No, I'm a bigot because I don't agree with the report. I do not share your hostile view, that's why I'm a bigot and a racist, and see European Muslims as inferior blablabla.
I will give you a simple analogy to explain why I take strong exception to off-topic diversions into other countries or the "assimilation" canard.
Take the issue of discrimination against blacks in the US, for example. Reasonable people can debate the facts, but no reasonable person is going to start talking about African countries as a way to deflect from the topic. Few people would talk about alleged crime statistics as a way to indirectly justify the discrimination. There will be some people who might try these tactics, but they would be soundly called as racists and bigots.
Can you explain to me why this situation is different when we discuss discrimination against Muslims born in the West or Western converts?
I question the report on its merits, and have trouble accepting it as a properly founded report, clearly opposing the ground reality. I do not recognize the picture of wide scale mistreatment of European Muslims as the report seem to suggest. However, I cannot stress enough, since you're repeatedly accusing me of bigotry, that all Europeans should be treated as fairly as possible, Muslim citizens including.
Then you should focus on the objective facts listed in the report like the laws passed, which are openly discriminatory against a particular religion.
It depends on the situation. For example, it's reasonable if a school bans head scarves giving its Catholic signature. And they reserve that right. It is not so much anti-Muslim, but more maintaining the identity of the school. If you want to play the victim card, you'll probably say the school hates Muslims.
More over, these are not state-laws expect in the case of France, but the French have an extreme secular system.
The French headscarf law is blatantly discriminatory against Muslims.
FACT: The "secular" French had no problem for centuries while Jewish men were wearing kippas to school. This issue became a big problem only when Muslim schoolgirls showed up with headscarfs.
FACT: The French law makes an explicit exemption for "inconspicuous" religious symbols. If they are so strict about secularism, why make such an exemption? The reason is that Catholic symbols tend to be tiny pendants (allowed by the law), whereas Muslim symbols tend to be a headscarf.
One of the ridiculous examples you can read between the lines and was once in the news papers is the case of a Muslima, which was banned from participating classes. She attended pedagogics and was fully veiled. Needless to say how counter productive it is to engage with little children wearing a burka where there is no eye contact or facial expressions.
This is an extreme example that no one would try to defend. The article, and the broad discussion, is about symbols which don't pose a security threat or interfere with normal function of a person's duties.