The islamofascist Saudi dictator family and Theresa May demand worldwide criminalizing of criticism of islamofascism.

"Moderate" medieval dictator and likely war criminal Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud - or whatever, and Theresa May want to criminalize criticism/questioning of sharia islamofascism

The fire of Saudi islamofascism is spreading over the world faster than Human Rights firefighters manage to limit its disastrous effects. This means prolonging of the suffering of sharia islam's victims.

Brexitsharia turning England into the Saudis islamofascist world hub.

Brexitsharia is all about Saudi islamofascism and muslims - for the purpose of islamofascist sharia finance and trade deals with muslim dictators and war criminals.

Every step Theresa May now takes is one step away from Human Rights and towards Human Rights violating Saudi sharia.

Check it out! No matter if it's about Russia or Iran - it's always in line with Saudi wishes.

The new world fascism coming out from

Theresa May's rhetoric is in an eerie synchronization with that of the Saudi islamofascists.


According to Erdogan and others there's only one islam.

So Klevius asks: If you have a bucket full of ideologies streching from benign to evil, and you want to criminalize criticism of whatever is in the bucket - then which ideologies do you think will benefit the most from your move - the benign or the evil ones?

Klevius, who believes in Universal Human Rights equality, is deeply offended by anti Human Rights sharia muslims and Theresa May's support of Saudi islamofascism. What about you???


When an Iranian citizen is accused by Iran of illegal activities in Iran, then the English parliament and BBC show off everything they can. However, when an Englishman is tortured in Saudi Arabia he gets no help whatsoever.

Klevius wrote:

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Mrs Theresa May thinks Saudi sharia islamofascism is "good for the Brits" - but what about non-muslim EU residents in England?! Not to mention non sharia muslim Brits.

Mrs May hates Human Rights because they stand in the way of Saudi islamofascism and sharia. Will EU residents in the future be ruled by sharia rather than Human Rights?

By getting rid of European Court of Justice (ECJ) she can rob EU residents of more rights than any other group of people in England. Not surprising keeping in mind that London is a muslim city steered by a muslim mayor notorious for defending islamofascists, and that Theresa May is totally under the foot of the islamofascist Saudi dictator family.  

This is why Mrs May used to be so keen on getting rid of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - which has ruled (2002) that islamic sharia is against Human Rights - that she (together with Cameron) used fringe exeples out of context to make the people in England believe Human Rights was something bad (compare e.g. that she blamed ECHR for not deporting Abu Qatada etc.). But not a word about the dangers of sharia that Human Rights could protect the English people from.

Mrs May now wants to get rid of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the purpose of robbing EU residents of their most basic Human Rights.

This would mean robbing EU residents in England from their most basic Human Rights under which they were originally promised to be able to live in England - while English citizens residential in EU would still have their Human nRights protected by ECJ which sorts Human Rights issues in accordance with ECHR.

And for those who naively think that England would still belong to ECHR Klevius wants to remind of what he already in the 1990s wrote about and worked with
namely ECHR's "margin of appreciation" (see e.g. Klevius groundbreaking article Angles of Antichrist, or the cases Klevius as a solicitor brought to ECHR)) which means that ECHR avoids national laws to a certain extent within EU - and much more so with countries outside EU.

Ron Jones who was tortured by the islamofascist Saudi dictator family: "I have had little support from the UK government. It has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining good trade relations with Saudi Arabia."

Klevius: So English courts chose to defend Saudi islamofascism while ECHR let them do it because of the margin of appreciation.