I learned on the BBC news website yesterday that the blasphemy laws are likely to be repealed. This news came as quite a shock to me as I didn’t even know we still had blasphemy as an offence. It’s just so Dark Ages!

I don’t know why it is but whenever I hear the word ‘blasphemy’ it instantly and automatically conjures up an image in my mind of the Reverend Ian Paisley dressed in witch-finder black, arm outstretched, pointing finger, screaming ‘blasphemer’ in that strident voice of his. Mind you, he belongs in the Dark Ages as well so I guess it’s not an unreasonable association.

Fellow Witanagemot member, L’Ombre de l’Olivier has bought to my attention a debate taking place in the Washington Post between Michael Gerson and our old friend Christopher Hitchens on the nature of atheism. I am not about to quote any of these articles but they are all worth a read.

What really rankles with me is this old hogwash perpetually pedalled by the religiously inclined that an atheist cannot possibly have a strong set of moral values and that only an adherence to a religious faith can provide the moral platform, teaching and structure that we all need to live a peaceful, law-abiding and productive life. Far too many people implicitly believe this bullshit and far more are taken in by it and are ready to shout ‘I believe’ to show the world they are grounded in religion and therefore must be ‘good’. And compared to those people I am more honest. I am an atheist. It’s not something I am proud of and it’s not something I preach – I just am.

I am an atheist on two counts. The first, and the major reason, is that I have never been presented with any compelling argument to believe in what Hitchens calls the ‘Heavenly Dictatorship’ whereas I have been consistently presented with arguments that make common sense, have scientific evidence to back them up and that do not rely on a far-fetched belief in the supernatural or ethereal. And I feel in absolutely no way diminished by this stance. The second reason, of course, is having been bought up in a predominantly Christian tradition, any research into the history of this established religion makes it obvious to me that it is not a club I wish to belong to. It is, in short, morally corrupt. It is, in fact, more corrupt than any atheist I have ever met.

In the last week alone we have seen the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Church payout $660 million dollars to the victims of priestly abuse and a wave of Christian protest because a Hindu chaplain said a prayer at the opening of the US Senate session. Abuse, lies, violence and intolerance. And these people have the nerve to be critical of atheism. We all know that if Jesus turned up in Bible Belt America he wouldn’t last five minutes before, at the best, being run out of town but at the worse seriously assaulted and probably shot. And Christians are not, of course, alone. Muslims slaughtering fellow Muslims is daily news around the world.

Groucho Marx once famously quipped that he’d rather not belong to any club that would have him as a member. In the opposite way, I don’t want to be a member of any club that has those Los Angeles and Boston priests – or the repressed bible thumpers – claiming the moral high ground because I’d pitch my own set of moral values against theirs any day.

I have tried – really, I have tried. I have read books and websites. I have watched documentaries and interviews. I have had conversations. And without fail, every Muslim tells me that theirs is a religion of tolerance and peace; that they abhor violence; that they cherish human dignity and human life. They tell me that those who plant bombs and carry out acts of inhuman violence in such places as Iraq are an extremist few who do not represent the true spirit of Islam. I have tried to embrace this, but with every day that passes, as atrocity is piled upon atrocity – whether state sponsored in countries such as Iran or in the family home against their wives and daughters – these claims are sounding more and more hollow and hypocritical.

The boy in the picture is clipped from a video. He is believed to be about 12 years old. Immediately after he has talked to the camera, he hacks off the head of a Pakistani man – Ghulam Nabi – accused of spying for American forces in Afghanistan.

A continuous 2 1/2-minute shot then shows the victim lying on his side on a patch of rubble-strewn ground. A man holds Nabi by his beard while the boy, wearing a camouflage military jacket and oversized white sneakers, cuts into the throat. Other men and boys call out “Allahu akbar!” “God is great!” as blood spurts from the wound. The film, overlain with jihadi songs, then shows the boy hacking and slashing at the man’s neck until the head is severed.

If Muslims want to convince more ‘civilised’ cultures that theirs is indeed a religion of peace and tolerance I would suggest that they re-direct their jihad against those in their own ranks who seek to spread this kind of sickening barbarity around the globe. After all, isn’t that what ‘jihad’ means? A struggle on behalf of God and Islam? If they continue to do nothing to stop this they will wait forever for our trust.

According to Pakistans independent Human Rights Commission, somewhere in the country a woman is raped every two hours and one is gang-raped every eight hours. And this is thought to be a vast under-estimate as most rapes are not reported. And why are they not reported? Because rape cases are dealt with in strict Sharia courts and victims have to have four male witnesses to the crime – if not they face prosecution for adultery. And the punishment for adultery? Lashing, if you’re lucky – stoning if you’re not.

If this isn’t a sick abomination then I don’t know what is. Laws made by men for the protection of men that allows them to degrade and use women as they choose. And this is, I believe, the 21st century.

But now, in a test of President Musharraf’s stated commitment to a moderate form of Islam, the National Assembly has voted to amend the laws so that rape can be tried in civil courts – where it belongs. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told parliament after the vote:

It is a historic bill because it will give rights to women and help end excesses against them.

But here is the bit that amazed me. Religious parties boycotted the vote, saying the bill encouraged “free sex”. They called the new legislation “a harbinger of lewdness and indecency in the country”. The leader of the six-party MMA Islamic alliance, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, said the bill would “turn Pakistan into a free-sex zone”.

So, raping a woman knowing she has virtually no chance or recourse to justice does not encourage “free sex”? This is not indecent? Not to mention inhumane. And they want to bring these laws here…

Following a case where legal adviser Shabnam Mughal refused to remove her head-wear during an immigration tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent and the judge adjourned the case because he couldn’t hear her speak, guidelines have been established by immigration tribunals chief Mr Justice Hodge.

Legal advisers and solicitors may wear the Islamic veil in court unless it interferes with the “interests of justice”. The judiciary were told to use their discretion to interpret the temporary guidance, which covers all courts.

There is another consequence of this ‘veil question’ which I have not seen mentioned anywhere but seems to me of utmost importance. A court of law, just like the school classroom (the subject of a recent dispute on this issue), is a place where people communicate with each other.

According to research by Professor Albert Mehrabian:

Only 7% of meaning is in the words that are spoken. 38% of meaning is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said). 55% of meaning is in facial expression and body language

Much, if not the bulk, of ‘involuntary’ body language is conveyed through facial expression and the use of the eyebrows. We may not know we are doing it but we are extremely well attuned to ‘reading’ and understanding it. Place what is, in effect, a hood over someones head and not only does the speech get muffled and the subtleties of ‘tone’ and nuance of expression become retarded, but the entire set of signals that we rely on to convey meaning and clarity are removed. This may not be that important at a supermarket check-out or a corner shop counter but in a place where communication is key, such as a court of law, a school classroom, a hospital or doctors surgery, then those lost signals can take on an important significance.