Britisharia extremists lead UK into a medieval disaster* of religious Atheismphobia.
* Saudi based and steered OIC (all
muslims sharia Umma nation) has rejected the most basic of Human Rights
because these rights give freedoms that are not allowed for women in
islam.
It's all about protecting the Atheismphobic* islamofascist Saudi dictator family
* Have you noticed how Corbyn, when accused of anti-semitism, always points out that he is "against all kinds of racism and islamophobia".
Klevius has for years pointed out that Corbyn associates with racist
muslims. No one listened - until now when the Saudi "prince" wants
support for his war crimes in Syria* and Yemen in exchange for weaponry
deals. This is the reason why the hunt is now on to silence Corbyn's
usual Saudi criticism.
* Meddling/intervening in a country
by supporting evil muslim terrorists for the purpose of installing a
regime steered by the Saudis.
The "moderate" Saudi hoax
Only a complete idiot would think Saudi Arabia could be "moderate", i.e.
following the most basic of Human Rights in sharp contradiction to any
form of sharia? And no one's complete anyway, right.
A non-sharia Saudi Arabia would seas to exist in no time. That's why the
islamofascist Saudi dictator family has started building "sharia free
zones".
Brexit from Human Rights for the purpose of appeasing islamofascists
Brexit would disadvantage women as we depend on EU Equality directives
for the promotion, protection and fulfilment of equality and
non-discrimination
From disability and family rights to data protection and employment rights and the right to a fair trial.
Roger Casale, CEO and founder of New Europeans, said he wanted to
highlight the “importance of reframing Brexit as a human rights issue.”
He said, “The referendum has stripped rights from everyone - UK and EU
citizens alike. New Europeans have been clear from the start that we
should not be negotiating EU citizens’ rights and the need for immediate
comprehensive unilateral guarantees of EU citizens’ rights.
“As such, we have been campaigning for a ‘Green Card for Europe’ to protect these fundamental rights.”
He said, “the prolonged anxiety felt by hundreds of thousands of
families whose lives are in limbo” may lead to Article 8 claims against
the UK at the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Justice may be asked to decide whether British
citizens in the EU “can be stripped of any of their EU citizenship
rights at all.”
Geoffrey Nice, from Britain in Europe, said, “It is imperative that we
take a stand and ensure that fundamental human rights are not just on
paper but implemented and protected.”
Meanwhile, Jonathan Portes, of King’s College London and a senior fellow
of the UK in a Changing Europe programme, says that free movement “has
been good for the UK - and when it ends, there will be consequences.”
Commenting on the interim report by the UK’s migration advisory
committee, he said, “Employers are very worried about the potential
impact of ending free movement. This perhaps is no surprise.
“But it’s worth noting that this extends across a wide range of sectors
and ranges far beyond the stereotype of EU migrants filling low-skilled,
low-paid jobs.
“Migration from Europe fell sharply after the Brexit vote - even though
nothing has changed yet. As the consequences for employers and public
services become increasingly apparent, politicians should remember that
immigration may be just as big a problem when it is falling as when it
is rising.”
About the author
Klevius comment: However, Thersa May says Human Rights violating "sharia
is good for the Brits" - and Human Rights should be avoided. She
proposed to “tear up” Human Rights law.
David Allen Green: But it is a statement worth considering, as it
indicates something unfortunate about the approach to law and human
rights of not only of the prime minister but also those in the political
and media worlds that will nod along with this, and also about the
voters who are the intended audience.
Nothing, of course, in the Human Rights Act 1998 or in the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the Act gives effect in the
UK, hinders the government in dealing with terrorism. Any journalist who
asked Mrs May how human rights law causes a problem would not get any
answer, beyond the robotics of her saying the position is “very clear”.
The Act is not an obstruction to any UK state activity in the public
interest. Almost every ECHR right is “qualified” in that the state can
interfere with the right when it is in the public interest to do so. The
only exceptions are the rights to life and against torture: two
absolutes that are (or should be) fundamental to any liberal society.
In fact, the Act is not a powerful legal instrument. No primary
legislation can be struck down because of it. Parliament can legislate
in contravention of the Act. The qualified nature of most of the rights
means that it takes nothing more than a sensible approach and
boilerplate language about something being “necessary and proportionate”
for the UK state to comply with the Act and still get its way.
