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 Atheists (i.e. not "believing" in a "god"*). That fact paves the way for Human Rights equality. Religion always means a total or partial reduction of some people's (e.g. women) Human Rights equality.

* 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, Wittgensteins'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).

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)

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.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Are all muslims fanatics?


According to Turkey's PM Erdogan there is no such thing as moderate islam. So what about moderate muslims?

.

According to comedian Nick Revell on BBC, it's ok to joke about 'muslim fanatics' but not about all muslims.


However, to answer the question implied in Nick's strange choice of (PC) wording one needs first to conceptualize the definition of a muslim and a fanatic.

Were all Nazis fanatics or where exactly was the line separating the moderate Nazis whom comedians shouldn't joke about? I.e. what was the difference between fanatic Nazis and Nazi sympathizers?!


Compared to muslims Klevius seems less qualifjed as a fanatic. According to Meriam-Webster, a fanatic is:

A person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause (Klevius isn't religious at all and his defense of Human Rights can hardly qualify as a political cause, can it. And single-minded is surely not the first that comes to mind for those who know him, quite the contrary. Klevius could do with some more focus).

A person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for something, esp. an activity (again, Klevius could do with a lot more - but see Klevius defense for his inactivity).

Compared to fanatics Klevius is way too lazy and unfocused? So what about muslims and who is a muslim anyway?

One thing is clear, the muslims themselves have fought against each other for more than thousand years and continue to do so, just check the news.

However, today all muslims have a world covering caliphate, the Saudi based islamofascist OIC (that has taken over UN that was created to defend the free world vfom totalitarian ideologies) led by its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. But to qualify as a muslim you have to accept OIC's islamofascist, i.e. fanatic, Sharia which states that Human Rights ought to be violated whenever they differ from Sharia.

Klevius question to Nick Revell: If a totalitarian anti human rights movement that considers itself the final solution for the world, calls leaving its ideology the worst of crimes, says criticism against itself is equally evil as when muslim terrorists murder innocent people, demands sex apartheid etc etc, doesn't qualify as fanaticism then what does?!




 . ..

Friday, October 26, 2012

Despite Klevius islam tutorial Mediamatters still seems completely lost, or...!

Also read Klevius Sharia tutorial for Mediamatters (published a couple of years ago)!

Mediamatters Bizarre Obsession With Hiding Evil Sharia 

The problem with Mr X "president" is that he is a muslim born apostate according to Sharia (i.e. considered the worst crime in islam) - and that he, despite this proof of evilness in islam, says he "respects" islam!
















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Islam is Obama's real father



Mediamatters wants you to believe that the main point for Obama critics is to question the identity of his father. But almost no one cares about it. So why? The answer is that Mediamatters (and other Sharia supporters) want to distract you from the real issue namely that the person officially named his father was a muslim according to Sharia, no matter if active or not!









What’s the Harm With a Little Sharia? 


Brooke Storrs: Malaysia is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim nation giving religious freedom to its citizen population of Chinese and Indian minorities.  The country has a dual justice system, civil and Sharia.  Civil laws apply to everyone, whereas Sharia laws apply only to Muslims – in theory.  Sharia Courts in Malaysia have jurisdiction over Muslims in civil matters of marriage, inheritance, and apostasy.  The complications of Sharia Courts ruling on the law in recent years have come when someone has converted to Islam, or when someone wishes to leave Islam.  In the last several years in Malaysia, the following story has played out a few times.  A man married to a non-Muslim converts to Islam, then dies.  Upon his death, the governing Sharia Court gets into a tussle with his wife over what will happen with his body, since Muslims have different burial rites than other faiths. In a different situation that made international headlines, a man of Indian descent divorced his wife, later converted to Islam, and then tried to take custody of their children.  Sharia holds that children of Muslims are also Muslims and must not be left in the custody of a non-Muslim.  While the father did not ultimately win custody of the children, the mother is still fighting over their officially registered religion.  The courts have ruled their children are Muslims.  “Once a Muslim, always a Muslim,” is a tenet they very rarely overturn. Arguably one of the most agregious cases involved Siti Fatimah Abdul Karim, or Revathi, as she wants to be called.  She is of Indian descent, born to parents who converted to Islam, but whose Hindu grandmother raised her.  She practiced Hinduism all her life and married a Hindu.  After the birth of their little girl, Revathi went to the Sharia court to have her name changed and her official religious status changed from Muslim to Hindu.  The court detained her in a “religious rehabilitation camp” for six months while at the same time taking custody of her little girl.  After she was released, the court ordered her and her child to live with her Muslim parents.  They would not allow her to leave Islam.  Because Sharia does not allow a Muslim woman to marry outside the faith, she could not live with her husband.   The Lina Joy case also made international headlines.  Born into a Muslim family, she petitioned the civil court to have her official religious status changed from Muslim to Christian.  The courts fought her for years, ruling that she must have her hearing in a Sharia Court.  Her reasoning was in effect, “You say I must have my case heard in a Sharia Court, because I am a Muslim.  I’m telling you, I’m not a Muslim.  I’m a Christian.  The Civil Court should hear my case.”  The case reached the Civil Supreme Court in 2006 and the justices agreed to hear her case, but they eventually ruled against her.  Lina Joy’s official religion was recognized as Muslim in Malaysia which prohibited her from marrying her Christian fiancé or have children with him.  She and her fiancé have since fled the country. It is clear that even when Sharia is intended for Muslims only, it can greatly affect those outside of Islam.  So, when the tolerant among us say, “What’s the harm?  Let them govern themselves with Sharia,” let’s tell them about what has happened in the “moderate” Muslim nation of Malaysia.




Why do people continue supporting fascism and its lackeys?!


 When islamofascism/Sharia supporting Obama says he is on Israel's side, what he really means is that he is on Saudi's side against Iran!

Muslims have always fought against each other and continue to do so as you can see on the news!

And due to the efforts by Saudi based OIC combined with treacherous politicians the world is now facing a situation where it will be legal to violate Human Rights except for when Human Rights are used to boost islamofascism and its efforts to erase them and to criminalize criticism against islam, the by far worst racist/sexist ideological crime ever against humanity! 

OIC has now taken over UN and by UN forcing/luring member states to accept OIC's islamofascist Sharia declaration as "foreign law" these member states have to consider Sharia in domestic courts! This trend has to be stopped immediately.

It was through politics German voters Hitler got his power. And it's undeniable that at least one third of the Germans were racist fascists! But no one was allowed to say so. It was considered the worst of crimes.

Wake up world! The new Hitler is called Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu!











 

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

In Klevius series Sex Tutorials: The "culture and praxis" of pedophilia/sexual abuse in BBC and islam



Aeneas (ICLA – International Civil Liberties Alliance): "The BBC interviewer made excuse after excuse for Islam in response to Hirsi Ali’s cogent an analysis.  It seems that the agents of the BBC simply believe the taqiyya that they are fed by the Muslim establishment and take it at face value.  Perhaps the BBC needs to encourage its journalists to read up on the subject from all sides and stop accepting dogmatic nonsense.  The sort of naiveté that we witness at the BBC is the same sort that allowed the rise of Hitler and was the principle cause of World War II and the destruction and despair that ensued."

Klevius comment: No, it's not "naiveté " but deliberate misinformation to protect OIC! UK's leading islamofascist (i.e. supporter of Human Rights violating Sharia) Sayeeda Warsi is the "minister of faith (i.e. islam)" who represents UK before the Saudi based islamofascist muslim world organization OIC and its Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu which want to criminalize scrutiny/criticism or whatever that isn't in accordance with Sharia. And you, don't let anyone confuse you with talk about so called positive Human Rights (the Stalin "rights") that can be abandoned. What is at stake is the basis of all Human Rights i.e. what is called the "negative" (i.e. lack of imposition, or call it freedom if you like) true Human Rights!

