Swedish court ruling: As the activists (psalm singers who, during a nationalist demonstration, didn't obey the police when asked to move) protested against an ideology that is incompatible with a democratic society it is wrong to sentence them.
So what about activists against sharia islam who criticize and protest against an ideology that is incompatible with a democratic society based on Human Rights?
Will UK follow the Saudis in making the defense of the most basic Human Rights a criminal offense?!
On January 31, Saudi authorities promulgated the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and its Financing (the “terrorism law”). The law has serious flaws, including vague and overly broad provisions that allow authorities to criminalize free expression, and the creation of excessive police powers without judicial oversight. The law cites violence as an essential element only in reference to attacks carried out against Saudis outside the kingdom or on board Saudi transportation carriers. Inside the kingdom, “terrorism” can be non-violent – consisting of “any act” intended to, among other things, “insult the reputation of the state,” “harm public order,” or “shake the security of society,” which the law fails to clearly define.
The interior ministry regulations include sweeping provisions that authorities can use to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of islam. These “terrorism” provisions include the following:
Article 1: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the islamic religion on which this country is based.”
Article 2: “Anyone who throws away their loyalty to the country’s rulers, or who swears allegiance to any party, organization, current [of thought], group, or individual inside or outside [the kingdom].”
Article 4: “Anyone who aids [“terrorist”] organizations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom; this includes participation in audio, written, or visual media; social media in its audio, written, or visual forms; internet websites; or circulating their contents in any form, or using slogans of these groups and currents [of thought], or any symbols which point to support or sympathy with them.”
Article 6: “Contact or correspondence with any groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the kingdom.”
Article 8: “Seeking to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group statements in any form, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means.”
Article 9: “Attending conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society.”
Article 11: “Inciting or making countries, committees, or international organizations antagonistic to the kingdom.”
According to Human Rights Watch, these broad provisions contain language that prosecutors and judges are already using to prosecute and convict independent activists and peaceful dissidents.
It seems that every atrocity committed in accordance with islamic teachings leads to more defense of that teaching - in Saudi Arabia as well as in the West. Islamic terrorism, it is said, has nothin g to do with islam - but somehow it's caused by "islamophobia" and/or Western "colonialism" - never islamic colonialism. Yet islamic colonialism was not only the most backward and disgusting because of its complete reliance on slaves but it also hindered progress made possible by Western civilization.
UK Home Secretary Theresa May now announces new plans to deal with “extremism”: The authorities would have to show, on the ‘balance of probabilities’, that the "extremist" individual ‘is undertaking, has undertaken, or proposes to undertake activities that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred against a person or group of persons on the grounds of that person’s or group of persons’ disability, gender, race, religion (i.e sharia islam), sexual orientation, and/or transgender identity’.
Klevius: In other words, muslims just have to riot to silence criticism obout them rioting! However, the root problem isn't muslims but islam.
Theresa May: ‘There are good sharia courts but we need to look that all sharia courts are operating within British values.’
Klevius: How could there possibly ever exist a 'good sharia court' if measured against the most basic of Human Rights?! For example women's right not to be exempted from equality because of their sex. And if Theresa May thinks Klevius is an extremist in saying so she better consider that OIC, the muslim world organization, says exactly the same! OIC has declared through UN that it can't accept basic Human Rights for women but only islamic sharia restrictions (so called 'duties' and 'responsibilities').
If we, as Theresa May and many others do, sort all muslims, including those who don't approve of sharia in any form that contradicts basic Human Rights, under islam, then we in fact support "extremist" muslims because they are always trying to be the most islamic - not the laid back secular/cultural muslims.
Pretending that those secular muslims who are the least interested in islam represent "true islam" always and inevitably paves the way for more "extremist" islam, i.e. the true original islam that is as evil as anything could be measured against the 1948 Human Rights declaration.
And the solution to the problem is extremely (sorry about that) simple: Don't divide muslims in Shia or Sunni - dived them in sharia muslims or Human Rights "muslims"!
Or does Theresa May consider sharia inequality a 'British value'?
Only a nun could write about islam without understanding one of islam's two main pillars, namely sex. However, that she also misses the enormous role of the enslavement of "infidels" is inexcusable. In her history of islam, Koranic slave raiding/trading etc isn't even mentioned! And in fact, these two pillars are one and the same, i.e. the parasitic racist and sexist enslavement of "infidels" and women - by whatever means. For Karen Armstrong the fact that islam condones slavery is of no interest at all.
“When secularisation has been applied by force, it has provoked a fundamentalist reaction”
Karen Armstrong naively excuses muslim slaughtering Jews:
Muhammad showed no mercy.
The seven hundred men of the Qurayzah were killed, and
their women and children sold as slaves.
