Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future

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").

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).

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".

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

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Is UK EU's main security threat? UK's Br?exit "vote" was unconstitutional (UK lacks a modern democratic constitution) and without known content. And only England barely voted .

* A vote of such dignity as questioning a country's democratically agreed on constitutional status as an EU member state, is a given candidate for an informed (i.e. not without stated meaning) vote with usually 2/3 majority (and possibly even repeated). The "British" Br?exit vote was a dangerous joke from the perspective of civilized democracy. England lacks a functioning constitution - not to mention that it also lacks a constitutional court. "UK" is a sloppy old creation based on England's institutional colonization of a Scotland that was on the brink of bankruptcy many hundred years ago.

A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision.

The Br?exit question assumed a binary choice — Remain or Leave the EU — while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions (especially by playing the race card against EU citizens), then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options - comparable with when they joined EU (the Maastricht treaty which was open for everyone to see and hear about).


Frank Gardner is BBC's plaster when the islamofascist Saudi dictor families terror links around the world and war crimes in Syria and Yemen etc. need some silencing and calming down of BBC's in deep ignorance kept listeners who not only have to pay a compulsory fee for being fed with worse propaganda than Goebbels managed, but also to give all their personal details if they want to listen to BBC later on the web. Why?






UK didn't vote Br?exit. However England barely did so with the help of "British" non-UK/non-EU citizens while EU citizens weren't allowed to have a say about their own status in what is legally and democratically their country of home. UK citizens within EU are still within EU and protected by Human Rights. EU citizens in England are not.

People need to claim back legal right to democratic representation and
preventing the anti democratic and Human Rightsphobic  dark forces which are against democracy and nurtured by playing the race card against EU citizens and Human Rights.


The strange racist cooperation between museum items from Eton/Oxford and what Hillary would call "deplorable" "British" EU haters. And all for Sunni muslim Arab billionaire dictator families who have been behind most of the world's security breaks after WW2 - not the least on a low profile (i.e. hidden as "sensitive") street level jihad.


Human Rightsphobe Jacob Rees-Mogg is either incredibly dumb when it comes to democracy and the role of the individual and basic (negative) Human Rights -
 or alternatively, he is deliberately using methods not distinguishable from fascism.

Klevius seems to have been wrong when he noted in his article 'Social Democracy and the Rights of the Individual' (1993) that state socialism is the main opponent to individual (negative) Human Rights. But Klevius excuse is that he thought fascism died 1945 - and was ultimately erased by the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Little could Klevius imagine Saudi based and steered OIC sharia against Human Right taking over UN and figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg taking over in the English parliament - and eagerly of course supported by BBC.


.

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

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

BBC's deeply bigoted and hypocritical* muslim sharia presenter Mishal Husain is a disgrace and insult to women's liberation movement.  


* She doesn't fast during Ramadan and she drinks alcohol and isn't bothered by fulfilling muslim traditions and says she sees no threat to her way of living (thanks to "Western" Human Rights, reminds Klevius)  - which is a deep insult to all her suffering muslim sisters in sharia ruled countries and ghettos around the world and in England.


Why is BBC using their deeply bigoted and hypocritical muslim sharia presenter, Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised Mishal Husain spreading lies about suffrage? By defending islamic sharia, which violates women's most basic Human Rights, Mishal Husain contributes to violations against women's Human Rights.



Those very Human Rights that guarantee women equality with men, are denied by Mishal Husain's own religion via Saudi based and steered OIC's worldwide sharia declaration in UN.

Drawing (1979) and photo by Peter Klevius.

Klevius: There's no British empire anymore - so why pretend when it just hurts you and covers your beautiful side? Get rid of the racist/sexist dark forces within your team for a much better performance.


Finland was much earlier than "the British" not only in being first in the world to give women full suffrage, but has since constantly been a much more progressive and developed* country than the "country" called England (England, as you know, belongs to UK).

Klevius apologizes for his tone but wants to defend himself by referring to the pompostrous belittling "Brits" show against other countries/people. Klevius thinks the "Brits" could greatly benefit themselves by lowering their tail.