Therefore, the Act does not do a lot — but it does enough. It provides a
long-stop and a safeguard. That is why the Good Friday Agreement, which
is the basis of the current peace in Northern Ireland, has as a basic
requirement that the ECHR is enforceable in local courts. It also
provides a useful means by which obvious problems can be addressed. For
example, the important second inquest was possible in respect of the
Hillsborough tragedy because the Act meant a coroner could now look more
widely at relevant facts when there were such fatalities.
One irony of the “debate” about human rights law in the UK is that many
who defend the Act will, like me, admit that it has little day-to-day
impact. But the difference it does make is important, and it should not
be discarded lightly. The Act is (and was intended to be) a deft and
modest compromise between giving UK courts direct access to ECHR law in
exceptional cases and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It is a
very “British” piece of legislation: a practical and moderate balancing
Act. Via media.
You would not know this from the rhetoric and front pages of those who
dislike the legislation, the ECHR, and human rights lawyers. For some,
anything and anyone to do with human rights are horrible turnip ghosts
that seem to genuinely scare many on the political right.
Nothing is so awful for such opponents that adding the phrase “human
rights” would not make it more dreadful. For such people, those two
words are toxic. One is reminded of William Hazlitt saying that there
once “were a hundred thousand stout country-fellows…ready to fight to
the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a
horse”.
So there is a mismatch. The dull actuality of human rights law in the UK
does not correspond to the giddy political denouncements. As a greater
Tory politician, Benjamin Disraeli, would have said: there are two
nations in the exchanges about human rights, neither side comprehending
the other. So much do the two sides miss the point of the other, there
is nothing that can plausibly be called a debate.
I think there are two reasons for this mismatch.
The first is that the Act and ECHR rights have not (yet) gained
traction in domestic politics. Few in the UK regard them in the same way
that, say, a typical American will point to the Bill of Rights. They
have not been well explained so they have not been well understood. And
this is why those who caricature human rights law can routinely get away
with it.
The second reason is that attacking human rights is politically
convenient for many of those who do so. Blaming human rights always gets
the easy nods and claps. Some outside the UK may find it odd that
politicians can get approval by proposing to remove the rights of
voters. Indeed, it is very strange if you think about it for less than a
second. But in the UK it seems one sure way of getting (or retaining)
political support. If human rights didn’t exist as a scapegoat then …
well, you know the rest.
Few politicians have got into the habit of blaming human rights more
than Mrs May. A former home secretary (2010 to 2016), she must have
become used to the law of human rights stopping her from doing as she
wants, unless it can be justified as in the public interest. If
something goes wrong, she will insist that pesky human rights are the
reason. Pressing her and her supporters for detail is pointless: the
only time she ever gave a detail, she incorrectly said a case was
determined because of a cat.
At the end of what has been a depressing and, for the prime minister,
unimpressive election campaign, Mrs May resorts to attacking the law of
human rights, without (of course) any details or reasons. She seems not
to care (or even know) about how such law made the second Hillsborough
inquest possible or that it is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement.
If elected, she is not even likely to act on her promise to tear it up:
it would be time-consuming and complicated, on top of Brexit. It is
enough, for her cynical purpose, that she invokes the human rights
bogeyman.
That is no surprise: one would not expect anything different from her.
But the significance is not in that she did this but that she is able to
do so. Nearly 20 years after the Human Rights Act was passed, the law
of human rights has still not caught on in the UK.
Klevius wrote:
Islam (the opposite to
Negative Human Rights)
is based on infidel racism and sexist rapetivism. It's islam's true
origin, and the only tenet that cannot be reformed without erasing islam
itself. However, instead of dealing with this most important issue, now
criticism of this disgusting islamic supremacism is called islamophobia
and suggested (by the most racist and evil organization out there) to
be called "racism"!
Btw, did England incite hatred against the
German Nationalsocialists thus causing unrest and chaos? And was
Germany's attack reasonable because of an unfair Versaille treaty?
Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British
statesmen the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have
been avoided? To this one may add that whereas Nationalsocialism was
national and hence not totalitarian in a universal sense, islam is truly
totalitarian, on a micro level as well as on a macro level.
57 islamic nations (OIC) have here agreed to adopt Sharia!
This
man, Saudi "king" Abdullah (aka Mr X "president's" first call) is an
oil parasite whose main task in life has been the spreading of evil
islamism!
OIC, a Saudi initiated and supporting organization consisting of 56+1 islamist nations who have:
1
decided to violate Human Rights by replacing them with islamist Sharia
which denies girls and women their rights given in the 1948 Human Rights
Declaration
2 hijacked UN by constituting its biggest voting bloc
3 criminalized criticism against islam by calling it "islamophobia"
The mosque mouse, silenced by islam
Sept 28-30, 2010, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), is sponsoring Sharia propaganda at the AIC’s Chicago campus.Founded
in 1969 OIC is now a 56 (+ Palestine) state collective which includes
every lslamic nation on Earth. Currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, OIC thus represents the entire muslim Umma and is the largest
single voting bloc in the UN.
John Laffin
warned in 1988 that the Jedda-based OIC, initiated and patronized by
Saudi Arabia, is persuading Muslim nations to jettison even their
inchoate adoption of “Western models and codes,” and to revert to the
pre-Western retrograde systems of Sharia.
According to Laffin, the Saudis offered sizable loans and grants in return for a more extensive application of Sharia.
Saudi
Arabia also distributed an abundance of media and print materials which
extended to non-muslim countries, including tens of millions of Korans,
translated into many languages for the hundreds of millions of muslims
(and non-muslims) who did not read Arabic.
And now two special US
envoys to the OIC later (both the former, Sada Cumber, and current
envoy, Rashad Hussain) will attend the Chicago OIC propaganda for the
purpose of islamization.
Andrew Bostom :
Elizabeth Kendal, in a recent commentary [4] about the plight of
brutalized Egytpian Muslim “apostates” Maher el-Gowhary and Nagla
Al-Imam, made a series of apt observations which illustrate the most
salient aspect of Islam’s persistent religious totalitarianism: the
absence of freedom of conscience in Islamic societies. Egypt, Kendal
notes, amended its secular-leaning constitution in 1980, reverting to
its pre-colonial past and designating Sharia (Islamic law) as “the
principal source of legislation” — an omnipresent feature of
contemporary Muslim constitutions, including the new constitutions of
Afghanistan and Iraq — rendering “constitutional guarantees of religious
liberty and equality before the law illusory.” This is the inevitable
outcome of a Sharia-based legal system, because:
Sharia’s
principal aim concerning religious liberty, is to eradicate apostasy
(rejection of Islam) through the elimination of fitna (anything that
could tempt a Muslim to reject Islam) and the establishment of
dhimmitude — the humiliation and subjugation of Jews and Christians as
second class citizens [or non-citizen pariahs]; crippling systematic
discrimination; violent religious apartheid …
In Egypt, as in
virtually all Muslim states, a person’s official religion is displayed
on their identity card. According to Sharia, every child born to a
Muslim father is deemed Muslim from birth. According to Sharia, a Muslim
woman is only permitted to marry a Muslim man. (This is the main reason
why Christian men convert to Islam, and why female converts to
Christianity will risk life and liberty to secure a falsified/illegal
ID, for without a Christian ID they cannot marry a Christian.)
There is no religious liberty in Islam, for Islam survives as religious totalitarianism that refuses rejection.
Islam’s
refusal to abide rejection by its votaries — the global Muslim umma’s
strident rejection of freedom of conscience — is now openly codified,
and has been for two decades. The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”, was drafted and
subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Both the preamble and
concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo
Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights
as enunciated, for example, in the U.S. Bill of Rights and the UN’s
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the
preamble to the Cairo Declaration [5] repeats a Koranic injunction
affirming Islamic supremacism (Koran 3:110; “You are the best nation
ever brought forth to men … you believe in Allah”), and states:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation …
The preamble continues:
Believing
that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral
part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle
has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore
them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are
contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of
His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making
their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an
abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible
— and the Ummah collectively responsible — for their safeguard.
In its last articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains
[Article
24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are
subject to the Islamic Sharia. … [Article 25] The Islamic Sharia is the
only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of
the articles of this Declaration.
Michael Hamilton:
As noted in Shariah: The Threat to America, Ihsanoglu used the occasion
of an earlier speech to an OIC Council of Foreign Ministers’ conclave
to declare war on freedom of speech:
In [the OIC’s] confronting
the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna,” we sent a clear message
to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we
speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware
of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look
seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the
perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be
overlooked.
Of late, the Organization of the Islamic Conference
has taken to the United Nations its war against expression that gives
offense to Islam. Last September, the Obama administration actually
co-sponsored a resolution with Egypt (representing the OIC) in the UN
Human Rights Council, calling on the United Nation’s member states to
limit such expression, as part of the OIC’s ongoing campaign to have the
UN recognize Islamophobia as a form of racism subject to prosecution
under international law.
