Britain's "diversity" stuck in the uniformity of Saudi Arabian sand dunes?
Whenever you hear the politically correct oxymoron "diversity" you can be sure that it can be traced directly to the least diverse place in the world, Saudi Arabia, the "custodian" of sharia islam and its idolatry of the most intolerant city in the world.
Why does Cameron seem to have such a problem using the word sharia when precisely this word could help him finding the code to "radicalization"?
Calling oneself a true muslim automatically connects to sharia islam, the very opposite to Human Rights - e.g. as stated by all the world's muslims' Saudi based and UN sanctioned sharia organization OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its islamofascist Fuhrer Iyad Madani, who belongs to the Saudi dictator family.
A consequence of this is that a sharia supporting muslim's vote is undemocratic. OIC's 57 member state voting bloc in UN who supported Human Rights violating sharia as a guidance for muslim legislation all over the world was therefore also undemocratic.
In 2008 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) tried to make a brief statement about honour killings, female genital mutilation and stoning. IHEU and the Association of World Education had three minutes to put their case. But as they tried to make the statement, they were constantly interrupted by the representative of Egypt who accused the NGOs of trying to “crucify Islam”. They insisted that sharia law must not be mentioned at the UNHRC, let alone criticised. A Pakistan delegate — whose country speaks for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in the rights body — said the grouping had “strong objections” to any direct or indirect discussion of sharia. Joining Egypt in asking the president, Romania's Daru Romulus Costea, to bar any debate that took this path, he said that if allowed it would “amount to spreading of hatred against certain members of this Council”.
Costea suspended the council and is reported to have asked the NGOs not to mention sharia.
Later Mr Costea told a press conference that he had ruled that only Muslim scholars can be permitted to talk about Islam in the Council. He said that religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”.
While Cameron contemplates "radicalization" (sharia islam) BBC asks* for more sharia muslim judges in Britain. Klevius: "British values"?* A news organization such as BBC can easily cherry pick guests and topics to suit their islam propaganda.
BBC today first asks for more "diversity" among judges. You might think that means more Polish or EU citizen judges. Or perhaps Chinese or Russian judges. Or maybe Hindu judges. No, predictably BBC then transfers "diversity" to muslim "scholars and imams". What else. But what about "radical" muslim judges? Will their intentions be alighed with Saudi sharia islam rather than "British values"?
What's the point anyway of muslim "diversity" when Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is destroying islam as we know it?
Klevius (i.e. Human Rights) is inevitably winning over islam and its one Billion plus muslims. There's no return whatsoever simply because of the bedrock logic of the so called basic "negative"* rights underlying the thought of universal Human Rights equality. Due to islam's parasitic origin (booty and slaves) it's inherently racist (the "infidel") and sexist (sex segregation/apartheid). This is the essence of sharia and should not be confused with contracts. A contract means having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Islamic sharia doesn't qualify under Human Rights guided legislation because of its unlawful racism and sexism. A muslim can't legally make an agreement with other muslims to treat non-muslims, wrong-muslims, LGBTs, Atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, women etc. as not equal to themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg Cameron calls "radicalization" and "silent muslim [sharia] supporters".
* Whereas 'positive rights' can be abused as impositions, 'negative rights' means the very opposite, i.e. lack of content, in other words freedom from impositions.