* Either you see it as an illness not to be uncritical of islam, or you see it as blasphemy against the worst crime against humanity history knows about.
UK Parliament and the below Swedish muslim MP (associated with the extreme far-right fascist organization the Grey Wolves) have in common that they want to criminalize Peter Klevius islamophobia.
That would be the first criminal illness ever, right. And quite the opposite to the Council of Europe's Human Rights resolution 2253 (2019) against Saudi based and steered OIC's sharia (OIC is the supremacist world Umma for all muslims - and represented through 57 mainly muslim states muslim foreign ministers in UN and elsewhere. And the real Fuhrer is the murderous Saudi state terrorism and war crimes committing Saudi dictator "primce" MBS). Not to mention the anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948 which islam under no circumstances can be part of without losing its racist and sexist supremacist appeal. And a toothless islam would in no time empty most mosques around the world. Btw, does BBC's leading presenter, the alcohol drinking and not Ramadan fasting Pakistan rooted and Saudi raised muslim Mishal Husain, regularly pray at the mosque? Peter Klevius doesn't think so - if at all. She stands as the perfect example of modern bigoted hypocrisy re. an evil ideology that has caused more suffering, rapetivism, slavery and genocides throughout 1400 years than any other ideology.
Sweden's Liberal Party burns the Swedish flag. As do many muslims.
Morgan Johansson, Minister for Justice and Migration, wants to forbid racist organizations. Peter Klevius suggests he starts with Saudi based and steered OIC which decided to abandon the most basic of Human Rights and replace them with supremacist sharia.
A Swedish hero apostate and Atheist
Peter Klevius comment: 'Mohamed' (the anointed) and 'Peter' (the rock) are pre-islamic and pre-Christian names.
Mohamed Omar: När jag läser om att den liberale debattören Fredrik Segerfeldt konverterat till islam och kallar sig Karim blir jag smått provocerad. Det som provocerar mig är att allt liksom är på lek. Han säger det själv – han konverterar bara ”på pappret” för att kunna gifta sig med en marockansk kvinna. Han är egentligen fortfarande ateist.
Är man ateist, så kan man inte samtidigt vara muslim. Det säger sig självt. En ateist tror inte på någon gud medan en muslim tror att det finns en gud som sänt Muhammed till mänskligheten med Koranen. En annan sak som provocerar mig är detta att det nästan alltid är icke-muslimerna som ska anpassa sig till muslimernas krav och visa respekt för muslimernas känslor.
Imamer kan predika i Svenska kyrkan, fast de har en helt annan tro. Detta samtidigt som samma kyrkor inte skulle låta kristna med klassisk tro predika. För deras tro är ”exkluderande” eller ”intolerant”. Det är något osunt med denna underdånighet. När jag var muslim fick jag massor av inbjudningar till att prata i kyrkor och delta på konferenser. Nu när jag är kritisk, och dessutom sverigevän, är de inte lika entusiastiska. Jag får faktiskt inga inbjudningar alls.
Peter Klevius: Few liberal/secular/"cultural" "muslims" use mosques, while many racist/sexist supremacist muslims do. And when the worst mosques get less fundamental, then the worst muslims use other channels anyway. So mosques will be empty when "main stream" muslims follow full civilized Human Rights. It's not a Human Right to practice a religion against Human Rights. This is how orginal islam suffers death because it can't keep up its racist supremacist hate against the "infidels".
The Council of Europe is exactly* equally "islamophobic" as is Peter Klevius in all of his writings.
* More than 15 years ago Peter Klevius told the world via the web that he will eliminate islam - because he, unlike others, uses (since his teens) the license free ultimate weapon, i.e. the anti-fascist 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) where human equality is given everyone - without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and no distinction made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Sadly, the most prevalent use of the UDHR today seems to be to protect those who abuse and violate it. To really understand the basics you need to understand the negative part of Human Rights. So although The Council of Europe eventually has observed the same issues with OIC/islam/sharia as has Peter Klevius, their mandate and PC fail to connect the dots to the inevitable fact that islam, in any meaningful sense, is connected to its evil origin by its own tenets in a way that hinders it from accepting Human Rights equality without falling apart. A "good islam" is a dead islam. And although Peter Klevius dislikes all supremacist "monotheist" religions (because they always have a problem to update themselves with Human Rights when social norms change - usually due to technology and vanishing taboos), islam's evilness has locked in more people in backwardness (especially women) than any other religion. Moreover, Peter Klevius and The Council of Europe's "islamophobic" criticism of islam also reveals the source of islam induced jihad hate, eagerly used by organizations and states for military and political etc. purpose.Council of Europe
Resolution 2253 (2019)
Sharia, the Cairo Declaration (OIC) and the European Convention on Human Rights
Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly
Origin - Assembly debate on 22 January 2019 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 14787 and Addendum, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Antonio Gutiérrez; Doc. 14803, opinion of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, rapporteur: Ms Maryvonne Blondin; Doc. 14804, opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou; and Doc. 14805, opinion of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, rapporteur: Mr Manuel Tornare). Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 January 2019 (4th Sitting).
1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls, inter alia, its Resolution 1846 (2011) and its Recommendation 1987 (2011) on combating all forms of discrimination based on religion, as well as its Resolution 2076 (2015) on freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society and its Recommendation 1962 (2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. On these occasions, the Assembly examined the co-existence of different religions in a democratic society. It recalls that pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness are the cornerstones of cultural and religious diversity.
2. The Assembly reiterates, from the outset, the obligation on member States to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”), which represents one of the pillars of a democratic society. The right to manifest one’s religion, however, is a qualified right whose exercise may be subject to limitations arising from certain specific points of public interest and, under Article 17 of the Convention, may not aim at the destruction of other Convention rights or freedoms.
3. The Assembly also recalls that it has on several occasions underlined its support for the principle of the separation of State and religion as one of the pillars of a democratic society, for instance in its Recommendation 1804 (2007) on State, religion, secularity and human rights. This principle should continue to be respected.
4. The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights, adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as Sharia is their unique source of reference. This includes the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, while not legally binding, has symbolic value and political significance in terms of human rights policy under Islam. It is therefore of great concern that three Council of Europe member States – Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey (for the latter, with the limitation: “so far as it is compatible with its laws and its commitments under international conventions”) – have endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as have Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Palestine, whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly.
5. The Assembly is also greatly concerned about the fact that Sharia law – including provisions which are in clear contradiction with the Convention – is applied, either officially or unofficially, in several Council of Europe member States, or parts thereof.
6. The Assembly recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has already stated in Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey that the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime are incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society. The Assembly fully agrees that Sharia rules on, for example, divorce and inheritance proceedings are clearly incompatible with the Convention, in particular its Article 14, which prohibits discrimination on grounds such as sex or religion, and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (ETS No. 117), which establishes equality between marital partners. Sharia law is also in contradiction with other provisions of the Convention and its additional protocols, including Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 12 (right to marry), Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention (ETS No. 9) (protection of property) and Protocols Nos. 6 (ETS No. 114) and 13 (ETS No. 187) abolishing the death penalty.
7. In this context, the Assembly regrets that despite the recommendation it made in its Resolution 1704 (2010) on freedom of religion and other human rights for non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim minority in Thrace (eastern Greece), asking the Greek authorities to abolish the application of Sharia law in Thrace, this is still not the case. Muftis continue to act in a judicial capacity without proper procedural safeguards. The Assembly denounces in particular the fact that in divorce and inheritance proceedings – two key areas over which muftis have jurisdiction – women are at a distinct disadvantage.
8. The Assembly is also concerned about the “judicial” activities of “Sharia councils” in the United Kingdom. Although they are not considered part of the British legal system, Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept their religious jurisdiction mainly in marital issues and Islamic divorce proceedings but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts. The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases. The Assembly is aware that informal Islamic courts may also exist in other Council of Europe member States.
9. The Assembly calls on the member States of the Council of Europe to protect human rights regardless of religious or cultural practices or traditions on the principle that, where human rights are concerned, there is no room for religious or cultural exceptions.
10. The Assembly notes with approval the 2008 judgment of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords addressing these principles.
11. The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States and those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly to:
11.1. bolster pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness by proactive measures, taken by governments, civil society and religious communities, while respecting common values as reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights;
11.2. design and implement educational and vocational programmes aimed at rooting human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the Convention, and in particular the principles of gender equality and of non-discrimination based on religious beliefs, in the cultural and legal tradition of their countries;
11.3. promote, within the multilateral organisations of which they are members or observers, the universal values of human rights without any discrimination based, inter alia, on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious faith or the lack thereof;
11.4. engage in the process of revision of the Cairo Declaration launched by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) so as to ensure that the future OIC Declaration on Human Rights is compatible with universal human rights standards and the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on all Council of Europe member States and a source of inspiration for those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status.
12. The Assembly calls on Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey to consider distancing themselves from the 1990 Cairo Declaration by:
12.1. considering withdrawing from the Cairo Declaration;
12.2. making use of all available means to make declarations, so as to ensure that the 1990 Cairo Declaration has no effect on their domestic legal systems that may be inconsistent with their obligations as Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights; or
12.3. considering adopting some formal act which clearly establishes the Convention as a superior source of obligatory binding norms.
13. The Assembly, while noting the legislative change in Greece which made the practice of Sharia law in civil and inheritance matters optional for the Muslim minority, calls on the Greek authorities to:
13.1. rapidly and fully implement the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Molla Sali v. Greece and in particular, to monitor whether the above-mentioned legislative change will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Convention;
13.2. allow the Muslim minority to choose freely its muftis as purely religious leaders (that is, without judicial powers), through election, thereby abolishing the application of Sharia law, as already recommended in Resolution 1704 (2010).
14. The Assembly, while welcoming the recommendations put forward in the conclusions of the Home Office independent review into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales as a major step towards a solution, calls on the authorities of the United Kingdom to:
14.1. ensure that Sharia councils operate within the law, especially as it relates to the prohibition of discrimination against women, and respect all procedural rights;
14.2. review the Marriage Act to make it a legal requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony, as is already stipulated by law for Christian and Jewish marriages;
14.3. take appropriate enforcement measures to oblige the celebrant of any marriage, including Islamic marriages, to ensure that the marriage is also civilly registered before or at the same time as celebrating the religious marriage;
14.4. remove the barriers to Muslim women’s access to justice and step up measures to provide protection and assistance to those who are in a situation of vulnerability;
14.5. put in place awareness-raising campaigns to promote knowledge of their rights among Muslim women, especially in the areas of marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance, and work with Muslim communities, women’s organisations and other non-governmental organisations to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment;
14.6. conduct further research on the “judicial” practice of Sharia councils and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect.
15. The Assembly calls on the countries (member States and observer States) that are members of the OIC, on Greece and on the United Kingdom to report back to the Assembly by June 2020 on the actions they have taken as a follow-up to this Resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment