essentially demands that one choose sides: when a person is blacklisted, or hounded from employment, or attacked, or imprisoned, or executed,
simply because of their essentially harmless ideas, one can respond in various (and inequivalent) ways
One can say (for example)
It's about time or
What a silly person! or
This is outrageous or any of various other things
So upon hearing of a woman who is jailed, because the state and/or her neighbors disapprove of her particular beliefs, which seems to involve a symbolic use of a teapot, rather than lip-service to locally-standard Islamic notions, you want to snicker because bertrand Russell once used a teapot as a metaphor in an argument against religion
But Bertrand Russell, who himself blacklisted and hounded from employment and imprisoned at various times, seems to have decided quite early in life exactly what he thought the proper reaction was when such things happened to other people:
Political Ideals
by Bertrand Russell (1917)
... To begin with, we do not want all .. to be alike. We do not want to lay down a pattern or type to which .. all sorts are to be made by some means or another to approximate. This is the ideal of the impatient administrator. A bad teacher will aim at imposing his opinion, and turning out a set of pupils all of whom will give the same definite answer on a doubtful point ...
Those who realize the harm that can be done to others by any use of force against them, and the worthlessness of the goods that can be acquired by force, will be very full of respect for the liberty of others; they will not try to bind them or fetter them; they will be slow to judge and swift to sympathize; they will treat every human being with a kind of tenderness, because the principle of good in him is at once fragile and infinitely precious. They will not condemn those who are unlike themselves; they will know and feel that individuality brings differences and uniformity means death. They will wish each human being to be as much a living thing and as little a mechanical product as it is possible to be; they will cherish in each one just those things which the harsh usage of a ruthless world would destroy. In one word, all their dealings with others will be inspired by a deep impulse of reverence ...
Political and social institutions are to be judged by the good or harm that they do to individuals. Do they encourage creativeness rather than possessiveness? Do they embody or promote a spirit of reverence between human beings? Do they preserve self-respect? ...
http://www.gwiep.net/library/Russell_-_Political_Ideals.htmlI detect here some failure to understand an essential aspect of Russell's spirit