** Negative individual rights as opposed to the positive collective s.c. "Stalin rights".
*** You may be surprised to know that the criticism below possibly hits harder against US and its puppet regimes than against e.g. China.
Peter Klevius: You confused and lost "faith" or "gender" being: Become a Human instead!
The only way to be a fully human being is by sharing something with every other human. And the only thing you can share with everyone is (negative) Human Rights protecting the individual, i.e. the very basis of the anti-fascist, anti-racist and anti-sexist 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration.
In other words, give everyone you encounter the same status as yourself no matter of sex, age or ideology/ethnicity in accordance with the original anti-fascist Universal Human Rights declaration from 1948. This approach will also kill any (ill)logic against Human Rights, i.e. will not leave any room for e.g. islamism.
What is the difference between a "Tomboy" and gender dysphoria? Klevius answer: Sex segregation.
Human Rights rather than religion (Klevius drawing from 1979 - used in many exhibitions back then).
Klevius vocabulary for those poor souls who haven't followed his previous tutorials (shame on you):
Sex is biology (male, female or in rare, and for this analysis irrelevant, instances hermaphrodites).
Gender is ever-changing extremely varied cultural expectations, norms or even laws (e.g. sharia) based on biological sex.
why not follow the anti sexist 1948 Human Rights declaration and let
humans lead their lives as they wish without having to cut themselves
with hormone drugs and the surgeon's knife?!
The handy political tool called "communities" poses a serious threat to Human Rights. "Communities" hide the individual and distort her/his rights for political/religious purpose.
Hudson-Wilkin said today that she is for humans rather than races etc.
Peter Klevius: Good! But watch up so the institutional devil doesn't get
to you because he lives in the ivory tower.
Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman to become a Church of England bishop: What I have learned from a very early age is to treat all people, regardless of title, as human beings.
Peter Klevius: So less Christian and more Human, right.
Long time ago anthropologist Peter Klevius discovered a new human species which he named Homo filius nullius (see e.g. Peter Klevius web museum that hasn't been touched since 2004).
Evolution: Homo filius nullius is the result of hybridization between hunter/gatherers and expanded demand for resources as described in Peter Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992, ISBN 9173288411).
Description: Homo filius nullius may appear like an AI robot. In its most crude form Homo filius nullius may be exemplified with workers who haven't as yet been replaced with AI but who share the same legal/commercial confinement. However, a more harder to spot Homo filius nullius could be exemplified with e.g. dog walkers who when meeting, are confined in weather, dogs, jokes etc.. The confinement is called civilization, i.e. a legally ordered society which leaves little playroom for the individual walking under the shadow of a more or less arbitrary calling for enforcements of whatever law or regulation.
So Peter Klevius thinks Turing might have had a problem with it while Wittgenstein would have understood.
Peter Klevius wrote:
unday, January 27, 2019
Klevius thinks we ought to pay equal attention to the non-Jewish majority who died in the s.c.* Holocaust.
Here Klevius tries to provoke some thoughts about people whose suffering is belittled or even denied and neglected due to lack of classification - and to contribute to an urgently needed debate re. scientific bias under religious or political pressure.
* Holocaust is Greek and means 'whole offering'.
However, no matter how you count, islam is the genocidal ideology that has caused most victims throughout its 1400 years of existence. And the sad thing is that the most evil parts of original islam are not only blinked but even encouraged by the West when it fits its purpose.
The Forgotten Suffering (Klevius 1992)
Demand for Resources (Klevius 1992, ISBN 9173288411).
The civilized wo/man walks
back in her/his foot steps,
strikes a light and lets her/himself be enlightened
Only the forgotten suffering,
and the shadow behind her/him,
hovering over the future,
Some 17 Million (est. varies between 12-20) died in the s.c. Holocaust.
According to Wikipedia between half and three quarters of the victims were non-Jews.
Wkipedia's definition etc.:
Most Holocaust historians define the Holocaust as the German state policy, enacted between 1941 and 1945, to exterminate the European Jews.[c] In Teaching the Holocaust (2015), Michael Gray offers three definitions:
the persecution and murder of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945; this definition views the events of Kristallnacht in Germany in 1938 as an early phase of the Holocaust;
the systematic mass murder of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1941 and 1945; this acknowledges the shift in German policy in 1941 toward the extermination of the Jewish people;
the persecution and murder of several groups by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945; this includes all the Nazis' victims.
The third definition fails, Gray writes, to acknowledge that only the Jewish people were singled out for annihilation.
Klevius comment: What an insult to non-Jewish Holocaust victims. Singled out but not classified. Most of the world's victims have always been unclassified. This is why they're only recognized if belonging to a certain, often arbitrarily or deliberately, pointed group. And most often just hidden as not belonging to an accepted group. We all do know about the Unknown Soldier. However, the Unknown Sufferer is kept in the shadow of groups.
Klevius defends the individual against group labeling no matter if s/he's a Jew, a muslim, Atheist, Christian, Buddhist, communist, capitalist, feminist or whatever.
And why so low profile and silent about non-Jewish Holocaust victims? BBC's religious Sunday program by BBC's islam loving Ed Stourton about Holocaust allegedly didn't even mention non-Jews. Why?
However, the worst ideological genocide ever was made by islam against s.c. "infidels" who were singled out for slavery/rape and annihilation during 1,400 years. Even the lowest estmates are staggering. And for a start, do read what Lal and other historians have dug out about islamic horror in the past. Christians, communists, National-socialists etc. don't come even close. Or take a look at what Islamic State and other Mohammad and Koran inspired jihad organizations have done in present time.
Klevius repeats the same advise he has been giving since his teenage: Negative Human Rights freedom for the individual against religious or political fascism. Just read the original anti-fascist Human Rights declaration from 1948.
And do note very carefully that islam today via Saudi based and steered all muslims world organization OIC approves of a sharia that violates the most basic of real Human Rights.
Klevius 1979: Human Rights rather than religion.
A Google search today on 'victims of islam estimates' produces these strange results:
Peter Klevius wrote:
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Peter Klevius question to the world: Should islamophobia be the first criminalized illness*?* 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.
Turkish-origin politician Mikail Yuksel forms Migrant Party in Sweden
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
Swedish ex-muslim Mohamed Omar, turned Atheist: If we have a better moral than Muhammed, what then should we have him for?
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.