Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Ian Bushfield - October 14th, 2008 in Feature 0 votes Vote Up! Vote Down!

I’ve saved writing about the recent vandalism at the University of Alberta on Edger until now for a few reasons. Mainly, I wanted all the heat to settle down, for our new banner to go up, and for as many facts and opinions to come in as possible. Also, it should note this post will mirror the original and follow up posts from my own blog.

So first, let’s try to go through the order of events as objectively as possible.

  1. We’ve been working at the University of Alberta for a while now to try to achieve a secular convocation ceremony. As part of this campaign, I wrote an opinion article for the campus newspaper, which attracted both negative and positive reactions (about two weeks worth of letters).
  2. The UofA Atheists and Agnostics large (5′ x 8′) hanging banner gets vandalized over a weekend after hanging in an atrium for several weeks and the entire previous semester. The contact email and website were cut from the bottom and the phrases “God loves you,” “Jesus is coming,” and hearts and crosses are drawn across the banner.
  3. We later figured out, after removing the banner (while unveiling the new one), that the heart and cross were added to cover up some other writing. We couldn’t make out what was written under the heart, as the writing was mostly indistinguishable.
  4. I reported the incident to campus security the morning I discovered the banner and issued press releases to all the media outlets in town that I could get a hold of. CTV (local television) later did an interview with me (not YouTube’d yet). I also wrote my first blog post on it.
  5. After having a number of the “atheist community” blast me for using the word “hate” I wrote my second post saying simply that I called this act for what it was, although it wasn’t the position my group had taken. This was further clarified later in the week when another member of my club’s exec appeared on campus radio to discuss the issue.

So what are my thoughts on the issue?

First, one of my Christian friends (who heads the local IVCF chapter), wanted to point out:

1. The hate crime (I don’t mind calling it one… it was) was performed as it seems as a response to previous events on campus in which I had only a few glimpses of knowledge.

2. To comment about the vandalism without commenting about the convocation debate seems in some sense to be making a sideways response to the one event.

I find it utterly appalling that he tries to justify this action as a retaliation for my writing an article in a campus paper. I wrote some words. They drew and permanently damaged property that wasn’t theirs. Big difference. I may have offended them, but they actively worked to remove the ability of my group to advertise itself – a right possessed by every group on my campus (including the Pro-Life group). Being offended isn’t a protection we afford people in Canada (generally).

But what else happened here? When I went out actively looking for support, I instead was told: “this is more of a love crime” from some atheists. People I expected to side with me and back me up in denouncing an act of targeted intolerance against my group instead chastised me for overreacting.

Let me emphasize, my friend, an evangelical Christian, and the Pentecostal group on campus agreed with my denunciation of the event, while atheists and the United Church chaplain (a very liberal church in Canada) thought I was being unreasonable for expecting some sympathy.

I can understand having small posters vandalized or ripped down – at 5-15c a piece, I would be surprised to see all of them after a week. But for someone to go out of their way to deface and damage a large hanging banner, required planning, time, and effort (I believe they actually removed it from the building it was hanging in, did their damage, and then re-hung it – mainly because it was attached to the wire it hung from differently).

So why the argument? I really don’t see why, as an atheist, I can’t say that an act of intolerance against my group is equivalent in terms of intolerance and hate to writing “God hates fags” on a gay-support group’s banner, or “terrorist” on a Muslim banner. Just because they put a heart on it doesn’t mean that’s what they’re feeling.

Even if I grant that they may actually feel that God does love us, that still doesn’t change the intent of the actions, which was to imply that our group shouldn’t be spreading its message, and should instead accept Jesus (or burn in hell, as the implied alternative).

So I just thought I’d put it out there: clearly a double standard exists within the atheist community that we can’t cry foul, even when it happens to us. And I think this is the greatest tragedy of this entire debacle.

So here’s where I’ll summarize my positions:

It’s a hate-crime to commit any crime based on intolerance. However, standing on a bench shouting that atheists should burn in hell, while in bad taste and rudely offensive, should not be a crime, but should not be encouraged.

Finally, to end on a positive note, here’s the video of my group coming together to repaint and hang a new banner:

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


  1. Loren Petrich says:

    I thought about that incident a bit and I concluded that it could be someone wanting to tease the UAAA. Some people like to tease and torment and troll just for the fun of it.

  2. Could be, but the removing the email/website seems more malicious (to me) than just mischievous vandalism.

  3. A. S. says:

    It probably was malicious vandalism, but calling the incident a hate crime is counter-productive. Besides the fact that the term has lost any meaning these days (it has been applied to taking a Eucharist out of a mass, after all), its use only reflects aggrandized self-pity. A gang of Kristians beating up an atheist for no reason is a hate crime. Defacing your sign and removing contact information was despicable vandalism, but not a hate crime.

  4. I agree with your stance on this. If someone had defaced a Christian / Jewish / Islamic group’s sign with “Oblivion is all that waits for us”, they would call it a hate crime. The sign was vandalized because it was for Atheists and Agnostics, not just randomly, or the contact info would still be there and the graffiti would be all obscenities and crudely drawn genitals.

    P.S. I’m the new webmaster for a CFI affiliated club at York University, “FreeSAY” – Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York. Nice to see some internet neighbours. (The site is still in development)

  5. miller says:

    I think the problem is that everyone and their mother has an opinion on what should be considered a hate crime. They look at this, and they see an ironic and abstract case study to which to apply their thoughts. Furthermore, there is no better time to question the definition of “hate crime” than when your own side is the victim–if the opposing side is the victim, you’ll just look bad.

    Lost in the middle is the fact that some passive-aggressive Christians vandalized your sign.

  6. B8ovin says:

    It was certainly a bigoted crime, and we are left to decide if bigotry is equivalent to hatred. The point of “hate crime” is that a crime is committed because the victim is in some way despised or thought to be less than deserving of common lawful respect. By defacing the sign with slogans and symbols of opposing philosophy the crime is not random but distinct and pointedly anti-atheist. The intent was to silence as the bottom of the sign with contact information was removed. In my mind, there is no other way to view this event than as a direct attack based on opposing view, the very definition of “hate crime”. Whether or not “hate crime” is an overused phrase or a real phenomenon is not germane. IF hate crimes exist, and legally they do, this fits the definition as well as anything else.

  7. [...] Double standard within the atheist community – Several weeks ago, I blogged about the vandalism of the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics’ flag. Sadly, many of my fellow atheists want to write this off as no big deal and just move on. I think that’s truly sad. Here’s a video of the making of the replacement flag: [...]

  8. AleieX says:

    Well… this definitively is a hate crime, for it shows intolerance to other people’s thoughts (even if the word “love” is part of the message). Was it some kind of trolling? yeah! why not? but even then this kind of actions is and should never be justificated. If something similar happened to a scientologist group’s banner then it’d still be an act that should not be tolerated by saying “it was just a lovely kiddy joke, carry on”.

  9. morison dony says:

    excellent work…

  10. Andrew Yu-Jen Wang says:

    Speaking of hate crime(s):

    George W. Bush is a hate-crime criminal.

    George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

    Bush will go down in history in infamy.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA
    Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

    “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG



Author Tweets

tweets loading