to anti-Muslim context in which G4S policy was adopted.

The courts everywhere in the dialogue with the public and their decisions are inextricably linked with the society in which they are made. American and European decisions reflect vastly different social orientation towards the Muslims. In the United States, our deep experience with pluralism of all kinds – racial, ethnic, and religious – in the vault of resistance to anti-Muslim populism, which is much higher than such resistance in Europe.

Of course, the United States is not immune from nationalist impulses or case of Islamophobia trump election proves as much – but the fear of a Muslim takeover of the country considers the trust only on the outskirts. Even as the trump administration is pushing a simple equation of Muslims, refugeesand terrorists, courts are more resistant to religious search for scapegoats.

Unlike most of Europe appears to be suffering from anxiety to the Muslim demographic bomb and the loss of European identity. In this context, there is a fixation on the veil as a visible manifestation of alternative cultural practices, and European courts have responded accordingly.

First ban a Muslim in January welcomed tens of thousands of protesters descending at airports across the country, and standing in solidarity with Muslim immigrants and refugees. Many of these protesters carried signs with the image that is filled marches of the women the week before: a woman in an American flag hijab.

In the same moment that the administration trump was to denigrate Muslims as a special object of contempt, protesters exalted of Muslims