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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Negative Human Rights for a Positive Human Future
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.
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 "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 can no longer distinguish between the techniques of BBC and Nazi propaganda - can you!
Racist Theresa May is robbing EU citizens of their Human Rights
Support Klevius' Atheist anti-fascism against islamofascism
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".
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")!
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.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Swedish Aftonbladet: Breivik’s and the West’s world view rests on three legs: anti-communism, anti-feminism and islamophobia
Åsa Linderborg (a communist islam loving feminist and chief cultural editor on Scandinavia’s biggest news paper who has profited on her dead working class dad by writing shit about him in a well selling book): Breivik’s and "the leader's of the West" (incl. "Christian members of the cabinet") world view "rests on three legs: anti-communism, anti-feminism and islamophobia". The “politically correct”, she writes, has for decades been accused for destroying the West. That women should be women and that only the heterosexual nuclear family may produce sound citizens, is an opinion that Breivik shares with both think tanks and Christian members of the Cabinet. Fear of multi-culturalism (why not call it with its proper name Sharia?! – Klevius comment) constitutes the basis for populist government politics in the whole of Europe. The leaders of the West share Breivik’s opinion that muslims are people one is allowed to kill".
Klevius comment: Let's see. No, Klevius doesn't approve of communism and hence sadly has to admit that he "shares the view of Western leaders". And no, Klevius doesn't approve of islam either which fact, according to Saudi islamofascists and their world muslim organization OIC with its Sharia violation of Human Rights, renders Klevius and his stubborn defense of Human (incl. girls/women) Rights the status of being declared an "islamophobe". So what about feminism? Well, almost as long as Klevius has been able to write he has opposed feminism if by feminism we mean its original meaning namely that women should keep up artificial cultural "femininity" as to not "become men" (see e.g. Human Rights from Klevius without love) i.e. what is also called sex segregation and sex apartheid (the very core of islam and feminism).
Feminist opposition to football in England and Sweden
In Sweden, from the late 1960's for about about a decade feminists (the communist Grupp 8 - Sweden's main feminist movement) very actively opposed female football. Later on Swedish feminists still oppose female football although more under cover and in the form of spitting at penis equipped football experts dealing with female football as "patriarchal domination" when in reality it's been the lack of female ones that has been the problem. And this lack is of course to a large extent to be connected to the active female dismissal of female football. Which fact doesn't exclude the "religious" renaissance for sexist men, not the least via islam. As Klevius has always pointed out: Chauvinism and feminism are married!
Karima Maruyama's 2011 World Cup goal was a real classic when it comes to football technique. Running at high speed towards the side of the goal and then, at the right microsecond,directing a kick just outside the opposite goalpost, hence utilizing the forward inertia in the ball curving it enough to be out of reach for the goalkeeper while still making its way to the inside of the post. Everyone who knows anything about real football honors these kinds of smart goals.And no, it wans't a crossball. She was alone´, she (and the ball) had full speed forward and she had to chose a direct shot at the nearest post or the trickier but under the circumstances right decision to go for the far end of the goal.
So why does Klevius keep ranting about it? Well, simply because this goal and the whole match as well as many other female goals/matches show that the better footballers these women are the more "manly" (or unisex if you like) their technique.
Islam and OIC's Sharia violation of Human Rights is all about sex segregation - and Klevius, not feminists, is, sadly, your best expert on it!
Mr X "president" muslim born apostate (?!) supports racist/sexist islamofascism and OIC's demand to criminalize criticism against the worst ideological crime ever against humanity! Does this inevitable fact have any bearing on your vote?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
UK's leading islamofascist Sharia proponents take strength from Human Rights (which they despise) and the Pope (whom they most probably also despise)
Why is Abu Qatada not dismissed as jut another lunatic muslim?! Because the hate he preaches is extremely well anchored in islam's own teachings and hence at odds with the false view that media, schools, universities and politicians try to misinform you with.
At the same time violent hate preacher and al-Qaeda affiliate Abu Qatada (aka Omar Mahmoud Othman) instead of being prosecuted is freed in Britain. This al-Qaeda affiliate and islamofascist was welcomed in England where non-violent islam critic and elected parliamentarian Geert Wilders was not! And while Abu Qatada is freed the British government eagerly tries to stop/criminalize bloggers etc who dare to say something critical about islam!
Whereas Abu Qatada gives an informed view on islam Sayeeda Warsi is deceitful in her confused political correctness - or should we say faintly camouflaged islamofascism. However, Klevius guess is that Sayeeda Warsi's actions may cause more suffering than those of Abu Qatada. She is closely associated with the blood thirsty Saudi dictator family and their dreadful activities in muslim countries and elsewhere.
