SP states (stress added by me): "Other ... groups organise themselves into lobby groups and effect change. Other groups stand up for what is right in the face of discrimination...
If religious groups face discrimination, then
they should do what other groups do. Stand their ground and demand equality.".
There are some specialised micro-environments where this is exactly the right course of action to follow, SP. These niche environments are, of course, the Western democracies where the rule of law still pertains largely. But let's imagine the application of the SP strategy in different cultural contexts. How would the strategy have worked for German Jews in the 1930s? Or black slaves in the antebellum Southern states?
And here's a modern example - a village in Sisi's Egypt where the police (as police sometimes do) choose to look the other way:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/elderly-christian-woman-stripped-naked-and-paraded-through-streets-by-mob-a7049926.html
Your accusation of moral weakness implied in the comment "unless of course, they’re waiting for others to do it on their behalf" wouldn't be fair in this case, or the two previous examples, would it?
I prefer your later post where you acknowledge that some victims need champions:
"With Christians around the world banding together against oppression, using both international sanctions, and individual boycotts - wouldn’t that be the best way to effect change?"
The complaint in the OP that this isn't happening.