Patriarchal pedophilia/sexual abuse and sex apartheid


As you dear reader know by now Klevius has for a decade boosted being the net's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid and that he consequently also is the only one seriously addressing the root cause of continuing islamofascism against Human Rights. Yes, it's sad but still. Although the holy Human Rights declaration (unlike Sharia) clearly states that a person's sex should not inflict on her freedom and equality, many still continue living in the sex apartheid past hence offering a dangerous cultural interface welcoming islamofascism.


BBC's Jimmy Savile was only a tiny part of the tip of an enormous embarrassing melting iceberg - actually the same as islam rests its foundation on!

Thousands of Brits honored Jimmy Savile, "the friend of all" on his posh funeral in a golden coffin.

Text on the headstone (now removed from Savile's grave and used as landfill):

 
"The first guy who presented back in 1964 the very first TOTP (Top of the Pop's) and went on to do much more.

There was nothing he didn't do.

as he crossed the country each person was his friend.

Knighted by our Queen he was and knighted by the Pope."

"It Was Good While It Lasted"

Paul Harris (DailyMail):



  • In the homily it was said Sir Jimmy can face eternal life with confidence
  • Thousands of mourners line the streets as 700 people pack the cathedral


  • Sharia supporting New York Times gets Sharia supporting pedophile-BBC's former leader


    Mark Thompson, BBC, is set to become the New York Times new president and chief executive. How much did he and others know? And why has BBC been so silent about muslim jihadist pedophiles committing hate crimes against white children while boosting islamofascism (e.g. Saudi based OIC and its Human Rights violating world-Sharia) to an extent that brakes all limits.




    Compare the above to this report from California, US 


    A "Fantasy Slut League" has been uncovered at Piedmont High School in California. According to Principal Rich Kitchens, the league was created by varsity student athletes. Female students are "drafted" and male students earn points for "documented engagement in sexual activities" with female students. Many students participated because they felt pressured to: "Participation often involved pressure/manipulation by older students that included alcohol to impair judgment/control and social demands to be popular, feel included and attractive to upperclassmen," Kitchens wrote. Students also recognized misconduct, admitting fear of disciplinary action against them if discovered, affecting college applications.


    Klevius comment: The disastrous combination of heterosexual attraction and sex segregation/apartheid leads to perverted social interaction (read What's sex segregation to get rid of your sexual ignorance).

    here's what Klevius wrote

    Saturday, September 27, 2008


    Heterosexual attraction and sex segregation in islam

    Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100 yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what möst feminists deny) an open de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape. What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!


    Klevius question: Was News of the World about to reveal BBC's pedophilia history and culture, or how can we explain BBC's overkill in their efforts to drown the world with negative Murdoch "news" and unfounded allegations about Milly Dowler's phone being erased, hour after hour, day after day, month after month (while leaving muslim pedophile rings attacking vulnerable children in "care homes" etc unreported)? And how much did the bSKYb bid affect it? Or were they intertwined?






     . .

    The silenced fight in US and UK against islam, the worst threat to Human Rights


    Media and presidential candidates silent about the most important issue, evil islam/Sharia.



