Klevius: Stop the Saudi dictator family's spread of hate and bombs - and you stop the spread of evil (so called "extremist") islam (i.e. original islam)!
Klevius hint for a winning ticket for Corbyn (now that UKIP shot itself in the foot by following sharia): Promise UK voters to get rid of relations with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family once and for all - and you are PM! In no time you will overfill the gaps you caused by aiming for Soviet time state socialism. Klevius doesn't like you because of that, but could forgive something if you contributed to limit the worst evil on the planet. And confiscate the hate spreading war criminals' assets in UK and give them to "moderate muslims" who prefer Human Rights instead of sharia. And start with the refugees from Saudi's direct or indirect attacks in Yemen and Syria etc. And as a pacifist you can't anyway support British weapons sale to war criminals, can you. Stand up, Corbyn!
Moreover, become an "islamophobe" - just like "moderate muslims" who resist basic Human Rights violating sharia islam! I mean, Iranians are no muslims anyway, according to the Saudi dictator family.
How the Term “Islamophobia” Got Shoved Down Your Throat
A 1,389 Year-Old ‘Phobia’?
Here are some of the most disgusting members of Theresa May's Saudi sharia cabinet:
How many ordinary Brits share Michael Fallon's love of Saudi islamofascism?
Brian Whitaker: A spokesman for Philip Hammond said: “As MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, Mr Hammond attended the local community organized unveiling, in his own constituency, of a statue of HM Queen to mark her long reign. Hammond says his £2,000 watch was a constituency gift. Shouldn't the sheikh be a constituent to give it?
The signing of Magna Carta in 1215 took place at Runnymede, in a water meadow on the banks of the River Thames – a spot that today happens to lie in Hammond’s parliamentary constituency.
on June 15 – a rainy day in Runnymede – a crowd gathered beneath umbrellas to watch the unveiling of the statue. Dignitaries in attendance included Philip Hammond (foreign secretary and MP for Runnymede), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons), Daniel Hammond (MEP for the area) and Councillor Derek Cotty of Runnymede Magna Carta Legacy Ltd (who by then had become mayor).
Sheikh Marei Mubarak Mahfouz bin Mahfouz, one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, who presumably donated a large chunk of the money. It was Sheikh Marei who also later presented Hammond with the £2,000 watch.
How and why Sheikh Marei came to be involved is still far from clear. According to the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan, the MEP, “helped source sponsorship” but considering his distaste for those who cosy up to Saudi businessmen we should probably assume he was not the one who recruited Sheikh Marei to the project. And Hannan’s desire to have a thoroughly British monument to Magna Carta is still unfulfilled: there are now two monuments, one American funded, the other (at least in part) Saudi funded.
An equally interesting question is what prompted Sheikh Marei to give Hammond a £2,000 watch. According to the sheikh’s lawyer, quoted in the Sunday Times, the watch “was a gift of appreciation for the kindness extended by Mr Hammond to Sheikh Marei on 15 June”.
This act of “kindness” – whatever it was – occurred not at the unveiling ceremony but a day after, and there’s a clue in the Sunday Times story:
“The sheikh was not present at the unveiling but arrived the next day and was shown the statue by Hammond. The sheikh later met the Queen.”
So it’s possible the watch was simply a thank-you to Hammond for accompanying Sheikh Marei to look at the statue. If so, the watch seems an unnecessarily generous reward, even by Saudi standards. But what of Sheikh Marei’s meeting with the Queen? Is it possible that Hammond pulled some strings to arrange it, and was being rewarded for that? Perhaps other MPs should enquire further.
Sheikh Marei is head of the Marei Bin Mahfouz Group, which he founded in 1965. It’s a trading, manufacturing and services company which operates mainly in Mecca and Jeddah and is said to be ranked 19th among Saudi Arabia’s top 100 companies.
One of Sheikh Marei’s sons, 45-year-old Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, is a philanthropist who also cultivates connections with British royalty. Earlier this year he donated $370,000 to a charitable trust headed by Prince Charles which runs the 15th century Castle of Mey in Scotland, a former home of the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. In recognition of his support, a wood on the estate was renamed the Mahfouz Wood.
In 2013 he became the first Bredon Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, after making a “munificent” (but unspecified) donation to the college.
For reasons which I can’t fathom, Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz is also known as the Lord and Baron of Abernethy – a Scottish feudal
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Defending Human Rights violating sharia islam is political perversion
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Klevius vs muslims (Human Rights vs islam) - who will win your heart and who is the hater? Take the test!
Acknowledgement for newcomers in simple English: To understand why islam itself is the source of evil do understand (check for youself if you don't trust Klevius) the following:
1 Islam originated in a bloodbath where muslims slaughtered all the Jews in Medina. And from then on it continued in pretty much the same way as the Islamic State today - only that, thanks to islam's backwardness, the West has superior technology to keep them down. In fact, islam has never produced any tech by itself (when did you last time buy a camera or car made in Saudi Arabia?). Why should it when the whole islamic ideology is based on slave parasitism (and today also Western oil money and aid/benefits). And the only "golden" in the so called "golden age" was the gold muslims got through their slaves. And later on the Ottoman muslim slave empire immediately started deteriorating after the West had abolished all kinds of slavery (except muslim sex slavery hidden as it is within sharia marriage and as "concubines" i.e. sex slaves).
