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.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Klevius supports curing OIC's Human Rightsphobia because it would mean the inevitable death of islam



Human Rightsphobia (Sharia) is the very soul of islam. You cure it and the patient will die!









Muslim (?) Turan Kayaoğlu now criticizes islam in exactly the same way as Klevius has done for a decade. However, although he thus is late in performing the same blasphemy as Klevius, he sadly misses (How could he?!) the most important, namely that the reason for islam to be protected by diabolic blasphemy laws etc. is that islam can't survive without them because of its innate evilness!

In a paper, A Rights Agenda for the Muslim World? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Evolving Human Rights Framework, published by the Brookings Doha Center (BDC), Turan Kayaoğlu discusses how the OIC could improve on its disastrous Human Rights record due to its Sharia while still keeping the door open for Sharia. Eating the cake while keeping it intact. This is, by the way, the same logic as the Saudi's campaign of bribing Western politicians etc. to support "tolerance" for the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity. I tolerate your goodness and you tolerate my evilness.

Based on interviews with senior OIC islamofascists, the paper takes a close look at the organization’s various human rights instruments and alleges to note a shift in its approach - within the IPHRC regarding the rights of the child – that it seems to have dropped a former emphasis on the centrality of sharia.

However, this is not the case but rather a mirage. Because OIC has already excluded girls via a separate “girls' protocol”, and because nothing hinders male muslims from enjoying the fruits of Human Rights, the rights of the child can safely be applied without endangering islam's sexist basis (see Negative Human Rights). Due to the fact that Sharia/Cairo declaration upholds a rigid sex segregation (whereas Human Rights do not) oppression against girls/women are from scratch embedded. And this inevitable fact doesn't change no matter how much effort is made to "protect" girls/women. The Arabic Sharia term ihsan means an unchangeable state and isn't only applied to the sanctioning of marital rape but to whatever is a product of sex segregation.








Turan Kayaoğlu's blasphemy against Sharia


In the two decades from the Cairo Declaration in
1990 to the establishment of the Independent Per-
manent Commission on Human Rights in 2011,
the OIC has gradually shed the language of sharia.
The Cairo Declaration referred to sharia as its only
source, the Covenant on the Rights of the Child
mentioned it within the context of Islamic values
(2005), and the IPHRC and its statute (2011) aban-
doned references to sharia altogether.


Despite being well placed to address those challenges (Klevius: I.e. Human Rightsphobia in the form of Sharia), the most important organization among Muslim states, the
OIC, has so far failed to do so. The findings of this
study suggest two main reasons. One is the ab-
sence of a clear framework for explaining how the
conservative brand of Islam dominant among the
OIC’s most powerful member states is compatible
with international human rights. The second and
often overlooked reason is that the OIC’s state-
centrism prevents the transfer of authority to a su-
pranational body and limits the ability of NGOs
to lobby within the OIC. As previously discussed,
the establishment of an international body with
authority to set and monitor the implementation
of human rights standards and the promotion of
the role of NGOs are the two major mechanisms
for advancing human rights on the international
stage. Shortcomings in this regard are also criti-
cal in explaining human rights failures in Muslim
societies.


Turan Kayaoğlu on The Centrality of Sharia in the Cairo Declaration

CAIRO DECLARATION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS IN ISLAM (1990)

In 1990, the OIC approved the Cairo Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam. Some critics of the OIC
charged that the Cairo Declaration – prepared in
advance of the 1993 World Conference on Human
Rights – was an attempt to undermine the UDHR.
Others, however, perceived it as an attempt to rec-
oncile the concept of human rights and Islam.

