Islamists do a fantastic magic trick. One that takes some practice. They have become so good at it that almost no one sees the sleight of hand, and they leave European crowds clamoring for more. They perpetrate heinous crimes against the native population and then claim they are the victims of prejudice. Presto! Chango! Shazam! Instead of being incarcerated they are set free by judicial rulings that would have landed Christians, Jews, or any other member of a religious organization in prison.

One such trick occurred in Austria. A Muslim man from Iraq was acquitted of rape when he sodomized a ten-year-old boy because he had a “sexual emergency” due to a lack of sexual intercourse for four months. The judge overturned the rape conviction because the man claimed he was unaware that little boys in Austria should not be raped anally at public swimming pools.

Sadly, this was nothing new. Judicial magic tricks like this have been happening since 2005.

“One of the first reported incidents [in Europe] occurred in 2005 when a 17-year-old girl was raped at Husbybadet, in Stockholm. The 16-year-old perpetrator started groping her in the hot tub, and when the girl moved to a cave with streaming water, he and his friend followed her. They forced the girl into a corner, and while the friend held her down, the 16-year-old pulled off the girl’s bikini and raped her. During the trial, it emerged that some 30 people had witnessed the attack, but the teenagers continued the rape anyway.”

My gosh! How intolerant of this poor girl to try to flee her attackers.

“The 16-year-old rapist was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention and his friend was acquitted. The victim was badly traumatized and had to be treated in a psychiatric care facility after several failed suicide attempts,” according to Gatestone Institute, a think tank in New York that tracks migrant crimes.

So, while an innocent girl was hugely traumatized by being raped in public the perpetrator got several months in a detention center, and his accomplice got off with no punishment at all. That’s a pretty impressive magic trick, don’t you think?

Abracadabra! You can’t stop me. Hocus Pocus, I raped you. It’s all so confusing as to how this is tolerated even for a second. But magic tricks like these date even further back than that. They’ve been going on for decades.

In 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the murder of British novelist Salman Rushdie. Why do you ask? He wrote a book. Yes, he wrote a book. A fictional novel called The Satanic Verses. The horror of it all! According to the Ayatollah, he blasphemed Islam. Rushdie himself spoke about the interpretation of his book saying that it was not about Islam, “but about migration, metamorphosis, divided selves, love, death, London and Bombay.” He has also said, “It’s a novel which happened to contain a castigation of Western materialism. The tone is comic.”

The problem came in that Rushdie decided to reinterpret part of the Qur’an. This was worthy of his death in the eyes of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Dozens of people connected with him, his book, and his publisher were attacked—some even killed—in countries as far away as Japan. Bookstores in the United Kingdom and the United States were firebombed. The British government took the threat so seriously it provided Rushdie with an around-the-clock armed security detail, and he had to live in hiding under an assumed name for years.

The main thrust of the novel according to M.D. Fletcher “embodied an anger arising in part from the frustrations of the migrant experience and generally reflected failures of multicultural integration, both significant Rushdie themes.”

Some things never change. Being that this was the first time that the West noticed there was a slight problem with blasphemy and Islam, people dismissed the Ayatollah’s fatwa as an aberration and brushed it off. After all, as they say, “Islam is a religion of peace.” What could go wrong?

Fast forward to 2004. With the Islamic special needs train gaining steam, and with Islam more entrenched in Europe, a religious fanatic stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh to death right out in the open on an Amsterdam street in retaliation for a short film called “Submission” that Van Gogh made with Somali-born feminist and Dutch member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As a former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali committed the sin of renouncing a religion that is bigoted towards women. Ironically, she is despised by many left-wing feminists in the West for doing so, as well as being a public critic of how Sharia law treats the fairer sex.

Shortly thereafter Islamists decided to declare war on cartoons. A would-be assassin attacked Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in front of his granddaughter in his own house with an ax. Islamists also conspired to kill Swedish artist Lars Vilks. Seattle Weekly cartoonist, Molly Norris, entered the FBI’s witness-protection program after American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki placed her on a hit list for suggesting that cartoonists all over the world should draw the Prophet Muhammad on the same day. Al-Awlaki was later neutralized in the war on terror in an extrajudicial drone strike ordered by Barack Obama.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, the war on cartoonists soldiered on. As World Affairs Journal chronicles, “In early 2006, riots exploded across the Muslim world after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. The Danish embassies in Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon were attacked. A mob set the embassy in Beirut on fire. The Danish and the Norwegian embassies in Damascus were set on fire. More than one hundred people were killed.”

Then there was Charlie Hebdo in France in 2015 that killed 12 satirists who worked for a weekly magazine that published various garish pieces mocking Muhammad. One would think this is where the French finally rolled up their sleeves and demanded an end to such behavior and began legislating laws to protect the French press from terror attacks. Well, that is what you would have expected if Muslim magic wasn’t involved.

