Double Standards In The British Legal System: One Law for the Muslims, Another For The Rest – Just Like Under Sharia

vladtepesblogdotcom

Sharia norms already exist in Britain and are enforced by the state.  One such sharia norm is inequality before the law, with Muslim’s allowed to get away with things that for the rest would result in prosecution and even imprisonment.

The video above covers the case of EDL spokesman Guramit Singh and illustrates how political correctness and state sanctioned victimisation is undermining the basis of the English judicial system.  The British state undermines freedom of speech and then wonders why people are afraid to address problems.

The recent revelations about Pakistani run prostitution rackets are a case in point.  Britain is a country where suffering is allowed to continue because to do anything meaningful about the suffering would mean admitting that the multicultural experiment that has been inflicted on the country has been a complete failure and is a threat to the very foundations of the British way of life.

The EDL has been complaining about the abuse of non-Muslim white girls since it was founded, and the authorities didn’t listen and proceeded to demonise the messenger.  Even the senior officer at West Mercia police who “called for an end to the ‘damaging taboo’ connecting on-street grooming with race” did not get it quite right; the problem is not a racial issue, it is nothing to do with the colour of a person’s skin or their genetic makeup as the statistics in this article make clear:

Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community. (Daily Mail – 5 January 2011)

It is clear that the constant reference to the racial term “Asians” that is continuously used by the political and media establishment get’s nowhere near to the crux of the matter.  The reference to “Asian”, when the reality, if the above figures are correct, is “Muslim” means that the actual cause of problems may never be addressed.  Of course, only a very small minority of Muslims commit these horrendous acts and they should not be held responsible for the acts of their co-religionists.  However, the proportions in the above figures do give a clue about where the authorities could start if they are serious about addressing this sort of problem.

A policy of denial, motivated by political correctness and the belief in the infallibility of the multicultural social model does not help anyone.  A policy of criminalising those who dare to suggest possible causes of problems does not help anyone.  Demonising groups who are crying out for help with the problems that they see in their communities does not help anyone.  Reality, rather than multiculturalist ideology should be the guiding star of policy makers.  It is time for the authorities to actually listen to organisations like the English Defence League instead of treating them like heretics and using the apparatus of the state to try to shut them up.

How can some of these problems be solved?  Perhaps a start would be for Muslims to sign Sam Solomon’s ‘A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding.’ Read it for yourself, it does not ask for people to sign up to anything that is unreasonable.  A start for the makers of public policy would be to read ‘A Consideration of Muslim Crime in the UK and the Response of the British Authorities’ – the information to help them do their job is out there, they are deliberately neglecting their duty by putting their heads in the sand.