Klevius at his Nordic countryside house 1993 (with internet, computers with flight simulators and 3D games, mobile phones - NMT, ie Nordic Mobile Telephone - etc.)  with his already old communication tools - at a time when average people in England lived in a communication stone age compared to the Nordic countries (no wonder Linux was invented by a Finland-Swede and not a "Brit"). And Klevius wasn't rich - that's why he used old stuff. Btw, this was the same year Klevius published The Social State and its Daughters. Klevius already used the same car when filming in DDR and dealing with Human Rights issues in Strasbourg. The Japanese car had no problem pacing way over 200 km/h for almost a whole day in both West Germany as well as on DDR's Autobahns from the Nazi era. Only trouble being all the smelling Trabants with a top speed of at most 70 km/h. Not even The Grand Tour guys can repeat the feeling of such passing of kilometer long cues of small smelly noisy plastic cars in the right lane in their own inflicted cloud of poisonous oil smoke - usually with a smoking guy at the wheel. Luckily most of them passed each other within their own lane.


Already 1907 19 women were elected MPs in Finland. Some of them on this picture from the same year.

In Finland in 1906 both women and men were given the right to vote and stand for election. Finland was first in the world to allow women as parliamentary candidates, and the first to adopt universal suffrage. 1907 19 women were elected as members of the Finnish parliament of a total of 200 representatives. Norway granted voting rights to women in 1913 but it took a long time before they came even close to Finland in numbers of female representatives. And do note the difference between female representatives voted in under discriminatory laws (i.e. only certain upper class women) not in line with full suffrage.

Women were not eligible to be appointed to the New Zealand Legislative Council (the Upper House of Parliament) until 1941. The first two women (Mary Dreaver and Mary Anderson) were appointed in 1946.

In 1965, Queensland in Australia became the last state to remove restrictions on Indigenous voting in state elections, and as a consequence all Indigenous Australians in all states and territories had equal voting rights at all levels of government.

England (under UK*) got full sufftage 1928.

* England is dependent on UK, i.e. not fully a country on its own and much less so than EU member states who can't meddle inside their respective parliaments.

Sunday, February 04, 2018

The moral decline of England - and the darkness under the cliff edge


Are the English about to be lured onto a racist/sexist Saudi sharia path away from democracy and Human Rights?


This heroic woman from Yemen gets little attention from far right Brexiter extremists and BBC.
BBC is far more interested in muslim Uyghurs and muslim Rohingyas than muslim Yemenis. If you check BBC News "reporting" you will easily see that it's all about what is best for the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.


Is China unwittingly becoming the world's main defense for Human Rights? Who could have guessed? Not BBC, that's for sure.


China has vowed to crack down on the "three evils" of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. I.e. same agenda as Theresa May - except that May also includes "far right extremism". And Jacob Rees-Mogg ticks all the boxes.

Yes, there are racists in all populations, and yes, they aer easily turned on by playing the race card. But does it belong to civilized democracy? Klevius doesn't think so.

No civilized country would even dream about having a "referendum" on something unknown to be decided once and for all by two percent of a part of that country.

Klevius has always wondered how Germany could slip to fascism. However, the example of England today siding with the world's most intolerant "country" and its sharia islamofascism, seems to give a clue.

UK (aka the so called "British") is an unconstitutional undemocratical mess now utilized by dark religious Human Rightsphobic forces moving towards fullblown fascism.

No one knows what UK really means. And no wonder when there's no foundation.

EU rescued UK but what about the future?

The "Brits" (i.e. the racist nationalists without a proper nation* of themselves) say they will lead the world - but towards what - and how? Without functioning brains in the lead and without a moral foundation.

* England and Scotland are both hampered by each other as nations - only that the former has more say over the latter. And they aren't states either. The Treaty of Union was the agreement Scotland accepted 1707 under the threat of going bankruptcy that led to the creation of the strange and diffuse creature called United Kingdom. It wasn't a masterpiece of jurisprudence back then, and is now far beyond any acceptable modern frameworks of democracy. Klevius guess is that, apart from pure financial gains, what still keeps it alice is an equally outdated feeling of colonial nationalism under the more pompous name "British" - which actually goes back long before the British empire, meanaing Bretagne of France, i.e. The Isles of Bretagne. No wonder Macron smiled.

BBC's eager boosting of nostalgic nationalist "British pride" (while simultaneously wholehartedly paving the way for sharia fascism) the fighters against fascism seem themselves to mutate to what they use to fight against. How else could we possibly interpret the strange fact that a pathetic clown from the 18th century is seen as a possible Tory leader/PM?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is just the top of a far right extremist wing in the Tory party which leans towards sharia finance and therefore Saudi Arabia.
  
