UK-land's deliberately unconstitutional chickens are coming home to roost
The unanimousity of the unanimously Supreme Court, about an issue that divides the
rest of the judiciary as well as legal experts, reveals its decision was
political and therefore out of reach for the court. Moreover, the
Supreme Court of UK-land isn't supreme precisely because it lacks a
proper constitutional base and due handles to support its climbing
towards a decision worthy of a real supreme court.
Tradition supports the view that the executive branch is generally
bad. However, its constitutional value lies in its capability of acting
in international relations. But the parliament of UK-land intervened
with a hastily construed law directed against the executive power when
it in fact tried to hinder such a move by progorating the parliament.
Moreover, the executive power based its prorogation on 1) the Brexit
referendum 2016, and 2) three years of Theresa May's "no deal's better
than a bad deal", and 3) the parliament's repeated rejection of the only
deal possible with EU.
In its decision the Supreme Court
avoided the political path by utilizing UK-land's lack of a real
constitution and saying the parliament was historically the highest
power. Obviously forgetting the people.
Klevius wrote:
Although in many respect quite different, Peter Klevius and Jacob W.F.
Sundberg - unlike the Swedish state - found a meeting point in Human
Rights
In A Trip to Nowhere (1995)
professor in jurisprudence Jacob W.F. Sundberg defends outdated views on
marriage. However, his analyses of how the rights of the individual in
Sweden had been politically eroded in favor of the state and state
bureaucracy, inspired Peter Klevius to write Angels of Antichrist
- social state vs. kinship, arguably the most important sociological
paper from the last century - not the least because of how it for the
first time weaved in sex segregation in the analysis.
Social democracy and the rights of the
individual (1994) was the last in Peter Klevius series )1991-1994) on
the social state that also included Authority discration and the
children, Daughters of the social state, Where the law ends tyranny
begins, Parents helpless against false sex abuse accusations.
Professor emeritus Jacob W.F. Sundberg (who was elected as the only
Swedish law professor ever, in the American Academy of Sciences)
contacted Peter Klevius in the 1990s because he had read my series of
articles about the Swedish social state and Human Rights. Professor
Sundberg has for long been a powerful critical voice against Sweden's
neglect of Human Rights, especially when it came to family and property
rights - to an extent that he forced Sweden to change its laws in
accordance with that of the European Court of Human Rights. And the
reason to the problem was a deliberately weak Swedish constitution.
However, Sweden doesn't come even close to the constitutional confusion
in UK-land, not to mention its enourmous Human Rights deficit due to
Brexit. Jacob W.F. Sundberg is also to be honored as probably the
deepest digging judicial expert when it comes to the state initiated
famine in the 1930s Ukraine, the Holodomor.
Some hasty Brexit-related notes by Peter Klevius:
The deliberately unconstitutional creature one might call UK-land was
made for colonialist and imperialist global meddling while avoiding
global norms*.
* Today these incl. avoiding Human Rights and constitutional "handles" in negotiations with the civilized world.
In the absence of a proper written sovereign constitution for UK-land
which would assert sovereignty of the people, the vacuum is filled by
the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. This is why the UK-land's
parliament, instead of its government, can excecute power through hasty
laws on political whims. This is also why the Supreme Court has to rule
in favor of the government re. Brexit. After all, the parliament can't
expect political support from the judiciary, nor can it expect judicial
support for a hasty law that can't be classified as anything else than a
meddling in the executive process - especially considering its own long
record of decisions in line with what the government is actually trying
to execute.
The legislative branch makes laws, but the executive branch may veto
those laws, and the judicial branch can declare them unconstitutional.
The conception of the separation of powers has been applied to the
United Kingdom and the nature of its executive (UK government, Scottish
Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive), judicial
(England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and legislative (UK
Parliament, Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and
Northern Ireland Assembly) functions. Historically, the apparent merger
of the executive and the legislature, with a powerful Prime Minister
drawn from the largest party in parliament and usually with a safe
majority, led theorists to contend that the separation of powers is not
applicable to the United Kingdom. However, in recent years it does seem
to have been adopted as a necessary part of the UK constitution.
The separation of powers requires that one of the three powers does not control the work of another.
However, the legislature and executive have a blurred relationship in
UK-land due to its deliberate lack of a proper constitution.
The legislature can oust a government through a vote of no confidence.
Legal rules should be relatable to the Acts of Parliament on which they
are based, but also necessary for the efficient working of government.
Is UK-land unitary or a union. Who knows - without a proper constitution?
The UK is not a unitary state because it depends on two contracts — the
Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800. Therefore, UK Unionism is not like, for
instance, French Jacobinism. The 1707 Acts are still in force. Although
most of Ireland left the UK in 1921, the 1800 Act has profoundly
affected UK politics. Northern Ireland is the relic of the 1800 Act.
Neither is the UK a federal state. Scotland and Northern Ireland do not
have powers comparable to an American or an Australian state. Therefore,
UK Unionism is not like Australian anti-federalism. When there have
been subordinate parliaments (Northern Ireland 1921-72 and
intermittently since 1999; Scotland and Wales since 1999), the supremacy
of Westminster has been asserted by statute.
There is a severe tension between the Diceyan concept of parliamentary
sovereignty. Northern Ireland is a ‘federacy’, i.e., a self-governing
unit whose constitution must not be unilaterally altered by the UK
government. As England - which ceased being a separate sovereign state
1707 - is the overwhelmingly dominant partner in the union state, it has
been insensitive to these nuances - except when in need, as exemplified
with Theresa May's disastrous DUP cooperation. England is the colonial
oppressor of its three neighbours, getting by force the security or the
economic advantage that it could not get by agreement.
Jacob W.F. Sundberg: When Mr Yngve Möller was working on the biography of Mr Östen Undén, he put the
question to a number of Mr Undén’s former collaborators how they had experienced his
attitude towards the Soviet Union and the United States. Ambassador Ingemar Hägglöf who
was one of his briefing officers 1945-1953, reportedly said that Mr Undén’s view of the
Soviet Union “was blue-eyed, rosy red, ignorant of the ways of the world”. The Foreign
Minister displayed unability or unwillingness to deny to the Soviet Union the norms and the
behaviour of a normal rule-of-law state, and he was more willing to listen to reports of things
unsatisfactory in the United States than to stories about abuses and lawlessness in the Soviet
sphere of interest. Mr Hägglöf was of the belief that this reflected an old enthusiasm that had
been created among young radicals like Undén and Wigforss and which lasted long.
Peter Klevius comment: Compare islam today! And when China was poor
(after a series of militarist meddling by US and UK- which then
triggered the Japanese) and suffering under Maoism, then Western youth
applauded it - including Peter Klevius former friend Carl-Olof
Selenius* (state fed by SIDA through most of his life). However, now
China is criticized when it prospers both itself and the world.
* He even seems to have managed to
hinder his brother from continuing having contact with Peter Klevius -
presumably because of the latters "islamophobia". C-O Selenius also
appeared to be a supporter of Pol Pot and Mugabe. Peter Klevius has a
collection of his letters from Kampuchea and Zimbabwe. At the time
Maoism was rampant in his home town Uppsala in Sweden - now equally
rampant with islamism.
No wonder 'human rights' are missing when you search for Carl-Olof Selenius.
Peter Klevius Brexit tutorial: A country is an area of land, usually defined by its prefix, e.g. Eng-land.
UK-land* is an unconstitutional chameleon cheat with four national
football teams (to optimize chances) but only one Olympics** team (to
optimize medals).
* 'Land' is an Old
Swedish/Nordic/Gothic word. Etymological evidence and Gothic use
indicates the original sense was "a definite portion of the Earth's
surface owned by an individual or home of a nation". The meaning was
early extended to "solid surface of the Earth".
** The purely commercial so called "GB
Team" actually consists of more than Great Britain and UK-land.
Northern Ireland isn't Great Britain, and the so called "British
overseas territories" aren't part of UK-land.
