and have caused all of the drama.

The implication of the rest of the post seems to be that I and Atheist Ireland fall into this latter group. However, to even examine that assertion, he would have to first prove that his “two groups” characterisation is accurate. He says that his primary resources support these claims, but neither his post nor the links demonstrate the truth of either claim.

2. The enemies of truth and justice

Richard continued:

“The enemies of truth and justice do this by counting on people who don’t care enough about the truth to check and find out what’s really going on. Because out of an apathetic aversion to “drama,” such people will just believe whatever bullshit anyone says loudly enough or officially enough. But remember, avoiding drama, more often than not means avoiding the truth. So you might not like the choices. But you have to pick one. You can’t just dismiss something as drama. In doing so, you are saying you are not interested in the truth. And if there is anything atheists should never stand for (much less defend), it’s a disinterest in the truth.”

I completely agree with these two paragraphs. Perhaps unintentionally, Richard actually gets to the core of why I am defending people against the the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of PZ Myers and the misrepresentations of others.

It is deeply unpleasant and emotionally draining for me to wake up each morning to read further outrageously untrue smears about me and my friends and colleagues. It would be the easiest thing in the world to walk away from it, and do something more enjoyable.

But it is precisely because I care about the truth, and care about the harm and hurt caused by the smears and misrepresentations of PZ Myers and others in recent years, that I will continue to counter every post full of falsehoods by putting the truth on record.

And I agree that there are people (I hesitate to call them “the enemies of truth and justice”) who benefit from people who don’t care enough about the truth to check and find out what’s really going on. Ironically, Richard’s post itself is a very good example of this behaviour. Let’s examine how.

3. Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin)

After his intellectual throat-clearing, we come to the substance of Richard’s claims. Under the heading ‘Summary of the Present Issue’, he wrote:

“Atheist Ireland (more like just Dublin)…”

Six words in, and we reach the first false claim, which is based on prejudice plus zero research. Atheist Ireland is very conscious of the need to be both national and regional. We have members, activities, political lobbying, media activity, debates, Secular Sunday brunches and information tables every month around Ireland. We host every alternate AGM outside Dublin. Establishing local atheist groups is not an easy task in many parts of rural Ireland, and we are still learning as we go, but it is high on our priorities.

Richard’s false claim is disrespectful to our Regional Officer Kevin Sheehan, who has clocked up thousands of miles at his own expense traveling around the country helping local members to get organised. It is disrespectful to the many members who have organised Atheist Ireland brunches and/or information tables in Dublin, Newbridge, Cavan, Meath, Dundalk, Letterkenny, Sligo, Roscommon, Athlone, Galway, Tralee, Cork, Waterford and Kilkenny. It is disrespectful to the many Atheist Ireland members who took part in Constitutional Convention meetings in Dublin, Galway, Sligo, Cavan, Athlone, Cork, Waterford and Limerick.

It is disrespectful to Peter Hinchliffe, who has been campaigning against the imposition of a crucifix in Kerry County Council. It is disrespectful to Corey Whyte, who is hosting a marriage equality debate on 6 May in Sligo with the Catholic Bishop of Elphin. It is disrespectful to Grace and Emmet Vaughn, who combine our Meath brunches with challenging our jury exemption for clerics. It is disrespectful to Martijn and Mandy Duke Leenheer, who helped establish our Sligo branch after their child was marginalised in their previous town for standing up to the local Catholic School’s religious education policies.

It is disrespectful to Andrew Doyle, who was interviewed last week in Cork about proposed conscience clauses in equality laws, and to Grania Spingies, who used to coordinate activities in Cork as well as being our founding secretary. It is disrespectful to John Hamill, who is taking an equal status complaint against Monaghan County Market while also running our national campaign against the Irish blasphemy law. It is disrespectful to Kelvin O’Connor and Tom Whyte, who as I write this are getting ready for our Atheist Ireland information table in Galway this weekend.

4. A fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent

Richard continued:

“… is essentially a fiefdom wielded by Michael Nugent.”