Klevius hint for analyzing the main tumor and its metastases. Just check who stay in the way for the spread of Saudi influence in Mideast (Russia), or alternatively, who might compete in dealing with Arab states (China), and the result is a copy of BBC's extremely biased and cherry picked "news" agenda.

Keeping the world's muslims hostage via sharia finance and a piece of a meteorite, and US hostage via threat against petro dollar. And England, who created this monster, sacrifices not only basic Human Rights (which are illegal in Saudi Arabia) but also any other moral aspect on the fact that Saudi spread sharia islamic hate mongering against "infidels", is continuously attacking people in UK.

Klevius advise pic for curing your ignorance about islam and Saudi Arabia. Learn it by heart! 



Klevius World Factbook: How did Saudi Arabia become the world's most evil moral cancer? 1. The racist/sexist origin if islam was an Arab bandit gang raiding, enslaving and taxing oasises along old slave routes, and kept together by a "religion" that was based on Jewish/Christian texts and which was then tailored to "justify" Arabic language imperialism and the declaring of non-Arab speakers (Allahu's messenger Gabriel allegedly spoke in Arabic to an other "messenger" called Mohammad who couldn't read or write but produced scores of daughters and not a single son) as "infidels" who could be slaughtered, enslaved, raped, taxed, humiliated etc..
2. UK meddling in Mideast and making of a local warlord ally a "king" and "custodian of islam's holy places". 3. US oil exploration bringing huge wealth to the Saudi war lord family. 4. The 1974 petro dollar treaty between US and Saudi Arabia. 5. The 1990 creation of the Cairo declaration (aka sharia) and bringing it into UN via a muslim voting block led by Saudi steered and based OIC. 6. US fear of loosing the petro dollar. 7. Brexit.

By demolishing the real threat of original islamic teachings in a similar way as the islamofascist Human Rightsphobic Saudi dictator family demolished any possible remains from early islam (except a small black pre-islamic meteorite stone now glued together with other pieces and kept at a huge Saudi built black building as a muslim idol), a path to reform (i.e. ending) original evil islam - i.e. so called "Westernized non-extremist islam". However, in doing so the sharia part of islam has inevitably to be replaced with those very basic Human Rights it opposes (compare OIC) and which are now considered terrorist crimes in Saudi Arabia and other muslim nations.

Btw, Iran isn't an Arabic country and islam is just a thin frail theocratic filter on the Iranians. In fact one could say that upholding/supporting an all encompassing "religion" that at its core has Arabic language imperialism, is treason.

England is fast going down the moral sewer cheered by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his racist nationalist (without a proper nation) far right Brexiter extremists.


And playing the race card against EU citizens has proven successful among racists in England. BBC: "...non UK people who live here...". This quote from BBC News really illustrates it. They of course knew that "UK people" included the strange and imprecise "Brits" but not EU citizens living in England.


BBC also doesn't miss a single opportunity to fake a story that fits Saudi sharia islamofascism, the worlds leading Human Rights violator. But BBC has no problem complaining over "lack of Human Rights" for Uyghur muslim jihadi.

However, the very fact that China isn't a monotheist theocracy, and that China so successfully has managed by peaceful manufacturing and trading to not only empower its own population but also more poor people around the world than any other nation has done so far, means that China also unwittingly protects vasic Human Rights around the world than most other countries - and certainly more than the spreaders of islamic anti Human Rights hate.

BBC using muslims in general to boost Saudi sharia islamofascists in particular - and often by referring to muslim's Human Rights, i.e. to those very right which are criminalized in Saudi Arabia.


When a derailed and mentally disturbed alcoholic who initially had planned to drive over Jeremy Corbyn, runs his van over a muslim already lying ill on the ground and allegedly dying from the injuries rather than his initial health problem, two other muslims jumped or where pushed aside by the van. However, BBC reported day after day in long sequences (do note that the opposite is true if it had neen a muslim attacker) it as "far right extremist terrorist drove over a crowd of war-shipping muslims leaving one dead and twelve injured". How come? Well, nine of them were injured while they attacked the driver and tried to kill him until an imam from a nearby mosque stopped them. And BBC also forgot to mention that it's a crime to try to kill someone who is already restrained. These muslims, most of who got very minor injuries in the attempted lynching of the mentally ill driver, will now be awarded similar compensation as the victims of the muslim terrorist attacks, instead of facing a court.