    Diana West: It's important to realize sharia's prohibition of criticism of Islam is basic Islam: There is nothing "radical" about it. Indeed, it is this basic Islamic censorship that is at the crux of why Islam itself -- not "Islamism," not "radical Islam," not "Islamists," but Islam -- is an existential threat to the survival of any free society. It is why free societies, once penetrated by a Muslim demographic over 1 percent, begin to lose their liberties as a means of "accommodating" -- appeasing -- their new Islamic populations. The problem is that no one in public life in America, land of the First Amendment, will acknowledge this fundamental, non-radical Islamic threat to this single most important foundation of our liberty -- free speech. And that includes even La Belle Michele. Early in her speech she gives what might be considered the obligatory sop to PC. While it won't provide her a shred of political cover, it does shatter the arc of understanding the threat, which is why I mention it. Bachmann, from the C-SPAN transcript : No one here is suggestion that all Muslims are radical, but we should not be ignorant of the objective reality that there is a very radical wing of Islam that is dedicated to the destruction of America, of Israel, and of Israel's allies. All Muslims are not radical, she says, which is a logical enough statement, although truly beside the point, which concerns the existential threat posed by Islamic law and ideology to Western liberty. Juxtaposing Bachmann's non-radical Muslims with that "very radical wing of Islam" she also singles out takes us all right back to the "tiny band of extremists" theme, sounded by everyone from George W. Bush after 9/11/01 to Hillary Clinton after 9/11/12. This is only one point in Bachmann's 19-minute address, but it is a foundational flaw that puts any call to Americans to be vigilant in their defense of liberty onto a cracked footing. Why? Because it implies that within Islam itself -- within its laws, customs and culture -- there is a doctrinal basis for Western-style liberty, too. If it is only the "radical wing" of Islam that is waging this war on the West through a war on freedom of speech, then all we need do is align with the moderate Muslim hordes out there. Indeed, this same non-realist thinking is the rationale for "Muslim outreach," which Bachmann has courageously decried as a vehicle for jihadist penetration of the US Government. I think the best way to press the point is to focus on Islamic law and ideology. After all, it is ridiculous for any one person to speak for the imagined deviations from Islamic doctrine of "all Muslims," anyway. To paraphrase Ibn Warraq, Geert Wilders and others, there may be moderates who are Muslim, but Islam itself -- its doctrines, its law, its customs, its goals -- is not moderate. Islam is radical.


    In UK the worst threat to Human Rights is hidden by the Government under the weird expression: "We are against ALL forms of extremism", i.e. implying, in accordance with OIC/Ihsanoglu/Sayeeda Warsi, that "islamophobia" (i.e. the defense of Human Rights) is "extremism"!



    ‘The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality)' Bill proposed by Baroness Cox, had its second reading in the Lords on Friday. Cox:
    ‘Awareness of the need for the Bill arose from mounting evidence of serious problems affecting some women in this country from the application of Sharia law. I immediately reassure your Lordships that I am not anti-Muslim. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Muslim women enjoy their full legal and civil rights under the law of this land. If women from other faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, the provisions of this Bill would also be available for them as it does not name any religion.
    The problems I will highlight often arise because many women believe that Sharia courts are real courts and do not know that they have other rights under English law or they are pressured by their family or community not to seek those rights outside their community. I give two examples of the kinds of problems afflicting women in this country. I have met these women and witnessed their distress. One suffered such severe domestic violence that she was hospitalised. She was pressured by her family not to seek help from the police as this would bring “shame” on the community. She went to the local Sharia court or council and was told to return to her husband. She did so and suffered more domestic violence. Then her husband divorced her, went back to his country of origin and returned with a second wife. As a devout Muslim, she wanted a religious divorce to allow her to remarry in accordance with her faith but the Sharia court demanded her marriage certificate which her husband’s family kept. Attempts to retrieve it resulted in violence in the name of “honour”, as she was blamed for bringing shame on the family by seeking a divorce. Seven years later this devout and desperately lonely Muslim lady is still unable to obtain her divorce and remarry.
    Secondly, a Muslim widow wanted to remarry but was told by the Sharia council or court that she must obtain the permission of a male relative. She had no male relative in this country so she had to travel to Jordan to obtain the written permission of a seven year-old boy relative in order to be able to remarry in this country. It is not surprising that another young woman complained, “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin”.
    Other examples concern children. Under Sharia law a father who divorces his wife can claim custody of his children once they reach the age of seven. This gender discrimination violates the fundamental legal principle in this country that custody should be determined according to the best interests of the child. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help. A lady came to see me in my home. I shall never forget seeing her hide behind a tree because she was so terrified of being seen. We should not have such fear in this country.’








     . .

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

    Is Hawaii, with 50% non-religious and less than 0.5% muslims, getting Sharia soon?


    Do women constitute the worst insult against islam?

