UK's islamic Parliament

UK's islamic Parliament

Islam (represented in UN by Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia called “islamic human rights”) is against Human Rights!

Sweden’s Supreme Court has found a man guilty of rape for having sex without explicit consent from a teenage woman who had been passive and gave no clear expression that she wanted to participate in the sexual acts. Lack of a partner’s spoken agreement or any other clear approval can hence be considered rape. However, islamic sharia gives a muslim man the "right" to have sex with wives and and concubines his "right hand possesses" (e.g. "infidel" girls/women). The neo-islamist rational (original openly supremacist islam didn't need one) is that "it satisfies the sexual desire of the female". Peter Klevius wonders if Swedish Courts will accept this reasoning - perhaps only for muslims?!

Peter Klevius also wonders whether BBS's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim, Mishal Husain, approves of sharia?


UK introduced face recognition after for many years accusing Chinese for having it. Peter Klevius wonders how this fits UK's face covered muslims and others who utilize it?

In UK both Tories and Labour are against "islampohobia" - so apparently also against Human Rights? And if not, then they are "islamophobic" after all. So how do you vote for someone critical of islam's Human Rights violations if parties don't allow "islamophobia"? Is it democracy?

What do BBC and Jeremy Hunt have in common? Both support the islamofascist murderer and war criminal Mohammad bin Salman.

Peter Klevius: Girls' emancipation needs more football and less cricket, netball etc.

BBC's cricket propaganda is a slap in the face of young girls who need equally much moving around and spatial skills as young boys. However, there's a huge sex segregation in females motivation and access to football - not only the world's by far most popular physical sport, but also the only one that doesn't use tools or hands to handle the ball, and which makes all participants moving most of the time even without the ball. Moreover, the very nature of the sport forces participants to a never ending series of spatial and strategic challenges - with or without the ball and even while playing alone. So why is BBC so hostile to the Queen of sports (the "beautiful game") that is perfect for the physical and spatial development of girls - and in the face of the football loving majority who has to pay compulsory fees (and paying extra for football channels) to this faking regime propaganda media that uses stiff and lifeless colonial cricket for neo-colonial purpose?! England banned football for girls/women already 1921 and suggested cricket, land hockey and netball instead - almost like today except it's not called a ban. And what about the laughable notion of a "world cup" in cricket?! When is the "world cup" in caber tossing between Gotland and Scotland?

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site - with an evil agenda

BBC, the world's biggest fake/selective news site  - with an evil agenda

The murderous war criminal, Saudi muslim "custodian of islam" (and OIC) "prince" MBS is OK but Human Rights defender Peter Klevius isn't. Why?! Because the former isn't an "islamophobe", dude!

Stop US global bullying! What moral right does US have trying to dominate Earth and space? "God"?! Or the Saudi murderer and mass murderer "prince"?! Hasn't US sucked out enough already from the rest of the world? A global dollar manipulation favoring US and paid by the rest. A US marked global license and patent imperialism - and Android. Is Internet next?

26 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), worried about Boris Johnson not having cricket as his hobby.

25 June 2019: BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not ramadan fasting muslim, Mishal Husain (brought up in Saudi Arabia), sounds desperate when trying to smear Johnson. Is it because Boris 2016 was critical against the Saudis while foreign minister and 2018 critical of muslim women packed in burqas etc.?
BBC thinks the militaristic Saudiphil Jeremy Hunt "is a safer option" as UK PM. What about you?

BBC News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.

BBC  News 8:00 AM 23 June 2019: Johnson financially unfit because he spilled wine on a couch.
Is the Saudi "custodian of islam" a muslim - and is the very question "islamophobic", "muslimophobic" or "Saudiphobic"?
Why is BBC comparing Saudi with China?! China's leader isn't a murderer, war criminal, and spreader of terror on the streets! "If we drop the Saudis then we can't deal with China either." Really?! BTW, 'Diversity' means different/conflicting whereas its antonym stands for similar/friendly.

Blinked by BBC's fake "news" which instead boost militaristic confrontation and the smearing of China: The Saudi war criminal "custodian of islam" who murdered Khashoggi is now the world's new Hitler. However, unlike Hitler's Germanic language imperialism, bin Salman's Arabic language imperialism is added by a totalitarian imperialism due to the fact that he is a muslim and as such represents the totality of islam (inc. the Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization O.I.C.'s sharia declaration against Human Rights). Peter Klevius has for long pointed out that we need to distinguish between Human Rights obeying "muslims" and "extremist" muslims, but for some reason they are all bundled as 'muslims'.

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

Your choice: China high tech or US/UK bombs?

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

US puppet empire UK's Jeremy Hunt wants to double spending on militaristic meddling for US

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism

Calling critics of islam "islamophobes" is pure racism and also supports islamic racism and sexism


Racist Sinophobia disguised as "security" while muslim terror spreading Saudi murderous dictator and war criminal is "an important security ally"!?


Read this: The "out of Africa" hoax is worse than the Piltdown hoax - and much bigger and more worrisome.

Nothing in Primate/Haplorhini evolution came out of Africa - not even Africa (it was disconnected due to tectonics).


A “definition” of “islamophobia” ought to be balanced with a definition of muslim Human Rightsphobia.

"Diversity" without basic (negative) Human Rights is like having a car without steering - dangerous.


In its senseless and continuous "islamophobia" ranting BBC says to be 'muslim' is the same as to be 'English'. Klevius thinks not. A 'muslim' is one who wittingly or unwittingly adheres to what historical records show being the most evil enslaving ideology ever around (from a Human Rights perspective). And Klevius doesn't count as real muslims those who call themselves "cultural muslims" for the purpose of benefiting from a certain "ethnicity", or those who against their will are trapped in muslimhood because of the evil apostasy tenet in islam. And islamic "modesty" attires is a protected way of calling other women "whores".

The most serious threat to our Human Rights is the hate campaign against "islamophobia" which really is directed against Human Rights.

As long as most muslims in the world are ruled by a sharia (e.g. Saudi based and steered OIC) that gravely violates the most basic of Human Rights, and as long as the most devout muslims do the same by simply following original evil (according to Human Rights) islam, you can't legislate against criticism of islam without simultaneously legislating against Human Rights. Why do you want to hinder muslims from apostating? It's a Human Right! Islam should not be allowed to traumatize apostates. Authentic original (e.g. Wahhabi/Salafi) islam doesn't fit in the boots of "Euro-islam" and Human Rights.

Klevius suggests the UK baby should be named Muhammad. After all, according to BBC, the Queen is related to him and all politicians love islam. And several hadiths describe him as white (one even proposing the killing of anyone who says he was black). Only problem being that he then may be described as a white supremacist. Luckily the baby, according to BBC, is “mix-race”.

Klevius to EU voters: If you respect Human Rights - don’t vote for anyone who supports the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who spreads Human Rightsphobia via the Saudi based and steered OIC’s world sharia!


And if you respect your Earthly home – don’t support a hate ideology that encourages over-population and sex apartheid. We don’t need more workers because the most profitable sectors have the least jobs – a trend that AI accelerates.

No true muslim can be fully human.

Why? Because islam's dividing the world in muslims and (not fully human) "infidels" makes it impossible. Only by fully accepting the basic (s.c. 'negative') Universal Human Rights equality - which islam can't accept (see e.g. Saudi based and steered all muslims world Ummah sharia organization OIC) without committing ideological suicide - can we meet every human as basically equal, in the same way as we can give every road-user a basic equality in traffic, i.e. we have traffic sense. So Klevius asks muslims whether they have "traffic sense"? And for all the rest of you - to be 'human' in a global sense can only be achieved by giving every human you meet basic equality - no matter how alien that human might feel to you. Because every human has the right to be "alien" and there can't even be any alternative to this as long as we don't accept brainwashed totalitarianism (see e.g. Klevius 1996 paper Angels of Antichrist). This is the only way to meaningfully talk about 'humankind'. And to alien hunters Klevius says you probably meet them every day already.

So when BBC and other fake media talk about xenophobia against muslims, they actually contribute to spread xenophobia themselves.

A "good muslim" is one who suppresses and distorts original islam so to fit Human Rights. However, some just pretend to do so - and some just continue hating the "infidel".

Peter Klevius to Greta Thunberg: Saudi salafist oil funded supremacist islam or Chinese Taoist (kindness) high tech - which one do you think is the real threat to the people and environmment in EU and the world?

Ultimate bigotry and hypocrisy – militant spying and war mongering 5 Eyes instead of true 5G?

Saudi hate spreading antennas (Salafi/Wahhabi mosques etc.) or Chinese world leading 5G tech? No one knows the amount of street etc. victims of Saudi hate because when the haters are muslims their attacks are not recorded as hate crimes. If a Chinese would attack shouting 'Tao' it would most certainly be classified as a hate crime. However, chances are slim that it ever occurs compared to hate attacks made by muslims.

Arabic (not "white" etc.) islam has been the by far biggest enslaver throughout 1,400 years. Islamic language imperialism via the Koran. And all races have been complicit in the muslim Koranic slave trade. So how do you distinguish between descendants of slaves or slave traders? Will Cambridge check today's "Caribbeans", "Africans" etc. about it? Klevius warns there might be unwelcomed surprises, e.g. that many of those who come to Europe are actually descendants of slave trading black Africans on whose wealth lineage top they are better privileged than those from slave lineages. And what about "whites" like Klevius who were cut off from any lineages? Should the skin color Klevius was born with be used against him because of the privileges of others with the same skin color? Same question may be asked about sexism. Klevius doesn’t see it fair to blame him for male sexism just because he happens tp be male, do you!

The real threat is the US led Saudi supporting spy organization 5 Eyes, which 1) tries to block superior tech, and 2) uses China as a scapegoat for US/UK privacy breaches. It's not China but US that wants to control you! So "securing 5G from Chinese influence" actually means giving US/UK a technical space for spying/influencing etc. In short, trying to hinder US/UK customers from accessing the best technology while spying on them.

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

BBC collected a UKIP hating mob to shout "islamophobia" against islam criticism.

However, the very same BBC also willfully misleads people about islam so that most people in UK are completely unaware of that Saudi based and steered OIC and its extreme Human Rightsphobia is a world guide for (sharia) muslims. Moreover, BBC's top presenter (Mishal Husain) who seems to be muslim in name only (drinking alcohol, not fasting on Ramadan, no muslim attire, no Haji, no sharia, etc) so to dupe the public about islam.

The 1948 Human Rights declaration was created to protect against fascism. Accepting islam without a clear border against sharia that violates the most basic Human Rights, allows space for islamofascism (i.e. original supremacist islam).

However, the new fascist mob is shouting "islamophobia" because islam can't comply with it (compare Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration against Human Rights). This smear is then "enhanced" by connecting it to murderers, Nazis, right wing extremists etc. Islam's sharia sexism and racist supremacism is the problem - so why is addressing it "bad"?!

BBC is also keen on silencing the only truly free media, i.e. bloggers etc. social media.

The crystal clear connection between the surge in knife, rape etc. attacks and islam - and its custodian, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - is desperately silenced by BBC and politicians (BBC now tries to cover this up by airing long programs about "conventional" knife crimes instead). This means they are directly complicit, doesn't it. Klevius suggests boycotting BBC and Saudi bribed politicians. They constitute the worst security threat.

Top emitters

Top emitters

Peter Klevius evolution formula

Peter Klevius serious questions to you "out of Africa" believer! Ask yourself: How come that the oldest primates came from outside Africa; that the oldest great ape divergence happened outside Africa; that the oldest bi-pedals are from outside Africa; that the only australopithecines with a Homo skull lived as far from Africa you can get; that the oldest truly modern looking skull is from eastern China; that the oldest Africans are mongoloid; that the latest genetic mix that shaped the modern human happened in Siberia and is traced to SE Asia; that the earliest sophisticated art is found from Iberia to Sulawesi - but not in Africa; that the oldest round skulled Homo sapiens in sub-Saharan Africa are much younger than similar skulls in Eurasia; that we lack ancient enough DNA from Africa, etc. etc.? Peter Klevius theory answers all these questions - and more.

Peter Klevius evolution formula.

Existence-centrism (Peter Klevius 1986)

Muslim terrorists get legal aid to stay in UK - EU nationals don't!

The best explanation to the surge in knife crimes since 2015 is the Islamic State's exhortation to street jihad.
However, the police don't record hate crimes as muslim - other than if directed against muslims. And do consider that IS and the Saudi dictator family both rest on the same Salafi islam that most young true muslims in the West follow. Following Salafism (etc. true muslimhood) involves distinguishing muslims from others, to show that one only belongs to islam and that true muslims ought to be strangers to the "infidels". When Klevius sees a muslim woman in burqa, veil etc. he thinks that's a supremacist and rapist attitude towards other women. And certainly contempt of Human Rights.
UK/BBC's extreme double standard re. the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and China. Klevius: How come that islamofascist tech poor Saudi property-, media-, infra structure- etc. 'vulnerable' investments and supremacist hate spreading mosques, is considered no threat to UK but instead an 'important ally' while China, which doesn't tick any danger boxes, is deliberately painted by BBC propaganda as the worst threat? And how come that China's peaceful Belt and Road spreading of wealth and high tech is considered worse than UK's continuing militaristic and (un)security meddling within an EU that UK decided to leave for the purpose of EU not meddling within UK?!
UK continues even after Brexit to use EU citizens as bargaining chips by placing their rights in an unsafe statutory instrument instead of in the law.

Stop security cooperation with UK whose close connection to the the suspected murderer, war criminal and islamic terror spreading islamofascist Saudi custodian of islam, Mohammad bin Salman, constitutes the by far worst threat against the security of people in EU! Moreover, sharia islam (the only real islam for real muslims) which is a racist and sexist supremacist ideology that violates Human Rights, is supported by UK.

Don't let haters and Human Rightsphobes get away with it by calling themselves 'believers'!

Either religion is (grades of) supremacist hate and sexism and you better become an Atheist (and therefore universal human) - or you keep your "beliefs" for yourself. In traffic you can think what you want about other people, but you can't drive over them!

You muslim should be ashamed of calling Human Rights defenders "islamophobes"

- and take responsibility for your own supremacist sharia, represented by Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC, which violates the most basic Human Rights! And do note the difference between universal impositions and universal freedom! Full respect of the other rests on accepting her/his freedom. This is the only way of being universally human.

Islam is an evil* supremacist and divisive ideology - why isn’t this told by BBC, schools etc.?

* weighed against the anti-fascist, anti-supremacist, anti-racist and anti-sexist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948 that all civilized people are supposed to build on. Islam doesn't fit these goals, so OIC (the legal world Umma steered from and by the Saudi dictator family) decided to replace them with medieval racist, sexist and supremacist sharia.

Article 24 of the Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia declaration (CDHRI) states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." CDHRI also fails to guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of each and every individual to abandon their religion, as a "fundamental and non-derogable right".

Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to Atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for conversion away from Islam are considered to be essentially either compulsion or ignorance, this effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.

CDHRI denies women equality with men by imposing "own rights" and "duties to perform".

A global world is only possible under the guidance of (negative – i.e. individual freedom from racist/sexist impositions) Human Rights - as outlined in the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. It excludes any religious or other supremacist tenets or impositions on the individual.

Due to the above and due to the West (politicians and media) having locked itself in with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the custodians of islam) we now have a deficit of (negative) Human Rights education – but massively more religious propaganda (e.g. Saudi spread “islamophobia” smear) against these rights. Against this background it's utmost hypocrisy to point against wealth spreading China while supporting islamic hate, terror and war crimes spreading hegemonic Saudi dictator family.


If you don't like Klevius (very few do) you may check if it's him or the anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration you can't digest - but which Klevius stubbornly keeps feeding you.

Iran, Corbyn, bin Laden's son etc. - it's more about protecting BBC's poster boy, war criminal and state terrorist Mohammad Salman, than protecting people on the streets from Saudi exported racist islamic hate terror.

Saudi and BBC hate propaganda against Iran and Shia muslims behind attacks on Corbyn's "anti-Semitism"? BBC's inflammatory and offensive hate mongering use of the oxymoron "anti-Semitic" (reinforced by "islamophobia") protects Semitic (Arab/Sunni/Saudi) muslims from criticism while excluding non-Semitic Shia muslims (e.g. Iran). BBC also use "Asians" when they mean non-Semitic former British Asian muslims, i.e. again not incl. Iranian Shia muslims. Why? Because BBC's poster boy Mohammad Salman hates Shia. England also got a massive problem with "Asian" (sic - read 'mostly Sunni muslim') sex offenders. But no one dares to ask if islam's hate teaching of taking "infidel" sex slaves - and "muslim sensitivity" policies - may encourage it?

The world's biggest fake news producer, UK state media BBC, 20190221 gave the Japanese asteroid landing just a few seconds but managed to squeeze in the fake "info" that "it is the first attempt to bring back samples to Earth" (Cathy/PM 17:00) when the previous Japanese sond already 2010 brought back samples from an other asteroid. No one else has managed to do this except the Japanese. This is in line with BBC's usual racist attitude against Japan and China.

Klevius wonders whether BBC/UK government count Islamic State muslims who can't be directly tied to atrocities, as "peaceful muslims"?

Klevius wonders why semitic attacks on Jews are called "antisemitism"?

WARNING about "Five Eyes" and BBC, and their "close ally", the hate, terror and war crimes producing islamofascist "custodian of islam", the Saudi dictator family!
If you prefer peace, democratic non-fake information and positive development - ask your politicians to avoid US/UK's war mongering militarism and the world's biggest state propaganda tool BBC, which constitutes the most serious threat to free information. UK government is pushing for neo-British imperialist militarist meddling and intervention around the world - and making its propaganda tool BBC "the custodian of fact checks", i.e. a wolf among sheep.

Theresa May wants to leave EU. That should include UK militarist meddling within EU as well. Leave means leave! Don't let UK and its "close ally" the islamofascist Saudi dictator family contaminate EU citizens lives. Don't let the insidious spy organization Five Eyes spy on EU citizens and their leaders and parliamentarians.

Don't let BBC's or islam's glossy surface (i.e. normal news/info and non-sharia muslims respectively) lure you to not see the evil core. Klevius is the opposite. WYSIWYG. No hidden evil core, just defense of your (whoever you are) basic Human Rights that islam wants to deny you.

Do you support Human Rights or sharia?
Klevius islam logic: If I is SI and SI is not HR then I is not HR. For those who don't understand formal logic: If islam is sharia islam and sharia islam violates Human Rights, then islam violates Human Rights.

Theresa May & Co defend sharia by saying "it's just a a contract". This is utter lie because any meaningful islam demands sharia and stepping out of the "contract" is the worst sin you can commit as a muslim (s.c. apostasy). Theresa May's and others deception is built on the mass of secular muslims, i.e. not true muslims. And these "secular muslims" get away with it as long as there's not enough true muslims to demand sharia all over the pitch - as yet. Moreover, Saudi led sharia finance demands sharia compliance - as does Saudi based and steered OIC, all muslims world organization.

Klevius supports "secular muslims" - Theresa May supports sharia muslims.


Klevius supports no border on Ireland. Follow the will of the people, i.e. let England leave and let Scotland and Northern Ireland stay.

UK government wants to force EU to put a border on Ireland - so it can blame EU for something UK-Brexit caused.

UK is an unconstitutional mess which now wants to leave EU without controlling its border to EU. A proper constitution would have demanded qualified majority in two consecutive elections/votes about such a crucial matter as Brexit - and being aware what the vote is about. The root of the problem is England's mad man Henry 8's colonialization of Ireland and lack of constitution. The preposterous "British" Brexit parody is then spiced with the government's and BBC's use of religious hate mongering etc. In summary UK is an anomaly of countries trying to be a state in a world of federal states united as countries.

Listen to this Viking about the danger of religion
Martina Big (aka Malaika Kubwa) wanted to be "black". We don't know exactly why. However, fair skinned politicians and media people who support black supremacism, Nation of Islam etc. might consider following her example.

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

Are "whites" the new Jews - and in need of a burqa or skin color change?

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Theresa May & Co and state media BBC play with race cards

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

Is UK/Saudi cooperation a security threat to EU - and people in UK

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

US/UK is a security risk - not China. Tell your EU politician!

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Klevius "islamophobic" heroine Nawal El Saadawi from Egypt

Politicians against the people

Politicians against the people

Rule Britisharia Human Rightsphobia

BBC isn't much interested in anti-semitism, homophobia etc. but uses them as an excuse for its Saudi/OIC supported "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Is BBC's Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim(?) presenter Mishal Husain an "islamophobe" against evil* islam, or an apostate supporting toothless** "islam"? She doesn't fast during Ramadan but rather drinks some alcohol, and doesn't veil herself and says she doesn't feel any threats to her way of life (Klevius: thanks to Human Rights - not sharia islam), well knowing how muslim and non-muslim women suffer in muslim sharia countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia without Human Rights. What would she say to a muslim terrorist asking her if she's a muslim? Isn't it about time to stop this bigoted and hypocritical indirect support of islamofascism that this Saudi/OIC initiated "islamophobia" smear camopaign against Human Rights*** is all about?

* Human Rights equality violating sharia islam
** in line with the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist U.N.'s 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
*** Socialists have an ideological problem with individual Human Rights, and are therefore vulnerable for islamism (see Klevius 1994).

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

Is UK turning into a militaristic unconstitutional islamofascist rogue state?

First UK people voted to join and share borders with EU. Then England voted to leave while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. And now UK politicians want to leave while keeping the Irish EU border open. UK lacks a modern constitution according to which a constitutional issue has to pass at least two majority votes.

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

British militarist neo-colonialism and conflict mongering

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

UK sells weapons to Saudis - and smears peaceful China who can do better weapons themselves.

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Why is Theresa May excused for her secret ties with Saudi islamofascism?!

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

Euronews/BBC kept for long a low profile about Saudi state terror. Why?

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

A "close ally" of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family mixes OIC sharia with Human Rights

Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

Peter Klevius global morality can only be challenged by violating the most basic of Human Rights.

Everything Peter Klevius writes (or has written) is guided by the anti-sexist. anti-racist, and anti-fascist Universal* Human Rights declaration of 1948. In other words, what is declared immoral and evil is so done as measured against the most basic of Human Rights (the so called "negative" rights - i.e. the rights of the individual not to be unnecessarily targeted with restrictions and impositions). Unlike the 1948 Universal Human Rights (UHR) declaration, islam denies Human Rights equality to women and non-muslims. And violation of such basic Human Rights can't be tolerated just by referring to "freedom of religion".

* This means accepting everyone - without exception due to e.g. sex, religion, lack of religion, "security" etc. - as equal in Human Rights. The individual is protected by negative Human Rights, but of course not against substantiated legal accusations - as long as these are not produced as a means that violates the basic Human Rights (compare "not necessary in a free, democratic country"). The legislator may not produce laws that seek to undermine some individuals rights. This also includes e.g. "freedom of religion", i.e. that this freedom doesn't give the right to unfree others, or cause others to be in an inferior rights position. If by islam you mean something that fully adheres to basic Human Rights equality, then you aren't targeted by Peter Klevius islam criticism. However, if you mean islam accepts violations of the most basic of Human Rights, then you may also call Peter Klevius an "islamophobe" - and he will be proud of it. And when it comes to "security" it can't mean "offending" opponents to basic Human Rights.

This is why any effort to twist or accuse the writings of Peter Klevius as "islamophobia" etc. can only be made from a standpoint against these basic Human Rights. As a consequence, no body of authority can therefore accuse, hinder etc. Peter Klevius without simultaneously revealing its own disrespect for these Human Rights. Conversely, Peter Klevius can not accuse anyone who agrees on these rights - i.e. this leaves e.g. "islamophobia" etc. accusations against Peter Klevius without merit.

Every effort against these basic Human Rights is treason against a country calling itself free and democratic.

Definition of Negative Human Rights - i.e. the very foundation of the freedom part of the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948.

Most people today are A(mono)theists, i.e. not "believing" in an impossible "one god"*. Such a "collective god" would mean equally many personal "gods" as there are believers/interpretors. "Monotheisms" are for racist/sexist movements - not for individuals. Human Rights are for individuals living among individuals with same rights.

Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women''s) Human Rights equality.

Being against A(mono)theism must be categorized as contempt of basic Human Rights equality because "monotheists" have doctrines which can't comply with basic Human Rights equality.
Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral in a dynamic society.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral and equality for all.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restrictions other than necessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all individuals - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.

