Is it because islam violates Human Rights that we are not allowed to speak about it?!
'Most muslims don't share extremist values'. What a wonderfully meaningless sentence.
What about the German National-socialists (aka Nazis) who first got one third of the Germans' votes and later some 90%? How many of them shared the extremist values of those behind the Holocaust?
Apart from the fact that 'most' and 'extremist' exclude each other when describing 'muslims' on a normal to extremist scale, every muslim who supports Human Rights violating sharia can be described as an extremist from a Human Rights perspective.
A fascist Swedish blasphemy law in the hands of a failing Swedish court
Swedish hate speech law:
'Who shows disrespect for a group of people or other such a group of individuals with allusion to race, skin color, nationality or ethnic origin, religion or sexual disposition' (Klevius translation).
Klevius' analysis of the law: Of these only religion can in itself interact negatively with Human Rights. Race, skin color, nationality, ethnic origin, or sexual disposition have no bearing to undermine Human Rights. Even if one's ethnic origin contains statistically measurable negative features those features can not be individualized in a Human Rights context. However, religion can. Even if an individual may not share the most negative aspects of the religion, the very belonging to that religion also justifies its negative sides. So for example, blasphemy laws are often excused by the big amount of muslims that could be "offended". Moreover, in the case of islam there are only negative sides from a Human Rights perspective. Supporting sharia, in whatever form that violates the most basic of Human Rights, is the very definition of a muslim. If anything, then declaring oneself a sharia muslim is offending against muslim women and all non-muslims. "Infidels" and women seen as inferior are views in direct opposition to Human Rights. This is why OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) officially via UN declared that islamic sharia should replace Human Rights. As a consequence this means that some of the most basic Human Rights are criminalized by islam.
Saudi based OIC - and its islamofascist Saudi sharia Fuhrer Iyad Madani - constitutes islam today, and it's against the most basic of Human Rights!
A previously criticized Swedish court (Blekinge Tingsrätt) led by judge Lise-Lotte Bäckström produces a verdict motivation that is beyond beliefBackground: In Demand for Resources (1992:43, ISBN9173288411) Klevius wrote that jurisprudence is the only true science because (like in Colombo episodes) the answer to the problem is already known from the start. There's a law (the answer/result) and a case (the problem) that either fits the law or not. If the procedurals are fulfilled and the intentions of the legislators (i.e. the very soul of the law) are known then nothing can hinder a positive or negative verdict. Sloppy handling of the case or lack of evidence could make a verdict wrong or the case impossible to evaluate against the law - i.e. no science.
Sweden's Human Rights problem
This is my late lawyer friend Lennart Hane (mentioned in Angels of Antichrist - the most important sociological paper from the last century). He is known for his fight against Swedish "Gulag laws" and theur "rubber paragraphs". He saved the lives of many children and parents from his wheelchair (he got polio as a child) and enlivened many a murky Swedish court by his very person. Lennart Hane was also part of the movement to disclose the ADL scandal (see furthest down).
Although both Lennart Hane and Jacob W F Sundberg (below) represent a much more conservative view on many issues than Klevius does, this didn't hinder mutual understanding of the most basic flaws in the Swedish judicial system. To understand this it's recommended you read Klevius thesis Pathological Symbiosis.
Also referred to in Angels of Antichrist is Jacob W F Sundberg (who contacted Klevius because of articles about the social state he had read) who is a professor of jurisprudence of Stockholm University from which he was more or less out-frozen because of his stance for Human Rights and against the Swedish system. He is also the author of the 34 pp juridical master piece A Trip to Nowhere (1995), a must read for comparative lawyers all the world over. Must be one of the funniest (albeit also tragic) juridical texts ever written.
JACOB W. F. SUNDBERG
I. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS
A. The American Influence
In order to understand the American contribution to the European system of human rights, 1 it is necessary to go back to the situation at the close of the Second World War. This is the time when the world saw the emergence of the two superpowers to which we have grown accustomed: the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Soviet advance and progress was impressively manifested in February 1948, when the Communist Action Committees seized power in Czechoslovakia and seemingly irrevocably included that country in the bloc of Socialist states, known as "the Socialist Camp." With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, the Soviets were able to establish their Socialist legal system throughout Eastern Europe. In order to see the American influence on the European system of human rights, an understanding of the chief differences between the Anglo-American legal systems and the Marxist-based Socialist ones is required. These systems disagree fundamentally about the nature and source of human rights. This disagreement has formed the basis for the conflict over human rights within Europe.
"Human rights" was the notion that was to dominate the coming decades in many ways. The significance of human rights was manifested in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, 2 the very year Czechoslovakia fell. That there are "fundamental human rights" was declared an article of faith, "reaffirmed" by the peoples of the United Nations in the UN Charter.
Klevius comment: An 'article of faith' means it is based on the axiomatic view of the principle of human equality. However, unlike all other axiomatic views on the matter, Human Rights is the only moral logic that excludes both racism and sexism (and due hate). It is against this background blasphemy laws in general and the verdict below constitute a direct violation of basic Human Rights.
A Swedish verdict on free speech from 2014
Blekinge Tingsrätt and its judge Lise-Lotte Bäckström have previously been criticized multiple times for its behavior. However, in its verdict of Michael Hess (who belongs to Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna - 15% in last gallup) it has taken the definitive step outside what a court should do. Yes, the Swedish law about "incitement against a group of people" is already in itself shameful. However, here Klevius will only analyze the wording of the verdict.
Michael Hess had commented on an article in Aftonbladet about rapes in Sweden (Klevius translation): 'When will you journalists realize that it's deeply rooted in islamic culture to rape and assault such women who don't submit in accordance with islamic teachings. There exists a considerable connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from Mideastern and North-African countries.'
In Swedish: ”När ska ni journalister inse att det är djupt inrotat i Islams kultur att våldta och misshandla sådana kvinnor som inte rättar sig efter Islams lära. Finns ett stort samband mellan våldtäkter i Sverige och antalet invandrare från MENA-länder.”
According to the Swedish court, free speech re. islam should only be used to facilitate progress in the interaction between individuals (människor). Sw. 'människor' could mean both people or individuals, but in this context only individuals because only individuals can be offended and interacted with.
Klevius analysis: Do note that Hess doesn't even blame islam but only 'islamic culture'. However, the problem here is that islam itself via its violent and raping origin and today via its Human Rights violating Koran connected sharia (OIC) doesn't facilitate progress in the interaction between individuals but rather is group orientated and a fertile ground for division and hatred.
The court continues by stating that free speech shouldn't be used in a way that could offend deeply held personal views, for example re. religious matters.
Klevius analysis: Only deeply held personal hate views could be offended by Hess' statement. Hess doesn't criticize ethnic belonging but only the statistical 'connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from Mideastern and North-African countries'.
The court further recommends that one should back up every controversial statement with references to relevant research and religious texts.
Klevius analysis: Why would widely debated and interpreted known problems of islam be "controversial"? And how could islamic texts be of any relevance for criticizing islam from a basic Human Rights perspective? Moreover, it's precisely the Koranic texts which justify the taking of sex slaves that are now widely known and debated.
As Klevius showed in his previous posting, the shameful leniency shown towards islam's evil teachings has led to the astonishing and tragic fact that a Google search for the most common hate crimes gives the very opposite result! If Nazi Germany had had Internet I'm sure you wouldn't have found any hate crimes whatsoever committed by Nazis.
Hateful muslimsOr are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.
From Magna Carta in 1215 to Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).
King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.
* For a starter islam's incompatibility with Human Rights as proved by OIC's sharia declaration in UN.
So what about muslim friends?
Immediately face your muslim friend with the question whether s/he supports Human Rights violating sharia or Human Rights equality? Or do you fear hearing the truth? By doing this simple question you hugely contribute to the anyway inevitable stopping of sharia islam and, as a consequence, limiting the islamic oxygen to islam's worst perpetrators, and thereby reducing the sufferings of islam's victims.
Klevius proposes that every muslim is invited to carefully be taught about Magna Carta and Human Rights and how sharia violates the most basic of Human Rights, i.e. the universal equality principle that makes sexism and racism (and due hate) redundant (Klevius 1992). This should then be followed up with the simple question: Do you want equality or Human Rights violating sharia? And those who choose sharia instead of Human Rights (i.e. the real muslims) ought to train themselves in looking at this picture without bursting into violence etc.
The war between muslims and Jews started when Muhammad slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. However, what made this war special was muslims' claim to be the only true branch of Judaism.
Albert Einstein: "For me the unaltered Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most primitive superstitions.
Although the majority of the world's population is Atheist, religious dogma leading to racism, sexism and hatred is still allowed to be exempted from Human Rights equality logic.
The ADL scandal
Since the 1930s the ADL has been gathering information and publishing reports on anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice, and on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, racist, anti-democratic, violent, and extremist individuals and groups. As a result, the organization has amassed what it once called a "famous storehouse of accurate, detailed, unassailable information on extremist individuals and organizations." Over the decades the ADL has assembled thousands of files.
One of its sources was Roy Bullock, a person who collected information and provided it to the ADL as a secretly paid independent contractor over 32 years. Bullock often wrote letters to various groups and forwarded copies of their replies to the ADL, clipped articles from newspapers and magazines, and maintained files on his computer. He also used less orthodox, and possibly illegal, methods such as combing through trash and tapping into the White Aryan Resistance's phone message system to find evidence of hate crimes. Some of the information he obtained and then passed on to the ADL came from confidential documents (including intelligence files on various Nazi groups and driver's license records and other personal information on nearly 1,400 people) that were given to him by San Francisco police officer Tom Gerard.