    Women! Don't marry a muslim man cos no matter how nice he is he's (and you) ruled by islamofascist Sharia! And as a women you are ALWAYS a loser in islam when it comes to equality etc!

     
    “The worst sin and distraction from virtue that I have left for man is woman” – "Prophet" of islam, Mohammed, Sahih AlBukhari, 5096
    “When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women” – "Prophet" of islam, Mohammed, Sahih AlBukhari, 5196

    Obama: “The U.S. will never be at war with Islam.”
    Klevius: Well, that's too bad for girls/women and the world cause islam's at war with us!

    Tom Tancredo: It is Islam itself and not only al-Qaida and the Taliban that rejects the civil-liberties traditions of Western democracies. The controversy over this film puts a huge spotlight on one central fact: Islam does not recognize or allow for any separation of church and state, and any criticism of the prophet Muhammad in the form of books, films, or cartoons will be met with violence. No Islamic country would allow a film to be made or shown – or even possessed – critical of Islam. But why has the U.S. State Department under Obama shown support for the efforts of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to get the United Nations to adopt a resolution demanding that all nations adopt this same principle? Egypt has been among the Arab nations leading the effort to subordinate the U.S. Constitution to Islamic Shariah law. The horrific events of Sept. 11, 2012, in Egypt and Benghazi were a logical and predictable result of appeasement policies that began with Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo apologizing for America’s past insensitivities to the hopes and beliefs of the Muslim faith. Obama chose last Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the 2001 murder of over 3,000 Americans by a team of radical Islamists, to send a formal message to the world: “The U.S. will never be at war with Islam.” At that moment a crowd of over 2,000 Islamists were attacking the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, breaching its wall and burning the American flag. What was the first response of the Obama government to this attack on our Cairo embassy and the failure of the Egyptian government to protect our sovereign soil? The embassy issued an apology for the actions of private individuals in the U.S. who put a film on YouTube that insults Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.



    Robert Spencer came across this gem in a Sharia manual: ‘It is offensive for an attractive or young woman to come to the mosque to pray (O: or for her husband to permit her), though not offensive for women who are not young or attractive when this is unlikely to cause temptation.’ — ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) F12.4
    ‘Umdat al-Salik is a Shafi’i manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, as ‘conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.’


     Will Obama and his islamofascist friends take over Hawaii?

    If muslim born and raised Mr X "president" looses he will move to Hawaii where he will meet with 

    Hakim Ouansafi, Morocco born Sharia supporting muslim leader of Hawaii muslims and their Saudi funded Manoa mosque in Honolulu (nearby the Obama house and Manoa University where the Obama library will be built), who also leads a hotel chain ( president and CEO of Diamond Hotels and Resorts) and the Department of Human Services (?) and Hawaii Public Housing Authority (which he wants to make “half-private”): “The phrase ‘Islamic terrorist’ is an oxymoron. Nothing could be farther from the true spirit of Islam than the killing of innocents. The Prophet (Muhammad) tells us that to kill one innocent is the same as killing all innocents, and to save one innocent is to save all innocents. The Qur’an, contrary to the terrorists’ interpretation, teaches there is absolutely never, not even the slightest, justification in taking innocent life.”


    Klevius comment: The only "innocents" in islam are "true muslim" men! 

    When asked if he equally condemns Palestinian terror against Jews, he hesitated slightly.
    “The Palestinians have had great difficulties, but yes, nothing justifies the random killing of innocents by blowing up a bus.”

    Klevius comment: See!











     

    Monday, October 08, 2012

    The desecration of Human Rights at McGill University

    John Peters Humphrey is the last prophet of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - and he's defamated by Humanrightsphobics - yet all the Billions of followers take it calmly


    John Peters Humphrey (who actually existed and who wasn't a pedophile or a murderous scumbag or a fanatic warlord or a terrorist) wrote the first draft of the Universal Human Rights Declaration (peace be upon him and Human Rights). Here's part of his profound and sacred original revelation:




    "Subject to the laws governing slander and libel there shall be full freedom of speech and of expression by any means whatsoever, and there shall be reasonable access to all channels of communication. Censorship shall not be permitted"

    Klevius comment: By 'libel' and 'slander' John Peters Humphrey of course meant something directed to an existing individual, not a totalitarian ideology!