* Though some people keep calling their own racist/sexist "interpretation" as "god's/allah's will").

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

Rabbi Sacks: "BBC runs Britain." Klevius: Pro-sharia BBC meddles/trolls worldwide.

UK PM escapes muslim terror induced by her "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Saudi terror, war crimes, sharia - and "islamophobia" smear campaign against Human Rights.

Racist UK Government and BBC

Racist UK Government and BBC

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

UK's sharia ties to Saudi islamofascism threaten EU (and UK) security

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Warning for BBC's faked "news" and support for Human Rights violating Saudi/OIC islamofascism

Peter Klevius "islamophobia"/Human Rightsphobia test for you and your politicians

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

Sharia and weaponry keeps Brexit-UK in EU - with leaking borders and against the will of the people

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

While EU closes internal borders it opens external ones.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

"Brits" who are racist against EU citizens but dare not criticize muslims - here's your passport.

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

Welcoming UK's main security threat - and committing treason against the will of the people

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

BBC (imp)lies that 84% of the world is "monotheist" although most people are A(mono)theists

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

The ultimate treason against people in England, Ireland and Scotland

True Brits for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family and against Human Rights

Klevius: Face it, Wikipedia, BBC etc. fake media - Finland was first in the world with full suffrag

The network that reignited evil Human Rightsphobic sharia islam via al-Saud

Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg and BBC News crack jokes about Germans lacking humour

UK PM candidate Rees-Mogg: Germans needed Human Rights - we don't. Klevius: I really think you do.

Klevius "islamophobia" CV

Some basic facts to consider about Klevius* (except that he is both "extremely normal" and extremely intelligent - which fact, of course, would not put you off if you're really interested in these questions):

* Mentored by G. H. von Wright, Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge.

1 Klevius' analysis of consciousness is the only one that fits what we know - after having eliminated our "pride" bias of being humans (which non-human would we impress, anyway?). Its starting point is described and exemplified in a commentary to Jurgen Habermas in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992:30-33, ISBN 9173288411, based on an article by Klevius from 1981), and is further explained in a commentary to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis under the title The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis (EMAH), which can be found in Stalk's archive and which has been on line since 2003 for anyone to access/assess.

2 Klevius out of island/mainland fluctuating Southeast Asia Denisovans up to big skulled Siberians as the birth of much more intelligent modern humans who then spread all over the world, is the only analysis that fits both genetic reality as well as tool and art sophistication seen in e.g. the Denisova cave (no dude, Blombos etc. don’t come even close).

3 Klevius criticism of Human Rights violating sharia islamofascism (e.g. OIC) which is called "islamophobia" by islamofascists and their supporters who don't care about the most basic of Human Rights (e.g. re. women). Klevius' "islamophobia" has two roots: 1) UN's 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration, which, contrary to any form of muslim sharia, doesn't, for example, allow sex to be an excuse for robbing females of their full Human Rights equality, and 2) the history of the origin of islam ( e.g. Hugh Kennedy, Robert G. Hoyland, K. S. Lal etc.) which reveals a murderous, pillaging, robbing, enslaving and raping racist/sexist supremacist ideology that exactly follows precisely those basic islamic tenets which are now called "unislamic" but still survive today (as sharia approved sex slavery, sharia approved "liberation” jihad, academic jihad etc.) behind the sharia cover which is made even more impenetrable via the spread of islamic finance, mainly steered from the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


4 Klevius analysis of sex segregation/apartheid (now deceptively called “gender segregation”) and heterosexual attraction - see e.g. Demand for Resources (1981/1992), Daughters of the Social State (1993), Angels of Antichrist (1996), Pathological Symbiosis (2003), or Klevius PhD research on heterosexual attraction/sex segregation and opposition to female footballers (published in book form soon).

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius 1979: Human Rights for girls/women rather than religion

Klevius can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!

By squeezing in Atheist ideologies/philosophies as well as polytheisms under the super set BBC calls "religion", and by narrowing 'Atheism' to what it's not (Atheism is what it says on the tin - no god) they produced the extremely faked proposition that 84% of the world's population is "religious". Moreover, BBC also proudly claimed that the 84% figure is rising even more. Well, that's only by relying on those poor women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, English muslim ghettos (where most so called "British" women don't even speak English) etc., who still produce many more children than the average in the world. But Klevius doesn't think this abuse of girls/women is anything to cheer.

Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

This (via Saudi sharia finance) is the main threat to your Human Rights

BBC's compulsory fee funded propaganda for Saudi sharia islam

Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism

This is what BBC's muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain "forgot" to report. Mishal grew up in the very same theocratic medieval dictatorship which now harbors and rules all muslims world organization OIC and its Human Rights violating sharia. While also spreading islamic hatred over the world through a variety of channels.

Klevius to dumb (or just evil) alt-left "antifa" people who support the worst of Human Rights violating evil:

True anti-fascism in its purest form is laid down in the Universal Human Rights declaration of 1948. Islam (OIC) has in UN decided to abandon the most basic of these rights (the so called negative Human Rights).

Fascism is, according to Google's top hit, "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation*, and forcible suppression of opposition." 23 Aug 2017

So let's face islam with this definition.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (islam) that exalts nation (Umma) and often race (muslims) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (Koran text/Mohammad's example) headed by a dictatorial leader (the caliph - e.g. the Saudi based OIC's Saudi leader), severe economic and social regimentation* (sharia), and forcible suppression of opposition (apostasy ban against muslims wanting to leave islam, and demonizing defenders of Human Rights by calling them "islamophobes").

And islamofascism gets away with it by calling itself a religion and thereby being protected by those very Human Rights it opposes.

* According to Cambridge dictionary, "extreme organization and control of people".

Saudi muslim war criminal and Human-rightsophobe is loved by BBC

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

What is "islamophobia"?

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Would Peter Klevius today have qualified as the first human on the Moon? After all, he's been told by strangers in four countries to "go home" - incl. in his country of birth.


Peter Klevius would probably not have qualified today. After all, he's a man with "white" skin and an "islamophobic" Human Rights defender - not a sharia muslim.



So why didn't islam make it to the Moon?