It's an irony, isn't it, that the main reason Abu Qatada couldn't be sent back to his native muslim land was that islamic Sharia accepts torture whereas Human Rights do not.
Educate yourself on the origin of islam, e.g. by exploring the islamic horror behind the Vikings.
And learn the philosophy behind the concept of freedom in Human Rights.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
OIC is not only the world's main muslim organization but also the world's main fascist movement, not the least in the sense that it has violated those very anti-fascist Human Rights that were agreed on after the last wave of fascism, i.e. WW2!
Jasser Auda: Women issues are the real test for the current Islamic reform. The reason is that groundless and unfair differentiation between men and women (Klevius comment: i.e. sex segregation/sex apartheid, the very core of islam, and sex slavery in islamic marriage etc. And what "groundless"? All sex apartheid is groundless and islam has the most Human Rights violating of it!) is deeply embedded in many popular opinions that we inherited from the eras of decline of the Islamic civilisation (Klevius comment: That decline started with islam itself! A "religious" system based on the reproduction of as many muslims as possible via the Penis instead of the Jewish Vagina, spiced with apostasy ban and the ban on muslim women to marry non-muslim men, and financed by the world's most elaborate and widespread slave finance Sharia, now mainly fueled by Western oil and aid money). We should differentiate between Islam and Muslims (Klevius comment: Always this same excuse of islam, communism, nazism etc.) This is not necessarily meant to be in a negative sense. But it is crucial that we separate between the religion, Islam, and Muslims (Klevius comment: So was Mohammed the only "islamic muslim"?). What Muslims did, or currently do, is not necessarily what Islam is about (Klevius comment: Problem being that whereas Klevius presents a historical and understandable explanation to the origin of islam, muslims seem to completely lack any consensus of "what islam is about"!). Islam has a core that every Muslim must embrace (Klevius comment: Why don't you nor anyone else muslim tell me what that consensus "core" is about?! Could it be that in the very moment you try you kill islam?). However, in addition to this core, Islam, could manifest, and had manifested, in a variety of shapes and forms in various cultures. Some of these cultures had social structures that were generally anti-women, and true scholars had struggled to implement the Islamic values of justice and equality of human beings (Klevius comment: Doesn't it strike you how few and lame, not to say completely absent - because they have been deemed anti-islamic - these "true scholars" have been?! And much more importantly, how dare you mention "equality of human beings" when this is precisely what is lacking in islam but constituting the basis of those very Human Rights that islam's main organization for ALL the world's muslims, OIC, has abandoned and replaced with islamic Sharia, the so called Cairo declaration, precisely because islam doesn't accept equality for women and non-muslims!).
Klevius question: How many muslims has the Saudi/Qatar alliance murdered, tortured, raped and victimized during the prolonged "Arab Spring"? While your news media keeps silent.
If Shinto is a religion then islam is not and if islam is a religion then Shinto is not (see Klevius definition of religion)!
Btw, while muslims fight each other non-religious Japan delivers ultra tech and unbeatable quality to affordable prices for the world. One of the latest example being Nikon D800 which gives an image quality/build quality out of reach for any other country in the world!
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness
* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".
The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).
Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.
While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!
And those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan, OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real muslims
Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human Rights. Can you?
Not taking responsibility for the evilness in one's ideology is pathetic. Klevius will elaborate on this in the next posting. In a way so most muslims should understand - if they dare to admit it.
UK's parliamentary islam confusion
Not only ordinary people but also governments seem to have been confused (or...?!) by OIC's deliberate abuse of the original Human Rights while simultaneously desecrating them by replacing them with Human Rights violating Sharia. And no wonder many are confused not the least because OIC keeps calling Sharia "human rights"!
When Theresa May and PM Cameron complained about the self evident* (see explanation below at the end of the posting) ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) decision not to send an individual to a muslim country that accepts torture (legal under Sharia - pls do note that although Sharia may vary considerably it's ALWAYS against basic Human Rights)) they actually nullified previous UK decisions re. CIA's policy during the Bush era to send muslim terrorists to their home countries for interrogation. Or is this just a theater for ignorant Brits (indoctrinated and misled by BBC propaganda for islamofascism) to lure them abandoning Human Rights hence paving the way for islamofascist Sharia?
Qatar airlifted troops from Libya and Iraq to the southern Turkish town of Antakya in the border province of Hatay.
The top commander of the anti-Syria mission headquartered in Antakya is Abdel Hakim Belhaj, whose militia seized control of the Libyan capital Tripoli last year. Qatari soldiers have set up communication links between the Libyan and Iraqi camps hence coordinating their operations with the Free Syrian Army
OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation - a Saudi invention), the main body of Human Rights violating islamofascism via its Sharia (Cairo declaration - a Saudi invention).
Ann Snyder: In August 2011, the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), a news organ of the OIC, reported that Washington would host a meeting “to discuss” with the OIC “how to implement resolution no. 16/18 on combating defamation of religions…” (emphasis added) and that the aim of this and further meetings was “developing a legal basis” for domestic and international laws “preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” (emphasis added). To be clear, the organization the Obama Administration invited to Washington still seems to think this resolution is about effectuating the anti-free speech concept, “defamation of religions.” That is a major problem. Worse yet, by playing the name-game at the UN’s HRC, the OIC has won several major victories for itself: praise by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; an excellent piece of propaganda for its constituency, regarding the “West’s” and specifically the US’s apparent buy-in; a seat at the table in DC; and a foot-in-the door toward implementing speech restrictions via “hate speech” provisions. Cleverly played, OIC!
German fascist methods to silence non-violent anti-fascism
Pamela Geller: How is it that one madman, one unrelated act of violence, can lead to the silencing of free speech and surveilling of proponents of individual rights and freedom for all, when thousands upon thousands of Islamic websites calling for jihad and slaughter remain unmolested? How? The imposition of sharia on free societies, that's how.
The quran calls for jihad and the slaughter of the kuffar. Do we hear calls to censor, ban, expunge or surveil those who read that book? There have been 18,255* Islamic attacks since 911, each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric, each one compelled and prescribed by the quran. Where are the calls for "greater scrutiny" of that book?
The premise is shocking, the anti-logic staggering. German authorities have announced a plan to place anti-Islamic websites under surveillance because of growing concern that they are becoming more radical and fomenting right-wing violence. Here it comes -- the suppression of freedom and denial of the truth by twenty-first century fascists.
The domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, said last week it had set up a working group to assess whether German-language sites such as Politically Incorrect and Nürnberg 2.0, whose stated aim is to oppose the "Islamisation of Europe" are in breach of the constitution.
Politically Incorrect is an excellent counter-jihad site that reports little covered news of jihad across Germany, Europe and the world.
This is enforcement of sharia and restriction of free speech. In the Breivik lie, the left has finally found their bogeyman. No one is responsible for Breivik's insanity. No one in the counter-jihad movement advocates violence. Ever. But that is of no import. Facts are irrelevant in the low state of the world. One evil, insane monster is all the fascists need to shut down freedom and the fruit of centuries of toil, blood and intellectual wrestling for enlightenment.
Brievik was a madman. He speaks for no one. Imagine a scientist who vigorously agreed with Einstein. If he targeted for death and killed scientists that didn't, would that make Einstein responsible?
Jihad, on the other hand, is prescribed, commanded by Islamic teaching. And that is ... sacrosanct and protected by their useful knaves in politics and media.
* In its judgment ECtHR produced the test of “flagrant denial of justice” and, for the first time, applied it in favour of the applicant (paras 260-1):
"A flagrant denial of justice goes beyond mere irregularities or lack of safeguards in the trial procedures such as might result in a breach of Article 6 if occurring within the Contracting State itself. What is required is a breach of the principles of fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 which is so fundamental as to amount to a nullification, or destruction of the very essence, of the right guaranteed by that Article."
According to ECHR the same standard and burden of proof should apply as in Article 3 expulsion cases (e.g. Chahal) i.e. the applicant needs to adduce evidence capable of proving substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subject to a flagrant denial of justice. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts about it. However, Jordan is a muslim Sharia nation which, per Human Rights definition, hence constitutes such a risk.
Accordingly ECHR ruled (paras 263-7) that the real risk that evidence obtained by torture of third persons will be admitted at the applicant’s retrial … Gäfgen v Germany (2010) reflects the clear, constant and unequivocal position of this Court in respect of torture evidence. It confirms [that] … in the Convention system, the prohibition against the use of evidence obtained by torture is fundamental …
"The Court considers that the admission of torture evidence is manifestly contrary … to … Article 6 … It would make the whole trial not only immoral and illegal, but also entirely unreliable in its outcome. It would, therefore, be a flagrant denial of justice if such evidence were admitted in a criminal trial."