2 The Koran is an Arabic nationalist supremacist slavery manual. Because early muslims were caravan robbers etc. criminals (i.e. parasites) they could only survive on what they could rob from others (which they called "infidels"). This is why islam became the worst and biggest slavery ideology ever.
3 Islam is today sharia via Saudi based and steered OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) which via 57 more or less criminal member states in United Nations (UN) has managed to democratically (although islam is anti-democratic and anti-Human Rights) establish itself as the muslim world Ummah with due Human Rights violating sharia (the so called Cairo declaration on "islamic human rights").
4 Islam is not islam without sharia so a muslim who rejects sharia (in any Human Rights violating form) isn't a real muslim - just a cultural "muslim" and therefore of no interest for Klevius islam criticism.
However, it's therefore extremely important that every muslim clearly and honestly declare whether s/he is an islamofascist (Human Rights violating sharia) or not.
Start by asking your muslim friend. S/he lies to you if s/he says s/he can be a believing muslim without such sharia. To believe in islam is to believe in Human Rights violating sharia. That's the very reason OIC rejected Human Rights in UN! And if s/he doesn't then s/he has committed the worst crime against islam and should be protected by Western Human Rights and due legislation based on them.
Saudi Arabia - the guardian and spreader of islamic hate
OIC is a muslim extremist organization!
ICLA: The Cairo Declaration is recognized as a so-called “regional instrument” by the United Nations, but rarely, if ever, used or referred to. It is thus functionally redundant, yet its approval creates an unneeded and potentially dangerous ambiguity in the formal definition of the human rights. For Sharia is incompatible with democracy and fundamental human rights, as stated in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights, and thus the Cairo Declaration is equally incompatible with any meaningful definition of human rights, as well as with several OSCE commitments.
Thus, to avoid willful misinterpretations of what “human rights” refer to, it would be good for the protection of human rights defenders to have the Cairo Declaration explicitly repudiated by those OSCE pS that also hold membership of the OIC. If they do not do so, they should provide a detailed justification for keeping this declaration on the books, and the intended use of it.
ICLA thus recommends that:
OSCE makes a statement that the Cairo Declaration has no relevance to its understanding of human rights.
OSCE pS that are also members of OIC explicitly repudiate the Cairo Declaration as being of no relevance, now or in the future, for the interpretation of “human rights”.
Klevius: Nothing has happened since this was written in 2013! An eerie silence follows wherever islam puts its evil hand. Wake up dude! And you Brits, consider that your PM David Cameron has appointed a non-elected sharia muslim called Sayeeda Warsi as the "minister of
Klevius Human Rights campaign against sharia fueled racist/sexist islamic hate
Klevius is anti sharia islam and anti sharia muslims - and very proud of it! Moreover, Klevius thinks he has a majority of "muslims" on his side - although most of them don't even know it as yet. And even those "muslims" who know it but stay muslim because of monetary advantages, have to admit Klevius' logic and their own evilness which could range from mild Human-rightsphobia to extrem muslim terrorism.
Muslim hate speech and acts against "infidels" are protected by Human
Rights. However, there must be room for Human Rights people (without
dhimmitude etc) in the world as well - or?! Face islam's
Warning for hateful muslims in policing, nursing, caring, public
service etc. Unlike other weirdos muslim weirdos can refer to a
"religious" book and "tradition" that so many say is "holy"* and of
course excited by all the "diversity
hate Human Rights problem!
* (negative) Human Rights, i.e. freedom from unnecessary impositions, is the only truly holy concept we need as a functioning worldwide morality. Civilized people of all sorts already know this and behave accordingly.
As it stands now, by referring to her/his "religion" a muslim can deny you things you can't deny her/him without facing accusations of "racism" or "hate", based on those very Human Rights the actual muslim in fact otherwise hates.
In a BBC debate one of those politically correct non-muslim politicians defended the stupid proposal to give muslims (of course he didn't mention muslims but used the usual proxy word "religious") the right to discriminate against non-muslims in a way non-muslims aren't allowed to discriminate muslims no matter how offended they are by the muslim's hateful racist/sexist sharia ideology.
Klevius investment hint:
Muslim Sharia free zones will be very valuable in the future.Not the least for many "muslims".
Forget about saving rain forests etc! This is your new deal. Did you hear that you oily sheiks fearing a decrease in the popularity of your oil! Or are you running out of money after having invested so heavily in sharia zones?
Risks: That islam collapses even quicker than expected. However, even if you then may loose some money you may also comfort yourself with a fairer world.
Klevius vs ? billion muslims. He knows it's not fair - of course Klevius' Human Rights logic is irresistible in the long run compared to dividing hateful muslim sharia racism/sexism!