Islam's core idea is parasitism on slaves - which made islam the biggest slave raider and trader the history knows of. And when the West forbade slavery islam went down until the West found oil in muslim countries - especially the Western invention the Saudi "kingdom" whose murderous war criminal "prince" is now the "guardian of islam".

Not only has islam been the most devastating ideology historians have revealed - this evilness now continues via islam's main representative in UN, the Saudi based and steered OIC and its sharia declaration which openly violates the anti-fascist Human Rights declaration from 1948. And precisely because of this inborn evilness islam is now protected against criticism by the islamist invention "islamophobia".



Thursday, July 11, 2019

John Hawks unwittingly asks the question that disproves "out of Africa" - and proves how important Peter Klevius* anti bias definition of science is.

* No dude, self referencing isn't at all stupid but rather necessary in this particular case.

John Hawks: The problem is that we don’t know if these (African middle stoneage Homo) populations ever met.


Peter Klevius: Africa's middle stone age covers a few hundred thousand years. Yet Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis managed (according to out of Africa dreamers) to end up on Flores and Luzon more than at least a million years earlier. By changing direction you get a fluctuating source isolation capable of exporting new variants and avoiding the "meeting problem" (hybridization which might produce some interesting phenotypes but no true evolution).


Peter Klevius suggestion to John Hawks: Why don't you come out now from your African closet while you still have some honor left?Moreover, your bone expertice hugely outperforms Peter Klevius, who, in turn, could tell you something about Homo naledia.

Peter Klevius evolution formula: From production (isolation) to end consumption (diversity). After meeting with Richard Leakey in the 1980s Peter Klevius started wondering about mongoloid features of  native Africans. This led to Jinniushan and the rest is history - spiced with Homo floresiensis and Denisovans.



Citations ought to be aligned with the problem - not with bias. Drawing and text by Peter Klevius (1992). However, citations are easy to manipulate through cherry picking or by offering "advisory" citation lists. And then these lightly or heavily skewed citatiions constitute the building blocs of a scientific aproach that is biased in line with peer reviewers  (Klevius 1992, chapter Science and References).

UK Ambassador Darroch: US presidency is clumpsy, inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, not normal. Trump is insecure, lies, not competent and a disgrace. PM May: Frank and good advise.


Peter Klevius wonders whether this is a good job done by a top diplomat? Moreover, is UK also using the same diplomacy against Saudi Arabia?


Kim Darroch, UK’s ambassador to the US: The Trump administration is, clumpsy inept, hobbled by infighting, unlikely to improve, dysfunctional, unpredictable, and not normal. Trump radiates insecurity, uses false claims and invented statistics, and will never look competent. And when his presidency ends, it may very well come crashing down in disgrace.




UK Parliament seemed to fully approve of Kim Darroch's analysis because he was eagerly supported while the reaction to this tirade was condemned.

PM Theresa May: "good and frank information".

Peter Klevius wonders how this fits some conventional understanding of diplomacy?

An ambassador is the highest-ranking representative to a specific nation or international organization abroad. ... A key role of an ambassador is to coordinate the activities not only of the Foreign Service Officers and staff serving under him, but also representatives of other U.S. agencies in the country.

The definition of diplomatic is someone who can be sensitive in dealing with others and who can achieve peaceful resolutions or facilitate discussion. A person who doesn't take sides in a fight but who instead helps others to resolve their differences is an example of someone who is diplomatic.

An ambassador represent the interests and policies of her/his country and is supposed to build and grow relationships.


Jeremy Hunt wants to grossly increase militaristic meddling around the world and thereby spending less on other sectors while potentially making parts of the world more hostile to UK. Jeremy Hunt also wants to deepen even more UK's already tight connection with the most evil country on the planet, i.e. Saudi Arabia.
State media BBC,s leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted and Saudi fostered muslim Mishal Husain (left on the pic) now uses her ivory tower position (paid by compulsory fees) to relentlessly attack Boris Johnson (in the face of the majority of Tory members in England) and to propagate for cricket (in the face of football women and girls) - on top of her never ending campaign against Human Rights and for islamic sharia. Think about it, a lovely sounding presenter who makes people think anti-Human Rights propaganda is just fine.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Football loving (or potentially loving) girls and women in England: BBC's Pakistan rooted, alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting, leading presenter, muslim Mishal Husain, is your main enemy.


Mishal Husain uses BBC for extreme pro cricket propaganda (i.e. in practice anti football), which equals a spit in the face of female football at a time when Women's 2019 Football World Cup could have been used to inspire girls to play "the beautiful game"


  that isn't only the most popular sport but also extremely important for girls physical and psychological emancipation. Why propagate for limited movements when football puts everyone and every muscle in motion - incl. the brain? Even a short break with football puts everyone in motion no matter how much you happen to touch the ball. And it quickly teaches you to try to alter your position in a clever way.


State media BBC faking sports "news" 



This video exmplifies state media BBC's undemocratic and faked  presentation of sports "news".






.

Sunday, July 07, 2019

Peter Klevius congratulates US football (no dude, not American handball) women for winning the World Cup 2019, and blames BBC for undermining the Queen of sports - just as England did 1921.

BBC took the opportunity to throw shit on girls/women's football on the final day of Women's Football World Cup 2019.

 BBC used most of their main news hour today to propagate for more cricket for young girls. This is in line with a long lasting history of resistance against girls/women playing the most popular sport ever.


The tea drinking puppet empire banned women from playing football on FA grounds 1921-1971.

Peter Klevius has made the most extensive research on the background to the ban and how it was connected to the introduction of Swedish gymnastics for English girls.

Here just a small aperitife:





Extracted from Peter Klevius research:

The pioneering role of club gymnastics (Swedish ’föreningsgymnastik’) was an all-European phenomenon - except for in the British Islands. In Sweden this was especially natural because of the Ling gymnastics tradition (Lindroth 1988:40). Since the end of the 19th century there has been a continuous differentiation of competitive sport. I doubt, says Hjelm, that a ‘league IV’ heavyweight boxer would consider himself a better boxer than the Swedish lightweight champion only because he would win a match between them. This is why weight classes as a form of differentiation were introduced in boxing.  The official introduction of girls and women football in the 1970s hence represents a common way of organizing sport in Sweden (Hjelm 2004: 284). Similarly, it is hard to imagine that the many male sprinters who run faster than the world's best female sprinters but not as fast as the best male sprinters, would consider their wins in some local competition equally worthy as a female Olympic gold medal. Yet the same logic seems often to be missing when comparing male and female football.