Through the unconstitutional Britisharia Brexit gate towards Human Rights violating islamofascism


England voted Brexit - UK did not.

Of course the slim Brexit vote of 2016 needs a follow up vote - by the parliament or the people.

Only England voted to leave EU. And did so with the smallest of margin. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay with a much higher margin.

And EU citizens living in the UK weren't even alloved to vote about their own legally settled EU country of choice. A choice made under UK law.

However, non UK citizens from other parts of the world were alloved to vote.

Also, the very foundation for the Brexit vote was completely lacking. Klevius has never heard about a civilized European country that has voted completely in the dark on a groundbreaking matter, i.e. with no substance whatsoever. When UK voted to become a member state of EU in the 1990s they had the Maastricht treaty at hands and were already members of EEC since the 1970s.

A yes/no vote in the dark about the most important question would normally at least demand a 2/3  majority according to most civilized constitutions.

However UK lacks a constitution. And therefore UK's hastily and poorly effectuated Brexit vote comes nowhere close a civilized democratic process.



Tuesday, January 30, 2018

A Yemeni woman is suing islamofascist Saudi Arabia at ICC - and asking England to arrest Mohammad ibn Salman (the war criminal dubbed "the world's most dangerous man"). And BBC is silent.



The real reason connecting BBC's faked and propagandistic sharia islam/Saudi agenda* and the racist and Human Rightsphobic part of "British" haters of EU/EU citizens, and "love" of islamofascist Human Rights violating oil wealthy muslims. 


* and due Human Rightsphobia and war  and hate mongering against Russia which is seen as a disturbing factor in the islamofascist Mideast led by England's "close ally", the islamofascist Saudi dictator family who has repeatedly attacked England on its own soil by the help of sponsoring muslim terrorists and spreading islamic hate against Western "infidels".

This "the world's most dangerous man" and likely war criminal is welcomed to England. Why?

Germans! Do you think BBC's chat with Jacob Rees-Mogg is funny? No? Well Klevius has tried his best to make it funnier by ornamenting it with some additional details on this blog posting.

Fake and disgusting BBC News and UK's 18th century PM candidate and Human Rightsphobe (but positive to oil wealthy muslim sharia dictators such as e.g. Saudi Arabia) Jacob Rees-Mogg have a good laugh together: Germans have no sense of humor - and there has never been a chancellor able to crack a joke.


The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.

Mr Rees-Mogg clearly agrees that there are "huge areas of collaboration" between the UK and the Arabian Gulf islamofascist sharia dictatorships and war criminals. Especially selling more arms to them.

His fanatic and racist Human Rightsphobic Brexit speeches have paid off. He topped a survey of ruling Conservative Party members as the favorite to replace the incumbent leader, Theresa May. In the survey for Conservative Home, the deeply religious homophobic Human Rightsphobe and North East Somerset MP secured 23 per cent of the vote, while the Brexit secretary David Davis with his everlasting silly empty grin came in second with 15 per cent.



Dubbed "the MP for the 18th century" thanks to his unashamedly old-fashioned views, Mr Rees-Mogg has seen a surge in popularity among those very racists whom Theresa May and the "Brexiters" by playing hard with the "race card" let lose since the UK general election in June 2017. His racist and sexist grass roots movement called “Moggmentum” was set up to celebrate his every word via social media.

Klevius wonders whether Hillary Clinton would have called them "the deplorables"?

The potential Conservative leader Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act in 2012. At the time, even Conservatives like Theresa May, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith were absent from the vote. Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the act again in 2016.


Friday, January 26, 2018

UK's Human Rights problem: Jacob Rees-Mogg's HR ignorance (?) and Theresa May's sharia recommendation


This man, Jacob Rees-Mogg, wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights



Pic text furthest down on this posting.

Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and to prefer trade/sharia finance* with Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think eternal, everlasting moral principles… go very well with the day-to-day practice of government and legislation."

* Do note that England is more dependent on finance than any other EU country, and that finance is the sector first in line to be practically 100% robotized in the very near future.

Peter Klevius: This statement either means that this homophobic right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that he's lying in the UK parliament.

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual. If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities", "collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.