Klevius concluding remark: How on earth does the British government even dare to question the illegality of torture in the judicial process?! And how on earth does it dare to campaign against peaceful Human Rights defenders while not being able (or willing) to shut down Abu Qatada's and others violence boosting islamic jihad extremism?! Well, the answer is as simple as it is logical. The Turkish PM Erdogan's statement "there is no moderate islam" is the other side of the islamic coin which also states that the origin of islam was rooted in everything we now consider evil, such as e.g. slavery, racism, sexism (sex apartheid), apostasy ban (to leave islam is considered the worst of crimes - i.e. no freedom of religion!) etc. And with such a coin in your pocket you better hide it from scrutiny.
Monday, February 06, 2012
UK Home Affairs Committee: "We remain concerned by the growing support for nonviolent criticism of islam"
UK Home Affairs Committee calls the defense of Human Rights the acts of "solitary, disaffected individuals", and instead wants to silence all criticism (here called "non-violent extremism") against the worst hate crime* ever against humanity throughout 1400 years!
* so e.g. is it beyond doubt a fact that islamic "infidel" ideology has fueled the absolute majority of slavery in the world throughout 1400 nyears. It's also an indisputable fact that Koranic/islamic ideology has created a horrifying one way system of muslim male patriarchy combined with forbidding muslim women from marrying non-muslims etc, all packaged in an apostasy ban (i.e. no right to leave islam) that, no matter what the factual sentences are in a particular time or setting, is considered the worst crime in islam.
The strange word "islamophobia" was created by the help of islamofascists (as the one Saudi "king" dictator below) as one link in a chain of Saudi organized attempts to secure islamofascism from scrutiny through Human Rights (remember, those very core universal rights to freedom that were signed in UN 1948 as a defense against fascism in all forms). See my point? UK Home Affairs Committee is desecrating Human Rights so that Saudi, Qatar etc islamofascists shouldn't be offended.
Klevius comment: In the 1980's I did a short film about Marlowe's Faustus who sold his soul to the Devil. I'd now like to do a follow-up. However, even if I'd pay for it myself or got it somehow sponsored, the problem reamins: It would never be allowed to be shown! Not now because of a stupefying political correctness, and even less so in near future when whatever that isn't accepted in islamofascist Sharia will be considered the heaviest of crimes! And the comedy in this tragedy is that critics of islam then have to reveal even more about the rotten nature of islam because they have to eliminate every connection to religion, hence leaving the most vulnerable parts (its racism and sexism) of islam open for criticism without naming islam or religion at all. However, if these supporters of islamofascism now choose a censorship similar to that of Goebbels by shutting down web sites and blogs which aren't Sharia compliant, then this will seriously prolong the violence and suffering that islamofascism in all forms now causes.
But the UK Home Affairs Committee doesn't see any connection ("concrete evidence") between extremist anti-Human
Rights Sharia and universities supporting it (most often sponsored by islamofascists in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar etc). So what's the "concrete evidence" showing that Human Rights could be considered "extremism"?! Could it possibly be the clash between the order given to Cameron on the pic above and Human Rights?!
From Nazifascism to islamofascism
The German Workers Party and Turkey's Justice and Development Party
Paul Marshall, Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom: Islamic anti-blasphemy laws (Sharia) pose a threat to freedom of speech. Many governments deliberately manipulate alleged instances of blasphemy by provoking popular outrage, enabling them to advance “particular policy goals.”
According to Marshall blasphemy codes among muslims are used to stifle religious minorities, as well as muslim reformers who support religious liberty, freedom of speech and democracy.
Paul Marshall, Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom:: America is still threatened by blasphemy laws by OIC (the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to promote international laws that ban "insults" (i.e. whatever doesn't comply with Sharia) to islam, through the UN.
According to Marshall there's a growing tendency towards “extra-legal intimidation,” involving private individuals pre-emptively censoring themselves - often under the guise of religious sensitivity - because it is “too dangerous” to "insult" islam.
The effectiveness of this intimidation can be seen in books, newspapers TV shows etc refusing to publish content that could be deemed offensive to sslam, although they chose to carry similar material that mocked Christianity and other religions.
CNA: "Marshall also warned of the potential for government policies that seek to restrict speech. He observed that the Obama administration has vocalized a commitment to fighting “negative stereotypes of Islam,” although it has not done the same for other religions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he noted, invited the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to a meeting in Washington, D.C. to discuss how the U.S. could carry out this commitment. According to Marshall, the December 2011 meeting featured presentations on how America should fix its treatment of Muslims. It was also suggested that the U.S. should learn from countries in the organization, which use the death penalty to fight blasphemy within their borders, he said. Although Clinton claimed to be simply pursuing tolerance, Marshall said it was concerning that she was partnering with an organization that has been aggressively lobbying to restrict free speech through legal controls. He urged the Obama administration to end this partnership and instead promote the idea that “in open, boisterous, free societies” all religions will likely be subject to criticism."