Gender and ‘class-neutral’ football

Andersson (2002) has written an account of Swedish football's cultural history from the end of the 19th century to 1950. Furthermore, Andersson has surveyed the manner in which football could attain such a strong cultural position, and a class neutral character, to the extent that it could be automatically classified as the national sport of Sweden. Andersson concludes that the middle class dominated power elite in Sweden tried to control the development of sport through the federations, at both national and regional levels: the management of elite clubs; sports journalism; the referee corps; and, often, even the running of sports grounds. All of this was aimed at the realisation of football as a manly, class nonspecific, and successful Swedish project (Andersson 2002: 624).

However, this bourgeois middle-class sport power elite that was initially dominated by younger or middle aged males, aged and changed to a group of somewhat older middle class men, with the values of the male working class and of social democracy. So, although there originally existed two English cultures in Sweden - amateur and professional football - while the Swedish bourgeoisie went for the gentleman amateur values with the main objective to use the game as an element in nurturing masculinity for the good of the nation, this was later transformed to better correspond to the popular ‘mixed’ football culture (Andersson 2002: 628-629). In this context it may be worth mentioning the extraordinary long lasting and strong position the social democratic party came to have in Sweden.

Ideology bearing thoughts and convictions regarding ‘wholesome masculinity’, the nurturing of a gentlemanly identity, as well as amateurism and class crossing nationalism was transformed from a sound and ‘healthy manliness’ based on military character to approximate the popular movement’s ideals of duty and conscientiousness, albeit without compulsory temperance. Furthermore, in accordance with a rather freer male ideal, all boys were welcomed to participate, and gentlemanliness was transmuted towards proletarian comradeship, and a class related amateurism developed closer to professional football. A professional and scientific attitude, in which the will to win was central, emerged in Sweden (Andersson 2002: 629).

According to Andersson, football was masculinized through the ideals of the working-class because it was well suited to a Swedish working class culture that not only paid tribute to collective ideals, but also contained a tradition anchored rivalry between different groups, not least young men in neighbouring communities. ‘In this way, the game's masculine character was established’, despite what representatives of Ling gymnastics opined about football's danger to physical wellbeing (Andersson, 2002: 624). That football during the inter-war period was a definitively masculine sport was, according to Andersson, demonstrated when  a more ‘entertainment orientated’ ladies' football was established in Sweden around 1920. Andersson traces the origins of female participation in football to women’s generally strengthened societal position. However, according to Andersson, the main reason for their entry onto the pitch was economic. Although women’s football in Sweden in this period was ridiculed and never developed beyond a humorous spectacle into a sport based on serious matches between contending women’s team, in this way women’s football contributed, albeit in a small way, to the sport's comprehensive commercialisation (Andersson 2002: 624).

In Sweden, the development of competitive sport was simultaneous with the continued expansion of gymnastics for women, to such an extent that it became a female domain (E. Olofsson 1989:203). Female competitive sport played a rather diminutive role in Sweden (and Finland – two major players in male sport). This may be due to the early democratisation of the sport, i.e. that many working class males were drawn to sport so that the emphasis was altered towards  more male/manly (’manlig’) sports like football, hence making access to the middle class sporting culture - which hitherto had been at least partially open for women - more difficult (Andersson 2002: 80). All in all, this background seems to support the view that Swedish social-democracy did not benefit female footballers.


Equal or particular participation?

Olofsson (1989:201) uses the concepts of equality and peculiarity to describe women’s situation in Sweden, and claims that it is,
‘Based on a comparison between women and men, where the man is the norm, whom the woman is like equality, or unlike - peculiarity. An attitude to women that can be ranged under the concept of equality can be regarded as the opposite of an attitude to women ranged under the concept of peculiarity.’

Olofsson continues by asking: ‘Is there a universal likeness between people or are there basic differences?’Women's participation in competitive sport, according to Olofsson, is based on a preconceived idea of how a particular sport is performed by men. As a consequence, women's participation in competitive sport can be said to be based on equality between the sexes. This is the root of the opposition to women's participation in sport, because the form and rules of sport are based on the idea that it should be performed by men. Within the sports movement, Olofsson (1989: 200-1) continues, as in the rest of society: ‘the opinion that women are different from men has been, and still is to some extent, prevalent’. The idea of women's physical inferiority is the most conspicuous one among men in leading positions within the sports movement. However, this reasoning may miss the fact that even within the sexes (e.g. weight classes) the same holds true. Moreover, there is also a tendency, albeit perhaps still rather subtle, to see the advantages of women in typically male dominated sports. In racing, for example, a smaller and lighter body is clearly advantageous if only the skills are there. Danica Patrick is in this respect a good example. Her driving skills paved the way for what can only be considered full equality as a driver in the eyes of the male drivers.

Although women's participation in sport, according to Olofsson, presupposes equality that does not exist, the doors to male sport have gradually been opened for women. According to Olofsson there is no such thing as women's sports, only female participants in male sport. On the other hand, gymnastics for women has existed for a long time, based on the assumption of women's peculiarity an activity which, officially, is gradually disappearing (Olofsson 1989: 200-201). Olofsson has shown particularly that many doors to competitive sports were opened for women in Sweden in the 1970s. The motives for this, Olofsson clarifies by examining women's conditions in football. Even if sport had lagged behind the official work for equality, the sports movement was pressed to open the doors for women in the 1970s (Olofsson 1989: 205).

The development of women's football indicates another dimension compared with men's football. Interviews with female leaders show that women have a somewhat different attitude to their sports activities. The work for equality carried out by the Sport Confederation in Sweden has also, in the last few years, been based on the conviction that women can bring new ideas into sport. This springs from an attitude to women based on social peculiarity. Paradoxically, says Olofsson (1989: 205), the social peculiarity of women is perhaps more difficult to eliminate in sport than the biological. And at the same time, it is not possible or desirable that it should be preserved. This is probably an insoluble conflict between the conditions of competitive sport on one hand and women's conditions on the other. The concepts of equality and peculiarity illuminate the counterstrategies used by women in their efforts to be integrated into the sports movement (Olofsson 1989: 205-206). However, Olofsson's description 'that women have a somewhat different attitude to their sports activities' seems to assume a  general female attitude despite the fact that women can not be seen as a homogeneous group other than biologically, and that the interviews may be the result of the time being and the segregation experienced, or even just the lack of quality of a young and less established sport.