On April 8, 1993, police seized Bullock's computer and raided the ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. A search of Bullock's computer revealed he had compiled files on 9,876 individuals and more than 950 groups across the political spectrum. Many of Bullock's files concerned groups that did not fit the mold of extremist groups, hate groups, and organizations hostile to Jews or Israel that the ADL would usually be interested in. Along with files on the Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, Islamic Jihad and Jewish Defense League were data on the NAACP, the African National Congress (ANC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the United Auto Workers, the AIDS activist group ACT UP, Mother Jones magazine, the TASS Soviet/Russian news agency, Greenpeace, Jews for Jesus and the National Lawyers Guild; there were also files on politicians including Democratic U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, former Republican U.S. Representative Pete McCloskey, and activist Lyndon LaRouche. Bullock told investigators that many of those were his own private files, not information he was passing on to the ADL. An attorney for the ADL stated that "We knew nothing about the vast extent of the files. Those are not ADL's files. … That is all [Bullock's] doing." As for its own records, the ADL indicated that just because it had a file on a group did not indicate opposition to the group. The San Francisco district attorney at the time accused the ADL of conducting a national "spy network", but dropped all accusations a few months later.
In the weeks following the raids, twelve civil rights groups led by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, filed a lawsuit demanding ADL release its surveillance information and end its investigations, as well as be ordered to pay punitive damages. The plaintiffs' attorney, former Representative McCloskey, claimed that information the ADL gathered constituted an invasion of privacy. The ADL, while distancing itself from Bullock, countered that it is entitled like any researcher or journalist to research organizations and individuals. Richard Cohen, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, stated that like journalists, the ADL's researchers "gather information however they can" and welcome disclosures from confidential sources, saying "they probably rely on their sources to draw the line" on how much can legally be divulged. Bullock admitted that he was overzealous, and that some of the ways he gathered information may have been illegal.
The lawsuit was settled out of court in 1999. The ADL agreed to pay $175,000 for the court costs of the groups that sued it, promised that it would not seek information from sources it knew could not legally disclose such information, consented to remove sensitive information like criminal records or Social Security numbers from its files, and spent $25,000 to further relations between the Jewish, Arab and black communities. When the case was settled, Hussein Ibish, director of communications for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), claimed that the ADL had gathered data "systematically in a program whose clear intent was to undermine civil rights and Arab-American organizations". ADL national director Abraham Foxman called the ADC's claims "absolutely untrue," saying that "if it were true, they would have won their case" and noting that no court found the ADL guilty of any wrongdoing. The ADL released a statement saying that the settlement "explicitly recognizes ADL's right to gather information in any lawful and constitutionally protected manner, which we have always done and will continue to do."
A case which has been compared to the Bullock case was that of James Mitchell Rosenberg, AKA Jim Anderson. Rosenberg/Anderson was an undercover operative of the ADL who acted as an agent provocateur, posing as a racist right-wing paramilitary extremist. He appeared in this role as part of a TV documentary entitled "Armies of the Right" which premiered in 1981. Rosenberg was arrested that same year in New York for carrying an unregistered firearm in public view. In 1984, ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall identified Rosenberg as an ADL operative in a court deposition.
Armenian Genocide controversy
In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian Genocide. The ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and "atrocity", but not a "genocide". Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the U.S. Government to recognise it as a "genocide". "I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment," said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress, and "a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States."
In early August 2007, complaints about the Anti-Defamation League's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide led to the Watertown, Massachusetts unanimous town council decision to end their participation in the ADL "No Place for Hate" campaign. (Watertown is known for its Armenian population.) Also in August 2007, an editorial in The Boston Globe criticized the ADL saying that "as an organization concerned about human rights, it ought to acknowledge the genocide against the Armenian people during World War I, and criticize Turkish attempts to repress the memory of this historical reality." Then on 17 August 2007, the ADL fired its regional New England director, Andrew H. Tarsy, for breaking ranks with the main organization and saying the ADL should recognize the genocide. In a 21 August 2007 press release, the ADL changed its position to one of acknowledging the genocide but maintained its opposition to congressional resolutions aimed at recognizing it. Foxman wrote, "the consequences of those actions," by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians, "were indeed tantamount to genocide." The Turkish government condemned the league's statement. Andrew H. Tarsy was rehired by the league on 27 August, though he has since chosen to step down from his position.
The ADL was criticized by many in the Armenian community including The Armenian Weekly newspaper, in which writer Michael Mensoian stated:
The belated backtracking of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in acknowledging the planned, systematic massacre of 1,500,000 Armenian men, women and children as "…tantamount to genocide…" is discouraging. Tantamount means something is equivalent. If it's equivalent, why avoid using the term? For the ADL to justify its newly adopted statement because the word genocide did not exist at the time indicates a halfhearted attempt to placate Armenians while not offending Turkey. Historians use the term genocide simply because it is the proper term to describe the horrific events that the Ottoman Turkish government unleashed on the Armenian people.
After Foxman's capitulation, the New England ADL pressed the organization's national leadership to support a congressional resolution acknowledging the genocide. After hours of closed-door debate at the annual national meeting in New York, the proposal was ultimately withdrawn. The organization issued a statement saying it would "take no further action on the issue of the Armenian genocide." The ADL had earlier received direct pressure from the Turkish Foreign ministry. Tarsy submitted his resignation on December 4.