This effort to establish what it calls
“deterrent punishments” for shariah slander is only one example of OIC
activity at odds with American interests and the U.S. Constitution.
Other examples include:
• Disrupting U.S. Efforts in
Afghanistan: In the July 2010 edition of the OIC’s “Islamophobia
Observatory” Bulletin, the OIC sharply criticized Gen. Petraeus’
counter-insurgency manual as “a manifestation of Islamophobia”;
•
Damaging Middle East Peace Negotiations: Since its founding, the
OIC has pursued an aggressive anti-Israel campaign, including creating a
fund for the intifada in 2001;
• Denies Civil Liberties and
Freedom to Muslims and Non-Muslims: The OIC for decades has tried to
deny American Muslims and others the protections of the UN Convention on
Human Rights and the U.S. Constitution, insisting instead that they
comply with the shariah apartheid doctrine formally adopted by the OIC’s
members as the so-called “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.”
According
to the conference agenda published by the OIC New York UN Permanent
Mission (http://www.oicun.org/9/20100727101615770.html), the executive
director of the Chicago franchise of the Hamas-linked CAIR, Ahmed Rehab,
will moderate a panel entitled: “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for
its Relation with American Muslims.”
In yet another ominous move,
the Organization of the Islamic Conference has announced that it will
meet on September 30 with American Muslim leaders – many of whose groups
the federal government has identified in court as Muslim Brotherhood
fronts – for the purpose of creating the “American Muslim Liaison
Council to the OIC.”
Question to: Nobel Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi by David G. Littman (Representative: AWE & WUPJ)My question is addressed to Madam Shirin Ebadi.
Thank you for your remarkable frank speaking here and your courage - a true lesson for us all.
A
year ago, on Human Rights Day 2007, OIC Secretary-General Prof.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated that the OIC General Secretariat is
considering the establishment of an independent permanent body to
promote Human Rights in Member States in accordance with the provision
of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an
OIC Charter on Human Rights.
Four days later, on 14 December
2007, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan - speaking for the OIC at the
Human Rights Council -claimed that the 1990 Cairo Declaration was "not
an alternative competing worldview on human rights," but failed to
mention that the shari'a law was "the only source of reference" in that
Declaration's articles 24 and 25 - the same shari'a law in which there
is no equality between Muslim men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Final Communiqué of the 3rd Extraordinary Session of the Islamic
Mecca Summit on 8 December 2005 had provided a clear message on this -
and on the UN system of human rights.
Madam, do you feel that the
Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam - and a future Islamic
Charter based on shari'a law - would clash with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and the International bill of Human
Rights? To give one example: the marriage of girls at nine years old,
as in Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Klevius comment:
Islamic “monotheism” is the most evil form of the old Jewish “the
chosen people” racism. The only meaningful difference is that whereas
old Judaism was spread via the Vagina, islam is spread via the Penis
(rapetivism). This fact together with islam’s harsh apostasy ban
(meaning leaving islam is considered a crime) and that muslim women are
not allowed to marry non’muslims, explains why there are now less than
10 Million Jews but more than one Billion muslims.
OIC’s Cairo
declaration clearly violates girls/women’s Human Rights. Under OIC’s
islamic Sharia a female doesn’t really count as a fully human (only
"truly" muslim men counts) because of islam’s rigid sex segregation.
Because of their sex females are, according to islam, forever and in all
aspects of life, doomed to legal difference as prescribed by whatever
Sharia happens to rule. To make this more simple to understand, just
compare to the original Human Rights which expressly state that sex
should not be an excuse for limiting girls’ and women’s freedom. And
even more simple:
Whereas under Sharia women are doomed to sex segregation, under Human Rights a woman can choose to sex segregate herself as well as to refuse to sex segregate herself (However, due to the
detrimental effects of psychoanalysis this latter option isn’t always open for girls because they may be labeled as “suffering” from gender identity disorder – see
Klevius explanation of this repulsive psychiatyric intervention in girls’ lives).
Negative Human Rights
constitute the backbone of the Human Rights Declaration and the US
Constitution. Islam/Sharia is the very opposite. This is why OIC
violates the most important part of the Human Rights by replacing their
freedom with medieval islamofascism.
.
