1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe.



Even England still has blasphemy laws on the books from hundreds of years ago, but they're never enforced. Actual instances of people being prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe are very few and far between.



The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.



Depends how the cameras are used. The mere existence of CCTV cameras on the streets is not necessarily a bad thing.



There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit.



That would be very very bad, but the law hasn't actually been passed yet. It was just proposed. Surveilance of the internet is worse than surveilance of public streets because:



1. Nearly all internet crimes are victimless crimes except where people are using the internet to plan to do something IRL. There is no such thing as getting mugged on the internet, and viruses/hacking are nearly 100% avoidable as a matter of personal responsibility without much need for policing.



2. There is an expectation of privacy in your personal communications that does not exist when you're walking down a public street. If 1000 other people walking down that street can see it too, why are you worried about one more guy watching it on CCTV?



3. People can and will use encryption to circumvent any and all attempts at policing the internet, so don't even bother. Internet anarchy is inevitable so you might as well accept it.




Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).



This is exactly the same in principle as fingerprinting. I've got no problem with it.


There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.
It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.




Separate courts for Sharia law are bad, but is that really much different from a corporation making employees agree to resolve all civil disputes with the employer via binding arbitration with a particular arbitrator? In the latter case there's sort of coercion/adhesion going on. If both sides were really free to choose and agreed upon using a particular arbitrator to resolve their civil disputes, then there'd be no problem. If e.g. Muslim women in abusive relationships are being forced my their husbands to use these separate courts, that's terrible, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that or anything similar.

* I bet 299.5 million of those 300 million daily attacks on the pentagon are teenagers trying to guess FTP passwords or some such thing.

* Who knew West Virginia was such a hotspot for internet crimes

* I think this guy's in over his head in understanding computer security but to be fair he did just quote the president and ask someone else for an opinion.