Apparent Selective Application Of The Law In The United Kingdom

Aenaes over at ICLA did this post on selective enforcement in England, which for all practical purposes, makes it a Muslim country. Selective enforcement of the law, is perhaps the most pernicious form of deployment of tyranny. First, pass into law, a bunch of really really bad ideas that people accept because if they are enforced accross the board they are at least, equally unfair to all, and then only apply those laws to the people who you want to eliminate. This, is what Western nations are doing accross the board against secularists, Christians and Jews, and frankly all non-Muslims, perhaps even more so in Canada than in England as we saw in the case of the Montreal imam and Point De Bascule

Eeyore for Vlad:

Some Muslims appear to think that they can do just about anything in the name of their so-called god, and the British authorities seem all too willing to go along with them. The following video outlines an incident that illustrates this point rather well. The video relates to a group of Muslims going round an area putting stickers on people’s houses. The video is entitled ‘You can’t scare me into silence’:


Christians have been challenged by police when they have been handing out leaflets in so-called ‘Muslim areas’ of the United Kingdom, even though they were not defacing private property as those Muslims in the video were alleged to be doing. I would imagine that atheists would treated in the same way if they tried to encourage Muslims to leave their precious religion. Surely Muslims deserve to be made aware of the alternatives to their religion. Perhaps their lives would be improved if they ceased bowing to Allah. There seems to be a tendency in the United Kingdom to prevent people discussing the awkward truths associated with the Islamic religion. This tendency is totally inconsistent with the established customs of freedom and openness that traditionally characterise British society.

The footage also touches on the issue of Muslims apparently making false allegations and using the gullibility of politically correct authorities to intimidate non-Muslims further. Laws such as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act seem to be tools that some in the Muslim community use to intimidate non-Muslims. It also seems that this Act is mainly used in a highly selective way against white people. Since these laws do not seem to be applied evenly they should be repealed as a matter of urgency. After all, the new LibCon Government claims to be opposed to the police state that was built up by the previous Labour administration and as such should dismantle that particular part of it.

If the EDL Dudley ‘Rooftop Two’ can be tazered and locked up for practicing freedom of expression, why are Muslims allowed to deface people’s houses and intimidate them and not be subject to similar treatment. Why are the Muslim perpetrators of the incident mentioned in this video still at liberty and walking the streets? It is not acceptable for the authorities to treat Muslims more favorably than everyone else just because of a perception that Muslim communities may riot or that ‘community cohesion’ may be adversely affected. It seems that the politically correct authorities in the United Kingdom are becoming no different from sharia enforces, the sort of people who send school girls back into burning buildings because they are not properly dressed.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “Apparent Selective Application Of The Law In The United Kingdom”

  1. I’l never forget the following bit of Fareek Zakaria’s interview with David Dhimmiliband on al-CNN which, if one word isn’t interpreted as it literal meaning, pretty much sums up what pretty much all members of Britain’s political elite believe in:

    ZAKARIA: Do you find it difficult to speak about matters of religion and faith? The “New Statesman” describes you as an atheist. You have a Jewish background. Does this whole world of religion puzzle and bother you?

    MILIBAND: Well, I’m British. So, by definition, I don’t like talking about myself. But I think that it doesn’t — people of faith (mahoundians, that is) — I have huge respect for people of all faiths (of all mahoundian sects – sunni, shia, sufis), actually. But I also have to be honest about where I’m coming from.

    Of course we know where he, Gordo, Blair, Cameron, Clegg and all of the gang are coming from. From where mahoundians are freely able to call for the slaughter of infidels, versus those Liverpool hotel owners who were arrested by daring to speak one bit of truth about Mahound to a mahoundian mobile tent, which was about the fact that it (not he) was a warlord. Yep, from where the Dudley two, by protesting against mosque-building on a rooftop, were charged with a criminal act… While, at the same time, mahoundians are allowed to throw shoes at whatever and whomever they want since the British “justice” system decided that shoe-throwing is a “form of ritual protest.” And I have no doubt that, if a bunch of penis-possessing mahoundiand band together to “ritual protest” with stones a woman whom they might deem deserving of being stoned to death under sharia, those UK judges will react the same way and charge them with NO criminal offenses whatsoever.

  2. And, to add one more dhimmi weasel to the list above, does anyone remember Kenny MacAskill and his release of the Lockerbie bomber on “compassionate grounds” and because of claims that it (not he) had only three months to live? Here we are, not far from seeing that turn into a year, and every now and then there’s a report about how well the released dirtbag has been doing… What could have brought it back from being just about to kick the bucket? That age-old mahoundian medicine for all ills, camel pee? The scorching heat and dirty drinking water of Libya? Or was its release just an act of dhimmitude meant to show submission on the part of second-class human beings (according to sharia) to their mahoundian masters?

  3. I commented on anther blog about this man’s video.

    While I sympathize with him totally and am disgusted at most of what Muslims do, the fact that he advertised his beliefs on a sign in his yard makes him a target.

    You don’t taunt a circling, hungry shark by putting your feet in the water. This man has done the equivalent to that.

    I hope that Britainistan becomes the UK again. This on-going dhimmitude is doing nothing for them at all, making the country ripe for sharia law.

    Too bad that the maority of politicians there are bowing to the demands of the growing Muslim community. It makes them all cowards.

    I wish that the UKIP and the EDL would have won decisive victories against the hajri tactic that Islam’s leaders are using to seed the west with unrest (or fitna) and terrorists by winning more seats in the election this month. The UK and Europe needs someone to stand up to Islam.

    May freedom prevail.

  4. You can’t be against dhimmitude and admonish that guy for not being one at the same time. Your point is noted, but either one stands up for freedom of speech and against tyranny or one chooses to keep ones head down and hope someone else fights for your freedoms back.
    I don’t really know what you mean about this man putting a sign on his lawn. Please do explain.

  5. These practitioners of ‘The Religion Of Peace have most of the weak-willed,apologist,feckless, politicians defecating in their undergarments every time they demonstrate in the streets over some phony wrong or hurt. They (the politicians) are worse then prostitutes, and sure keep us in suspense as to which one of them will be the next to sell us out for a few votes. In the UK, the US, or Canada our greatest weapon is the ballot box these enemies of freedom and liberty must be tossed out of office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.