The Cheat-land/Puppet-empire needs to take a decisive step into a modern
world - as one, two, three or four independent countries. But not as
all of them - play it fair, please!
The playing without a proper constitution is a shameful remnant of a shameful empire epoch.
No wonder UK-land has a Brexit problem.
Btw, where's the Bank of UK-land - only Bank of England exists?!
Eng-land (incl. Wales since 1535) actually ceased being a separate sovereign state 1707. Is it time to become one again?
Sweden's main media ridicules the Brits and their incapability to adapt to a modern world.
Lena Mellin, an awarded Swedish journalist, previous head of news and
now policy commentator on Aftonbladet (biggest news paper in
Scandinavia): "
I used to be amused by the Brits excentricity, their
charmful stubborness that "the metric system is a newfangled idea", that
men can only have black shoes after 18:00 p.m., that roses are God's
gift no matter how spiky they are, that a cup of tea at certain times
ought to be consumed with a bisquit, etc. etc.
But now this excentricity has gone too far and lost its charm and
become more like a death wish, self harming or some other term for
destructivity.
Brexit was a stupid decision. However after three years without
accepting a deal UK was still allowed to get an additional 7 months
extension, which the Parliament again wants toextend. PM Boris Johnson's
concept is now the only logical conclusion. End of talk."
UK-land's Parliament can only agree on one major issue, i.e. that
criticism of the worst ideological crime history knows about ought to be
called "islamophobia" - and almost agree that China is very bad and the
islamofascist Saudi dictator family (the guardians of islam) with the
Saudi steered and based anti-Human Rights organization OIC, isn't
necessarily very good but an "important ally".
Peter Klevius warns EU about UK/Saudi and perhaps also US "security cooperation".
Peter Klevius Brexit tutorial: A country is an area of land,
usually defined by its prefix, e.g. Eng-land. UK-land* is an
unconstitutional chameleon cheat with four national football teams (to
optimize chances) but only one Olympics** team (to optimize medals).
*
'Land' is an Old Swedish/Nordic/Gothic word. Etymological evidence and
Gothic use indicates the original sense was "a definite portion of the
Earth's surface owned by an individual or home of a nation". The meaning
was early extended to "solid surface of the Earth".
**
The purely commercial so called "GB Team" actually consists of more
than Great Britain and UK-land. Northern Ireland isn't Great Britain,
and the so called "British overseas territories" aren't part of
UK-land.
The Cheat-land/Puppet-empire needs to take a
decisive step into a modern world - as one, two, three or four
independent countries. But not as all of them - play it fair, please!
The playing without a proper constitution is a shameful remnant of a
shameful empire epoch. No wonder UK-land has a Brexit problem.
Btw, where's the Bank of UK-land - only Bank of England exists?!
Eng-land (incl. Wales since 1535) actually ceased being a separate sovereign state 1707. Is it time to become one again?
UK-land is a cheat land and a puppet empire under US hegemony and
meeting in the worst and most dangerous point the world has ever
experienced, the islamofascist Saudi dictator family which keeps the
dollar and the world's muslims as hostage for its demands.
* 'Land' is an Old
Swedish/Nordic/Gothic word. Etymological evidence and Gothic use
indicates the original sense was "a definite portion of the Earth's
surface owned by an individual or home of a nation". The meaning was
early extended to "solid surface of the Earth".
** The purely commercial so called "GB
Team" actually consists of more than Great Britain and UK-land.
Northern Ireland isn't Great Britain, and the so called "British
overseas territories" aren't part of UK-land.
The Cheat-land/Puppet-empire needs to take a decisive step into a modern
world - as one, two, three or four independent countries. But not as
all of them - play it fair, please!
The playing without a proper constitution is a shameful remnant of a shameful empire epoch.
No wonder UK-land has a Brexit problem.
Btw, where's the Bank of UK-land - only Bank of England exists?!
Peter Klevius (the sacred* Aboriginal European and Anglo-Saxon - yDNA
I, mtDNA Saami, and mother tongue very close to old Nordic) Brexit
analysis: Eng-land* voted Brexit and UK-land's parliament approved
it. A deal without a back stop is impossible because the open Irish
border was created while UK (and Ireland) was EU-land. The only way
UK-land could logically be removed from EU is by reinstating the border -
or uniting Ireland. However, as Peter Klevius has said since 2016:
UK-land deliberately lacks a proper constitution, so to utilize it as
one or four countries/nations depending on what is most favorable.
* Peter Klevius doesn't really want to
be "sacred" nor does he want to belong to any other group or
"community" than the human one. That's why he for the whole of his life
has really hated racist and sexist hate. And unlike many others he can
prove it with records all the way from the 1970s.
** A country is an area of land, usually defined by its prefix, e.g. Eng-land.
Peter Klevius homelands and some of
his genetic continental and overseas territories. Both his mother's and
father's genetic trees are solidly rooted in the first Europeans. Is
that why he in his book Demand for Resources (1992) attach himself to the "critical European tradition" in philosophy?
Four from Peter Klevius maternal lineage have just buried a fifth.
Peter Klevius father was a Goth born and buried in Gothenburg/Sweden.
Eng-land (incl. Wales since 1535) actually ceased being a separate sovereign state 1707. Is it time to become one again?
* Why should the US be allowed to declare military ownership of the space surrounding our Earth?
Super religious US could easily turn into a Saudi styled islamist theocracy under a future muslim leader.
Unlike EU, US lacks a defense against Human Rights violations - i.e. against islam.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a
proposed but not approved amendment to the United States Constitution
designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens
regardless of sex. It seeks to end the legal distinctions between men
and women.
US sharia vulnerabilities:
1. US still lacks full Human Rights equality for women, which fact leaves an open gate for islamic sharia.
2. Unlike US, EU has its own Human Rights body, the European Court of
Human Rights. And unlike the Saudi based and steered OIC's "islamic
human rights" (sharia), EU's are copied from the original anti-fascist,
anti-racist and anti-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
Human Rights* standards do not become enforceable in the United States
unless and until they are implemented through local, state, and/or
federal law. International courts and monitoring bodies hence lack the
ability to enforce Human Rights in the US.
* Human Rights, the most sacred thing
we have as humans, ought to be spelled with capital. It's appalling to
see an evil ideology such as islam which doens't accept the most basic
of Human Rights, is spelled with capital while the latter is not.
3 US can't keep up with Chinese technology. The same happened with Japan
but because of US bigger size and extensive license imperialism it
forced Japan to adapt (computing, military cooperation, moving Japanes
companies in US etc.). However, China's potential is more than ten times
bigger than that of Japan. So if US chooses to see China as an enemy
instead of a partner, then the road is open for a cultural conflict
where religion is used as an excuse against China. And for that purpose
the muslim religion is comes politically handy.
The US isn't necessarily the "defender of the free world" anymore.
The U.S. Supreme Court consists of
three Jews, one Protestant-Catholic, and five Catholics. Not a single
Atheist although there are equally many (and rapidly growing) Atheists
(i.e. without religion) as there are Catholics, and only one (or a
half?) Protestant although half of the US population call themselves
Protestants (but most of them non-believing crypto-Atheists). However,
the likelihood for an Atheist Supreme Court justice still seems slim.
Why?
Greta should know about this halal feast but unfortunately the pic is too graphic for a child.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Klevius Human Rights tutorial for ignorant muslims and their supporters
The evilness of islam explained in simple English
There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)
Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument
in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very
opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of
the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare
to criticize this pure evilness
* Not to mention the extremely obscure
origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after
Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely
violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph
685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".
The main reason that Klevius considers
himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he
(sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex
segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism
and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human
Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).
Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil.
However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily
good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own
satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.
While contemplating the pic below, do consider the inevitable fact
that islam (in any meaningful form) doesn't approve of our most basic
universal Human Rights! That's the main pillar of the problem, dude!
So those muslims who don't fit in either category need to face Erdogan,
OIC and Human Rights violating Sharia - or admit they are no real
muslims.
