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?

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

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

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.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Is this UN woman dumb, confused, ignorant or what?!

.

Is she just ignorant about islam or is she an "islamophobe" (i.e. against Sharia)?!


If she's against Sharia then she has already committed blasphemy against islam!

Kamala Chandrakirana (Indonesian muslim?) on Egypt's Sharia constitution (she is head of UN Working Group established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2010 dealing with discrimination against women in law and in practice): The text of Egypt's constitution does not include in its substantive provisions the guarantee of non-discrimination based on sex necessary to give effect to the principle of equality between men and women in the preamble and in accordance with Egypt’s international human rights obligations.


Klevius: Which obligations? OIC's Sharia obligations or Human Rights?! They are two so completely different "obligations", especially regarding girls/women (see below), that either has to go! Which one?!!!

Kamala Chandrakirana expressed concern about the absence of a provision incorporating international law, including on women’s human right to equality, into the domestic legal order and stipulating its primacy.

Klevius: What is this?! We're talking Sharia here! Don't you understand? Read OIC's Cairo declaration for a starter, or even better, see below!

Kamala Chandrakirana: While article 2 provides that Islam will be the principle source of legislation, article 3 provides that the personal status of Egyptian Christians and Jews will be regulated under their religious laws. However, there is no provision that women’s right to equality in the family will be respected, protected and fulfilled by the State in accordance with international human rights standards.


Klevius sex and Human Rights tutorial for Kamala Chandrakirna & Co


Sex segregation in Sharia (in whatever clothes) is lack of freedom, not because of one’s cultural gender but because of one’s biological sex. In the real Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948 everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Human Rights Declaration, without distinction of sex.

In contrast, islamic countries like Egypt, who are members of Saudi based OIC, led by its Egyptian born Fuhrer (or Caliph as he himself prefers) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, can now follow OIC's islamofascist Sharia manifest also called the
Cairo declaration on islamic “human rights” (CDHRI), simply because by voting together OIC in UN has managed to step aside from any Human Rights obligations that could disturb islamofascist “rights”. Moreover, by calling Sharia "human rights" most people aren't even aware of how deeply this evil islamofascism has rooted itself.

Because CDHRI, i.e. Sharia sanctioned by UN, states that all men are equal only in terms of "basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities", an inevitable clash occurs between the sexes.

The main, and crucial, difference in this respect between these declarations is that whereas the former (UDHR) is negative, i.e. empty (without distinction of sex) and therefore without room for interpretation, negotiation, or imposition and hence not able to produce restrictions in freedom, the latter (CDHRI) is positive, i.e. connected to impositions such as‘obligations and responsibilities’ and, as a consequence, inevitably opens up for limitations in accordance with what is considered girls’ and women’s ‘obligations and responsibilities’.

Thus instead of preserving a negative room for the free female individual, a legal confinement is veiled around girls/women which limits their individual freedom.

Klevius doesn't deny that there are good positive rights for women, such as, for example, the right to abortion, the right to crucial maternal support etc. However, keep in mind that e.g. education isn't a positive right specifically for girls only but a human right (it's quite clear that women and non-muslim men really don't count as full humans in islam).

The introduction of some positive women’s rights may, in fact, often constitute a threat against women’s right to freedom. One may argue that girls’ and women’s rights are now challenged both from islamic Sharia as well as from other efforts to introduce sex segregated “rights”, i.e. cultural impositions based on biological sex although not necessitated by it.

Islam is a veiled sex trap for women's freedom.

And of course, all this talking about some "god's" law is just to cover up such crappy logic.

Is that so difficult to understand dear Kamala Chandrakirna?

 .


 .

No comments: