Secular Politicians in England, France and the rest of Europe, often disguise their discriminatory legislation against minorities, like historically against the Jews, and now the Roma (gypsies) and Muslims, by claiming that the laws they make do not only apply against them, but also is for everyone ‘equally’, and so is ‘not discriminatory’.
Using this excuse they ban Muslims wearing niqabs in public, under the guise of prohibition of ALL face veils in public (except of course when it comes to facemask parties, extreme make-up, cycle helmets and anti-bacterial/pollution masks). France bans Hijabs in schools, under the guise of ‘no religious symbols of any kind in schools’, this is despite the fact that the Hijab IS NOT a religious symbol, but is simply clothing that complies with Islamic dress code for modesty. One could say that simply wearing clothes that cover the body, any part, is also the same, will they insist students all go to school naked now?.
In England, the laws here are a little more clever, they actually ban quite a lot of things, but these laws are not enforced – except when there is benefit for the government to do so. For example, it is illegal in UK for people to get drunk [1872 Licensing Act]. Yes, that’s right, you can’t get drunk in public England (creeping Sharia?), but that law is generally not enforced, UNLESS the drunk person is causing a disturbance. The 2000 Terrorism Act prohibits ALL acts of violence done for political causes (which could apply to the UK Armed Forces in theory, if it wasn’t given legal exemption), however the UK government decided not to prosecute Libyans going to Libya to fight against Ghaddafi (after the UK had negotiated with the opposition rebels, what system the aftermath of the revolution would be). However, the UK government decided that it would prosecute people going to Syria to fight against Assad, after it became clear the Rebels wouldn’t be so willing to establish another Secular pro-Western puppet state.
England also applies hate speech laws against Muslims who are deemed to be ‘homophobic’ or ‘anti-semitic, while not applying the same laws upon openly hate-spewing groups like the EDL.
Judges can be discriminatory too, applying the law selectively, or misapplying it. For example, the 2006 UK terrorism act prohibits possession of any materials or literature deem ‘useful for the encouraging, preparation or prosecution of acts of terrorism’, while giving an exemption for those who had ‘a reasonable excuse’ (like terrorism researchers). However, when a Muslim woman downloaded some Al Qaeda magazines to research how to defend the case against her brothers (who possessed them), she was jailed, despite the judge conceding that she had benign purposes.
People on the internet are free to say ‘all Muslims go to hell’, but in the case of Azhar Ahmed who said ‘All British soldiers should burn in hell’, the UK court found him guilty of ‘grossly offensive’ language. It’s funny how Muslims only hear the word ‘offense’ in two contexts, one where we’re being insulted under ‘Freedom to Offend’, the other, when we’re being told that our speech is prohibited as ‘Offensive’.
Now the UK is seeking to bring in new laws that would allow the government to ban peaceful non-violent groups or individuals who don’t subscribe to ‘British Values’ and shut down buildings, ‘including mosques’ that host ‘extremists’, we can all have a wild guess who this will disproportionately apply to.
It reminds me of what a French school teacher said, who insisted all their pupils eat pork during lunch times ‘or starve’. He said that ALL pupils should eat pork, so ‘no discrimination’, but we all know who will be affected by that.
The only countries in Europe, that are different, are Switzerland, who openly and specifically bans Minarets, but then again, it is closer to being a true Democracy than the other countries, so majority opinion really does dominate more there. And Austria has laws restricting and controlling Islam and the Muslim community almost worthy of China.
The European method of ‘equality’ between its majority and minorities (in political dissent), is like a wolf making a law for all wolves and sheep, that everyone should eat lamb.
Perhaps we should wonder what the West would say, if countries in the Muslim world said ‘everyone’s religion is respected, and everyone has the right to free speech, as long as EVERYONE [without distinction] must subscribe to ‘Saudi/Iranian/Turkish/Sudanese/Pakistani/Malaysian etc .Values’ and testify ‘La ilaha il Allah’, Muhammed al rasool Allah’. Would that be fair, because it would apply to everyone ‘equally’?
Would they say that these promotes freedom to disagree and diversity? And after they give their answer, let them look in the mirror and ask the same question.