Peter Klevius Brexit analysis about the Supreme Court's political decision in unconstitutional UK-land

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:

Thursday, September 12, 2019

The trip to nowhere - ending in the Brexshit swamp of no Human Rights but plenty of sharia.

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In A Trip to Nowhere (1995) professor in jurisprudence Jacob W.F. Sundberg defends outdated views on marriage.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?

Monday, September 09, 2019

Sweden divorces the Brits

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.

Wednesday, September 04, 2019

Peter Klevius Brexit tutorial: 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?!

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?

Friday, August 30, 2019

Peter Klevius warns EU not to support US space militarism monopoly*

* 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:

Sunday, August 25, 2013

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.

.