Klevius comment: I for one cannot see the slightest space for
political islam in a democratic society based on the belief in Human
Rights. Can you?
Introduction
What is religion?
First of all, being religious is an exception. The average world citizen
doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian/islamic "god"*. And the reason
we hear so much about "religion" is the same as after 9/11, namely its
bad consequences.
* The belief in a "creator" presumes a
"creation". Or, in other words, the creation of a "creator"
necessitates "creation". However, outside "monotheistic" mythology, the
most common view is and has always been, as pointed out by Klevius
(1992) that there has always been something from which later shapes
emerge (just like Eve emerged out of Adam). However, the main point of
"monotheisms" has from scratch been racism and sexism, i.e. in
opposition to the enlightened view of every human's equal right no
matter of sex etc., (just as we have it in traffic).
Based on historical and contemporary evidence, religion - if with this
word we mean Judaism (the chosen people) and its branch Christianity and
its tail branch islam - is certainly not " community cohesion" but
rather "community confusion" when mirrored against the main idea of
Human Rights.
There are three main reasons for people to become religious:
1 They are born into a religion, and if they are muslims it's considered the gravest of crimes (apostasy) to leave islam.
2 A religious person feels a need to defend actions s/he cannot logically approve of without the aid of a "god".
3 A religious person feels a need for forgiveness, and due to the
above (2) an other human won't do because s/he might use logic. "God",
however, can always be excused by arguing that no human can understand
"god's" decisions/actions.
From a sociological point of view the reason why the above (2) problem
even arises in the first place is because of a lack of continuous
updating of crucial and basic relations. This in turn happens when
families etc. are scattered in time and space due to work, school,
separate activities etc. and when the lack of updating causes
misunderstandings/opportunities that are misused for personal gains.
Adding to religious confusion is its deliberate sex apartheid which also
stays in direct opposition to the Human Rights view that one's sex
ought not to be used as an excuse for altering or denying rights.
However, by sticking to honest logic and a Human Rights philosophy (equality) all of this can easily be avoided.
Life´s a passionate faith in a
project of uncertainty whereas e.g. Islam is godless (Koran is "god's"
words and the final reporter is dead) misuse of power and life denial.
Arbitrarily giving away parts of your life to a "god" outside the world
is partial suicide (and in Islam's case also feeds earthly
totalitarianism/fascism/racism/sexism)! (for more read Klevius definition of religion)
Is she Sharia compliant?
If she is Sharia compliant then she lacks Human Rights precisely based
on the same logic that made OIC introduce the so called 'Cairo
declaration on human rights in islam' (Sharia) which now, via UN,
constitutes the framework for everyone wanting to call him/herself a
muslim and, as a consequence, a Human Rightsophobe.
Turkish Human Rightsophobic conference wants to discuss how to censor
media and make criticism of islam a crime all over the world
This fanatic* muslim and his muslim world organization (OIC) is the most dangerous threat to Human Rights
* who dreams about a Turk led muslim
world empire under Sharia, just as Hitler dreamed about a
Grossdeutschland. And who blinks the miserable failures of the Turk led
Ottoman slave empire which fell in the deepest decay after West had
abolished slavery for good.
Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer of OIC (based in Saudi Arabia) will make the opening
speeches of the
“International Conference on Islamophobia: Law and Media” to take
place in Istanbul on Sept. 12 and 13, along with Directory General of
Directorate General of Press and Information Murat Karakaya and
Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç. Other islamofascism supporting Human Rightsophobic speakers include
John L. Esposito, Norman Gary
Finkelstein, Marwan Mohammed, Nathan Lean, Saied Reza Ameli, Halim
Rane, Stephen Sheehi and Ibrahim Salama.
Klevius clarifying comment: Recent internal Turkish criticism
against Ihsanoglu is due to the split between Ottomans and Arabs.
Ihsanoglu is half Arab and loyal to the Saudis who wanted Muslim
Brotherhood erased. That's why he kept silent when the Egyptian army
killed the brothers.
Common Misconception about Basic Human
Rights and islam/Sharia
It seems that no matter what the
ideology of islam causes, it's never islam if the consequences are
unwanted (Klevius 2001).
Islam sneaked in on an oiled
post-colonialist commerce sold to the public as a combination of
“guilt”, ”compassion” and negative “white middle age man”*
rhetoric. Of course
* The concept of the “white middle
age man” has always been popular, not only among feminists, young
“revolutionaries” and “colored middle age men”, but also
among the “white middle age men” themselves because by
criticizing the “white middle age man” one lifts oneself above
one's own category, much like “true muslims” do compared to
“secularized muslims” (or vise versa).
OIC's Cairo declaration and Egypt's constitution
Zaid
Al-Ali is a senior advisor on constitution building at International
IDEA: The proposed changes (of Egypt's constitution) will not have any impact in the
immediate term on the way in which Egyptians live their lives, but
they remove a tool that hard-line Islamists might have tried to use
in the future to impose a harsher vision of society. It is worth
noting however that the technical committee maintained article 2,
which imposes the principles of Islamic sharia as the main source of
legislation in the country. It also kept the distinction that was
first introduced in 2012 between "heavenly religions"
(Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest, whose right to
practice rituals is curbed. The technical committee also proposed to
reestablish the ban on religious parties, but also indicated that
political parties cannot "undermine public order," an
incredibly vague term that is subject to abuse (article 54).
In terms of women's rights, the 1971 and the 2012 constitutions
were both not particularly generous. They both included vague
references to morality, to traditional family values, and to women's
"obligations towards family and society." The technical
committee, which was dominated by men, has essentially maintained the
same wording and the same principles in relation to this issue. Women
are therefore equal to men within the limits of Islamic sharia, the
state is still responsible for protecting the "original values
of Egyptian families" (article 10), and the state will also
still provide assistance to women to satisfy their "obligations
towards family and society" (article 11). This is precisely the
wording that caused so many liberals to denounce the Muslim
Brotherhood-led process in 2012.
Peter Klevius: "The state will provide assistance to women to satisfy
their obligations towards family and society" (article 11
Egypt const.). Ugly sexism wrapped in nice wording.
Women are equal to men ONLY “within
the limits of Islamic sharia” because they have "obligations towards family and
society" (article 11 Egypt const.).
"Heavenly religions"*
(Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) and the rest (article 2 Egypt
const.). A triple stage racism similar to when black supremacist racists
in Nation of islam divide the world in the good blacks, the inferior
non-blacks, and the evil whites.
* However, apart from the racist fact
that people who don't want to belong to the "heavenly religions"
are deemed less worthy, among the "heavenly religions"
islam is always the “only true religion” because the other
"heavenly religions" have got it all wrong. This fact must certainly be
connected to the problems Jews and Christians continuously face in
muslim countries and even elsewhere - compare e.g. the horrifying case
of Malmö in Sweden. The Swedish newspaper Skånska Dagbladet reported
that attacks on Jews in Malmo totaled 79 in 2009, about twice as many as
the previous year, according to police statistics. In March 2010,
Fredrik Sieradzk of the Jewish community of Malmö told Die Presse, an
Austrian Internet publication, that Jews are being "harassed and
physically attacked" by "people from the Middle East. In December 2010,
the Jewish human rights organization Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a
travel advisory concerning Sweden, advising Jews to express "extreme
caution" when visiting the southern parts of the country due to an
increase in verbal and physical harassment of Jewish citizens in the
city of Malmö. And so on. See more on Wikipedia
and do note the usual "only a small number of muslims are jihadists"
but never "an even much smaller proportion of Swedes are Nazis".
Moreover, all Swedes are Swedes whereas all muslims aren't necessarily
pious muslims at all, which fact alters the proportionality even more.
Whereas Human Rights allow you to lead your life as you wish without necessitating others to do so, Sharia does the opposite
So why do you suffer from such a grave form of Human Rightsophobia? Why
do you want all other women to be restricted just because you yourself
want to be restricted?! What disturbs you so much that you want to
impose your way of life on others - or, alternatively, in a racist
manner despise them?