    Human Rights and islam are irreconcilable: Klevius knows it, OIC knows it - how come that McGill University doesn't know it?!


    When a Sharia believing muslim, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im, says Sharia is reformable he lies straight up your "infidel" face. The very fact that OIC had to step aside of the Human Rights Declaration speaks for itself. And when this crypto-islamofascist is allowed to "lecture" (read lie) at McGill University it's the worst possible insult against the work of John Peters Humphrey and Human Rights.

    Islam is dependent on sex-apartheid and can never survive without it! A Sharia without sex apartheid is impossible. Muslim men are the only true muslims and "muslim" women are there to sexually and reproductively satisfy muslim men and islam, period. That this arrangement then can take many different forms doesn't change these basic facts at all.

    Human Rights, on the other hand allows girls/women freedom from sex apartheid.


    An ignorant (?!) or naive McGill reporter: How would you assess the potential of applying a human rights framework to endorse/support women’s equality in Muslim laws (i.e. Sharia)?"

    Klevius comment: Why doesn't this moron dare to ask the simple straight question: Can women be equal to men in any muslim law (i.e. Sharia) as they are in Human Rights?!

    Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im's equally confusing (deliberately?!) non-answer : "First, this is already happening for decades throughout the Muslim world. If one considers the vast majority of Muslims (more than 80 per cent) who live outside the Middle East, North Africa, there is much more than potential. This is clear, for instance, among the second-largest Muslim population in the world, which is in India. Yes, secular democratic India, not Pakistan or Egypt. Second, the idea of so-called “Muslim laws” is a colonial construct which does not reflect the realities of Muslims lives and how they see their relationship to Islam and Sharia."

    Klevius comment: First, the fact that women married to muslims are, in general, in a better position in secular societies doesn't at all excuse the horrifying fact that Sharia NEVER will give women equality! It's the Human Rights, dude, that makes life easier for women married to muslim men in secular states where legislation takes its inspiration from the Universal Human Rights Declaration, not from an evil and totalitarian sex slave ideology! Second, the idea of so-called “muslim laws” as a colonial construct, is quite hilarious when considering that islam through its Sharia slavery finance throughout some 1400 years has been the by far worst colonizer ever in human history. Moreover, "the realities of muslim(men)'s lives and how they see their relationship to islam and Sharia" is nothing more than the repetition of the senseless islam excuse that "because we're used to do so"!

    Hitler and his National-socialists (politically backed by the Germans) censored everything that was against their ideology. For islam censorship is even more important precisely because unlike the German National-socialism (popularly called Nazism for the purpose of hiding its socialist roots) islam has a 1400 year history of the worst atrocities you can imagine!

    It's against this background you shall consider John Peters Humphrey's (peace be upon him and Human Rights) revelation above!





     

    Sunday, October 07, 2012

    Kate Rudd, Sayeeda Warsi, Catherine Ashton, all work for Ansar Al-Shariah and OIC

    There are 193 states represented in UN. Why are 57 of the worst Human Rights violators (OIC) allowed to dictate it and the world?!

     When Piers Morgan asked Iran's president if he was prepared to accept Israel's right to exist Ahmedinejad referred to the "end of occupation first" and by this he of course also referred to his previous answer where he saw the establishment of Israel in the first place as an "occupation". However, Piers Morgan never pointed out this. Wonder why?

    Three UK women working hard from top positions for Sharia and against girls'/women's Human Rights



    1 Kate Rudd, the British Consul General in Jeddah, started her diplomatic career as head of the UK Trade and Investment delegation to Iraq and her questionable position has only deepened as the delegation’s representative to OIC.