Contrary to gymnastics it seems that female football became sexed when introduced. Olofsson notes that the female PE teachers in the beginning of the 20th century motivated females for gymnastics and their entry into the sports movement in line with the ideology of the times, i.e. female peculiarity. This was in opposition to the beginning of gymnastics for women which was, in many respects, identical with that of men. Olofsson has not been able to trace any opposition to this, but concludes that one explanation may be that the idea of equality between the sexes facilitated women's encroachment on the new field of gymnastics. Olofsson then assumes that the women involved gradually discovered that in this way gymnastics did not become an activity for women. Women's counter-strategy became to emphasize female peculiarity. This attitude to women was also prevalent in other social sectors at this time.

However, when (around 1970) women entered the world of football in Sweden and elsewhere they, according to Olofsson, chose another counter-strategy. Now they emphasized equality, which was in line with the prevalent attitude to women. This strategy, Olofsson continues, can be explained in the same way, i.e. the motive of equality is the ‘natural’ motive for women's encroachment into a new field. Then, in the 1970s and the 1980s, the ideology of peculiarity gained new ground, both within the sports movement as well as in the rest of society (Olofsson 1989: 206).

However, an examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, the left wing communism inspired Grupp Åtta (Group 81), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms among its members. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting “masculine” form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This is the more contradictory because, according to Hjelm, the same feminists also proposed that women, at an individual as well as at a collective level, should try and learn new activities – such as, for example, amateur painting, and performing political music and theater – things they had not dared to try before (Hjelm 2004: 177). Under the feminist Group 8, Swedish females would most probably not have been encouraged to play football.

For feminists and the political left in Sweden competitive sports in general, and especially football, were ‘hopelessly characterized by masculinity’, and, according to one informant from the original Group 8, sport supervisors and teachers of gymnastics were among the worst ‘indoctrinators of our rigid sex role patterns’ (Hjelm 2004: 276). Another aspect of the female resistance against female football seems related and very consistent over time. Whereas in the 1920s the concern about dangers facing sporting females targeted the reproductive organs, in the 1960s the focus was laid on ‘dangling’ breasts, and more recently on the disturbed menstruation cycle. In England, the concern about female fragility has led to the situation that girls and boys aged 12 are not allowed to play against each other (Kosonen 1991, Seiro 2002 in Paavola 2003: 33). All of these can be seen as different aspects of the same underlying resistance, especially targeting football and seemingly paradoxically including many female critics.

It has been noted that sporting females have not internalized role conflicts (Laitinen 1983, 34). However, asks Paavola (2003: 43), herself a footballer, if sporting females do not experience role conflicts, would it be possible that those women for whom sport does cause such conflicts, do not participate in sport because of this?  This conclusion may be adapted not only to the case of the Swedish feminist Group 8 above but also, and similarly, to all the girls that have avoided football precisely because it poses role conflicts. In this light, the Swedish feminists from the 1970s described above seem to have been basically separatist and hence ‘real feminists’ as it is understood here, and consequently for a  continuing sex segregation. Furthermore, a logical consequence of this reasoning would be that much of the so called ‘equal-feminist’ movement was not feminist after all, but rather a social twin to the early women’s movement for the vote and other equal rights.

Hjelm (2004: 278) records some self-criticism among Swedish feminists in the late 1970s. Although the fact that many girls were interested in sports had surprised feminists, the next reaction seems to have been that these girls were unfairly treated. Hjelm asserts that female football teams did not evolve only because women wanted to challenge the existing masculine hegemony, through experience such as paid work, as students, or through the sex role debate.  It was at least equally important that the preconditions for football and competitive sport in general had changed because women had left their homes and had now parted into women communities (Hjelm 2004: 259-272). However, according to Pfister et al the myths of masculinity and femininity which are associated with different body or sport practices are dependent on the prevailing social and gender orders. So, for example, from the very beginning, the participation of men and women in certain forms of physical exercise or sport was tied to rules and norms pertaining to gender. ‘It was, above all, women who in compliance with existing gender roles were barred from sporting activities’ (Pfister et al 1999: 66-67).

In conclusion Hjelm’s position asserts that women who had left their homes wanted to challenge existing masculine hegemony, while Phister et al (1999) emphasise the myths of masculinity and femininity which are dependent on prevailing sex segregation. In this light, Hjelm’s view seems more focused on women alone, whereas Pfister et al’s position seems more open for a broader interpretation.

‘Female football was an embarrassing, shameful and disgracing activity, especially unsuitable for women’

The pioneers of women's football seem to have emphasized the aspect of equality. This idea agreed with the prevalent attitude to sport that existed within the Swedish Football Association. However, some representatives of women's football emphasize that women have a lower physical capacity than men, and that by using a smaller ball, women would be able to play ‘real’ football (Olofsson 1989: 205). Translated to 100 m runners it would mean that women should run some 8 meter shorter distance.

A motive for the favourable disposition of the Football Association to women's participation in football can be traced back to the general development of society, i.e. that the official work for equality between men and women was mainly based on the ideology of equality between the sexes. It would therefore have been difficult for the Swedish Football
Association to point out the ‘improper’ aspects of football for women (Olofsson 1989: 205).

Based on interviews and press research, Hjelm (2004:276) concludes that ‘nothing before the end of the 1970s’ implies that the Swedish women’s movement was interested in the struggle of early female footballers, or even that struggle was worth of their support. According to one of Hjelm’s feminist informants – one of the leaders in the feminist Group 8  who had actually watched a game in 1968 - female football was an embarrassing, shameful and disgracing activity, and one especially unsuitable for women (Hjelm 2004: 276). Feminists in other countries shared this view (Hargreaves 1994: 25). An examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, Grupp Åtta (Group 82), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting ‘masculine’ form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This seems perfectly in line with the view that women actively and with power contributed to the 1921 ban in England.

Extracted from Peter Klevius yet to be published book Born to Play a Sport of Nature.





.










.