The massacre of the Qurayzah was a horrible incident, but
it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own
time. This was a very primitive society: the Muslims them-
selves had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had
Muhammad simply exiled the Qurayzah they would have
swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought an-
other war upon the ummah. In seventh-century Arabia an
Arab chief was not expected to show mercy to traitors like the
Qurayzah. The executions sent a grim message to Khaybar
and helped to quell the pagan opposition in Medina, since the
pagan leaders had been the allies of the rebellious Jews. This
was a fight to the death, and everybody had always known that
the stakes were high. The struggle did not indicate any hostil-
ity towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel
tribes. The Quran continued to revere Jewish prophets and to
urge Muslims to respect the People of the Book. SmallerJew-i
ish groups continued to live in Medina, and later Jews, like
Christians, enjoyed full religious liberty in the Islamic em-
pires. Anti-semitism is a Christian vice.
This is what Klevius wrote a decade ago (www.klevius.info):
The root formula of Islam
Slavery+"infidel" racism+sex segregated rapetivism+anti human rights Sharia/apostasy ban. Why isn't the worst crime ever against humanity criminalized, but instead protected by the very human rights Islam opposes?!
Without these evil racist/sexist/fascist extremist pillars and violent terror threats from so called "unislamic"* and confused morons Islam is dead!
AND ALL OF THEM ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN A DEMOCRACY BASED ON UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS! ISN'T THIS EXTREMISM IF ANYTHING?! FREEDOM OF RELIGION CAN'T MEAN PROMOTING DEATH OF FREEDOM!
.Slavery (forbidden all over the world except in Koran/Islam) - It's well known that Islam allows slavery, although perhaps less well known that Islam emerged out of the very idea of sponging on institutionalized slavery. This is why Saudi islamofascist dictators, imams etc. terrorists and terrorist supporters still don't understand that the Koran is completely wrong, not only because it allows slavery but especially in claiming to be some "god's" unchangeable word hence excluding even the possibility of reformation!
."Infidel" racism (forbidden according to the UN declaration on every humans equal value, but a basic tenet of Koran/Islam) - The moral cornerstone needed for taking slaves and abusing others. Today this alluring but evil racism is utilized in a variety of topics from the people of Darfur to the West in particular or general.
.Rapetivism (globally forbidden because it's not in accordance with the principle that a person's sex shouldn't be used as a regulator of that person's freedom, but a basic tenet in Koran/Islam) - Rigid sex segregation for the purpose of abusing Islam confined girls/women as physical and cultural reproducers of as many new Muslims as possible.
.Sharia (forbidden in a democracy simply because it violates democracy and, like the other Islamic pillars, a bunch of human rights that democracy rests on) - Islam's jurisprudence for sex segregated rapetivism, apostasy ban etc. Ehsan Jami (Dutch ex-muslim): "We have an enormous problem with apostasy in Islam. We see a lot of problems where people want to leave Islam but they can't,"
.Apostasy ban (forbidden because it limits a person's freedom of or from religion, but a basic tenet in Koran/Islam) - Children (commonly from birth) and adults (commonly via marriage/rape) are forced to become and stay Muslims.
These cannot be erased by mere "interpretations" but needs deep reformist castration! And in this sense "majority Muslims" are tightly connected to Islamic extremism, i.e. to Islam itself. And if that's just because of plain ignorance abt Islam they better educate themselves, e.g. in a Koran school true to the Koran and Islam! When coming out they then have two choices: Becoming an "extremist" (open or stealthy) or abandoning the message alltogether!
That Islam (Koran) allows and even encourages psychological and physical wife beating is just one of an abundance of "minor" ripples of the main pillars above. The naivity of Muslim feminism may be exemplified by Asghar Ali: "...shari'ah also clearly lays down that if a man hides his impotency from his bride at the time of marriage and she discovers it after marriage, she is fully entitled to divorce on that ground. This itself clearly shows that she is entitled to sexual pleasure along with raising family." Rising what family?! The only reason for this rule is to safeguard that no woman fails to reproduce as many Muslims as possible!
The victims of Islam often reveal the same lojalty conflict as allegedly do victims of child abuse. However, some don't.
Ehsan Jami (a young Dutch politician): "People think I am a radical. They think I hate Muslims, but ... it is the ideology which is the problem and not the people themselves."
So why isn't the human rightsphobia we call Islam globally criminalized and indicted, and how come that many a "democracy" seem to care more abt islamofascist terrorists than supporting the war on islamofascist terror?! And why are we supposed to ask islamist imams, professors etc for advice?! It's like asking Goring how to deal with Hitler and his terrorist youth! The likely answer: "Don't question, criticize or mess with us but support us!"