This is the second false claim in Richard’s summary. The idea that Atheist Ireland is a fiefdom wielded by me is simply nonsense. The Executive Committee includes people with decades of experience of campaigning on the ground for a more liberal and caring Ireland, as well as enthusiastic people who want to play their part in that ongoing challenge.

In particular, as well as the regional organisers that Richard disrespected in his first false claim, this false claim is also disrespectful to our secretary Helen O’Shea, our Finance Officer Sean O’Shea, our regional officer Kevin Sheehan, our Human Rights officer Jane Donnelly, our Dublin Chairperson Ashling O’Brien, our Newsletter Editor Derek Walsh, our Online Manager Andrew Doyle, and our Blasphemy Campaign Coordinator John Hamill.

The members and supporters of Atheist Ireland include people who were politically active before Richard Carrier was born, from hardened peace and secular and social justice activists to elected politicians at local and national level. The idea that these courageous and inspirational people are some type of malleable sycophants, who would dedicate their time to advancing my personal fiefdom, is as disrespectful to them as it is bizarre to anybody who knows them personally.

Richard continued:

“He (or possibly they, if really anyone else at AI had their hand in this)…”

Atheist Ireland regularly makes substantial statements on issues that are significant to our work. That includes this dissociation statement, and also briefing documents and submissions to Government Ministers, members of parliament, political parties, and human rights regulatory bodies including the United Nations, Council of Europe and OSCE.

We do this by agreeing on a general position at an Executive Committee meeting, then finalising the document via online revisions to a circulated draft. We try to make sure that we can stand over whatever statements we issue, because unlike Richard Carrier we don’t have the luxury of being able to publish unsupported allegations without apparent concern about the impact on his professional reputation.

5. The source of Atheist Ireland’s quotes

Richard continued:

“… received or collected propaganda from an anti-feminist hate-site (literally called the Slymepit) and used it to attack PZ Myers.”

This is Richard’s fourth false claim or insinuation, and we are only two sentences into his summary. That’s not a good start. Atheist Ireland did not receive or collect propaganda from an anti-feminist hate site. As an aside, if Richard believes that the material came from the Slymepit, it must mean that either (a) he has visited the Slymepit himself, which PZ disapproves of others doing, or (b) he hasn’t researched his claim.

Actually, the direct source of most of the material about PZ was PZ’s blog itself, plus the fact that we know PZ personally. We had discussed our concerns with PZ about his harmful rhetoric since before the Slymepit was even founded, before Aratina Cage had described Abby Smith’s blog as a monumental pit of slime, and before anybody had even heard of the concept of Elevatorgate. Like some others, Richard seems to see a Slymepit under every bed.

6. Richard’s insult to women activists

But let us look again at the first half of that smear:

“… received or collected propaganda from an anti-feminist hate-site…”

There is a significant insult to women activists hidden in that particular smear. Remember that Richard is claiming that Atheist Ireland is my personal fiefdom, and if anybody else from Atheist Ireland was involved in this statement, they were involved in receiving or collecting propaganda from an anti-feminist hate site.

Atheist Ireland has many women activists, who do more work on the ground for women’s rights than Richard Carrier could even imagine, and continue to do so every day in a country where church and state have conspired for decades to deny women the most basic of human rights, where until recently pregnant women in hospitals had their pelvises broken without their consent in order to facilitate Catholic theology, and where you still cannot get an abortion unless there is a threat to your life.

Richard is making one of two outrageous claims about these women. Either these women have knowingly received and collected propaganda from an anti-feminist hate site, or else these women are naive and malleable enough to unknowingly endorse the collection of propaganda from an anti-feminist hate site, because they are simply supporting a man’s personal fiefdom, without any capability of doing due diligence in their officership of a national advocacy group.

Even more insultingly, Richard is basing these smears on his imagined division of the atheist movement into (a) him on the feminist side, casually insulting these women on his blog, and (b) these women, who are actually working hard on the ground to defend and promote women’s rights and social justice, and who he positions on the anti-feminist side of his imagined divide.

In particular, Richard owes an apology here to our secretary Helen O’Shea, our Human Rights Officer Jane Donnelly, and our Dublin Chairperson Ashling O’Brien.

Independently of the recent Atheist Ireland statement, Richard’s claim is also disrespectful to the many women who were on the organising committee of Atheist Ireland’s international conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism in Dublin in 2013, none of whom are gullible enough to organise an international women’s conference to benefit a man’s personal fiefdom.

7. Nugent did this for only one actual reason

Richard continued:

“It seems that Nugent did this for really only one actual reason: Nugent defends [a named person] instead of [another named person], the woman who has a credible claim of rape or at least extreme sexual misconduct against [the first named person] (one better evidenced than many such claims against Catholic priests), and people who see things the other way around have said Nugent is defending a rapist, at which he took such offense as to spiral out into the most extraordinary example of high dudgeon.”

This is both inaccurate and defamatory. I will address it in my later response to to the more considered posts by Ashley Miller, MA Melby and Secular Woman.

8. This is literally all this is about

Richard continued:

“That is literally all this is about. Because Nugent has no problems with appalling rhetoric when it appears from supporters in his own blog comments; or with controversy when it is raised by people he likes. So he is being disingenuous when he quote mines PZ to grossly misrepresent reality.”

The first part of this is simply nonsense. Of course this is not ‘literally all this is about.’ This is an all-encompassing claim, made with no sense of proportion, and supported by two further false claims.

Here’s an oversimplified version of my comments policy. Please robustly criticise ideas and behaviour, by applying reason to the best available evidence. Please do not insult people as people, or express hatred towards them, or dehumanise them, or threaten them, or attribute malign motivations to them.

And I have repeatedly said that all members of our movement should be open to robust criticism. Personally, I try to do so proportionately and charitably, combining praise and criticism as appropriate. That is the same charitable approach that I took in my initial criticism of PZ. It was only after his repeated refusals to withdraw his smear about me defending rapists that I became more direct in my criticisms of him.

9. Hemant Mehta and due diligence

Richard continued:

“Hemant Mehta did not do his due diligence to check Nugent’s claims, he just believed everything his statement said, because Hemant is overly trusting I guess, or else he is one of those folks who cares more about avoiding drama than learning the truth, in which case his values are exactly ass backwards.”

Putting aside the irony of Richard claiming that somebody else did not do due diligence, Hemant contacted me by email with several questions that he wanted clarified before he wrote his post. Also, it is strange to suggest that Hemant was unfamiliar with the harmful rhetoric of PZ until he read the statement by Atheist Ireland. And it is strange to posit just two possibilities for Hemant’s post – that he was overly trusting or that his values are ass backwards. So, another person for Richard to consider apologising to, if he has any integrity.

10. Richard’s selective primary resources

Richard concluded, under the heading ‘Primary Sources’:

“Want to vet the claims I just made but can’t find the time? You’re in luck. Because all the groundwork demonstrating everything I just said has already been done for you.”

He then included five paragraphs of what he calls primary resources. This lends an air of impartiality and objectivity to his post, creating the impression that the sources are what led him reasonably to the conclusions that he has just described.

However, if that was the case, you would expect to see a more balanced series of sources. For example, PZ and his colleagues frequently refer to the number of posts I have written on this topic. Surely Richard could have found even one of my posts as a primary resource for people interested in interpreting what I have actually said?

Richard’s descriptions misrepresent some of the content of some of the sources, which you can verify by following the links yourself and comparing them to what he says they say. This is of course not critical to his approach, as he himself started out by saying that his post is aimed explicitly at people who don’t want to do much work to investigate the truth.

Also in this section, Richard says that one link illustrates what he describes as “the breakdown of Nugent’s attempt to subvert Myers because of Nugent’s own desire to defend an accused rapist.” This is the second defamatory claim that Richard makes about me in this post.

11. Summary

There is a lot of nuanced dialogue happening in some of the posts that Richard linked to, and in some of the comments on some of those posts, and in some of the comments on some of the posts on my own blog about this issue.

None of that nuance is reflected in Richard Carrier’s post, which makes false claims about Atheist Ireland and its members, a hidden insult against women activists, false claims about Hemant Mehta, and of course the obligatory defamatory claims about me.