From an international human rights perspective,
the controversial nature of the Cairo Declaration
lies in its claim of adherence to Islamic law (Sharia). The
document’s preamble affirms that “fundamental
rights and universal freedoms are an integral part
of [Islam]” and that these rights and freedoms are
“binding divine commandments” revealed to the
Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. Yet sharia is
invoked in the Declaration in ways that many in-
terpret as constraining universal rights. Article 22
states that “everyone shall have the right to express
his opinion freely in such manner as would not be
contrary to the principles of sharia,” while Article
12 affirms that “every man shall have the right,
within the framework of sharia, to free movement.”
Articles 24 and 25 further solidify the supremacy
of sharia by asserting that the body of Islamic law
is the Declaration’s “only source of reference.”
For critics of the Declaration, such cursory use of
sharia to justify sweeping limitations on universal
human rights indicates four important shortcom-
ings. First, it renders the document too restric-
tive and undermines the universality of the rights .
it describes.

Klevius: Please, forgive me Mr Turan Kayaoğlu but you have missed the very point of islam namely its racist/sexist and totalitarian roots. What made/makes islam popular is what now makes it collide with Human Rights! I.e. what made OIC abandon Human Rights in the first place!

Secondly, the Declaration – perhaps
understandably – fails to specify what exactly
constitutes sharia, meaning that its restrictions of
the rights mentioned are ambiguous. Further, the
state’s role in defining and applying sharia means
that the Cairo Declaration empowers governments
over individuals.24 In most cases, the integration of
sharia into the domestic legal systems of Muslim-
majority states gives the state a degree of control
over the definition and application of sharia.25 For
instance, Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court,
Iran’s Guardian Council of the Constitution, and
Pakistan’s Supreme Court are all state-based au-
thorities that issue rulings on the principles and
precepts of sharia. Even in Saudi Arabia, where
sharia continues to be “identified with a commu-
nity of scholars, trained in autonomous educational
institutions,”26 state bureaucracies have enormous
influence on the legal system.27 In the absence
of an international authority to define sharia, the
Cairo Declaration effectively diminishes the uni-
versality of human rights by relegating them to the
interpretations of national governments.
Finally, many human rights scholars argue that the
Cairo Declaration – largely through its alignment
with sharia – directly contradicts certain interna-
tional human rights.

As Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim points out, most traditional interpretations of sharia accept the legitimacy of slavery, grant only subor-
dinate status to religious minorities, circumscribe
women’s rights, and prohibit conversion from Is-
lam. This is not to say that sharia by necessity
contradicts ideas of international human rights;
numerous reform-minded scholars have offered
new interpretations of Islamic law that seek to rec-
oncile the two.29 Even more traditionally oriented
scholars – as well as some Islamist groups – have
increasingly turned to notions such as maqasid al-
sharia (higher objectives of the law) and maslaha
(public interest) to endorse interpretations of sha-
ria that minimize contradictions with international
human rights norms.30 Still, the Cairo Declaration
is the product of OIC member states with central-
ized, conservative interpretations of Islamic law
that include Iran and Saudi Arabia. As such, the
Declaration fails in itself to reconcile conflicts be-
tween sharia and ideas of human rights.31
These shortcomings render the Cairo Declaration
ineffective as a mechanism for the promotion and
protection of human rights.


Turan Kayaoğlu's conclusions and Recommendations


The international human rights community
faces daunting challenges in advancing hu-
man rights in the Muslim world. Despite being
well placed to address those challenges, the most
important organization among Muslim states, the
OIC, has so far failed to do so. The findings of this
study suggest two main reasons. One is the ab-
sence of a clear framework for explaining how the
conservative brand of Islam dominant among the
OIC’s most powerful member states is compatible
with international human rights. The second and
often overlooked reason is that the OIC’s state-
centrism prevents the transfer of authority to a su-
pranational body and limits the ability of NGOs
to lobby within the OIC.


Klevius: This is the hole point of islamofascist OIC and its fanatic (he himself says he wants to reinstate an Ottoman Caliphate based on Sharia) Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

However, what is really worrying is that Turan Kayaoğlu still seems to see, without any grounds for it, a Human Rights approach for OIC/islam where there clearly is none.










Give a hand to islam and you'll get the devil in the boat. That's what happened in, for example, Nigeria.



-->According to Max Gbanite, a strategic security consultant, former President Olusegun Obasanjo's decision to allow the implementation of Sharia in the northern Nigeria led to the development of the islamic muslim terror organization Boko Haram.










.

No comments: