Though famed atheist Richard Dawkins has often criticized political correctness and advocated for free speech, he ultimately supported Twitter’s decision to permanently ban President Donald Trump from its platform.
In a tweet over the weekend, Dawkins said that the ban should not be considered a “worrying free speech” issue because Trump was inciting violence.
“Is Twitter’s ban of Trump a worrying Free Speech issue? On reflection I think not because (a) Trump went far beyond expression of opinion (which should be protected) to outright lies, demonstrable falsehoods. Falsehoods, moreover which were calculated to (b) incite violence,” he tweeted.
Is Twitter’s ban of Trump a worrying Free Speech issue? On reflection I think not because
(a) Trump went far beyond expression of opinion (which should be protected) to outright lies, demonstrable falsehoods. Falsehoods, moreover which were calculated to
(b) incite violence.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 9, 2021
In another tweet, Dawkins cited an article from CJR columnist Joel Simon, who wrote that Twitter was placed into an impossible position by battling misinformation from a man of high power.
“Regardless of [your view on free speech], the companies [Twitter etc] are in an impossible position, because the most important source of misinformation is no longer a rogue state or a terrorist organization. It’s the president of the United States,” the article stated.
“Regardless of [your view on free speech], the companies [Twitter etc] are in an impossible position, because the most important source of misinformation is no longer a rogue state or a terrorist organization. It’s the president of the United States.”https://t.co/d3vJgVlGRk
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 9, 2021
Dawkins then set his sights on the Republican party in general, arguing that the title GOP (Grand Old Party) should be stripped.
“Isn’t it time to stop using the acronym GOP? The Republican Party has finally lost all claim to being ‘Grand.’ And as for being ‘Old,’ the Republican Party in its present form is now approximately four years young,” he later tweeted.
Isn’t it time to stop using the acronym GOP? The Republican Party has finally lost all claim to being “Grand”. And as for being “Old”, the Republican Party in its present form is now approximately four years young.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 10, 2021
Dawkins also criticized Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) for being a “traitor to democracy.”
“Pity Senator Hawley, Trump stooge and traitor to democracy,” he asserted. “He’s lost his publishing deal, he’s shunned by his colleagues, and his only friends are swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists, gullible little fools and a hirsute loon with horns.”
Pity Senator Hawley, Trump stooge and traitor to democracy. He’s lost his publishing deal, he’s shunned by his colleagues, and his only friends are swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists, gullible little fools and a hirsute loon with horns.https://t.co/DBSY8B43Dp
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) January 10, 2021
In 2018, when Pope Francis denounced abortion as a means to kill babies with birth defects, Dawkins defended the practice to prevent “human suffering.”
“And you thought Francis was the ‘good Pope’?” mocked Dawkins on Twitter. “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering.”
Dawkins also advised families pregnant with Down syndrome babies to just “Abort it and try again” in 2014 when one Twitter follower asked what to do about her situation. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he said.
In early 2020, Dawkins also said that the concept of eugenics would “work” for humans in a utilitarian sense while denouncing it on moral grounds.
“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”
Dawkins clarified that he abhors eugenics while admitting that such “a policy would be bad.”
“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he said. “I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.”
“A eugenic policy would be bad,” he continued. “I’m combating the illogical step from ‘X would be bad’ to ‘So X is impossible.’ It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.”