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.

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".

Klevius to Mueller (who opposed investigation of Saudi 9/11): Check Saudi connections/influence!

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?

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?

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.

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Islam murdered 7 year old boy in UK


The violent death connection between the Koran and its compulsory recitation of racist/sexist Human Rightsphobia



This extremist (knowing the Koran by heart, for example) muslim represents Obama in the islamofascist OIC, which openly violates Human Rights and which wants to globally criminalize criticism or "negative attitudes" against islam, the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity during 1400 years! 


Klevius question to his readers: What do you think, would Obama's Special Envoy to the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Rashad Hussain, who is able of reciting the hole Koran by heart, also had been at risk being murdered if he had failed his Koran lessons and thereby dishonoring his family?


Yaseen Ege was born into a marriage from scratch, i.e. several years before he was born, infected by repeated domestic violence and harassment, which, of course, was blinked by authorities because of "muslim sensitivities". He died at the age seven while trying to recite the Koran. Cause of death was reportedly heavy injuries from his Koran lessons. Yaseen was still murmuring extracts from the Koran when he collapsed.
.


Based on this drawing it seems Sara Ege wore an islamic veil in court. However, all photos of her outside court seem to be without a veil.


Muslim Yousef Ali Ege, who was freed from any involvement was proud of his son's "academic advances" in the Koran school but apparently completely unaware of its price, i.e. the continuous long time beating with fists, sticks, hammer etc that accompanied the Koran recitation lessons.

Muslim mother Sara Ege is said to have beaten her son “like a dog” because he was having trouble meeting her goal of memorizing 32 pages of the Koran in a 3-month period.  The beatings went on for weeks until he eventually died and then she burned the body at her home in Cardiff, Wales. Sara Ege was found to have beaten Yaseen with fists, sticks, a hammer and to have locked him in a shed because he wasn’t performing as well as wanted.

Both Sara and her husband Yousef had enrolled Yaseen in advanced Hafiz classes at the local mosque where they hoped that Yaseen would memorize the entire Koran.

According to Sara, in an interview, “If he didn’t read it properly I would be very angry – I would hit him.”  She admitted hitting the boy, not only with her fists, but with a hammer, a rolling pin and a slipper as well.  She even told a doctor, months before the boy’s death that she believed she had been told by Shaitan, the muslim version of the devil.

The muslim father, however, denies any knowledge whatsoever of what was going on, even though he was intimately involved with the process.  They took the boy to the mosque before and after school to study and at home, Sara locked the boy in a shed, tied him to a door and forced him to do push-ups as a punishment for not learning quickly enough.


Klevius' question: If she was so angry how angry was her muslim husband who she had to obey under Sharia? As repeatedly pointed out by Klevius, a muslim woman's duty is not only to offer sex on demand but also to foster new muslims disrepecting Human Rights (i.e. what Klevius terms 'rapetivism'). Moreover, due to muslim 'sensitivities' these kind of Human Rights violating activities are blinked to an extent that includes the most horrifying of crimes.
Islam is a patriarchal religion "way of life" were the muslim man is at the top while children and women are at the bottom.




Klevius' puzzle of the day:  Did islam have anything to do with 9/11, green on blue attacks, the murder of this boy etc. cases influenced by islam?


Here a collection of reporting around this tragedy


Muslim mother Sara Ege is said to have beat her son “like a dog” because he was having trouble meeting her goal of memorizing 32 pages of the Koran in a 3-month period.  The beatings went on for weeks until he eventually died and then she burned the body at her home in Roath, Severn Road, Canton, Cardiff, Wales. Sara Ege was found to have beaten Yaseen with fists, sticks, a hammer and to have locked him in a shed because he wasn’t performing as well as wanted.

Both Sara and her husband Yousef had enrolled Yaseen in advanced Hafiz classes at the local mosque where they hoped that Yaseen would memorize the entire Koran.

According to Sara, in an interview, “If he didn’t read it properly I would be very angry – I would hit him.”  She admitted hitting the boy, not only with her fists, but with a hammer, a rolling pin and a slipper as well.  She even told a doctor, months before the boy’s death that she believed she had been told by Shaitan, the muslim version of the devil.

The father, however, denies any knowledge of what was going on, even though he was intimately involved with the process.  They took the boy to the mosque before and after school to study and at home, Sara locked the boy in a shed, tied him to a door and forced him to do push-ups as a punishment for not learning quickly enough.



Asked why she had set his body on fire within minutes of his death, she said: "I was too nervous."

She described undressing Yaseen when he collapsed and soiled himself, then dragging him to the kitchen to feed him milk.

The boy was left lying naked on the kitchen floor, still reciting extracts from the Koran, as she poured him the drink.

He then took several sips before being dragged and pushed along a corridor to his bedroom and told to get dressed by his mother.

When he proved incapable, she dressed him herself and left him on a rug by his bed, saying she believed he had fallen asleep.

Ten minutes later, she returned to witness Yaseen shaking and shivering on the floor and gulping a final breath before dying.

"A greenish yellow liquid came from his nose and I saw that he was gone," she said.

Within moments Ege said she decided to burn his body and ran downstairs to get a lighter and a bottle of barbecue gel.

Sara Ege first admitted killing her son in a confession taped by police over several days in July 2010, but later retracted it and blamed her muslim husband, Yousef Ali Ege. He was, however, acquitted from any involvement in their sons death.

Yousef Ali Ege, insisted he knew nothing about seven-year-old Yaseen being hurt and denied he had loved his wife so much that he turned a blind eye to her beating him. “Sir, I did not know anything about these injuries”.

Sara Ege and Yousef Ali Ege married in 2000 in a ceremony arranged by their families.



Sara Ege was accused of and sentenced for repeatedly beating their little boy before eventually causing fatal abdominal injuries in July 2010.



The judge agreed with defense arguments about India-born Sara Ege's state of mind, saying she was "a devoted and loving mother" who suffered from depression and had been a victim of domestic violence.



She later accused her husband of attacking the child and said he forced her to take the blame.

Yousef Ege told the jury:”I never touched him”.

Peter Murphy, beginning his cross examination, said:”I am not suggesting you were responsible for the injuries on July 12 or before [when he had suffered fractures to a wrist, finger and four ribs].

“The purpose of my questions is to consider your position if the jury is satisfied that Yaseen died through an unlawful act by his mother.”

Ege agreed when it was put to him: “You loved your wife very much and thought she was a good and special wife, didn’t you?

“But it was your duty to protect your son no matter how much you loved her”, Mr Murphy said.

Listing the catalogue of injuries, he asked how Ege could not have noticed as school teachers had, that the primary school pupil was “in obvious pain”, “having difficulty sitting down” and “walking like an old man”.

Ege, who at the time was a postman and part time taxi driver said: “Sara looked after him from day one and I was always in work.

“She ....the teachers.... no one told me. Yaseen never complained he was in pain. I thought my son died in the fire. I knew nothing until I was in the police station.”



However, the post mortem examination showed "a catalogue of systematic physical abuse".



The court heard pathologists found multiple injuries on Yaseen's body including broken ribs, a fractured arm and a fractured finger.

In police interviews Sara Ege said she had beaten Yaseen "like a dog" regularly with a stick, but she could not remember if she had beaten him the day he died.



In the interview she said that she went to the kitchen cupboard to get gel for lighting the barbecue, that she poured it and lit it.

"I don't know why I did that," she said. "I knew he was gone and I was trying to protect myself because he had some injuries."



In the interview she went on to describe how she had over a period of about three or four months repeatedly hit Yaseen with a stick.

She said that whenever she stopped there were voices in her head asking her why she had stopped and telling her to go back and hit him some more.

She said the stick was making her evil so she put it in the cellar.



She later gave a different version of events, saying that she had said what she had said because she had been threatened by her taxi driver husband Yousuf Ali Ege and his family.



Mr Murphy said Yousuf Ali Ege must have known about the beatings Yaseen was receiving, as they shared a room because of renovations that were going on in the house.

"This father knew his son was suffering pain and injury and this father did nothing to protect his son," said Mr Murphy.

"The mother was cruel and violent the father knew about the violence.

"He saw the evidence of the catalogue of injuries suffered by his son but did not nothing to stop the pain and suffering received at the hands of his wife."



Sara Ege’s own barrister, Peter Murphy QC, told Cardiff Crown Court that the 32-year-old maths graduate had, through an arranged marriage, moved from a loving and comfortable life with her businessman father and mother in India to the house of strangers in the Welsh capital.

Strangers, he alleged, who subjected her to emotional abuse and domestic violence from the time she arrived in 2000 until her only son, Yaseen Ali Ege, died at the age of a seven, his dead body revealing a catalogue of injuries – a child who had been hit or kicked at least three times to his abdomen in the hours before his death.



Mr Murphy reminded the court of her claims of being treated like a maid by her in-laws in a land where she knew no one.

“It’s very important that the nature of her society and her cultural background is considered,” he said.

“Her marriage wasn’t forced, it was arranged and she married a man she had never met and look what she says she got into.

“Even without domestic violence and emotional abuse do you think she felt isolated – the answer must be yes.

“For her, once married, a woman has no choice – she thought ‘God willing, with patience it will work’ and she wanted it to work.”

The court has heard how Sara Ege suffered two ectopic pregnancies and had IVF treatment to give birth to Yaseen before being diagnosed with an aggressive cancer from which she is now in remission.

Mr Murphy asked: “Yaseen had a catalogue of injuries (including part-healed fractures) but the question is who caused them?”

He reminded the eight women and four men on the jury that they had to be satisfied the prosecution had proved it’s case before convicting her of murder or perverting the course of justice with a fire, charges she denies.

But even if they decide she did snap that day in July 2010, they had to go on to consider her intention and whether she was guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, not murder.










.




.

No comments: