English voters were denied any chance to vote against islamofascism - because that would be "islamophobic" and clash with sharia islam.

UKIP leader Paul Nutball Nuttall "distanced" himself from his party's islam critics. As a consequence England was (unlike the rest of EU) left without any islam critical party to vote for - and Paul Nutball Nuttall is now ousted by the voters.

May is openly a sharia supporter and against Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes") and Corbyn openly befriends  islamofascists while calling for criminalization of Human Rights defenders (so called "islamophobes").

Where May and Corbyn differ is in their choice of islamofascist "allies". Whereas May supports the way more dangerous islamofascist Saudi dictator* family, Corbyn is more centered around Hamas and similar muslim terrorist organizations.

* Curiously BBC keeps calling the islamofascist Saudi dictator family 'an
absolute monarchy'. Klevius education for BBC: "Absolute monarchies" don't exist anymore in a modern world. The term is a remnant from the past and can today only be described as dictatorship. 



Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Saudi/OIC made "islamophobia" bullet?

UKIP could get some half of the (non-sharia) muslim votes if they dared to criticize evil sharia islam instead of trying to kick out their bravest member, Anne Marie Waters.

Not only would a clear distinction between sharia muslims* and non-sharia "muslims" distinguish UKIP from Theresa May's pro-sharia policy, but it would also offer apostasy scared "muslims" a safe secret space in the voting boot - something that no other party seems to offer. In today's "islamophobia racism" accusations fascism, voters of all and no faith would finally have a channel for what they really think if a political party would just give them the chance.

* Defined as violating the most basic Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which was intended to stop all kinds of fascism - including religious ones.

Anne Marie Waters:   I would actually describe myself as a nationalist. I want the preservation of the nation-state. I’ve been very clear about that. The nation-state is the only way to guarantee accountable government. We cannot be governed by unelected globalist committees, as we are now. I mean, the United Nations may not have legal power to govern us, but our leaders are consistently seeking permission to run their own countries from internationalist bodies. I want the nation-state to run itself.

    The reason I object to “white nationalist” – and I have no problem with being white, and I have no problem with being nationalist – but the implication behind that is that I think you have to be white, for example, to be a British patriot. You do not. You do not. There are people of all colors in this country who want to preserve and respect British heritage and history.

Klevius comment: While Theresa May says that the Brits benefit from sharia, that doesn't mean that sharia is a "British value", does it. Nor is Theresa May's "investigation" of UK sharia courts serious because she uses a sharia muslim to complete the task. A serious investigator should have been someone whose expertise is UK law and Human Rights.