Klevius: England has more than enough "islamophobes" (i.e. anti sharia and pro Human Rights) to win an election - and a majority of "muslims" would probably approve of it

What is islam - and who is a muslim? Klevius suggests letting all "islamophobes" (incl. "muslim" ones)  out of the closet. 

Merkel's flirt with Erdogan pushed England (not UK) over the Brexit cliff - May's flirt with the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" lands it in a sharia swamp.

England committed a violation of fairness and legality when not allowing EU residents to vote about their own future - while allowing residents from non-EU nations to do so.

It would have been easy to include EU residents in this particular election.

Klevius advise to UKIP - independence for all parts of UK:

There's a huge demand for a new party. With just a slight altering UKIP could really be what its name stands for.



Anne Marie Waters islam criticism can give UKIP more votes than ever. The number of hiding "islamophobes" coming out in the voting boot would guarantee it. And if UKIP takes care of EU residents' full rights and then stops further immigration while putting the lid on sharia islamofascism - that would be a party program for success.

However, she has to pinpoint how sharia islam violates he most basic of Human Rights.

Talk Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia, Saudi Arabia's islamofascism spreading all over England with keen support from Theresa May, and explain to the people that islam in any meaningful form doesn't approve of the most basic of Human Rights, i.e what used to be the core of European values.

Moreover, ask the voters why England can't have a party leader whose opinion about sharia islam is the same as the one articulated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

And why hide behind pathetic and truly evil rhetoric by only pointing to harmless cultural "muslims" - or "spiritual muslims" or just ignorant muslims without a clue about the true meaning of basic Human Rights and democracy, i.e. those who don't share the basic tenets of Saudi/OIC/Sharia islam and who happily would like to adopt to secular values witjhout having to fear islam's evil apostasy curse.

And why wouldn't islam be evil if its "custodians" are islamofascists and considered top muslims and leading and harboring the world's most important muslim organization (OIC)? Or are the islamic hate spreading Saudis no muslims after all?!

BBC (John Humhrey): It's tradition and pressure against women - but it's not legal. So why not let muslims continue these pressure traditions under sharia.

The deputy leader of the party ripped into the broadcaster during the debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, insisting England should have “a single legal system”.

But the presenter made the case that sharia courts were about adhering to “traditions” rather than implementing a parallel legal system.

Klevius: Racist and sexist islamofascist "traditions" are evil - period.


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.