Peter Klevius suggests Narges Mohammadi should share her Nobel prize with Manal al-Gafiri whom the islamofascist, war crimes committing and terror spreading Saudi dictator family led by the murderous MBS, have imprisoned for 18 years for defending Human Rights on Twitter when she was 17!

Why two Iranian women but no imprisoned women in the Saudi dictatorship?! Is it because $-freeloader (1971-) has decided that Iran but not the Saudi dictator family, ought to be classified as a "hostile enemy" together with China and Russia - and the Nobel committee obeys the evil and soils the prize?! 

 

Moreover, it's Saudi sponsored Sunni muslim terrorists that spread disaster over Europe and especially in Sweden, wheras Iran supported Shia muslims do not attack "infidels" in Europe. But it's usually Shia muslims that are targeted by authorities while Sunni muslim terrorists and criminals are leniently treated for the same reason as the Nobel prize scandal peculiarities.

2023 Nobel Peace laureate Narges Mohammadi was close to 2003 Iranian Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi, who founded the banned Defenders of Human Rights Center. Ebadi left Iran for London after the disputed re-election of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Islamic feminists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice - grounded in an Islamic framework, i.e. OIC's Human Rights violating sharia declaration of 1990 which ironically is called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) which, in fact, is the very opposite to Human Rights as it states that men and women should have different "rights" and "obligations" (i.e. sex segregation/apartheid), and that Human Rights are not for muslims (art. 23 and 24). Although the language and title of CDHRI was "reformed" to lure Europe, the basic sharia connection is unchanged, which is the direct opposite to the basic (negative) rights in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  

Peter Klevius' brief Human Rights tutorial: The word 'universal' in UDHR refers to the negative rights, i.e. freedom from impositions, as opposed to the positive rights (aka "Stalin-rights") which can be altered by each country e.g. that everyone has the right to education, but without specifying the content. The elegance of he negative rights is that they never need to be reformed because they can't be criticized. If we take as an example traffic, how could you possibly criticize everyone's negative right to participate in traffic within rules that only targets the safe and smooth flow of traffic but does not impose restrictions due to the personal characteristics of the participating individuals.  

Drawing (1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really limited understanding (i.e. PC people), do note that the DNA "ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress over painful flames into a crown of liberty.

Perpetua (203 AD): 'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes; so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the weapons.'