    2 European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton (see text below).

    3 Sayeeda Warsi ('Minister for Faith islam' – is at the Foreign Office and includes being the lead minister responsible for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the UN, the International Criminal Court and the OIC, which is the largest multi-lateral organisation in the world after the UN)

     

    Cliff Kincaid on The Wall Street Journal repeats what Klevius has warned for a decade:
    OIC has not given up its efforts to silence criticism of Islam. The group has merely changed tactics, focusing instead on dramatically expanding the U.N. ban against advocating religious hatred. The legal basis here is the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits "any advocacy of . . . religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination [or] hostility." Several Western states also bar such incitement. The OIC's attempt to broaden existing hate-speech laws is therefore difficult to resist on principle for those liberal democracies, which have bought into the idea that tolerance can be fostered through limiting free speech. This agenda was vividly on display in a statement by the foreign ministers of the OIC at the U.N. General Assembly last week. The statement, in response to the "Innocence of Muslims" film and cartoons depicting Muhammad published by a French magazine, refers to the U.S.-brokered Human Rights Council resolution. It then urges U.N. member states, "in line with their obligations under international human rights law, to take all appropriate measures including necessary legislation against these acts that lead to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence against persons based on their religion."

    Astonishingly, the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, has also issued a joint statement with the secretaries general of the OIC and the Arab League that "condemn[s] any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility and violence. While fully recognizing freedom of expression, we believe in the importance of respecting all prophets." The statement will be understood by many as EU approval of the OIC position that disrespecting any prophet is tantamount to advocacy of religious hatred and should be prohibited by states that have ratified the ICCPR




    Baroness Cox: "It is right, of course, that we respect freedom of religion, but surely not when basic laws and morality are being flouted..." 


    Klevius comment: Baroness Cox here reveals her "islamophobia" and could be jailed for it now in any of OIC's member states, and soon even in UK if Sayeeda Warsi & Co are allowed to continue their evil Human Rightsphobia. Sharia is "basic laws and morality" that deeply clashes with Human Rights. So deeply, in fact, that OIC (islam's foremost representative) has openly violated Human Rights by replacing with the terms "as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah"; "according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah"; "in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah"; "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah"; "to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah" "The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration".


    Some examples from OIC's Cairo declaration: 


    ARTICLE 22: (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah. (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination. ARTICLE 23: (b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah. ARTICLE 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah. ARTICLE 25: The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.




     

    Tuesday, October 02, 2012

    Warning for faith-fascism: Is Sayeeda Warsi the world's worst female threat to the freedom of girls/women?


    UN has become the islamofascists main propaganda forum - while you sleep


    Muslim born Sayeeda Warsi, here intimate with Der Fuhrer the Caliph of the world's muslims, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Saudi based and initiated and sponsored Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

    How the world's biggest empire turned into a hub for racist/sexist islamic faith-fascism


    What is now tiny England used to be the biggest nation that has ever existed on our planet. It's via this historical heritage islamofascism has an important channel for its evil racist/sexist hate mongering. 

    This hypocrite Humanrightsphobic muslim woman is possibly the most serious threat to the Human Rights and freedom of both muslim and normal girls/women around the world. By supporting OIC she (and UK) supports the violation of women's rights as given them in the Human Rights declaration.

    She has been a keen supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an international Sunni pan-islamic political organisation with the goal of all muslims unifying as an islamic state (Umma) or caliphate (OIC) ruled by Sharia instead of Human Rights and with a caliph head of state (Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu - on the pic above).

    Sayeeda Warsi, 'minister for Faith' (sic - shouldn't it be 'minister for islam'?), is at the Foreign Office and is also the lead minister responsible for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the UN, the International Criminal Court (meaning she will support Sudan's muslim "president" Omar Bashir who is accused by said court for horrifying crimes) and the OIC, which is the largest multi-lateral organisation in the world after the UN.




