The government is now openly promoting a hierarchical policy approach for Britain’s faith and belief groups. Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics (to mention a few) don’t have special government backed hate crime definitions, nor the appointment of special advisors on hostility targeting them. Is it too much to ask for equal treatment for all?

In the UK, it’s increasingly no too. In 2019, the BBC’s in house ‘thought police’ attempted to censor Lord Singh, for simply referring to historical truth.

'The Kaurs of 1984': How Sikh women survivors continue to fight 40 years of injustice Please watch and share this really powerful documentary by Zijah Sherwani and @jas_reports Big thank you to @sanamwazir #NeverForget1984 #Sikhgenocide piped.video/watch?v=GZeZIgZX…

As was genocidal rape, a key element in defining that a genocide took place, where intent to commit mass murder and permanent damage to women and girls is evident from affidavits submitted to the two Indian Govt inquiries:

🚨 ISLAMIC BLASPHEMY LAW BY THE BACK DOOR 🚨 Kellie-Jay Keen (@ThePosieParker) has been charged with a criminal offence over posts criticising Islam, Muslim cultural practices and Islamism. The Free Speech Union is proud to be defending her. In a free society, no religion or cultural practice should be immune from criticism. Since Labour came to power, the number of FSU cases involving people penalised for criticising Islam has doubled. It is now the single biggest category in our casework. And now, with a state-approved definition of Islamophobia — rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility” — things are only getting worse. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Communities Secretary Angela Rayner met Muslim community leaders in Downing Street. Burnham took a swipe at critics of Islam, saying “some of the language” opposition parties use “is unacceptable”, and told the leaders “we need to find ways with you to demonstrate that more and more”. We now await Rayner’s appointment of an “Islamophobia tsar” who will help enforce the definition. All five hand-picked members of the Working Group that drafted it have concerning links to Islamist organisations, as FSU Research and Policy Director @DavidRoseUK exposed in his report. We have little hope that the appointed tsar will be good news for free speech. Meanwhile, the Government is refusing to say who submitted responses to the Working Group, so we cannot know which groups shaped the definition. Islamists may well have had a hand in its drafting. Support the FSU’s campaign against an Islamic blasphemy law — and the people penalised under it 👇

We remember the anti-Sikh genocide of 1984. State sanctioned pogroms were organised and directed against Sikhs in India from October 31 to November 4, 1984. From the archives: ‘Gandhi — Speak that Cloaks the Murderous Truth’ - (@guardian, 18 June 1984) - Indarjit Singh nsouk.co.uk/from-the-archive… #1984SikhGenocide

November 1, 1984: A day we must never forget. In the anti-Sikh pogrom that followed Indira Gandhi’s assassination, over 3,000 Sikhs were killed, largely in Delhi, under a Congress government at the Centre. Yes, the Congress formally apologised in Parliament and India later had a Sikh PM in Dr Manmohan Singh. But neither can substitute for JUSTICE. Decades later, far too few convictions, far too many perpetrators escaped punishment. The families of the victims still await closure. This has been an all-too-familiar story in India’s history of mass violence. 🙏

RT @PavSingh84: Today, @RahulGandhi’s @INCIndia is mobilising its supporters on the streets of Delhi for a legitimate cause. The very same…

RT @PavSingh84: What Was the November 1984 Sikh Genocide? A Clear, beginner-friendly guide to read, share and remember: t.co/hJJJeH…

RT @PavSingh84: 31 October-4 November 1984, India. Delve into the 1984 Sikh Archive, dedicated to documenting the genocidal massacres of S…

The APPG for British Hindus plans to raise in the UK Parliament and with the UK govt a report on the persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…

The government is now openly promoting a hierarchical policy approach for Britain’s faith and belief groups. Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics (to mention a few) don’t have special government backed hate crime definitions, nor the appointment of special advisors on hostility targeting them. Is it too much to ask for equal treatment for all?

Network of Sikh Organisations support for Gurpal Virdi in Kara discrimination case. @SikhMessenger @punjabtimes @bbcnewspunjabi @BBCLondonNews @bbcasiannetwork @unitedsikhs @SikhPA @UB1UB2 @mywestldn @EasternEye @AsianVoiceNews nsouk.co.uk/nsos-support-for…

NSO’s support for Gurpal Virdi in kara discrimination case @gurpalsvirdi 'The law is clear when it protects the right of Sikhs to wear the kara. On the facts as described, the refusal of entry appears to amount to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. In R (Watkins-Singh) v Aberdare Girls’ High School [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin), the High Court held that refusing a Sikh pupil permission to wear her kara amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of race and religion. The freedom of Sikhs and people of other faiths to manifest their religion, is a right protected by Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998.' @EHRC @sgsssouthall @_petermason @bphillipsonMP nsouk.co.uk/nsos-support-for… #GurpalVirdi #Kara #religious #discrimination #Sikhism

@AngelaRayner, did you allow Islamist extremists to influence the drafting of the “anti-Muslim hostility” definition? It’s a simple yes-or-no question. If not, why did your department claim that it had deleted all responses to the Working Group’s consultation, only to say — after the Free Speech Union threatened legal action — that the responses were still held on its data system? And why does your department still refuse to disclose who responded to the consultation? While we’re at it: if, as your Permanent Secretary confirmed in a letter to @NJ_Timothy, ministers had no involvement in this decision, who is running your department? The public deserves to know the truth.

Our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon's contribution in @UKHouseofLords debate earlier this week on - UK-US Discussions: Reducing International Tension 'Does the Minister agree that a person who constantly attacks the UN, sanctions members of the International Criminal Court and acts like a cheap market trader constantly looking for deals—even to the extent of helping Russia in its aggression against Ukraine—cannot help the move towards peace? Does she further agree that a foreign policy that divides countries into friends and enemies is seriously dated, and that instead we should be looking to what Sikhs call Sarbat da bhala—the wider interests of wider humanity?' #UK #US #Ukraine #Russia

Liz Carr asks "If you saw someone about to jump from a bridge, would you just stand by?". The answer is no, but, sadly, not many think so when it comes to assisted suicide. 🤔