How should we define attacks against atheists?

Thanks to our existing and new supporters. It's good to know that there are those of us out there who recognise how important it is to support people like Hamza who are suffering at the hands of those believers who are not able to accept that others see the world differently from them. But we still need more supporters to add weight to the call to reconsider Hamza's asylum claim. There's a similar petition here from Humanists UK which I would also urge you to sign (https://humanism.org.uk/what-you-can-do-to-help/tell-amber-rudd-save-hamza-dont-deport-him/) but I hope that here we can attract some support from those who choose to believe too. For clarity's sake this petition isn't an attack on Islam, or any religious group. It is about countering those who bear their faith in such a way that they become inflexible, judgemental and unable to share the world with others who are not like them. When people get to the stage where they lose that ability to respect others, to approach them with simple human decency and compassion, then I believe it is our moral duty whether believer or not, to hold those people to account. It has struck me since starting this petition how society treats nonbelievers in a different, even prejudicial manner when compared to believers. If we were to say that an attack was racially motivated, we place the fault at the feet of the perpetrator. Their prejudice is the decisive factor in determining the motivation for the attack, whether what they believe to be true about their victim is correct or not. The same goes for crimes that are motivated by misogyny, homophobia or attacks against religious groups. Why, then does society in general and the Home Office in this particular case, operate a double standard when considering threats against nonbelievers from believers? This is religiously-motivated prejudice - whether the victim is an atheist or not, the motivating factor is that the religion of the perpetrator has prompted the prejudice against the victim and any attack that comes from it. To paint Hamza's situation otherwise is disingenuous and highly dangerous. By placing the onus on Hamza, a victim, to prove that he is facing prejudice because of his humanism is not the point. The beliefs of others who are not tolerant of difference have and will continue to make him suffer if the Home Office don't reconsider their decision. And this isn't an abstract, theoretical exercise either. People die because of the prejudices of some (not all) believers against nonbelievers all over the world. Below are links to news articles from only last year about the terrible events which led to the murder of Pakistani student Mashal Khan. He was suspected, though never officially convicted, of blasphemy because of his atheism. Mashal was tortured and lynched by a mob of believers who had decided that his views should be a death sentence. Please continue to support Hamza by discussing his case in the real world and on social media, encouraging as many people as you can to sign this and the Humanists UK petitions. It is unjust to let the Home Office deny Hamza's request for asylum in such a prejudicial way. Atheist, or religious I hope we can persuade as many of you as we can to agree. Thank you, Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-39603126/pakistan-blasphemy-the-student-lynched-for-being-a-humanist http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39593302