ARTICLE
6 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has
rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil
entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name
and lineage.
(b) The husband is responsible for the support
and welfare of the family.
ARTICLE 7:
(a) As of
the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents,
society and the state to be accorded proper nursing, education and
material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must
be protected and accorded special care.
(b) Parents and those
in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education
they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration
the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical
values and the principles of the Shari'ah
ARTICLE
22 in OIC's Cairo declaration:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion
freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of
the Shari'ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate
what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is
wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah
(c)
Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited
or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of
Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt
or harm society or weaken its faith.
Two too common islamofascist statements
supported by Saudi based OIC (all muslims world organization) and its
Sharia declaration (also called Cairo declaration on human rights in
islam):
1 The modern democracies of today have
not yet attained what the Faith of Islam ordained fourteen and half
centuries ago.
Peter Klevius: Very pleased to hear
that. And I truly hope they never will.
2 Islam allows complete freedom of
though and expression, provided that it does not involve spreading
that which is harmful to individuals and the society at large. For
example, the use of abusive or offensive language in the name of
criticism is not allowed.
Peter Klevius: Criticism of islam is,
according to OIC's Sharia, ALWAYS abusive and offensive no matter how
it's worded!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig's (a supporter
of islamofascist Sharia) presentation of islamic "human rights"
(i.e. Sharia) offers a wonderful opportunity for Peter Klevius to
really point out how islam (Sharia) is diametrically opposite the
real Human Rights (also called Negative Human Rights because of its
lack of positive impositions in basic rights):
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Though the
influence of political motives, rivalries, and deliberations has made
complicated the correct formulation of this problem, but this should
not prevent thinkers and genuine humanists from snooping into this
problem and ultimately obtaining a solution (Klevius: Yes, I do!). In
the West, it is only since the last two hundred years or so that
human right became a subject of eminence among the political and
social issues of Western society and an issue of fundamental
significance.
Peter Klevius: Please Mirza, you can't be that stupid! You're as
far you can get from the truth (perhaps not too surprising
considering you're trying to defend the biggest lie in the history of
the world). The process started long before islam even existed and
eventually developed into the 1948 Human Rights Declaration which
rests on an unbeatable logic that islam has never been even close to.
On the contrary, islam and its Sharia (in whatever form) always
restricts basic (negative*) Human Rights via (positive*) islamic
impositions.
* Whereas positive rights oblige or
open up for action/imposition, negative rights oblige inaction. If
you don't threaten the rights of others (as muslims do if they follow
Sharia) you shouldn't be bothered. Just as you shouldn't be bothered
by the police unless an offense against the law is suspected.
Negative rights include freedom of
speech and expression, freedom from violent crime, freedom of belief
(as long it doesn't affect Human Rights of others), habeas corpus, a
fair trial, freedom from slavery etc.
The right to private property has no
direct (only indirect – the right not to be robbed of one's
property) connection with negative Human Rights.
A negative right is a right not to be
subjected to an action of another person, religious group, a
government etc.
Moreover, this also includes
legislators, i.e. that a law that contradicts Human Rights cannot be
considered lawful.
And for those who try to circumvent the
logic of negative Human Rights by referring to enforcement or laws,
you don't understand that Human Rights are not laws but the very
basis for legislation.
How far the law can restrict Human
Rights is a matter between us humans but balanced by the underpinning
idea of negative Human Rights in much the same way as traffic rules
are tailored for the actual reality – not any specific ideology.
Traffic rules should be as smooth and democratic as possible for the
purpose of flow, safety etc. just as laws should be as little
intrusive on freedom as possible.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: During the last
few decades this prominence reached its peak in the West with the
formation of UN after the Second World War and the subsequent
drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but we Muslims
know it very well that if the Western World and the Western
civilization have paid attention to this matter in the recent
centuries, Islam has dealt with it from all the various aspects of
Human Rights many centuries back.
