Stop upsetting our overlords, heretic!

Exactly seven years ago—and when I say exactly, I mean to the day—I wrote: "Anyone who knows just the most rudimentary aspects about life in contemporary Britain knows that we—the Government, businesses, and most of the British citizenry brow-beaten by political correctness—bend over backwards to avoid offending our Muslim community."
Nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed since then.
Take the case of Lauren Chase of Birchgrove, Wales who left comments on the Facebook page of a "little Egyptian rat" she did not like. Chase insinuated that he had snuck into the U.K. in the back of a delivery truck and opined to him that she did not like Muslims or their religion. The receiver of these comments told authorities he felt that because of his "ethnic appearance," he had been targeted.
Now then, Chase certainly needs to know that it is not proper behavior to target people based only on appearances and to abuse them. A work order of one week would have sufficed.
However, Chase was punished with a 12-month community order with supervision, an 80-hour unpaid work scheme that she must complete and the attendance of a ten-session racism and equality programme.
Got that? For daring to use free speech in a manner that is offensive to a protected class of people, whose contributions to Western society are dubious to begin with, this young lady was slapped with a year-long community order, in which she must be supervised. She must do eighty hours of unpaid work. And attend ten—count 'em, ten—classes on learning to celebrate diversity.
How much do you wish to bet that anyone who has recently called a white person a "honky" or "kaffir" will be present during these sessions?
Lauren Chase, the court heard, was suffering from depression and getting her help for it "is certainly on the agenda," according defender Matt Henson. Two thoughts here: If she is depressed, then how is this stringent punishment she received at the hands of the state going to help? And if a young person who is a Muslim or some other disadvantaged type that we strive so hard to protect from the realities of life, which can include white people as long as they're inbred and brainless, stabs an innocent person, then claims depression? I guarantee you that a little slap on the wrist, like a worthless ASBO, will be all they will face. No supervision. No 80-hour work order. No semester-long series of classes preaching tolerance. Certainly no jail time.
Now consider this entry, written slightly over seven years ago, in which I wrote: "The government is so afraid of the big bad Islamic bogeyman that if a Muslim complains about a cartoon pig or the swirl of a Burger King ice cream looking like the word 'Allah' written in the Arabic alphabet, immediate action is taken."
Recently, an outstanding member of our society, one Zayn Sheikh, called for the very popular British cartoon "Peppa Pig" to stop being aired on television. Not only does the sight of happy animated pigs offend Muslim sensitivites, but according to Sheikh, his young son has gone from wanting to be a doctor to wanting to be a pig.
You can't make this stuff up.
Zayn Sheikh and his defenders wish that British television would air enriching cartoons such as "Abdullah the Cat". According to a poster on the "Muslims Against Peppa Pig" Facebook page, Abdullah is "the halal cat". Huh? Does that mean Abdullah's body if used as meat—to perhaps feed a hungry jihadist—is halal or the food Abdullah eats is halal? I'm confused.
It's funny how Jewish citizens, who are also not allowed to eat or touch pork, never opine on the harmful effects of pigs in children's cartoons. Maybe it's because they realize they have far more important things to worry about in their lives. (Namely, increasing anti-Semitism from the Muslim community and their Lefty supporters, whipped up by anti-Israel protests, but that's an entire entry by itself.)
Lastly, in evidence of what is known to all those with a brain and who use it concerning the disrespect with which Christians are treated day in and day out, Cumbria County Council ordered Peter Nelson to take down a 9-foot tall crucifix he placed on the local slag banks of Workington. The crucifix is in memory of his deceased wife Angela.
A council spokesman said that, although the authority sympathizes with Mr. Nelson (yep, mmm-hmmm, sure ...), the crucifix "does not have planning permission and we have asked him to take it down".
Refreshingly, 2,000 signatures have been lodged with the council in protest and several dozens of local people marched with Mr. Nelson in support of him and his cause. Craig Elliott, a friend of Mr. Nelson's, said that the crucifix won't "be taken down without a fight."
So, for the million-dollar question: How seriously do you believe the council would have anything to say if some local Muslim erected a minaret on Worthington's slag heap?
For a Christian like Peter Nelson, the case is clear: "You did not seek planning permission, rules must be obeyed, we sympathize but you cannot be allowed to do this." For a Muslim, the policy would instantly have been "turn a blind eye." Nothing to see here, folks, move along ... That's because the practitioners of "the religion of peace" are a protected class, you see. 
Seven years from now, I fully expect, they still will be.