...the different movements often, probably not intentionally in some cases, compliment each other.

I respect Peter and I think the world of him. I'm no Sam Harris fan though. In fact of the guys that get mentioned in the article you posted Dawkins is the one I could be called a fan of. Pretty certain I have posted about him and things he has said. Interestingly, this is one of the offending videos of Dawkins the author linked to in the article:

I could be missing something here but I do not at all hear or see him targeting a Muslim boy nor anyone else. He actually specifically points out that his take on this has nothing to do with the boy being a Muslim nor does he at all seem obsessive about the subject. 

Dawkins is a fairly well hated guy in many circles, particularly if you run with any sort of fundamentalist religious crowd. His take on these things would make him a target in a big way. That said the comments about him not being an adult in the room at times and not being a particularly nice guy at times are opinions of him that could certainly be said to be true depending on who you ask.

I would further take the guy that wrote the article to task by saying that he claims that Dawkins "isn't bothered by the allegations against Krauss" by linking to this comment by Dawkins: 

Hugely successful trip on Mekong river from Cambodia to Vietnam with Lawrence Krauss’s newly formed http://OriginsProjectFoundation.org. Lovely boat, every berth filled, talks by Lawrence himself, Richard Somerville & me. Next trip: Iceland & Greenland, talks by Ian McEwan et al

Here is the issue with that, nowhere in that comment by Richard Dawkins is he addressing the allegations against Mr. Krauss. So, how do you establish from that comment that Dawkins isn't bothered by the allegations? I mean, I get the idea that he went on this cruise with that foundation which Krauss was also on but that does not equate to him not being bothered by the allegations.

I think, at least in the Dawkins section the guy is attempting to stretch to include him with some rather dubious evidence of his claims. Finally, he goes on about "Elevatorgate" which also seems more than a bit of a stretch. Dawkins does make some harsh comments, but they are harsh comments IN DEFENSE of women. The article's author points out that Dawkins began his comments with "Stop whining" but he was writing that as if he was the woman that complained about being hit on in the elevator telling her fellow females living in Muslim countries to stop whining about the treatment they receive because she has to tolerate getting hit on in elevators. It is basically a "choose your battles" sort of argument.

Just to contextualize this the woman that was at the center of Elevatorgate described the encounter as follows:

As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me. As the doors closed, he said to me, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting. Would you like to come back to my hotel room for coffee?” I politely declined and got off the elevator when it hit my floor.

Now, fine, she found that creepy. Would it be nice not to have this kind of thing happen if you don't desire it to happen? Sure. However, Dawkins was actually correct in what he said. She was not assaulted. Never touched. The guy did not chase her own a hallway after she declined. He asked once, she said "No." and that was the end of it. I mean isn't that how that sort of encounter is supposed to work? No, means no, she said no, he backed off. She went and created an article about this encounter saying this is not how to make women feel comfortable at a conference. OK, fine, but both she and the guy that asked her this were leaving the hotel bar at 4am. I think Dawkins was kind of correct that this should not have been seen as some great offense and that if you want a great example of things not to do, well, this was not one of them. 

If this guy had been drinking and attracted to this woman and wanted to get a moment alone with her to ask her to spend some additional time with him and accepted her no as no...then doesn't that make him...well...sort of polite. He didn't say "Hey baby, let's go back to my room and fuck." and then call her a bitch when she declined. According to her account he asked if she wanted to have coffee with him. Yes, he very well could have been hoping for more than coffee but he seemed to handle that correctly. 

I kind of think Dawkins sarcasm came from the idea that even asking someone to have coffee with you is not something a man should do in an enclosed space...like an elevator...when there are major problems with the way women are treated today.

The woman at the center of Elevatorgate went on to say that due to Dawkins comments and lack of support for her elevator issue she was done with him. OK, fair enough. She also said she was attacked for telling her elevator story and called foul names 2 million times on the internet. Not by Mr. Dawkins but presumably by the 2 million trolls that live on the internet writing ignorant things. Look, I feel for the woman. She does not deserve a bunch of abusive language thrown at her. 

I also think that her example of what happened in the elevator was really not a great one and if you do want to advocate for better treatment of women that is not a good way to do it. It does seem trivial when you look at it and it does invite complaints from people that will say the guy did follow acceptable social behavior by taking her no as a no and not continuing to pursue her in any way. 

The reason I took all that apart is because the guy that wrote the article you linked to, Dan, did seem to have some questionable examples when it came to Dawkins. I didn't look at all the examples he linked to with the other people on his list but since Dawkins is a guy I've read and listened to felt I should look at what he was talking about with regards to him. 

And here is Dawkins offending response to a friend of the woman that was hit on while on the elevator at 4am:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so …

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Harsh? Yes. But is he making a point that does appear true?