Peter Klevius: Is a slave an equal? And is a muslim woman equal
to muslim man as according to Human Rights? Apart from paillaging, islam
has sponged on slaves and women for 1400 years!
Moreover, islam is an Arabic religion and Arabic islam is considered
superior to islam experienced via other languages. On top of that you
have the Sunnia Shia divide - not to mention all other branches
considered inferior or blasphemous by other muslims.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The first thing
that we find in Islam in the correlation of basic human rights is
that it lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other
words, it means that every man whether he belongs to Muslim state or
not, whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some
forest or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some
basic human rights just because he is a human being, which should be
recognized by every Muslim.
Peter Klevius: Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it.
Either you mean he (what about she) has to comply (as a Dhimmi) with
Sharia or he is a blasphemous infidel.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Security of
Life and Property:
The first and the foremost basic right
is the right to live and respect for human life. The Holy Quran says:
“Whosoever kills a human being (without any reason) manslaughter,
or corruption on earth, it is though he had killed all mankind”.
Peter Klevius: Why did you put the most important part "without any
reason" within brackets? Not complying with Sharia, or perhaps not being
a true muslim, or being an infidel standing in the way for islam, or
just an infidel who happens to have the wrong passport, belief etc. may
be such a reason. Not to mention the reason the 9/11 muslim terrorists
had to murder innocent people in the US just because they felt islam was
under attack from the West.
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Protection
of Honor:
The Quran does not allow one’s
personal honor to be abused: “O you, who believe, do not let one
set of people make fun of other set. Do not defame one another. Do
not insult by using nicknames. Do not backbite”
Peter Klevius: No wonder muslims are over sensitive - not the least towards each others. Just check the news!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: The Right to
Protest against Tyranny:
This is mentioned clearly in the Quran:
“God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by someone who
has been injured thereby”. This was acknowledged by Abu
Bakr, who said in his very first address: “Cooperate with me when I
am right, and correct me when I commit error. Obey me as long as I
follow the commandments of Allah and His Prophet, but turn away from
me when I deviate”.
Peter Klevius: Indeed, reminds me of the "Arab spring" and all those muslims who fight all those muslims who have "deviated".
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Freedom of
Expression:
Allah gave Adam liberty of free choice
between right and wrong. It is the same reference that Allah almighty
says in Quran: “Then He showed him what is wrong for him and what
is right for him”. Islam allows complete freedom of though and
expression, provided that it does not involve spreading that which is
harmful to individuals and the society at large. For example, the use
of abusive or offensive language in the name of criticism is not
allowed.
Peter Klevius: So how could criticism against islam under Sharia not be "abusive"?!
Mirza Abdul Aleem Baig: Equality before
the Law:
Islam gives it citizens the right to
absolute and complete equality in the eyes of the law. According to
Islamic concept of justice, absolutely no one is above the law. This
point was made in a very dramatic fashion by the Prophet himself. One
day, a women belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in
connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet with the
recommendation that she be spare the mandated punishment for theft
(amputation of the hand). The Prophet replied: “The nations that
lived before you were destroyed by God because they punished the
common man for their offenses and let their dignitaries go unpunished
for their crimes. I swear by Him Who hold my life in His had that
even if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, had committed this crime, I
would have amputated her hand.”
Peter Klevius: These fairy tales are laughable, not only because
they are without any historical connection (not even mentioned in the
Koran), but, more importantly, because women are not even close to
equality with men in before the Law (Sharia). Moreover and again,
"before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is
never mentioned on any official document whatsoever..."
Peter Klevius: The modern
democracies may rightly argue that the world is indebted to them for
establishing
the equality and freedom. These countries could take the credit for
introducing Human Rights and abolishing slavery (which is still
sanctioned in islam) and abolishing judicial discrimination of women
(except for in the US*). However, instead it seems that these countries
try to do their utmost to downplay these important achievements, and
instead they are supporting the very opposite.
* The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was
a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to
guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by
Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first
time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state
legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite
number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress
of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. However, most people are
unaware of this important deficiency in the US legislation compared to
Human Rihghts.
.