    Hadar Sela: The question which naturally arises is on what, exactly, do Baroness Warsi and her British government colleagues intend to “cooperate” with the OIC? What “mutual goals” does the UK government think it has with an organization which seeks to limit universal human rights, curb freedom of expression, and establish its headquarters in the capital city of, Israel, a UN member sovereign country?


    Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society: "We are all for co-operation between nations to try to foster peace and understanding, but the concept of 'religious freedom' is one that the OIC has distorted to mean restrictions on free expression. "We hope that by signing this document the UK will not in any way compromise its commitment to human rights – particularly the human right to free speech. The British Government has been steadfast in its opposition to the OIC's blasphemy proposals up until now. We hope that this document will not change that in any way."

    Warsi became the first British minister to speak at the OIC's conference in June 2011 in Astana, Kazakstan. Previously she had hosted the secretary-general of the OIC in London and visited its secretariat in Jeddah, while she was in Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj. This led to the appointment of Britain's first special representative to the organisation and its 57 members. Baroness Warsi has visited Pakistan five times during the past two and a half years in government, a country which was so central to the formation of the Islamic Conference. Concerns have been raised by the National Secular Society that the UK's stance on free speech could be compromised by an agreement signed at the United Nations between this country and the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC). The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi – the new "Minister for Faith" - and pledges that the UK and the OIC will "work together on issues of peace, stability and religious freedom." At present, the OIC is agitating at the United Nations for a global blasphemy law that would make criticising or satirising religion a punishable offence. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said:  Baroness Warsi's other remit – as well as being 'Minister for Faith' – is at the Foreign Office and includes being the lead minister responsible for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the UN, the International Criminal Court and the OIC, which is the largest multi-lateral organisation in the world after the UN. She became the first British minister to speak at the OIC's conference in June 2011 in Astana, Kazakstan. Previously she had hosted the secretary-general of the OIC in London and visited its secretariat in Jeddah, while she was in Saudi Arabia for performing Hajj. This led to the appointment of Britain's first special representative to the organisation and its 57 members. Baroness Warsi has visited Pakistan five times during the past two and a half years in government, a country which was so central to the formation of the Islamic Conference. In the landmark agreement there is a particular emphasis on promoting the "key role Muslims have played in shaping modern Britain" and encouraging Muslim communities to play a key role at all levels in public life. Lady Warsi said: "When I addressed the OIC Conference in Kazakhstan in June 2011, I said we face the global challenges together. This agreement formalises that, establishing our many, many areas of co-operation, from security to conflict prevention; from religious freedom to human rights. One of the central aims of my new role will be to strengthen this relationship further and I am looking forward to ensuring we continue to work closely to achieve our mutual goals." She also praised the Framework Co-operation Agreement, signed with the OIC's secretary-general, for its focus on promoting inter-religious understanding and interfaith dialogue, especially as these are two vital areas in the senior minister's new governmental role. Terry Sanderson commented: "There is certainly a need for some kind of inter-religious understanding among OIC member states, a number of which suppress Christianity and other religions in a brutal and merciless fashion. "The blasphemy law which is being proposed by the OIC on behalf of its members would be an entirely dangerous and regressive step if it were to be approved at the UN. It is quite clear that it would be used to persecute and oppress non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries, as the domestic blasphemy law in Pakistan does at present. Mr Sanderson continued: "In Egypt the blasphemy laws are also used to get rid of political opponents and are sometimes used as a means of revenge by neighbours or colleagues who are in dispute. We do not need this kind of primitive legislation in our democracies and we need reassurance from our Government that their resolve remains unaffected by the signing of this agreement with the OIC."







































     



























    Monday, October 01, 2012

    Disgusting Swedish support for misogynist islamofascism

    Misogynist Sweden rather eliminates women than islam


    Swedish furniture retailer Ikea has removed out all the women from the version of the company's famed catalogue to be distributed in islamofascist Saudi Arabia.



















    Sweden deports Zahra, an African muslim mother, while letting her violent husband stay with their daughter. Why? Because of Sweden's "sensitivities" to islamofascist Sharia!