No matter how "Western", "imperialist" etc. - Atheism (or A(mono)theism) is the only road to moral responsibility and Human Rights equality. Why? Simply because it eliminates "chosen people", "forgivness of sins", and totalitarian sharia racism and sexism, by giving everyone the same "rights space". This is the very foundation of the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Why is Wikipedia lying, faking, and misrepresenting islam and Human Rights? How hard could it be to disinguish clear evil from good? Sharia islam imposes limitations on women - Human Rights protects women from such imposed limitations.


Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (i.e. islamofascist sharia)


ARTICLE 6:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity,
and has her own rights to enjoy as well as
duties to perform, and has her own civil
entity and financial independence, and the
right to retain her name and lineage.

(b) The husband is responsible for the
maintenance and welfare of the family.


The anti-fascist 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration


Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration,
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political,
jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.


It's all about the islamofascist Saudi dictator family. Sounds silly, does it? What could ppossibly such a small power among the world's giants do? Well, consider what the islamofascist Saudi dictator familyreally is. It's not what it looks like because the real power behind it (and all "religion" retorics) is that the islamofascist Saudi dictator family (no dude, it won't help to get rid of the Wahhabi branch) are the "guardians" of islam and that we have lumped together 1.5 Billion muslims, and that those muslims furthermore are lumped together in a judicial sharia prison via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which more or less now steers UN despite opposing those very basic Human Rights UN was built around. And even this wouldn't be enough was it not for the financially tied support these islamofascists (i.e. Human Rights violators) get from Western business and politicians.

Klevius criticism of islam has nothing to do with what individual muslims might believe but all to do with the collective use of religion for financial, political and military uses.

There's a widespread conflation of individual beliefs and collective religion. Klevius couldn't care less about what individuals believe as long as they respect each other.What bothers Klevius is the faceless "community" in which the individual is lost.


There's no equality between men and Women in islam

A combination of islam and feminism has been advocated as "a feminist discourse and practice articulated within an islamic paradigm (i.e. sharia)". Islamic feminism is defined by islamic "scholars" (i.e. with "PhDs" in islamism using sharia as their pseudiscientific tool) as being anchored with the non-sensical Koran as its central text.

In islam there is a difference between men and women based on physical differences and their roles given by "Allah", i.e. what we usually call essentialism, i.e. the view that categories of people, such as women and men, or heterosexuals and homosexuals, or members of ethnic groups, have intrinsically different and characteristic natures or dispositions - i.e. what we call racism and sexism.

Muslim men are given the "right" to "take care" of "their" wives and kids, and those who do not will suffer the consequences. This is in twisted islam "logic" because men are created physically stronger than women. Islam stresses on the different roles "Allah" (i.e. the human muslim interpretor) has given to men and women because of how "Allah" created them. Men are providers and women are the caregivers at home, given more patience, resilience, and the "ability to forgive more than men".

Klevius concluding comment: Try to get some structure in this craziness. There are sharia muslims and cultural "muslims" (or secular "muslims") on a scale from poor and ignorant muslims to educated Billionary muslims. And they are all lumped together under the muslims/islam title which is then used as a sledgehammer - not the least against the most precious asset we as humans possess, i.e. basic (negative) Human Rights equality against racism and sexism.

Klevius has fought for these rights all his adult life - and did never image a time when he should be called an "islamophobic" "racist" for fighting against racism.


Pic text

Jacob Rees-Mogg  paving the way for racist and sexist religious fascism in
UK Parliament

This man wants to rob people in England of their most basic Human Rights.

Eton boy Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to skip Human Rights and prefer trade with
Human Rights violating islamofascists: "I don’t think eternal, everlasting moral
principles… go very well with the day-to-day practice of government and
legislation."

Peter Klevius: This statement either means that this religious homophobic right wing extremist doesn't understand Human Rights at all - or that he's lying in the UK parliament.

Here's Klevius help if it's indeed ignorance he suffers from: The individual is the basis for democracy. However, democracy is collective. Therefore the rights of the individual is the "constitution" on which democracy is based. This constitution is called (negative) Human Rights, i.e. the negative obligation to abstain from interfering with the individual.

   If you still have trouble understanding this, then compare it with traffic
rules which are all about the individual, and with no reference to "communities",
"collectives", "groups", "religion" etc. And the reason is self-evident for most people, i.e. that every individual should have the same right to proceed within the limitations the flow of traffic itself may actuate. And there are no "obligations", "duties" or restrictions dependent on sex.