Human RightsKlevius: On his blogs and sites 'Klevius' is interchangeable with 'Human Rights' because all they do is defending Human Rights. Unfortunately for muslims, islam makes itself the biggest target precisely because of its violation of Human Rights. Nowhere on Klevius' sites/blogs can you find ANYTHING not in line with this Human Rights defense!
Muslims: There doesn't exist a true muslim without her/him (via her/his support of sharia islam) violating the most basic equality principles of Human Rights.
SexismKlevius: There is no defense for sex segregation/apartheid. Not even heterosexual attraction (of which Klevius has written the most essential analysis in the world of today - admittedly, the competition hasn't been very hard).
Muslims: Women are inferior to men and women's heterosexual attraction makes it necessary in islam to sharia hide/jail/restrict them physically and/or culturally (the means vary depending on muslim community/sub-settings).
RacismKlevius: Human Rights make racism impossible.
Muslims: Islam is built on "infidel" racism.
PoliticsKlevius: For secularism based on Human Rights.
Muslims: For an islamic state based on sharia.
BeliefsKlevius: Atheist, i.e. lacking a "god" he otherwise could blame and instead protecting his moral attitude by hanging it on the most powerful of all moral codes namely the negative Human Rights.
Muslims: Whatever a muslim does it's "Allah's" will. And because "Allah's" will is not known then we have no tool whatsoever to know the inscrutable will of the muslim - other than the self evident Atheist conclusion that it's no more or less than the will of the muslim, and not of "Allah".
According to one of BBC's extremely few and misleading reports about OIC aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe ... (read more on Klevius beats BBC)
In Britain, the number of Muslim converts recently passed the 100,000 mark, according to a survey conducted by an inter-faith group called Faith Matters. The survey revealed that nearly two thirds of the converts were women, more than 70% were white and the average age at conversion was just 27.
Klevius explanation: Non-muslim women who marry muslims have to choose between a lower status as a non-muslim in the muslim family setting or convert.
The muslim system is extremely racist and sexist in this regard because everything is one-way directed towards the muslim man and islam and away from Human Rights. A non-muslim man isn't even allowed to marry a muslim woman without converting.
So instead of boasting about the high numbers they should be seen as utterly shamful in a civilized country.
So what should muslims do to avoid Klevius' criticism?
Nothing could be easier. Just refute Human Rights violating sharia and
you don't hear anything from Klevius. Do as Ayaan Hiris Ali did!
From anti-islamic Magna Carta in 1215 to anti-fascist Human Rights in 1948 - and the islamofascism of today
Magna Carta Libertatum is the first rudimentary effort in a long struggle towards the final 1948 Human Rights declaration which PM David Cameron now again seems to betray by giving in for Human Rights violating sharia.
Back in 1215 Magna Carta (the first predecessor to Human Rights) was produced to stifle traitor King John's effort to islamize Britian. Compare this to the British PM Cameron's attacks on Human Rights while seemingly proposing Britain as the center of islamofascism outside Mideast (beginning with London sharia finance).
King John the Traitor, PM David Cameron and the islamofascist "king" Abdullah who pretended to be "reformist" while steering the country in an even more intolerant direction by new sharia inspired laws by early 2014 (e.g. equalizing Human Rights, Secularism and Atheism with "terrorism" and due penalties - compare Raif Badawi and others).
King John in the early 13th century sent envoys to Mohammed al-Nâsir asking for his help. In return King John offered to convert to Islam and turn England into a muslim state. The muslim jihadist Mohammed al-Nâsir's view on King John: "I never read or heard that any king possessing such a prosperous kingdom subject and obedient to him, would voluntarily ... make tributary a country that is free, by giving to a stranger that which is his own ... conquered, as it were, without a wound. I have rather read and heard from many that they would procure liberty for themselves at the expense of streams of blood, which is a praiseworthy action; but now I hear that your wretched lord, a sloth and a coward, who is even worse than nothing, wishes from a free man to become a slave, who is the most miserable of all human beings." Mohammed al-Nâsir concluded by wondering aloud why the English allowed such a man to lord over them — they must, he said, be very servile and soft.
Some more hateful muslimsOr are they no muslims precisely because of their hate?!
How come that the most powerful "ethnic"/"religious" group, which preaches violations of the most basic of Human Rights, is the one that is more protected than most other people?!
Muslims don't belong to a vulnerable minority. On the contrary, their Ummah nation is the biggest nation in the world and it's represented by the biggest organization in the world after UN itself, i.e. OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation).
Muslims have chosen to hate, disrespect, and show contempt towards us "infidels" by believing in an ideology that is incompatible with Human Rights. Ok, Klevius could live with that because he isn't offended like many muslims would be in a similar situation. However, muslims haven't stopped there. They have also made this Human Rights violation to a threat against these very Human Rights by sharia criminalizing Human Rights. And as Klevius has always said, under Human Rights you can follow sharia (as long as it's legal) but under sharia you don't have access to Human Rights freedom. Moreover, as it stands now muslims are protected by those very Human Rights their sharia opposes and wants to eliminate.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Time to burn OIC's Human Rights violation and to indict the Saudi hate criminals and their supporters
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  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  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.