[ikalugin]

Defending yourself against a crime, does not make yourself a criminal. Confronting a totalitarian aggressive ideology that pushes you all the time, does not make you an aggressive totalitarian person yourself. Using force to fight off him who attacks you, does not justify to accuse you that you are not better than him becasue he forces you to use force yourself in defence against him.

Basically we can separate this discussion into two separate points.

First of all, the one where we have common basis. If an individual commits a crime (for example murder, rape, incitement of violence), state must prosecute him in accordance to the law regardless of who he is (for example muslim). If an individual is a member of a group that is most likely to commit a crime (ie a newly arrived male muslim "refugee") then the law enforement efforts should be more focused on him (for example in terms of crime prevention, crime investigation, etc), however that individual should not be prosecuted by the state unless found guilty of a crime by the court of law, with due process.

Secondly, the one where we differ substantially. Upholding any ideology or belief by an individual is not a crime in itself, only specific action by that individual (murder, rape, incitement of violence) or inaction (when this is proscribed by law) is.

Prosecuting against an individual on the basis of an ideology or belief said individual holds, however horrible that ideology belief may be, provided said person did not commit crimes via action or inaction, is in my opinion an act of opression and violates individual rights and de-facto is an act of thought policing.
Thus any policy that does so is, in my opinion, is both against the common good and immoral.

This kind of relativism is an offence to so many victims that one cannot count them all. In the end, it denies the right of self-defence.

Actually it does not deny the right to self defense, it denies agression without cause.