Instead, the magic trick of being able to commit homicide and then blame your victim really got intricate and arcane. While Muslim clerics condemned the actions of the attackers, the reverse happened, and a call for blasphemy laws took place in lieu of a demand for religious tolerance. Yes, a call to impinge upon free speech took place in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt. The response in the West was to…you guessed it, support the Islamists and roll over. Jump Fido, jump. Good dog. Now go fetch a more progressive outlook.

The magic happens over films also. In 2012 the country of Brazil banned snippets of a movie entitled “The Innocence of Muslims” on Youtube in a gesture towards diversity and cultural tolerance. A court went so far as to order the arrest of Google’s highest-ranking executive in the country since YouTube, which Google now owns, refused to take down the video. Can a religion be more accommodated than that? It sure can. CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) now openly says it wants blasphemy banned in the United States. “There should be laws against hate speech that leads to violence or criminal activities,” said Rashid Ahmad, the founder of CAIR’s Sacramento chapter.

Could you imagine a Buddhist group trying to do that?

All because cartoonists and filmmakers are referencing, and sometimes criticizing, Islam in their work. For this reason, a ban is required so people are not so angered they go on a killing spree. No wonder the Left sticks to bashing Christianity. A Catholic archbishop is not going to call for your head on a platter if you making fun of Jesus Christ. Everyone must tip-toe around and make sure not to say, draw, laugh at, or even mention in polite company that Muhammad might not be the glorious prophet of God (I mean Allah) that Muslims claim him to be.

Forbidding blasphemy laws and not legislating laws against hate speech are the most sensible ways to make sure all religions are safe from achieving a favored status. Of course, this is not the trend in Western culture, and as the left-wing social justice fanatics team up with Islam, the usual results ensue. In Canada, hate speech has become normalized and blasphemy laws against Islam are becoming hugely popular. This is Justin Trudeau’s Canada after all. It cannot be Islamified fast enough.

In a Huffington Post article Faisal Kutty cites how Pakistani law helped to recently make a proclamation of blasphemy by the government that resulted in three Christians being sentenced to death for speaking out about Islam. The law reads: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Pakistan Criminal Code Article 295-C

In the usual magic trick fashion, Islam must be protected in the West for the sake of diversity, but when it comes to protecting other people from Islam, the buck stops there. In fact, if you even mention Muhammad in a negative light, you can be put to death. Talk about a win-win for Islamists. Drinks all around. No, wait! Make that a hookah.

Faisal states blasphemy laws in Pakistan date back to the 1860s. The British put in place laws that protected religions from slanderous insults. That was then. Now, in 2017, it has become a one-sided street and Islam is the Mack truck of religious protectionism running over bystanders with the likes of Trudeau at the wheel. No one will be spared unless you are Islamic.

Faisal makes a salient point from his research when he avers, “classical Islamic law interpretations stipulated death as a punishment when apostasy was combined with treason and rebellion against the state, not for blasphemy….the Quran, prophetic conduct/teachings and the thrust of classical Islamic jurisprudence supports “the vindication of the truth and the protection of human dignity” by guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression. Moreover, during the medieval Islamic period, proving blasphemy required meeting the high evidentiary standards of the rest of Islamic criminal law.”

Taken in this light, not only are present day Islamists reading their own Qur’ans incorrectly, the Western leaders that are calling for blasphemy laws are enabling this error to go unchallenged. That’s pretty sad if you ask me. It’s also sad to note that, in Canada, sexual assault carries a meager two-month sentence, while blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad is a lengthy nine-month stretch. Believe it or not, this is about average in terms of punishment for blasphemy in most of the Islamic world.

The Pew Research Center in 2014 concluded in an analysis that about a quarter of the world’s countries have blasphemy laws, with most of those being in the Middle East and Africa. 13% of the world’s nation and territories have apostasy laws that range from fines to death. Yes, death. So how long before Sharia law makes it legal for someone to be beheaded in Canada for apostasy? Only time will tell. Once the judicial system sets up a Sharia-based form for court proceedings the sky is the limit.

Special legal accommodations for Islam are beginning to be prescribed at the expense of other religions and free speech. Europe is more than happy to give up their freedoms to those who are calling for their own death. That’s some magic trick. Can you see how the sleight of hand works now? It is quite an illusion.

Geert Wilders was recently part of the act. A man who may be the next Dutch Prime Minister was tried in court for suggesting that Holland had too many Moroccans. Can you believe it? How dare he. All of this despite a majority of Dutch people agreeing with Wilders. But Wilders is not alone.

Convictions in Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, and Britain have occurred in recent years for blasphemy against the Islamic religion. While it is reasonable for all religions to be protected, it seems that Islam is the only one that needs special protection from criticism. Is it really an unwarranted fear to be frightened of a group of people who see it as their right to possibly murder you if you speak ill about their prophet?

A Danish man was recently charged with blasphemy for burning a Qur’an in his own backyard. This was the first time a Dane was charged with blasphemy in nearly half a century. Is this what we should consider progress, or is it pandering to a religion that requires special care lest its followers become violently enraged? As usual in the West, instead of asking for assimilation the goal is an obsequious accommodation to those that show no tolerance in return. How this is celebrated rather than condemned is quite a magic trick, indeed.